• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is FOX news biased?

Is FOX News biased?

  • Yes

    Votes: 50 82.0%

  • No

    Votes: 9 14.8%

  • I don't know.

    Votes: 2 3.3%
  • Total voters
    61
Stinger said:
Nope, because they give the conservative side an equal footing which blows them away being so used to the MSM and the other cable channels always load up the other way.
Click to expand...

You're big on semantics aren't you? FOX news is at it's best the YIN for MSNBC's YANG. At it's worst they're a pack of rabid dogs waiting for any excuse to go after left wingers. MURDOCK HIMSELF has acknowledge that FOX catered to this administration at the start of the Iraq war. He's acknowledge that FOX NEWS has supported the Bush policy in the Middle East and has tried to shape the opinion of Americans when it comes to this war. Does that sound like "We Report You Decide"? I doubt it. Keith Olbermman nailed it best. Here's the video.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPNUwr_eOF0[/YOUTUBE]
 
Hatuey said:
You're big on semantics aren't you?
Click to expand...

'We basically supported the Bush policy but have been highly critical of it's execution.'

OH WOW THAT'S BIAS'd. Do you think most newspapers in WW2 supported WW2 but could still be critical of it's execution and mistakes and still be balanced? Are you claiming that FOX does not give equal and fair time to critics of the Bush policy along with it's own criticisms? Most newspapers and news magazines and even TV news departments take such editorial stands, then it's a matter of how they handle the hard news and if they give the other side equal time and a fair hearing. I'd put it to you that FOX News is far better at that than the MSM and other cable news networks.
 
conserv.pat15 said:
Niftydrifty, are you saying Fox News always says "Barrak Hussein Obama" when they talk about him?
Click to expand...
Kandahar said they post his middle name on the news ticker. I've seen that too. You said you've never "seen or heard Fox News call Obama "Barack Hussein Obama," so I gave you some examples from their website. You said, "which of these links do you want me to read?"

I responded to Stinger and said, "There are several mentions of "Barack Hussein Obama" in Fox News Transcripts on Lexis Nexis. The first was in December 2006 on and the last a few days ago, during an interview with Ann Coulter. He was only referred to as such AFTER he became a possible candidate for the Democrat Presidential nomination." I responded to TOT and said, "Fox started using Obama's middle name only after he became a candidate."

I have no idea why you're asking me to tell you what I've said. I'm saying what I'm saying, not anything different. Read my posts.

Stinger said:
OH WOW THAT'S BIAS'd. Do you think most newspapers in WW2 supported WW2 but could still be critical of it's execution and mistakes and still be balanced? Are you claiming that FOX does not give equal and fair time to critics of the Bush policy along with it's own criticisms? Most newspapers and news magazines and even TV news departments take such editorial stands, then it's a matter of how they handle the hard news and if they give the other side equal time and a fair hearing. I'd put it to you that FOX News is far better at that than the MSM and other cable news networks.
Click to expand...
LOL! Stinger left the part out where Murdoch said "we tried" in response to a question about whether or not he tried to shape the agenda on the war in Iraq. I realize that Stinger's cognitive dissonance requires him to be dishonest, but Stinger obviously doesn't. Now, the relevant question here is not anything Stinger is asking. The relevant question is why would a "news" organization try to shape the agenda of anything?!?

This is beyond bias. This is hardcore activism.
 
Last edited:
Stinger said:
'We basically supported the Bush policy but have been highly critical of it's execution.'

OH WOW THAT'S BIAS'd. Do you think most newspapers in WW2 supported WW2 but could still be critical of it's execution and mistakes and still be balanced? Are you claiming that FOX does not give equal and fair time to critics of the Bush policy along with it's own criticisms? Most newspapers and news magazines and even TV news departments take such editorial stands, then it's a matter of how they handle the hard news and if they give the other side equal time and a fair hearing. I'd put it to you that FOX News is far better at that than the MSM and other cable news networks.
Click to expand...

Did you chose to ignore the rest of what Ruppert Murdock said? Did you even watch the report? I'll repost it :

He's acknowledge that FOX NEWS has supported the Bush policy in the Middle East and has tried to shape the opinion of Americans when it comes to this war.
Click to expand...

You do understand that this contradicts FOX's own slogan right? "We Report You Decide"? By trying to shape opinion on this war it is clear that they have a set agenda and are in fact biased. You can bitch and complain all you want about CNN and MSNBC. The network in question is "FOX". So please stick to that. When I make a CNN thread you can complain about them there.
 
