PDA

View Full Version : Debate Actually Fair and Balanced




Nathan Hale
09-08-2007, 08:32 PM
For a while now, I've been tracking how often candidates were allowed to speak at the debates. I counted every instance when a candidate speaks. If the moderator asks a follow-up question, it isn't counted. However, if the candidate is allowed to rebut another candidate's statement it is counted. If there's a back-and-forth (ie Paul/Huckabee), it counts for a single additional point for each participant. Here's the numbers for the most recent debate:

Tancredo: 4
Paul: 7
Huckabee: 7
Giuliani: 8
Romney: 9
McCain: 8
Brownback: 6
Hunter: 4

Granted, the Huckabee/Paul exchange wasn't in Fox's plan, but of all the debates I've tracked so far, this one gave Paul the most chances to speak - though he was still limited to speaking when the subject was either Iraq or national security.

freedomsoundmoney
09-08-2007, 08:38 PM
what about total time alloted per candidate? anyway hopefully some more candidates drop out and future debates have more time allotted for each. it cool to have more real debate type moments along with also giving all candidates an opportunity to answer each question.

Benincasa
09-08-2007, 08:48 PM
Fox News is fair and balanced.

EDIT: I lean conservative, so I don't mind if my news does too.

Bison
09-08-2007, 08:49 PM
Fox News is fair and balanced.

EDIT: I lean conservative, so I don't mind if my news does too.

Or so they like to tell us fifteen times an hour.

Nathan Hale
09-08-2007, 09:06 PM
Fox News is fair and balanced.

EDIT: I lean conservative, so I don't mind if my news does too.

It's not fair and balanced if it leans the way you lean politically.

blazin_it_alwyz
09-08-2007, 09:12 PM
Fox News is fair and balanced.

Because moderators insinuating opinions before they let you answer questions is fair and balanced:rolleyes: .

Please dude, don't give me that Fox News is balanced baloney, I can point you in least 15 different directions that say otherwise.

Also, you leave out lots of other information conveniently. Take note that the 1st question ron paul received was 23 minutes into the debate, after other candidates were asked multiple questions. You fail to note in your post other things that went on in that debate.

nist7
09-08-2007, 09:12 PM
But wouldn't it be more telling if someone actually studied how LONG those candidates were given/taking to speak?

If Ron Paul averaged only 1 to 2 min of speaking time per speaking opportunity and the others averages 2 to 3 min, then clearly the fairness of the debates should be called into question.

MicroBalrog
09-08-2007, 09:27 PM
It's not fair and balanced if it leans the way you lean politically.

No unbiased news outlet exists or ever existed.

itsnobody
09-08-2007, 09:29 PM
Well this debate gave Ron Paul the most time to speak (the last one was BS), but its still not really the most time, I mean its only because of that heated Huckabee exchange, they didn't let him answer on many important issues like taxes and illegal immigration...

LizF
09-08-2007, 09:31 PM
It was also helpful to have only 8 candidates during this debate, as it allowed for more time to be allotted to each candidate.

Pharoah
09-08-2007, 09:52 PM
I must have missed the part where Fox accused all the other candidates of being a traitor... because that's what happened when they asked RP if he took his marching orders from Al Qaeda.

In what dreamworld is that fair and balanced? It's not even close to good journalism.

njandrewg
09-08-2007, 10:18 PM
its not fair and balanced based on what kind of questions they asked. And the attitude they had towards him...the man is running for the highest office in the country...one of 20 of 300 million. They should show some respect

itsnobody
09-08-2007, 10:26 PM
I must have missed the part where Fox accused all the other candidates of being a traitor... because that's what happened when they asked RP if he took his marching orders from Al Qaeda.

In what dreamworld is that fair and balanced? It's not even close to good journalism.

Well to be objective and fair, they did attack other candidates, like Giuliani and Romney...weren't you watching? They asked Romney how could he allow illegal immigrants to mow his lawn...

Ron Paul supporters need to snap out of conspiracy mode, and realize that Ron Paul is a candidate and has a high chance of winning if he has enough support

Pharoah
09-08-2007, 11:02 PM
Alleging one candidate's support for illegal immigration is a long way from calling another one a traitor. You're quick to shout "conspiracy theorist", yet there's a mountain of evidence that Fox is anything but fair and balanced. Why is that?

itsnobody
09-08-2007, 11:06 PM
Alleging one candidate's support for illegal immigration is a long way from calling another one a traitor. You're quick to shout "conspiracy theorist", yet there's a mountain of evidence that Fox is anything but fair and balanced. Why is that?

Well its almost the same...I mean they seemed to attack all the candidates where it fit, saying Ron Paul supported al-Qaeda was a fair attack, but Ron Paul handled it great....

You guys should just treat Ron Paul as a real candidate, and realize that he really does have a high chance of winning instead of automatically jumping into conspiracy mode "they won't let him win" "the MSM won't let him in" "they won't let him talk", etc...

ctb619
09-08-2007, 11:13 PM
Well its almost the same...I mean they seemed to attack all the candidates where it fit, saying Ron Paul supported al-Qaeda was a fair attack
.

where do you come from?

Sakimoto
09-09-2007, 08:05 AM
Fox News is fair and balanced.

EDIT: I lean conservative, so I don't mind if my news does too.

:eek: Dude, wake up. You've been hypnotized.

singapore_sling
09-09-2007, 08:30 AM
Fox news doesn't lean conservative, it leans NEO-conservative. They don't even really try to hide it either, its pretty damn blatant.

Dutch
09-09-2007, 08:32 AM
Click here to see a documentary about Fox News being "fair and balanced" (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6737097743434902428)

blazin_it_alwyz
09-09-2007, 08:32 AM
No unbiased news outlet exists or ever existed.

There is a difference between being slightly biased, and extremely biased. Fox news is more towards extremely biased.

Nathan Hale
09-09-2007, 08:54 AM
No unbiased news outlet exists or ever existed.

And I never spoke to the contrary. But it should be the goal of a news organization to be unbiased. And Fox News fails miserably on that front. Of all three major cable news stations, I find it to be the most biased - though on the subject of chances to speak in this debate, they did pretty well.

V-rod
09-09-2007, 11:17 AM
I watch Fox more than CNN or NBC and I'll even admit that its biased.
I would not even call Fox a news channel. There is hardly any news on there! Like 80% of the programming is just opinions from media personalities who talk about the latest middle east news reported by the Associated Press. Fox is now just purely political entertainment with a neo-conservative leaning slant.

JoshLowry
09-09-2007, 12:39 PM
Fox news is my favorite TV channel. I almost prefer it to the internet for my daily news.


Just kidding!

saku39
09-09-2007, 12:58 PM
Out of all the news I watch, I trust FOX the least. The only thing I can count on the for is going after democrats when they screw up.

Sometimes, watching FOX is like watching comedy because it's so inherently incorrect. It's entertaining sometimes.

Still, I watch FOX specifically because I know it is biased. I want to understand the mainstream neo-con viewpoint and they are the best representative for that-- and on a rare occassions, they present facts that nobody else talks about.

RevolutionSD
09-09-2007, 01:24 PM
Fox News is fair and balanced.

EDIT: I lean conservative, so I don't mind if my news does too.


How can you be a Ron Paul fan and seriously believe that?
They're fair and balanced toward the neocon agenda!

MicroBalrog
09-09-2007, 01:28 PM
And I never spoke to the contrary. But it should be the goal of a news organization to be unbiased.

Not really. This idea is a chld of the progressive era - a spwan of the same people who gave us Keynesianism and the New Deal - and it achieves nothing.

It's only result is that media PRETEND to be unbiased, thereafter to lie more effectively.

At least Fox wears their bias on their sleeve.

MicroBalrog
09-09-2007, 01:29 PM
How can you be a Ron Paul fan and seriously believe that?


Not every Ron Paul fan agrees with him on every issue.

I'm a pro-war fan of Ron Paul.

Corydoras
09-09-2007, 01:33 PM
Not really. This idea is a chld of the progressive era - a spwan of the same people who gave us Keynesianism and the New Deal - and it achieves nothing.

It's only result is that media PRETEND to be unbiased, thereafter to lie more effectively.

I think the idea of non-bias was older than that. I knew a guy who became a reporter in 1939 and it was the first thing he was taught, was to be unbiased and impersonal. One of his proudest moments, in the 1950s, was when both sides of an issue attacked him to his editor because they both thought he was leaning toward the other side.

By the 1980s he had become a convert to journalism that clearly showed and explained the perspective of the reporter. He had seen that it was all too easy for bias to be hidden under a pretense of impartiality, just as you say.

RevolutionSD
09-09-2007, 01:33 PM
Not every Ron Paul fan agrees with him on every issue.

I'm a pro-war fan of Ron Paul.

I suppose we do have some neocons in our presence.

I don't agree with him on every issue- i.e., I'm pro-choice and I'm firmly against building a wall at the border, but the war is the biggest issue we face, so I can't understand how you can be both pro-war and a supporter of RP at the same time.

MicroBalrog
09-09-2007, 01:38 PM
Well, here I am.


I EXIST! :D

Keith
09-09-2007, 02:38 PM
Well, here I am.


I EXIST! :D

I am glad you are here. The more the merrier.

Nathan Hale
09-09-2007, 05:27 PM
Not really. This idea is a chld of the progressive era - a spwan of the same people who gave us Keynesianism and the New Deal - and it achieves nothing.

It's only result is that media PRETEND to be unbiased, thereafter to lie more effectively.

At least Fox wears their bias on their sleeve.

The idea of unbiased news is not the product of the new deal. Journalistic integrity is the product of line of thinking that led doctors to embrace the Hippocratic oath. Journalists are trusted when they simply relay information, so journalists strive to best relay information. There is corruption, and it is fairly widespread, but it should be the goal of any credible news organization to seek to be as unbiased as possible, to simply relay information in as raw a manner as they can.

bdmarti
09-09-2007, 06:01 PM
this poll is a bit old but the sample size looks OK and it seems to show that FOX news is a piss poor way to get your news.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc

-- take this and everything else with a healthy dose of skepticism (even moreso it seems when you watch FOX news) :)

BenIsForRon
09-09-2007, 06:23 PM
EDIT: I lean conservative, so I don't mind if my news does too.

Fox doesn't lean conservative, they lean fascist.