Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Are there any political commentators or pundits out there worth paying attention to or are they all just a bunch of hacks with an agenda?

Most of the ones on Fox News seem pretty fair and balanced. MSNBC too.

I actually don't mind George Will. Don't always agree with him, but he's one of the more intelligent and level-headed editorialists (of any political persuasion) out there.

Pwns wrote:Are there any political commentators or pundits out there worth paying attention to or are they all just a bunch of hacks with an agenda?

Rachel Maddow. She doesn't have an agenda. She's just trying to increase the amount of useful information in the world.

Grizalltheway wrote:I actually don't mind George Will. Don't always agree with him, but he's one of the more intelligent and level-headed editorialists (of any political persuasion) out there.

CAA Flagship wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:I actually don't mind George Will. Don't always agree with him, but he's one of the more intelligent and level-headed editorialists (of any political persuasion) out there.

Hey, you're not allowed to agree with me on anything. Take it back!

Agreed on Will

I like George Will's books too and John Oliver has been Aces this past year

Personally, I don't think all hacks are created equal…

Ann Coulter is about as biased as they come, but if you read her columns and books they often have facts and historical examples to back up the central point. For example, I never knew about the New Jersey Turnpike study which showed no evidence of racial bias by police and how the results were kind of dismissed without any good explanation.

On the other hand, Rush Limbaugh's show just seems like a bunch of non-sequitirs and straw man arguments though sometimes you get good info there, too.

Same thing on the donk side. For example I don't mind Maddow but I think Ed Schultz is a doofus. I also like Fareed Zakaria though you could say he's more a of a centrist than a donk.

It's all in how you process and filter information when it comes to commentary.

Personally I love it when Michael Wilbon gets involved in political discussions. He is so unbiased and just loves whites and blacks equally.
Same with Stephen A. Smith.

Pwns wrote:Personally, I don't think all hacks are created equal…

Ann Coulter is about as biased as they come, but if you read her columns and books they often have facts and historical examples to back up the central point. For example, I never knew about the New Jersey Turnpike study which showed no evidence of racial bias by police and how the results were kind of dismissed without any good explanation.

On the other hand, Rush Limbaugh's show just seems like a bunch of non-sequitirs and straw man arguments though sometimes you get good info there, too.

Same thing on the donk side. For example I don't mind Maddow but I think Ed Schultz is a doofus. I also like Fareed Zakaria though you could say he's more a of a centrist than a donk.

It's all in how you process and filter information when it comes to commentary.

Fair enough Pwnsy.

I agree on Schultz, and Lawrence Odonnell is equally annoying in different way.

For me, I find reason.com frustrating, which is a good thing. I used to occasionally read Tyler Durden on Zero Hedge and the Automatic Earth blog for no-bullshit economics but they are terribly depressing. Cenk Uyger on the Young Turks is one of those recovering republican types, but very entertaining, factual, and anti-establishment regarding both parties. Wes Clark Jr. on the few occasions he makes that show is fantastically cynical but his military and foreign policy insights are tremendous.

kalm wrote:
I agree on Schultz,

10,000 Bison fans yelling Eddie Sucks can't be wrong. Back when Schultz was the Bison play-by-play guy after being cut by the Oakland Raiders.

In the early days of Hardball I liked Chris Matthews before he got down on his knees in front of the current president.

I think Will has enough non-establishment republican ideas to keep him relevant. My recollection is that he was one of the few republicans that wasn't gung ho on the Iraq war (but my memory sucks).

I'd fuck Mika Brzezinski but only good enough for her to be truly frustrated (which means she would think it is just another day on Morning Joe)

On the right: George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Victor Davis Hanson, Jonah Goldberg, Brit Hume, Fred Barnes, and Richard Brookhiser

On the left: Juan Williams, Michael Barone (more center-left), Dennis Kucinich (insightful, funny, hot wife), Al Hunt in his senior moments, Bob Beckel, James Carville

The problem is as humans we're programmed to fall into step with ideological lines of thinking
Its what we do - time and time again - pick one it doesn't matter
And then it becomes harder and harder for us to see our own logical failures and inconsistencies

Extracting ones self from this trend is no simple trick (again its what we do, we become entrenched)
It takes honest painful examination of our own lines of thought to keep from being a regular old "ideologue"

Synonym for: "Ideologue"
Fanatic / Crusader / Partisan / True Believer / Follower / Champion

Other similar Words: Sucker / Hoodwinked / Buffaloed

Chizzang wrote:The problem is as humans we're programmed to fall into step with ideological lines of thinking
Its what we do - time and time again - pick one it doesn't matter
And then it becomes harder and harder for us to see our own logical failures and inconsistencies

Extracting ones self from this trend is no simple trick (again its what we do, we become entrenched)
It takes honest painful examination of our own lines of thought to keep from being a regular old "ideologue"

Synonym for: "Ideologue"
Fanatic / Crusader / Partisan / True Believer / Follower / Champion

Other similar Words: Sucker / Hoodwinked / Buffaloed

I don't follow, Chizzy. Commentators have a point of view, and their job is to express that in an informative and interesting way. My response above eliminated mouth breathers on both sides. There are few, if any, editorialists/pundits/commentators who stick to the middle of the road. Most occupy one lane or the other.

I think that among the Fox News personalities Chris Wallace is pretty even handed and doesn't editorialize too much.

JohnStOnge wrote:I think that among the Fox News personalities Chris Wallace is pretty even handed and doesn't editorialize too much.

I agree with that. Tough questioner, like his dad.

Chris Hayes of MSNBC.
Why is it that every time I see that douchebag on TV I think of Capt. Wally Binghamton from McHale's Navy?

Oh...I almost forgot. Russell Brand does some fine editorializing.

kalm wrote:Oh...I almost forgot. Russell Brand does some fine editorializing.

On the right: add Bret Stephens of The Wall Street Journal.

Ivytalk wrote:

Chizzang wrote:The problem is as humans we're programmed to fall into step with ideological lines of thinking
Its what we do - time and time again - pick one it doesn't matter
And then it becomes harder and harder for us to see our own logical failures and inconsistencies

Extracting ones self from this trend is no simple trick (again its what we do, we become entrenched)
It takes honest painful examination of our own lines of thought to keep from being a regular old "ideologue"

Synonym for: "Ideologue"
Fanatic / Crusader / Partisan / True Believer / Follower / Champion

Other similar Words: Sucker / Hoodwinked / Buffaloed

I don't follow, Chizzy. Commentators have a point of view, and their job is to express that in an informative and interesting way. My response above eliminated mouth breathers on both sides. There are few, if any, editorialists/pundits/commentators who stick to the middle of the road. Most occupy one lane or the other.

I'm mostly commenting - not so much on the commentators - as much as our inability to listen to what we might not want to hear

The commentators are all out there doing their thing...

Are we able to listen..?

Chizzang wrote: Are he able to listen..?

He who?