• 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
jallman said:
Sean Hannity is the smuggest SOB on cable.
Click to expand...

Then evidently you haven't seen Keith Olberman.

Also, this train wreck called the 1/2 Hour News Hour is clearly indicative of bias. It is supposed to be the conservative answer to the Daily Show...that in and of itself speaks volumes. Why does a non biased news network need a "conservative" answer to a show that comes on a COMEDY CHANNEL? Comedy that takes aim at politics is funny. Politics trying to pass off as comedy is propaganda.
Click to expand...

I thought it was funny as hell the "what do these terrorists have in common," bit was ****ing hilarious.
 
Most channels are biased. I find most 24 hour news channels to be extreming boring and repetitive and rarely watch them. I usually watch world news or local news. I have watched FOX a couple times (mostly when it's on at my grandparents house) and whatever. It wasn't terribly right-winged but it's not exactly liberal media going on there. It floats certain people's boats and if it's good for them, then cool. My grandparents love Bill O'Reilly and while I don't share that setiment, I am glad there is someone out there they can relate too.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Then evidently you haven't seen Keith Olberman.
Click to expand...

Funny you should mention that...I watched Keith Olberman for the first time in months last night...and you are right...he probably is a touch more smug than Hannity. It's a toss up which one I dislike more.

I thought it was funny as hell the "what do these terrorists have in common," bit was ****ing hilarious.
Click to expand...

Some parts of it were funny. Some parts very much needed the laugh track. Either way, the show has a clear agenda and is not appropriate for a channel trying to maintain a modicum of neutrality.
 
jallman said:
Funny you should mention that...I watched Keith Olberman for the first time in months last night...and you are right...he probably is a touch more smug than Hannity. It's a toss up which one I dislike more.
Click to expand...

Oh come on "good night and good luck," who does he think he is Edward R. Murrow? Can't breathe to much smug.
 
jallman said:
Further, if you watch the evening line up, the majority of the shows are pundits and not journalists. While I adore Bill O'Reilly after giving him a chance, Sean Hannity is the smuggest SOB on cable. He is clearly biased to the right and poor Alan Colmes is almost a silent side kick. Also, it is telling that of the two pundits, the conservative one has his own show.
Click to expand...

Sean Hannity is an excellent debater in my opinion.
 
TOT said:
Yes we know facts have a right wing bias.
Click to expand...
Name any other political figure referred to by their full name, something other than what they call themselves - full name, middle name, last name.

TOT said:
How does opinion make for a right wing bias and how can you compare a television station that has 24 hours to fill with a daily paper?
Click to expand...

I've already answered this question. TOT don't reed reel guud.

TOT said:
Facts are red herrings now?
Click to expand...
So was Hitler. So was Napolean. So was your mama. The point is that there's a topic. And then there's a tendency amongst intellectual dishonest (or lazy) people to bring up something else entirely, which they believe makes some kind of "point."

TOT said:
He's a national socialist who upon taking office has expanded the powers of the executive exponentially.
Click to expand...
But is Chavez a dictator? Bringing up Hitler doesn't answer this question. Has Chavez (not Hitler) outlawed opposition parties? Will there be no more elections in Venezuela? Is there a free press there? Will the recent bill giving power to Chavez end? Are there limits to the powers granted in the bill? Was the bill passed by an elected assembly? Was former President Perez (not Hitler) also called a dictator when he was given similar (temporary powers)?

The best you could say (if you/Fox were interested in being accurate) is that Chavez is kinda sorta like a dictator that has checks on his power and is limited in many ways.

The truth is that he is extremely popular.

TOT said:
And the NYT's is a paper and Fox News is a television station, and again the NYT's editorials appear on the front page these days.
Click to expand...
And you can repeat the same stuff all day long over and over believing that it somehow refutes what went on before. Two media entities can be reasonably compared. and that, btw will take a little bit of effort on your part -- will require you to not parrot something you've heard before. Give it a try, TOT. Look at the percentage of news stories versus opinion pieces on a single day.

conserv.pat15 said:
Sean Hannity is an excellent debater in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I could take him. I actually have a friend whom appeared on Hannity and Colmes once. Hannity's primary tactic was not to refute him, but to interrupt him. He's not a good debator.
 
