Fox News is the Worst News in the US

R1. I wasn't disputing the fact that your first source about media bias wasn't legit, only that your statement that all NGOs are unbias. I am not disregarding your source but warning you not to blindly trust a source because it is an NGO. R2. The first video isn't trying to show more support for Republicans. If you watch the news on a regular basis you should be familiar with the fact that when someone is talking about an issue or event they will play RELEVANT footage behind them. Something that relates but isn't necessarily the exact thing. The footage in question showed various rallies, they never said "Look at this specific rally from this specific place and time." Clearly you can tell the scene changed. This isn't the bending of "facts". If I show you a picture of a cat, is that a fact? A fact is a piece of information. Those background images where just that, background images. On top of that, you took this video which is being commented on by Chris Matthews and John Stewart, both open and noted liberals who hate Fox and the Right. As for the O'Riely bit. First off, declaring someone a conspiracy theorist is an opinion. There is really no guideline for who is a conspiracy theorist and who isn't. In Bill's opinion (you watch the show to get his opinion) he sounded like a conspiracy theorist. You can't lie about an opinion. Secondly, Bush Jr. didn't have anything to do with the Mujahadeen. How could he have? We armed them back in the 1970s-1980s. If you're trying to say that Bush armed them you're wrong. He didn't. In forming and creating the Mujahadeen, he didn't have anything to do with it. [1]Now, on to your next source which is from Media Matters. You do know that Media Matters is an organization dedicated to the destruction of Foxnews? They proclaimed a "War on Fox" and have been out to get rid of it ever since. It's not a credible source when dealing with Foxnews. [2][3]The next claim about the 15 year old boy story. I want to point out that all news stations make mistakes. Unless you can provide a source claiming Fox deliberately did this and did not apologize or correct their mistake you can count it as a reporting error. Those happen. Show me that Fox did not provide a retraction of some kind after the facts were cleared up - until then we can't claim this is a blatant misuse of facts. R3.As for my source not supporting liberal media bias, try this one [4] it shows 50 clear examples of media bias in favor of the left. I did not lie to the audience. How did I lie? Here's another article showing how reporters for the major news outlets are far more liberal than the majority of Americans. This is from a site with .org at the end so you know it has to be good right? [5] The point of the article was that now MSNBC's line up is completely devoid of anything other than leftist commentary. I'm sorry my source wasn't clear. These new sources should clear up confusion about bias. Another point in this is that ALL news is bias. So again, you can't claim Fox is the worst based on bias because all news is bias. That is the grander point here. R4. Asking for an apology is not an "international issue". Our relations are in the same status they were before this video so how can you say that it damaged anything?Also, Obama may be stating an opinion but that makes your claim that Canada is our closest ally an opinion as well and therefore the point about them being our "closest ally" is now moot. Again, the Red Eye is a show designed to shock and entertain. Just because it plays on a station that normally carries news doesn't mean that it is news in and of itself. What they were making is commentary and therefore has no bearing on this debate.FR.Your argument here is basically saying "Foxnews carries more important news and is therefore worse". The resolution does not make a distinction between types of news. If the resolution said "Foxnews is the worst source of political news in the US" then the tabloid argument would be dead yes. However, the tabloids are news. They are trying to provide news about celebrities and public figures. It is only your opinion that makes a distinction between the tabloids and Fox and your opinion doesn't matter here. The fact is that tabloids are news and they are worse than Fox.Also, you can't write tabloids off as merely entertainment because on occation they actually report real news. The National Enquirer broke the John Edwards story regarding his mistress and love child making them a news source. However, the tabloids lie and provide poor facts and bent perspective far more often than Fox does.Another thing - we have to remember that Foxnews runs 24/7 on the TV and the internet. They are bound to accidently make a mistake once in a while. If we look at the grand scheme of things, countless articles, countless hours of footage, the stuff my opponent is bringing up is not only minor in nature but very far and few between. Foxnews is not the worst source of news.Also, my opponent dropped the argument about their website providing unbias, factual and actual news meaning he concedes the point that Foxnews.com is a legit source of unbias news.There are worse sources of news out there. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.westernjournalism.com...[5] http://www.mrc.org...