FOX is the most vicious, nasty, manipulative thing ever to arise in the US in terms of "news."

"there is no evidence that Fox knew he was wrong, nor did Fox assert that what the DEA guy said was true. There is not even evidence that the DEA guy knew it was not true." Your paragraph is as brazenly manipulative as FOX News. No evidence they knew he was wrong? There has never been a single shred of evidence to show marijuana is any more dangerous than coffee yet they chose to emphasize that point emphatically. I would ask those of you reading this, who may or may not have tried smoking weed before, what it would do to your perception of the plant if you turned on the evening news and a news anchor was telling you "it WILL KILL you." Would it manipulate your stance on drug laws? Roy is going to try and convince you now that they never "knew he was wrong..." A news stations job is to know when someone is wrong; why else would they be reporting the news? Anyone who has read even the slightest amount in to the plant knows it is absolutely benign; a news station reporting that marijuana will kill you is similar to reporting that attending Sunday mass "will KILL YOU." Do you disagree with that analogy Roy? "Fox didn't lie, they accurately reported a dramatic statement from a DEA guy." It is downright shameful to suggest to anyone watching that newscast that the anchor isn't clearly trying to make a concerted point with that statement. This isn't a coincidence, this isn't out of ignorance, and this certainly isn't out of incompetence - it is actually quite the opposite as it is a result of a concerted effort to reinforce drug laws which neocons can feel slipping as pro-marijuana legislation slowly takes hold. "All news media thrive on reporting bold statements from people in authority." But what is their intent? You are assuming that they operate in a vacuum of partisanship if you would say they simply did it for sensationalism. FOX consistently portrays a conservative standpoint, and therefore any conservative standpoint they incidentally happen to report should be assumed to be biased first and only assumed otherwise if there is very good reason... Would this not be prudent? New York Times/Affair This is not a scientifically proven lie, it is gossip. I can prove marijuana is not deadly... Can you prove McCain didn't have an affair? Now I'm not going to play the ignorance card and say it was coincidence that they reported that; they reported it because they had a very specific intention - to smear John McCain. You, however, ARE playing the ignorance card and you're claiming FOX's slip was simply a failure to "research the subject." Your own conservative bias is starting to show through the debate now as you justify FOX's actions by trying to extend your ignorance over the voters and myself like a cloak. If FOX reported that coffee "WILL KILL you" we wouldn't be having this conversation, do you know why? Because FOX is so good at getting propaganda like this out that they actually can do it without turning heads! You therefore are operating on a slippery slope if you defend FOX's actions here, because propaganda like FOX's is the only reason why there would be anyone who believes marijuana is deadly in the first place. Abu Ghraib I won't follow suit and insult your intelligence by saying NYT isn't reporting liberal bias. It is. The question this debate concerns is who is the worst. FOX has a much bigger audience than the NYT and is much more flagrantly biased. FOX employs unparalleled zeal in its bias whereas with the NYT it is much more subtle and even incidental. FOX's Nazi propaganda "Guilt cannot be purchased?" That is outright wrong. If I steal a bike out of your neighbor's yard and sell it to you for an extremely low price then you are definitely purchasing some of the guilt of the action. FOX's questionable origins are relevant at least to the point of showing the pattern which is clearly present in its activities - manipulative "news." "[Palin and Gingrich only] give opinions and analysis," and therefore are not reporting. Sure, and the Yanks only use A-Rod to hit home-runs; they do not use him as a baseball player. The fact that they are well-known doesn't change the fact that FOX is exercising a narrow political agenda while it reports news; there is no way to use personalities like Palin and Beck and remain objective. If CNN hired one themselves they are wrong, but they don't do it in the magnitude that FOX does, that's for sure. I would need an example of the Moyers "psuedo-documentary" to analyze for example. Con gives some way out of context examples of ancient newspapers from the 1700s that, in my opinion, don't shake up to the early history of FOX anyway. It may not have called itself news but issuing propaganda is a news activity, and getting Nazis elected was far worse than anything Naoh Webster accomplished. Furthermore, FOX's longevity and incredible audience ought to be taken into account; if one manipulates many more individuals then they could be considered "more manipulative," for example. The Web Criticizing "the web" in general and comparing it to FOX is plain ridiculous. Fundamentally speaking, we are now comparing one firm to an entire medium. This is a very unfair comparison. Secondly, FOX has internet influence so how do you differentiate it in the comparison? This seems like more manipulation here... You're saying FOX's reputation just gets lost in the chorus of bloggers and websites, and that they should all just be added up (apparently without participation from FOX) and weighed against FOX, thus justifying how bad FOX is? Weak... Con complains that I have not presented enough pieces of evidence to make my case... This is intentional. There are floods of articles and papers denouncing FOX News, and I could line my walls and ceilings with them if I wanted to. I'd rather not dilute the debate with a bunch of mudslinging which you are just going to deflect onto every other news source anyway, and frankly I think your comment about FOX beating out 16 other news stations in centricity is more hilarious than it is damning to my arguments.