Hatuey said:
Yes, No or I don't know. Very simple. State why for the first too.
Click to expand...

Every media outlet has a bias.Most of the media leans to the left.I do not watch enough of Fox news to actually know if they lean to the right or even how far they lean to the right.Considering the smack libs talk about Fox,fox must either be unbiased or they try to present a pro-American point of view.
 
niftydrifty said:
Name any other political figure referred to by their full name, something other than what they call themselves - full name, middle name, last name.
Click to expand...

William Jefferson Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, etc etc, is it not his middle name? Are facts right wing slanted these days?

I've already answered this question. TOT don't reed reel guud.
Click to expand...

Ya compare those quotes to some you would find on MSNBC.

So was Hitler. So was Napolean. So was your mama. The point is that there's a topic. And then there's a tendency amongst intellectual dishonest (or lazy) people to bring up something else entirely, which they believe makes some kind of "point."
Click to expand...

Actually you're the one who brought up something else entirely, I said Chavez was a dictator, you said he was elected, as if that mitigates the fact that he's a ****ing dictator, he rules by decree, he has rewritten the Constitution, he has done away with the free press and he has usurped an unprecedented level of power for the executive.

But is Chavez a dictator? Bringing up Hitler doesn't answer this question. Has Chavez (not Hitler) outlawed opposition parties?
Click to expand...

No but they are routinely threatened and harrassed.

Will there be no more elections in Venezuela?
Click to expand...

Yes there will but it doesn't matter because they're fraudulent, they were certified by Jimmy Carter (a renowned supporter of tyranny BTW) whose group that certified the elections happened to recieve a huge cash donation from none other than the government of Venezuela.

Is there a free press there?
Click to expand...

No.

Will the recent bill giving power to Chavez end?
Click to expand...

That's what Hitler said about his emergency powers I believe it was called the enabling act, technically speaking the Constitution of the Weimar Republic was not scrapped under Hitler.

Are there limits to the powers granted in the bill?
Click to expand...

What limits would those be? There's unitary parliament in Venezuela now thanks to Hugo which is controlled by his own party which he weilds a tight grip on.

Was the bill passed by an elected assembly?
Click to expand...

So was the enabling act, and your point?


The best you could say (if you/Fox were interested in being accurate) is that Chavez is kinda sorta like a dictator that has checks on his power and is limited in many ways.
Click to expand...

He rules by ****ing decree.

The truth is that he is extremely popular.
Click to expand...

So was Hitler.

And you can repeat the same stuff all day long over and over believing that it somehow refutes what went on before. Two media entities can be reasonably compared. and that, btw will take a little bit of effort on your part -- will require you to not parrot something you've heard before. Give it a try, TOT. Look at the percentage of news stories versus opinion pieces on a single day.
Click to expand...

Ya comparing the amount of news analysis from a 24 hour news network to a newspaper is not "reasonble."
 
I watch FOX for a good laugh. And they are the most biased in favor of the Administration as any news cast out there. In fact, Hannity is a little White House bitch!
 
TOT said:
William Jefferson Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, etc etc, is it not his middle name? Are facts right wing slanted these days?
Click to expand...
I said something other than what they call themselves. Fox started using Obama's middle name only after he became a candidate. That's the only relevant fact here.

TOT said:
Ya compare those quotes to some you would find on MSNBC.
Click to expand...
gee, I was hoping you would debate me. perhaps even produce some. obviously, I expect too much.

TOT said:
...he has usurped an unprecedented level of power for the executive.
Click to expand...
so did Bush.

TOT said:
Ya comparing the amount of news analysis from a 24 hour news network to a newspaper is not "reasonble."
Click to expand...
You said amount. I said "percentage."

Knock it off with the one-liners. It goes nowhere. But nowhere is where you want to go.

I'm giving you a chance to enter into a substantial, thorough debate. Once and for all, which is the more biased entity, the NYT or FNC? You going to accept my private debate offer or not?
 
Originally posted by TOT:
that left wing shill Keith Olberman
Click to expand...
Don't say s.h.i.t about Olberman!

