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

I'm glad that Pro has attempted to defend his comments. That's what a debate site is for. Here are the relevant definitions: nasty: Vicious; offensively ill-tempered; insultingly mean; spiteful; as, a nasty disposition. vicious: Addicted to vice; corrupt in principles or conduct; depraved; wicked; as, vicious children; vicious examples; vicious conduct. manipulative: Prone to attempt to influence others by devious or subtle psychological means, in order to induce them to do what one wants. All definitions are from http://www.dictionary.net.... Pro must therefore prove that Fox News does all of these things, and does so characteristically. In his opening round, Pro offered no evidence of Fox being "offensively ill-tempered" or being being "addicted to vice, depraved." Fox certainly presents opinions in an attempt to convince people of various things, but Pro has shown none of the subtle psychology involved that characterizes manipulation. 1. Pro argues that Fox lied in a news story about marijuana. A lie is "A falsehood uttered or acted for the purpose of deception; an intentional violation of truth ..." http://www.dictionary.net... However, what Pro argued was that the DEA officer who said that the new marijuana could kill was wrong. I agree, the DEA guy was wrong. However, 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. Fox didn't lie, they accurately reported a dramatic statement from a DEA guy. All news media thrive on reporting bold statements from people in authority. For example, Fox, and everyone else, reported Congressman Alan Grayson's claim that "If you get sick, Republican's want you to die quickly." Fox reporting it accurately does not constitute endorsement of Grayson's opinion. Should Fox have researched the subject and said that the DEA statement was probably not true? I think they should have. However, that's a relatively minor slip. If failure to confirm stories is claimed to prove the resolution then the New York Times is far worse than Fox. The Times falsely reported, based upon an unconfirmed anonymous source that John McCain was having an affair. http://newsbusters.org... The Times also ran fifty front page stories that Abu Ghraib would be proved to have been government policy. The allegations were false. What the Times did had an impact on national elections, and probably, in the case of Abu Ghraib, fueled extremists killing Americans. The story on marijuana had no conceivable national impact; neither Party favors legalization. In don't think sloppy reporting rises to the level of "nasty, vicious, and manipulative," but if it does then the New York Times is worse than Fox News. 2. Pro points to Fox as aiding Hitler. The context of the debate, and my explicit statement of the debate, makes it clear that we are discussing Fox News, not the 1930s Fox movie studios. The Fox News parent company, News Corporation, bought the film library and the name from the Fox movie company. The notion that moral culpability comes with an asset purchase is illogical. Guilt is not purchased. Fox does not use Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich to report. They give opinions and analysis, and everyone knows that. That they are well-known from previous political experience makes it clear that they are giving opinions rather than acting as reporters. CNN recently hired ex-governor Eliot Spitzer to do analysis. I don't think anyone would believe he is providing cold objectivity any more than anyone would think Palin or Gingrich are reporters. All are known to be opinionated political types. Possible manipulation comes from people like Bill Moyers, who makes pseudo-documentaries on PBS that try to sell leftist ideology as fact. PBS is by far the worst in that regard. Neither Hannity nor Beck nor Maddow nor Olbermann are likely to be mistaken as reporters because they are so obviously opinionated. Pro makes other unsupported assertions about Fox. All are false. 3. What, in fact, is the most vicious, nasty, and manipulative news source to arise in the history of the United States? My first candidate is the scurrilous press than appeared soon after the passing of the Bill of Rights. At that time, some publishers felt free to create libelous stories, and even when short of libel, were strictly partisan. "The no holds barred style of early journalism, much of it libelous by modern standards, reflected the rough and tumble political life of the republic as rival factions jostled for power." http://www.historicpages.com... For example: "Noah Webster, strapped for money accepted an offer in late 1793 from Alexander Hamilton of $1500 to move to New York City and edit a Federalist newspaper. ... He edited it for four years writing the equivalent of 20 volumes of articles and editorials. He also published the semi-weekly publication, The Herald, A Gazette for the country (later known as The New York Spectator). As a partisan he soon was denounced by the Jeffersonian Republicans as "a pusillanimous, half-begotten, self-dubbed patriot", "an incurable lunatic", and "a deceitful newsmonger … Pedagogue and Quack." Fellow Federalist Cobbett labeled him "a traitor to the cause of Federalism", calling him "a toad in the service of sans-cullottism", "a prostitute wretch", "a great fool, and a barefaced liar", "a spiteful viper", and "a maniacal pedant." http://en.wikipedia.org... Perhaps some of Webster's writing was true and perhaps not. However, there is no question of it being nasty, vicious, and manipulative. "The American Aurora" was another paper of that era in the same vain. The Aurora pushed "that George Washington was not the "Father of Our Country," but rather, an incompetent general who won the war due only to Benjamin Franklin's assistance in France; that John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay were monarchists with an evil agenda; and and that Adams, in particular, had a vengeful jealousy of Franklin intense enough to affect his better judgment and reason." http://www.h-net.org... 4. There is perhaps something worse. "For young people, however, the internet now rivals television as a main source of national and international news. Nearly six-in-ten Americans younger than 30 (59%) say they get most of their national and international news online; an identical percentage cites television." http://people-press.org... An article on the progressive website salon.com summarized: "The protective force field of anonymity -- or pseudonymity -- brings out the worst in some people. They say things they would never say in the presence of flesh-and-blood human beings. You see this phenomenon all over the Internet, including Salon, which, despite having some of the smartest and most articulate commenters on the Web, has also attracted its fair share of vitriol." http://www.salon.com... The web is the newest thing in news, and it meets the resolution in every respect. It's nasty, vicious, and manipulative in spades. 5. Pro offered only the marijuana story and 1930s Fox films story as evidence. He should present impartial statistical evidence. A scientific study was done by UCLA, and they found Fox to be the fourth most centrist of twenty media outlets. http://tinyurl.com... That studied news reporting; opinion is under no obligation to be balanced. The NY Times editorial page is skewed way left; that's not a problem either. Pro has offered no basis for generalization in support of the resolution. His two examples were bogus. The resolution is negated.