FNC Anchors/Hosts

bluffe · #1 06-10-2006, 08:03 PM

I have only included people whom I have watched many times. I am interested in what you think, so please comment.

New001 · #2 06-10-2006, 08:07 PM

I don't watch FNC much, but Hannity for both. I really think he's missing something upstairs.

I like Cavuto.

bluffe · #3 06-10-2006, 08:19 PM

1) Sean Hannity. I agree with New001, he seems profoundly stupid.

2) John Gibson. I picked him for his racism, his disrespect for civilian life, and for his religious intolerance.

New001 · #4 06-10-2006, 08:35 PM

I'm not familiar with Gibson. I guess that shows how much I watch.

ptmusic · #5 06-11-2006, 06:09 PM

Clearly, Hannity wins #1. But it was a tough call for #2 between John Gibson and Brit Hume. I went with Brit Hume, because he probably is more influential, and thus, to me, is more disagreeable.

He is also more subtle. I'm reminded of the William Hurt character in Broadcast News. Albert Brooks was trying to explain Holly Hunter that Hurt was no good:

"please don’t take it wrong when I tell you that I believe that Tom, while a very nice guy, is the Devil. . . . What do you think the Devil is going to look like if he’s around? Nobody is going to be taken in if he has a long, red, pointy tail. No. I’m semi-serious here. He will look attractive and he will be nice and helpful and he will get a job where he influences a great God-fearing nation and he will never do an evil thing . . . he will just bit by little bit lower standards where they are important. Just coax along flash over substance . . . Just a tiny bit. And he will talk about all of us really being salesmen. . . . And he’ll get all the great women."

HLMencken · #6 06-11-2006, 06:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly, Hannity wins #1. But it was a tough call for #2 between John Gibson and Brit Hume. I went with Brit Hume, because he probably is more influential, and thus, to me, is more disagreeable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm no Fox news fan nor conservative, but I can't see how Brit is either more disagreeable or less intelligent than John Gibson. Gibson makes no attempt to even attempt a rational argument nor even considers that any position but his own isn't somehow evil while his is the epitome of good.

ptmusic · #7 06-11-2006, 07:15 PM

I wasn't talking about Hume being more or less intelligent than Gibson (that would be question #1); I think Hume is more intelligent, by the way.

They were simply my top 2 choices for question #2, and yes, I do find Hume more disagreeable than Gibson. I can discard what Gibson says. Hume's more subtle tactics to pull the wool over his viewers eyes is far worse for society, in my opinion. He's the only guy on Fox who tries to come across as a traditional news anchor, and he is therefore, supposedly, a neutral source.

HLMencken · #8 06-11-2006, 07:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't talking about Hume being more or less intelligent than Gibson (that would be question #1); I think Hume is more intelligent, by the way.

They were simply my top 2 choices for question #2, and yes, I do find Hume more disagreeable than Gibson. I can discard what Gibson says. Hume's more subtle tactics to pull the wool over his viewers eyes is far worse for society, in my opinion. He's the only guy on Fox who tries to come across as a traditional news anchor, and he is therefore, supposedly, a neutral source.

[/ QUOTE ]

I honestly don't find Hume's bias more glaring than traditional news anchors like Blitzer, Rather, et al.

bluffe · #9 06-12-2006, 12:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't talking about Hume being more or less intelligent than Gibson (that would be question #1); I think Hume is more intelligent, by the way.

They were simply my top 2 choices for question #2, and yes, I do find Hume more disagreeable than Gibson. I can discard what Gibson says. Hume's more subtle tactics to pull the wool over his viewers eyes is far worse for society, in my opinion. He's the only guy on Fox who tries to come across as a traditional news anchor, and he is therefore, supposedly, a neutral source.

[/ QUOTE ]

I honestly don't find Hume's bias more glaring than traditional news anchors like Blitzer, Rather, et al.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that those guys are great, but I think you are wrong. Here are a few examples:

MM's Hume Collection

bluffe · #10 06-12-2006, 01:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly, Hannity wins #1. But it was a tough call for #2 between John Gibson and Brit Hume. I went with Brit Hume, because he probably is more influential, and thus, to me, is more disagreeable.

He is also more subtle. I'm reminded of the William Hurt character in Broadcast News. Albert Brooks was trying to explain Holly Hunter that Hurt was no good:

"please don’t take it wrong when I tell you that I believe that Tom, while a very nice guy, is the Devil. . . . What do you think the Devil is going to look like if he’s around? Nobody is going to be taken in if he has a long, red, pointy tail. No. I’m semi-serious here. He will look attractive and he will be nice and helpful and he will get a job where he influences a great God-fearing nation and he will never do an evil thing . . . he will just bit by little bit lower standards where they are important. Just coax along flash over substance . . . Just a tiny bit. And he will talk about all of us really being salesmen. . . . And he’ll get all the great women."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you have a very good point. Everyone, who disagrees with Gibson, expects him to spew hatred. But a lot of viewers don’t know about Hume’s history of bias and misinformation. Clearly, Hume does more harm to our country.