Thread: The most Biased and Ineffectual Newscaster

Glenn Beck, agreed. Ben Stein isn't that bad though.

As for ineffectual, this guy, no contest...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=W45DRy7M1no

As for biased, Keith Olberman, though he has a lot of competition for that title at his own network.

The award for both at the same time goes to Alan Colmes. I don't think that guy has a single fan. He is an opinionated liberal who works for Fox News. He has no conservative fans because he is a liberal journalist, and he has no liberal fans because he works for Fox News. On top of that, he is a weak newscaster/analyst. Poor guy.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

As for ineffectual, this guy, no contest...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=W45DRy7M1no

As for biased, Keith Olberman, though he has a lot of competition for that title at his own network.

The award for both at the same time goes to Alan Colmes. I don't think that guy has a single fan. He is an opinionated liberal who works for Fox News. He has no conservative fans because he is a liberal journalist, and he has no liberal fans because he works for Fox News. On top of that, he is a weak newscaster/analyst. Poor guy.

I haven't ever actually watched hannity and Colmes but I always thought Colmes was supposed to be a charicature of a liberal. I've never met anyone who actually had liberal views refer to themselves as a liberal so much. I get the impression that his job is mostly to be Hannity's strawman. Like I said though, I've never seen them interact and have only read about them and the show so I can't say that for sure.

And I don't think college interns doing local sports news count.

That'sexactly what Colmes is, he takes stereotypical left-wing views in order for them to be bashed down. Occasionally he'll introduce some information that most of the journalists on fox news ignre but he is still completely ineffective.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

That'sexactly what Colmes is, he takes stereotypical left-wing views in order for them to be bashed down. Occasionally he'll introduce some information that most of the journalists on fox news ignre but he is still completely ineffective.

I remember him from before Hannity and Colmes, when he had his own radio show. He was big time liberal and very loud about it, and he was pretty confronational and personally insulting. He was tamed down a whole lot for Hannity and Colmes. He acts like a professional journalist now, even though he isn't that good at it. I don't know what all of that suggests, but it's what I know about him. I guess it means either he is a very opinionated liberal who is behaving himself or else he is a chameleon who does whatever he is paid to do.

Are we only talking about actual news casters (such as anchors) or just commentators in general?

Anyway, for biased, I'd say Sean Hannity. I wouldn't say he's ineffective, because he's good at what he does, and I believe he's got a big fan-based, but he's he's arguably the most agressively one-sided caster/commentator I can think of.

Actually, it's a toss-up between Hannity, O'Reily, and Olberman, though I don't believe either of them are ineffective.

Bill O’Reilly is the most biased reporter, no contest. Well, maybe he's got some competition from Stephen Colbert. Pst... But Colbert's not being serious

I dont really like either of them, but to be fair. When hannity was bashing ron paul, Colmes actually said people should give him a chance. I think colmes is obviously baised but he isn't really a liar, and tries to base stuff on facts. Hannity on the other hand seems like a liar and would probably make stuff up to prove his points.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Bill O’Reilly is the most biased reporter, no contest. Well, maybe he's got some competition from Stephen Colbert. Pst... But Colbert's not being serious

Have you ever seen Keith Olberman? At least O'Reilly saves his angry outbursts for when somebody is there arguing with him. Also, at least he has guests who challenge him every night. Olberman has yet to have that happen even the first time. He just spews his anger and only has guests who help him with his arguments. However, I think Chris Matthews is about to overthrow him for the title.

But that is not to say O'Reilly isn't biased. He definitely is, and he does make some pretty stupid points to rationalize the conservative position sometimes. The most absurd one so far is that allowing gay marriage would open the door to marriages to animals. WTF??? He also was totally full of it when he said that Amsterdam is a disaster because of the legal pot. That is just a flat out made up crock. It is not an empirical enough statement for him to get fired like Dan Rather did. It is an opinion statement, so he gets away with it. It is still retarded. Amsterdam has fewer pot smokers per capita than we do, and it is a damn good city with really high tourism. Also, somebody called his radio show one time and challenged him on something Bill said during an interview. It was a pretty good question for backing Bill into a corner. Bill completely sidestepped the question and said, "What? When did I say that?" The caller said something like, "On 20/20," and Bill said something like, "No, it was on Good Morning America." Then he hung up on the caller and did not answer the guy's question.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Have you ever seen Keith Olberman? At least O'Reilly saves his angry outbursts for when somebody is there arguing with him. Also, at least he has guests who challenge him every night. Olberman has yet to have that happen even the first time. He just spews his anger and only has guests who help him with his arguments. However, I think Chris Matthews is about to overthrow him for the title.

But that is not to say O'Reilly isn't biased. He definitely is, and he does make some pretty stupid points to rationalize the conservative position sometimes. The most absurd one so far is that allowing gay marriage would open the door to marriages to animals. WTF??? He also was totally full of it when he said that Amsterdam is a disaster because of the legal pot. That is just a flat out made up crock. It is not an empirical enough statement for him to get fired like Dan Rather did. It is an opinion statement, so he gets away with it. It is still retarded. Amsterdam has fewer pot smokers per capita than we do, and it is a damn good city with really high tourism. Also, somebody called his radio show one time and challenged him on something Bill said during an interview. It was a pretty good question for backing Bill into a corner. Bill completely sidestepped the question and said, "What? When did I say that?" The caller said something like, "On 20/20," and Bill said something like, "No, it was on Good Morning America." Then he hung up on the caller and did not answer the guy's question.

But that's why we love Bill.

I think Bill's funny even though he has yet to actually back up any of his arguments as far as I have seen. He typically just yells louder than his guests, saying something like, "Answer my question! No! don't provide context just give me a yes or no answer so I can strawman you!" or just makes some ridiculous logic that makes you wonder how his mind hasn't exploded from trying to divide by zero.

Why concerntrate on who is the worst reporter? That is not what you should be placing your attention on. Sophisticated thinking involves placing attention on the most effective reporter not the most failed. This much is normally obvious to a child but some seem to have lost the ability to realize this as they don't aknowledge this much by creating a thread and discussing it seriously as if it mattered.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Why concerntrate on who is the worst reporter? That is not what you should be placing your attention on. Sophisticated thinking involves placing attention on the most effective reporter not the most failed. This much is normally obvious to a child but some seem to have lost the ability to realize this as they don't aknowledge this much by creating a thread and discussing it seriously as if it mattered.

And critical thinking involves taking in points of view that would help provide better perspective on a subject - especially those that are in opposition to yours or that of the public. Asking why people believe someone is the worst reporter is, in essence, just as important as why they believe someone is the best, or what they think about the publicly accepted "best." Whether or not such was the OP's intended motivation, but I think it's pretty presumptuous to just assume this thread's purpose was anything less than.

well I just thought it won't get us very far and not logical talking about only the worst reporter that's all I was saying. I'd rather talk about the best reporter if anything or atleast a balance if we were to discuss it seriously but Oneironaut point taken.