I think it leans right but that does not make is biased. They will present both sides with a conservation touch but they don't twist like MSNBC does.
 
Hatuey said:
Did you chose to ignore the rest of what Ruppert Murdock said? Did you even watch the report? I'll repost it :
Click to expand...

Yes I read it, did you bother to read what I wrote. He said nothing different from what the NYT or MSNBC or CBS would say. The difference is in their actual reporting, they give both sides equal opportunity to express their opinions unlike the MSM and the other cable news channels.



You do understand that this contradicts FOX's own slogan right? "We Report You Decide"?
Click to expand...

In their reporting they give both sides and let you decide. Editorial they have supported the removal of Saddam, as did all the Demcorats and the rest of the media at the time, and have also been highly critical of some aspects.

But they STILL give both sides equal airing unlike the other media.

By trying to shape opinion on this war it is clear that they have a set agenda and are in fact biased.
Click to expand...

Yet they give both sides of the story and equal billing unlike the other channels.

You can bitch and complain all you want about CNN and MSNBC.
Click to expand...

Which do not give fair and balanced coverage.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
The Patriot Act didn't dissolve the congress, rewrite the constitution, destroy the freedom of the press, or allow the President to rule by decree, and the last time I checked Venezuela isn't at war.
Click to expand...

It didnt destroy the freedom of press, the freedom of the press in the US is too much. Its always biased in most cases with exception of CNN who is just slightly US biased.

The patriot act did however strip the average US citizens of alot of constitution rights. Like the right to peace in your own home. FBI can now barge in without a warrant for example. The patriot is a great loss of rights for the US population.

The president of the US together is almost a tyrranie and a dictatorship, not in any tradtional sense, but when they get the congres to believe Iraq had WMDs and go to war with them just to find they dont have it, and they dont get impeached. Then you understand that this is true, the US is a tyrranie.

War is no excuse to make things worse at home, nor take away constitution rights. Congress was fooled after massive propaganda by the US top government(cebinet & pres).
 

"Fair and balanced"
"We report, you decide"

Are the biggest lies in history. I am sure this was how the German propaganda machine worked as well, they claimed the opposit of the truth. It worked, the German people were behind Hitler, the US population was behind Bush.
 
conserv.pat15 said:
CNN and MSNBC don't always show the conservative side of the story and often phrase stories with a liberal bias through their commentators (Like Wolf Blitzer, for example, especially when they talk with Michael Ware (I think that's his name)).
Click to expand...
Watch this 4 minute video from Fox News and listen to the You Tube poster's commentary at the end and then we can talk about Fox News Bias and their subtle way of cheating America....

YouTube - Fox News YouTube Story Only Includes Republican Responses
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
"Fair and balanced"
"We report, you decide"

Are the biggest lies in history. I am sure this was how the German propaganda machine worked as well, they claimed the opposit of the truth. It worked, the German people were behind Hitler, the US population was behind Bush.
Click to expand...

Actually those tactics are found more on MSNBC where they blantantly lie and hope to influence the judicial system so they can get politicians they simply have political disagreements thrown in prison. Like the NAZI's did. Note how they still support and claim Wilson debunked the administrations claims when he has been shown to be a liar, and they want political opponents thrown in jail so they can win power back. Just go and read the history of the Third Reich, the used the same tactics.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
It didnt destroy the freedom of press, the freedom of the press in the US is too much. Its always biased in most cases with exception of CNN who is just slightly US biased.
Click to expand...

Ya wtf ever.

The patriot act did however strip the average US citizens of alot of constitution rights. Like the right to peace in your own home. FBI can now barge in without a warrant for example. The patriot is a great loss of rights for the US population.
Click to expand...

Does your country even have Constitutional protections against unlawful searches and seizures? Infact what country are you from? And sneak and peak searches can only be initiated with probable cause. And the Patriot Act didn't create that the RICO Act did.

The president of the US together is almost a tyrranie and a dictatorship, not in any tradtional sense, but when they get the congres to believe Iraq had WMDs and go to war with them just to find they dont have it, and they dont get impeached. Then you understand that this is true, the US is a tyrranie.
Click to expand...

LMFAO, all 16 intelligence agencies in the U.S. along with the Mossad, MI6, and DGSE to name a few all concluded that Iraq had WMD, they made that clear in U.N. resolution 1441, and furthermore, the Democrats all had access to the same intel as the President.

War is no excuse to make things worse at home, nor take away constitution rights.
Click to expand...

I turned my back for a second and damn if you wouldn't know it someone stole my Constitutional rights. :roll: What a load of bullshit I have not had one of my rights violated and if I did I would file suit in the Federal Courts for civil rights violations. From Lincoln to FDR during times of great national distress and danger the President has been afforded greater constitutional powers to protect the lives of the citizenry against all enemies both foreign and domestic, I'll remind you that the greatest civil liberty is the natural right to life, that's probably why it's listed first in the DoI.

Congress was fooled after massive propaganda by the US top government(cebinet & pres).
Click to expand...

Oh ya what propaganda would that be? Ever heard of the NIE?
 
Stinger said:
Actually those tactics are found more on MSNBC where they blantantly lie and hope to influence the judicial system so they can get politicians they simply have political disagreements thrown in prison. Like the NAZI's did. Note how they still support and claim Wilson debunked the administrations claims when he has been shown to be a liar, and they want political opponents thrown in jail so they can win power back. Just go and read the history of the Third Reich, the used the same tactics.
Click to expand...

In fox news no one has disagreements, everyone is right-wing conservatives. If they have a guest that disagree with their standpoint he is quick off the air.
The only so called different opinion on fox is colmes in hannibal and colmes, which is just a scripted duck waiting for slaughter. He probably voted Bush in the last election, he is simply a manufactured democrat to ridicule for all the republicans in fox news.

Fox broadcasting is more fair and balanced, I like fox entertainment, but thjeir newschannels is completely out of this world, a parody, a joke. Isnt it amazing how George Bush won the 2004 election by making constant fun of John Kerrys hair?
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Does your country even have Constitutional protections against unlawful searches and seizures? Infact what country are you from? And sneak and peak searches can only be initiated with probable cause. And the Patriot Act didn't create that the RICO Act did.
Click to expand...

Yes, if you have an intruder in the house that you cannot defend against with other means you have the right to kill him. Law enfocement need a court order to enter your house.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
LMFAO, all 16 intelligence agencies in the U.S. along with the Mossad, MI6, and DGSE to name a few all concluded that Iraq had WMD, they made that clear in U.N. resolution 1441, and furthermore, the Democrats all had access to the same intel as the President.
Click to expand...

1441 didnt allow military action, this is why the UN is now so careful with allowing any resolutions on Iran for example.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
I turned my back for a second and damn if you wouldn't know it someone stole my Constitutional rights. :roll: What a load of bullshit I have not had one of my rights violated and if I did I would file suit in the Federal Courts for civil rights violations. From Lincoln to FDR during times of great national distress and danger the President has been afforded greater constitutional powers to protect the lives of the citizenry against all enemies both foreign and domestic, I'll remind you that the greatest civil liberty is the natural right to life, that's probably why it's listed first in the DoI.
Oh ya what propaganda would that be? Ever heard of the NIE?
Click to expand...

You are really willing to give up all the essential freedoms and rights of the constitution because of 3000 people? Those 3000 people were killed as a consequence of planning and action of maybe a 100 people. You let the terrorist win by introducing the patriot act. The US is becoming even more of a police state, they can barge into any home and arrest people as long as they want with no rights while they surveilance the rest by camera or their communication.. Is that REALLY worth it just because of 100 people?
 
Stinger said:
Yes I read it, did you bother to read what I wrote. He said nothing different from what the NYT or MSNBC or CBS would say. The difference is in their actual reporting, they give both sides equal opportunity to express their opinions unlike the MSM and the other cable news channels.
Click to expand...

By trying to constantly bring up other news networks to avoid the issue it's obvious you really don't have a dog here.

In their reporting they give both sides and let you decide.Editorial they have supported the removal of Saddam, as did all the Demcorats and the rest of the media at the time, and have also been highly critical of some aspects.

But they STILL give both sides equal airing unlike the other media.
Click to expand...

:spin: Murdock didn't say anything about "editorials" and "reporting" he said they've tried to shape opinion on this war. It's obvious that if they were unbiased they'd actually report and let you decide. By trying to shape your opinion on it is clear they have a set agenda on issues and aren't interested in letting you make up your mind about them. See where I'm going here?

Yet they give both sides of the story and equal billing unlike the other channels.
Click to expand...

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8t8L4D18Zw&NR[/YOUTUBE]

Slanting news doesn't sound like giving "equal" billing.

Which do not give fair and balanced coverage.
Click to expand...

Sigh. See my first report. Quit dodging the issue. We're talking about FOX not MSNBC or CNN. :)
 
Hatuey said:
By trying to constantly bring up other news networks to avoid the issue it's obvious you really don't have a dog here.
Click to expand...