Olberman is GOD!
 
niftydrifty said:
I said something other than what they call themselves. Fox started using Obama's middle name only after he became a candidate. That's the only relevant fact here.
Click to expand...

And I showed you where CNN did the same thing, and again are you asserting that facts have a right wing bias?

gee, I was hoping you would debate me. perhaps even produce some. obviously, I expect too much.
Click to expand...

Just go read a Keith Olberman transcript.

so did Bush.
Click to expand...

Not at all, Bush has not usurped more power than anyother President during war time, and the last time I checked Chavez isn't at war.

You said amount. I said "percentage."
Click to expand...

OMG a huge gaft in the wording.

Knock it off with the one-liners. It goes nowhere. But nowhere is where you want to go.

I'm giving you a chance to enter into a substantial, thorough debate. Once and for all, which is the more biased entity, the NYT or FNC? You going to accept my private debate offer or not?
Click to expand...

Your whole premise is flawed not only are you comparing two incomparable things IE the "percentage" of op-eds in a newspaper to the op-eds in a 24 hour news service, but you are also failing to realize that the NYT's doesn't keep the op-eds limited to the editorial section these days.
 
Niftydrifty, are you saying Fox News always says "Barrak Hussein Obama" when they talk about him?
 
Kandahar said:
Watch the little news feed that scrolls along the bottom of the screen sometime. A lot of the time they mention Obama on that feed, they refer to him as "Barack Hussein Obama."
Click to expand...

And the last time you saw this was when? I've never seen it at all other than when perhaps when they were mentioning it when it was first noted (and the Hillary camp is suspected of planting the seed), but even then it was in the spoken reports.

I have emailed them asking if they have ever done so.

Hmmmm just looked on their website. The only instances a search turns up is when they are posting an AP story about him or where he himself mentions it or they are mentioning his father and early life history. And not many at that.

Ahhh you wouldn't be stretching the truth here a little would you?
 
Last edited:
Nifty,

Replacing Cold Dirt (don't know him yet or his debate style) with TOT is just taking the easy road....

No offence meant to everyone here, but...

You have all agreed that media is biased. Rather than bitch about it, why not ask "why" is it biased? (or at least way more biased then it ever was).
My opinion,
It's all owned by big corporations. 6 of them to be exact. Big media corporations (that own other big corporations, btw) are never going to provide 'real' news. They have a bottom line, based on 'ratings'. When ratings come into play, you get the "if it bleeds, it leads" mentality. Add in the fancy graphics, important sounding music, etc... and none of it's 'news' anymore. It's American Idol. Entertainment.

Government doesn't influence media, media influences gov't.

News + Corporate x Ratings(profit) = Bias. simple.

MEDIA REFORM!

Peace
 
jamesrage said:
Every media outlet has a bias.Most of the media leans to the left.I do not watch enough of Fox news to actually know if they lean to the right or even how far they lean to the right.Considering the smack libs talk about Fox,fox must either be unbiased or they try to present a pro-American point of view.
Click to expand...

Maybe they talk smack about FOX because it is biased? Just a thought.

Are you implying liberals aren't pro-America?
 
Fox news is biased but so is MSNBC. In fact MSNBC has gotten alot worse in the past year or so. I'm not saying "worse than Fox" but just worse than they use to be. There's not enough investigative reporting going on in my opinion and news that I think is "big" or "interesting" is often completely absent on the boob tube altogether. It's gotten to the point where the news is delivered in the same manner that MTV delivers. You're not going to learn anything "in depth" from any of the major networks. :doh
 
does a new born baby poop in it's diapers?? If a new born baby poops in it's diapers, then Fox is extremely bias. They don't lies about everything, they just lie and create, when it comes to politics, economics, and social problems.

I will watch and believe :rofl their sport coverage.
 
dragonslayer said:
No you are wrong, war determines the future of those who lie about it ,,,,negatively,,,, and that is right not wrong.
Click to expand...

What? Are you talking about my sig? You have issues.
 
Hatuey said:
Maybe they talk smack about FOX because it is biased? Just a thought.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom