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

Pro has produced only two accusations against Fox in support of his resolution that "FOX is the most vicious, nasty, manipulative thing ever to arise in the US in terms of 'news.' " The resolution is extraordinarily broad, encompassing more than two hundred years of the history of the United States, yet he offers only two isolated accusations. Even if true, they would not prove that Fox News is characteristically "vicious, nasty, manipulative" as the resolution demands. As it turns out, the marijuana example is just, at worst, a case of sloppy reporting. The other is a spurious claim that Fox News, founded in 1996, is responsible for propaganda made by the Fox movie organization in the 1930s. 1. The marijuana story Pro asks, "A news stations job is to know when someone is wrong; why else would they be reporting the news?" They report the news to make the viewer aware of opinions that differ. We do not want news organizations that decide for us whether Democrats or Republicans are right about some issue, and based on the decision of who is right fail to report the other side. News organizations are especially interested in controversial statements from presumed experts or authorities. So if a DEA agent, presumed to be knowledgeable, says that the new form of marijuana can kill you, that is a news story. Pro seems to agree that the claim is extraordinary, which makes it all the more newsworthy. Pro says, "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?" To make the analogy complete, it would have to be something like, "Catholic bishop says Sunday Mass will kill you." The bishop would be presumed knowledgeable about such things, so that would elevate it to being a news story. Moreover, if Fox, or any other news organization, reported "Catholic bishop says Sunday Mass will kill you." it wouldn't be mean, nasty, or manipulative. It would be sensationalism, for sure, and if presented without an opposing viewpoint it would be sloppy reporting. Pro says, "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." That doesn't contradict what I said, which was that newscast was accurate. Pro makes a separate point, that the newscaster appeared to believe the DEA agent in what the agent claimed. I agree that the reporter seemed to believe it. However, it would only be mean, nasty, and manipulative if the reporter doubted what the agent said but reported it convincingly anyway. There is no evidence that the reporter doubted the DEA agent. Pro seems to claim that the reporter, or anyone else, could have simply asked a stoned slacker friend if the DEA agent was correct, and thereby found out that it wasn't true. That is not a good argument, because the report was on marijuana grown under special conditions that was claimed to be substantially more potent than what was common. Besides, maybe the reporter didn't have any stoned slacker friends. Nonetheless, Fox has a research staff that should have checked the DEA claim, and found data that showed the DEA claim to be doubtful. The should have then acknowledged doubts about the DEA claim. Not doing so was sloppy. 2. Comparison to NY Times a. Pro grants that the NY Times deliberately smeared John McCain. The question is then whether deliberately smearing a presidential candidate in order to sway a national election is more vicious, nasty, and manipulative than reporting what a DEA agent said about marijuana. I'll let readers of the debate decide. b. Pro says, "If FOX reported that coffee "WILL KILL you" we wouldn't be having this conversation, do you know why?" Sure I know why. If someone in the Department of Health said "coffee will kill you," I guarantee that Fox would report it, along with every other news organization. Pro doesn't care whether or not coffee gets a bum rap, but he cares a lot about marijuana's reputation, hence the conversation. Reports appear periodically about coffee being a terrible thing for your health or being fine for your health. News outlets love either kind of story, because people are interested. c. I cite Pro for bad conduct. He says, "You, however, ARE playing the ignorance card ..." and "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." Pro should stick to debating the issues. d. NY Times on Abu Ghraib Pro grants that the Times fifty front page stories implying Abu Ghraib abuses were official policy were vicious, mean, and nasty. He says that the Fox marijuana story was worse because Fox has a larger audience. Fox ratings are up recently due to the Chilean mine rescue, but they are roughly 1.7 million viewers for the news segments. http://tvbythenumbers.com... The New York Times has a daily circulation of 0.95 million and a Sunday circulation of 1.4 million. http://www.nytimes.com... The series on Abu Ghraib therefore had a total circulation of about 50 million, compared to 1.7 million for the Fox story. The Abu Ghraib stories had many repeat readers, but the effect was to drive home the story with ever-increasing implications. It isn't jut about the circulation, however. The New York times stories were used to recruit terrorists, and that ultimately cost the lives of terrorist victims. No one was killed by Fox story. It's doubtful it had any long term effect at all, just as it's doubtful that stories about coffee have any long term effect on coffee consumption. 3. Nazi propaganda Pro argues, "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." The guilt comes from having gotten the bike at a suspiciously cheap price, which would be a tip it was stolen. News Corporation purchased 20th Century Fox, with no hint of a bargain price. The Wikipedia history of 20th Century Fox has no hint of anything but entertainment in their past. http://en.wikipedia.org... The purchase was all about "Planet of the Apes" and other such entertainment properties, and nothing whatsoever to do with propaganda or news. Fox News received nothing but the name "Fox" from the acquisition. The entertainment evolved into Fox Television, which produces "The Simpsons." Pro's argument works better to prove that The Simpsons is Nazi propaganda, since at least the entertainment part has some direct lineage. The argument is nonsense. Pro claims, "there is no way to use personalities like Palin and Beck and remain objective." The debate is not about objectivity, is about whether Fox News is "the most vicious, nasty, and manipulative thing." Newspapers have an editorial page and have opinionated columnists. There is nothing "vicious, nasty, and manipulative" about doing so, because everyone recognizes opinion as opinion, and certainly Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and Glenn Beck are recognized as presenting opinions. Abu Ghraib stories and McCain slanders in the Times meet the resolution because they are passed off as news. 4. Early libelous newspapers Pro tries to compare the early libelous newspapers with what he claims to be Fox's Nazi propaganda. Fox News is in no way related to 20th Century Fox's activities, and those activities were completely incidental to the rise of Nazism. Besides, our debate is about US news, not German news. 5. The Web Pro's resolution was about the vicious, nasty, manipulative *thing* to arise in terms of news. The Web is a thing and therefore counts. The Webs "vicious, mean, and nasty" content is without parallel. Therefore it is worse than Fox.