By trying to single out FOX your showing you can't maintain your position.



:spin: Murdock didn't say anything about "editorials" and "reporting" he said they've tried to shape opinion on this war.
Click to expand...

Editorially they do, all news agencies have such positions. But their hardnews reporting and news shows give both sides equal billing so YOU can make up your own mind.



Sigh. See my first report. Quit dodging the issue. We're talking about FOX not MSNBC or CNN.
Click to expand...

We're talking about news and how it is presented. Of course comparing them to the competition blows away your argument so you want to avoid it. Sorry that dog don't hunt.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
Yes, if you have an intruder in the house that you cannot defend against with other means you have the right to kill him. Law enfocement need a court order to enter your house.
Click to expand...

Again what country are you from? And sneak and peak searches are more technical than you are portraying them.

1441 didnt allow military action, this is why the UN is now so careful with allowing any resolutions on Iran for example.
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with the WMD consensus shared by the international community? And BTW just what do you think "serious consequences," mean? Perhaps another worthless resolution?

You are really willing to give up all the essential freedoms and rights of the constitution because of 3000 people?
Click to expand...

I haven't given up any rights, our constitution outlaws unreasonable searches and siezures, I hardly think that tapping the phones of those in contact with AQ members overseas would be considered unreasonable.

Those 3000 people were killed as a consequence of planning and action of maybe a 100 people.
Click to expand...

There are 1.5 billion muslims around the world if only 10% (a conservative estimate) are radicalized that is an enemy consisting of 150 million. Now it only takes one of those to get their hands on a nuclear or biological weapons to wipe out hundreds of thousands if not millions of my fellow citizens, and if my government doesn't do everything in their power to protect us from such criminals, who (make no mistake about it) would wipe out every last American given the chance, then we need new government put in their place.

You let the terrorist win by introducing the patriot act.
Click to expand...

No we let the terrorists win by nuking a U.S city, killing millions of Americans, attacking and attacking without response or repercussion, and by not defending ourselves. Your type of naive philosophy was tried under the Clinton administration who could have prevented 9-11 if not for insane policies like the Clinton-Gorelick wall which prevented the CIA and Operation able Danger from giving the FBI the name of AQ agent and ringleader of the Planes Operation Mohammad Atta. In order to engage this enemy we need a pro-active intelligence apparatus.

The US is becoming even more of a police state, they can barge into any home and arrest people as long as they want with no rights while they surveilance the rest by camera or their communication..
Click to expand...

That's a load of paranoid delusional bullshit. U.S. citizens still retain Habeas Corpus rights and the right to trial in civilian court, and strict guidelines are placed on surveilance and sneak and peak searches.

Is that REALLY worth it just because of 100 people?
Click to expand...

You think AQ and radical Islam is limited to 100 people? It must be nice to live in your fantasy world.
 
Stinger said:
By trying to single out FOX your showing you can't maintain your position.
Click to expand...

How have I not maintained my position? Is the thread topic on CNN, MSNBC or FOX? Last time I checked it was "Is FOX News Biased" not "Is FOX news more or less biased then X". I was not asking you to compare FOX news to other networks. I was asking you to tell me whether or not FOX news was biased. Which some have either refused to answer by giving by giving the " YEAH BUT!" response a.k.a. dodging or by ignoring the question and rambling on about other networks. Much like yourself.

Editorially they do, all news agencies have such positions. But their hardnews reporting and news shows give both sides equal billing so YOU can make up your own mind.
Click to expand...

Again. Rupert Murdock didn't say that they try to change opinion through editorials or through reporting. He said they try to shape opinion. Whatever tool they're using is irrelevant if they claim to be unbiased. If they were unbiased they wouldn't be trying to shape your opinion in any form or manner.

We're talking about news and how it is presented. Of course comparing them to the competition blows away your argument so you want to avoid it. Sorry that dog don't hunt.
Click to expand...

How exatcly does it blow away my argument? You've dodged the question by comparing them to other networks which have nothing to do with the thread topic. It's like the child who does something wrong and then when you ask him about it he wont give you a straight answer. So again I ask :

Is FOX NEWS biased? Yes or No?
 
It's really, truly, and utterly amazing when the debate becomes a back-and-forth about what the debate was even about. All one has to do is read the question.

It's absolutely no coincidence that the folks whom have a hard time interpreting simple instructions, or whom refuse to follow guidelines, are the same folks that consider Fox to be news, or to be less biased than other networks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom