Trigger words: voice
Indicator sentences: Unless by "voice" you mean "media time".
Trigger words: debate (2)
Indicator sentences: To say that there is not debate, you have to change the definition of the word "debate".
Negotiation parts: The "debate" is a manufactured thing, designed to create ratings or make for good television. Fine, that's self-evident. But the debate itself is ludicrous in that one side is false. Therefore, the platform giving this wildly dangerous viewpoint a voice should be challenged and stopped. Wrong. What I'm saying is that the debate is manufactured by "fair and balanced" reporting, and it is allowed to grow due to the irresponsibility of this kind of reporting.
Trigger words: fair (4)
Indicator sentences: I know this isn't what you mean, but you could argue that your examples aren't really "fair and balanced," because to me "fair" implies giving due and deserved credence to ideas, which would not apply to non-scientific views. A "fair" assessment of an issue would therefore not including crackpot or conspiracy theories like anti-vaxxers believe. Therefore, "fair and balanced" is ideal, it's just that no media outlet IS actually fair.
Trigger words: fair (4)
Indicator sentences: I know this isn't what you mean, but you could argue that your examples aren't really "fair and balanced," because to me "fair" implies giving due and deserved credence to ideas, which would not apply to non-scientific views.
Negotiation parts: A "fair" assessment of an issue would therefore not including crackpot or conspiracy theories like anti-vaxxers believe. Therefore, "fair and balanced" is ideal, it's just that no media outlet IS actually fair.
Trigger words: fair (4) balanced (3)
Indicator sentences: Well I mean what do consider fair and balanced? If you are talking the media's notion of fair and balanced meaning giving equal airtime to everyone well, yea that doesn't work and is dumb. but if you are talking fair and balanced as a lotting the appropriate amount of airtime for someone given their argument I could see that as being reasonable. i.e. someone whose argument is in direct opposition to scientific fact can be given a chance to argue but then to be "fair" a panel could have 5 experts opposing that one and give them much more time to show how the facts line up.
Trigger words: theories (2) theory (2)
Indicator sentences: Do you even know what a theory is? Please, at least read up on what the scientific method is so you have an idea what you're arguing against. Seriously.
Negotiation parts: A purely sanctimonious comment with no value. You are making the assumption that theory is limited to scientific method when people can also debate theories on issues that are little more than conjecture such as those pertaining to something like the JFK assassination. With JFK, many people cite "scientific facts" pointing to a conspiracy even though those "facts" are actually a series of theories. The US public widely accepts the theory that there was some type of conspiracy, so do you believe the theory is no longer open to debate? Where is the scientific method in this theory? Do you also actually believe that everything people claim as a "scientific fact" in a debate is correct? Seeing as you didn't bother to look it up: "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world." That's the difference between a scientific theory and a theory about JFK conspiracies. When did I ever mention anything about scientific theory? I just explained how "theory" is not as limited as your thinking. Read the titlle. "....conflict with actual scientific fact". Silly me, I thought we were on topic.
Trigger words: theories (2) theory (2)
Indicator sentences: You are equivocating on the word theory.
Negotiation parts: In a colloquial context, a theory is any explanation that leads to the observed outcome. In a scientific context, a theory requires a certain degree of evidence to back it. The scientific context uses the word hypothesis to mean the colloquial theory. There is still a point to be made on the difference between a scientific theory and a fact, but this is not it.