Quantcast

Which news anchor is least likely to lie to viewers?

Let's Ask America 2012/09/10 23:00:00
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Angus 2012/09/24 11:04:41
    Rachel Maddow
    Angus
    Rachel Mad Cow doesn’t know what truth is and in her own mind would never tell a lie…………
  • WTF Angus 2012/09/24 13:06:25
    WTF
    +1
    Rachel needs hormones!!! She is out of whack and doesn't realize it!
  • damnyoumaggot 2012/09/24 10:54:22
    Bill O'Reilly
    damnyoumaggot
  • JoeM~PWCM~JLA 2012/09/24 06:00:04
    Bill O'Reilly
    JoeM~PWCM~JLA
    +4
    Jon Stewart would not know the truth if he tripped over it in the street.
  • Jeh 2012/09/24 05:30:25
    Jon Stewart
    Jeh
    +7
    I base my decision on the fact that Jon Stewart isn't a News Anchor, he's a comedian.
  • Marek Jeh 2012/09/24 14:21:39
    Marek
    +1
    Really? He is a comedian? I suspect that undertaker is more entertaining.
  • Grammar... Marek 2012/09/24 19:02:14
    Grammar Freak
    +1
    Have you ever watched his show?

    His interviews are really fantastic... for example his interviews with Marco Rubio... good stuff. We need more like him in our society.
  • Jeh Marek 2012/09/26 05:05:27
    Jeh
    Yes, he is a real Comedian, just like Bill Maher, Dennis Miller, and Larry the Cable Guy. So, politics aside, these guys are paid to make people laugh. Stewart is good at what he does which is to make fun of what is in the News, not report the News.
  • Marek Jeh 2012/09/26 05:25:58
    Marek
    OK, you may have a point that he is paid to make people laugh. The few times I watched him he was not funny.
    Being like Bill Maher, even remotely, makes him an obnoxious ass.
  • Jeh Marek 2012/10/03 06:23:04
    Jeh
    Well I'd say that speaks more to your aesthetics and sense of humour or lack thereof.
    There is nothing wrong with that. Somebody needs to serious. Just look at our profile pics, obviously you take a more stern approach to your view of the world and yourself than I do.

    Just let the Left have Bill Maher and the Left will let the Right have Sarah Palin without complaints.
  • Marek Jeh 2012/10/04 20:30:28
    Marek
    There is nothing humorous about Bill Maher.
    I agree to let the left keep Bill Maher, they deserve him.
    Sarah Palin is a lady and I am more than happy to be on her side.
  • Jeh Marek 2012/10/08 01:42:37
    Jeh
    You might want to be wary when using the term 'more than happy'. It sounds like a dangerous mental condition. "We had to put Uncle Frank in the hospital, He was... more than happy."
  • Ozymandias 2012/09/24 05:03:31
  • Magus BN-0 2012/09/24 03:15:03
    Rachel Maddow
    Magus BN-0
    +8
    Hilarious that people are voting for Bill O'Reilly, who's the most likely to lie.
  • TaxedEn... Magus BN-0 2012/09/24 11:21:50
    TaxedEnoughAlready
    +4
    lolololol You voted for Rachael Mad Cow...lolololol That is so funny!!! ROFL ROFL
  • Fallout Magus BN-0 2012/09/24 12:13:14
    Fallout
    +2
    The Faux collective is the least informed audience.
  • Marek 2012/09/24 02:19:41
    Bill O'Reilly
    Marek
    +5
    Fair and balanced. Fox News is the only News network that is not kissing obama ass.
  • Magus BN-0 Marek 2012/09/24 03:15:28
    Magus BN-0
    +7
    Fairly unbalanced is more like it.
  • Angus Magus BN-0 2012/09/24 11:06:57
    Angus
    +2
    Coming from someone who watche Rachel Mad Cow? I rest my case.......
  • TaxedEn... Magus BN-0 2012/09/24 11:24:44
    TaxedEnoughAlready
    +4
    lolololololololol...sorry, but I am still laughing about Mad Cow.....rofl....whew....
  • TaxedEn... Marek 2012/09/24 11:23:26
    TaxedEnoughAlready
    +4
    Up until about 3 mos ago, I would have totally agreed with you. Did you see any of the roundtables on Sunday 9/23, or heard Shepherd Smith lately. They are turning to the left.
  • Marek TaxedEn... 2012/09/24 14:16:51 (edited)
    Marek
    Shepherd Smith is indeed drinking obama kool-aid already. Just check his posts here on Soda Head. So maybe Fox News becomes fairly unbalanced in favor of marxist obama.
  • Grammar... Marek 2012/09/24 19:09:01
    Grammar Freak
    Perhaps what's happening is that people are looking at Romney & freaking out, completely in panic that they'd have ever considered putting such a putz in the White House. He's frightening. With Republicans in control of Congress, Obama can be kept in check. With Romney in the White House, spouting off idiocies left & right, we're going to end up in WW III faster than you can chuck a nickel in water well. Even O'Reilley confronted Romney on his stance on Iran. I'm sure that even the most awful at Fox (such as Hannity) are realizing how dangerous Romney would be in office.



    ...just maybe.



    ...& don't get me wrong... I'm no Obama fan in any way, shape or form. But Romney really does scare the hell outa me... he's as much of a loose cannon as Joe Biden.
  • Magus BN-0 TaxedEn... 2012/09/24 19:27:21
    Magus BN-0
    Shep Smith isn't turning to the left, he's just reporting the truth.
  • Debra S... Marek 2012/09/24 14:40:38
  • Marek Debra S... 2012/09/24 14:52:51
    Marek
    better than kissing obama's posterior.
  • yabbada... Marek 2012/09/24 17:03:08
    yabbadabbadoo
    +2
    no theyre kissing someone elses ass! fair and balanced my ass! there is absolutely nothing fair and balanced about Fox News the propaganda machine and there sure as hell is nothing fair and definitely not balanced about Bill O Moron
  • Marek yabbada... 2012/09/25 04:00:14
    Marek
    Fox News is fair and balanced. O'Reilly is the best.
  • yabbada... Marek 2012/09/25 06:53:15 (edited)
    yabbadabbadoo
    in your dreams maybe but not in reality
  • Marek yabbada... 2012/09/25 09:17:04
    Marek
    Again, I repeat; "Fox News is fair and balanced and O'Reilly is the best."
  • yabbada... Marek 2012/09/26 04:05:30
    yabbadabbadoo
    możesz powtórzyć to cały dzień, ale to przyzwyczajenie że to prawda
  • boltfox20 Marek 2012/09/24 18:01:54
    boltfox20
    +1
    NOT spewing left propaganda is NOT the same as being fair and balanced. I assume you believe that MSNBC is completely unbalanced leftist non-sense? Well, FOX is completely unbalanced rightist non-sense. Just as unfair and unbalanced. Neither one tells the whole truth in any situation. That's why you have to get your news from non-partisen sources, those sources that aren't benefitting from the outcome of one particular side.

    If you're not getting your facts from unbiased sources then chances are you're not getting any facts.
  • Marek boltfox20 2012/09/25 04:03:39
    Marek
    So, what "unbiased" source are you getting your "facts" from?
  • boltfox20 Marek 2012/09/25 18:54:17
    boltfox20
    There is no one place I get my facts from. I look at left, right, center, bipartisan, unaffiliated, any and all sources. I piece together the truth from the common bits, as do all unbiased sources.

    For example, I hear on liberal channels all the time how Bill O'Reilly lies. With this bit of information in hand, I go right to the clips of Bill O'Reilly. I see him saying one thing while another thing is true. In some instances he is simply incorrect and doesn't know it, but in the majority of cases he is flat out lying. I then go to YouTube and other such websites and look for differing opinions. The more I find about one opinion the harder I search for the other. Eventually, the facts add up.

    The fact is, Bill O'Reilly isn't fair and balanced in any sense. He has an agenda that he is promoting and is more than wiling to lie and silence others to accomplish that agenda. Similarly, there are also liberal news channels that do the same thing.

    Any fact given to you by anyone, including the ones I just gave you, should always be put to the test. Go to Google and do some research into the information you're given. Take facts from all sources, not just the ones that agree with you. Don't dismiss any of it. Put the facts together and see what they say, not what you want them to say.

    You do that, and there is no more bias, only the truth.
  • Marek boltfox20 2012/09/25 23:47:47
    Marek
    I see how that works.
    You get your scoop that O'Reilly is lying from obviously biased leftist source then already influenced you find the clips of O'Reilly and selectively chose the bits and pieces to justify your opinion.
    As for me I listen to O'Reilly and if I suspect that he is lying then I go to google and try to find out if that is the case.
  • boltfox20 Marek 2012/09/26 00:13:55
    boltfox20
    *looks at response*
    *looks at post*
    *looks at response*

    How'd you get that out of my post? I certainly didn't put it there.

    What I said was that I hear a claim, check what the claim is about, then do research. I entered no bias into the equation. I went to check on facts and discover truths.

    Do you deny that he has ever lied?
  • Marek boltfox20 2012/09/26 00:56:32
    Marek
    If you start with biased source then you are just looking to justify the bias. That is how it usually works.
    Can I deny that he ever lied? No, I can't, I don't watch or listen to his every program. I can judge only what I heard him say and most of the time I see no problem.
  • boltfox20 Marek 2012/09/27 19:54:49
    boltfox20
    I used it as an example. I get information from the right side as well, in which case I immediately go to the left to confirm then go to random sources, where the research leads me, to find as many facts as I can.

    As an opposing example, I hear all the time that Rachel Maddow lies. I hear it from the conservative media. I immediately check out her program, whatever clips I can find, and search for instances of her lying. Then I go to YouTube and other such websites to get opinions and facts from other sources. I combine the common bits of information along with evidence gathered and come to a conclusion.

    I assume you have no problem with the above line of reasoning? If so, is it simply because the original idea agrees with you, or is it because it is a solid way of doing research? It IS exactly how I described my research into Bill O'Reilly.

    Starting with a biased source does not mean the result will be biased. However, if you stick with that biased source for all of your research, THEN your result is biased. That's why I IMMEDIATELY go to the opposing view to get their side. After hearing both biases, I look for unbiased and random opinions and facts.

    That's how unbiased research works. The claim you start with is almost always biased. That's exactly WHY you have to do the resear...

    I used it as an example. I get information from the right side as well, in which case I immediately go to the left to confirm then go to random sources, where the research leads me, to find as many facts as I can.

    As an opposing example, I hear all the time that Rachel Maddow lies. I hear it from the conservative media. I immediately check out her program, whatever clips I can find, and search for instances of her lying. Then I go to YouTube and other such websites to get opinions and facts from other sources. I combine the common bits of information along with evidence gathered and come to a conclusion.

    I assume you have no problem with the above line of reasoning? If so, is it simply because the original idea agrees with you, or is it because it is a solid way of doing research? It IS exactly how I described my research into Bill O'Reilly.

    Starting with a biased source does not mean the result will be biased. However, if you stick with that biased source for all of your research, THEN your result is biased. That's why I IMMEDIATELY go to the opposing view to get their side. After hearing both biases, I look for unbiased and random opinions and facts.

    That's how unbiased research works. The claim you start with is almost always biased. That's exactly WHY you have to do the research afterward. If you get info from an unbiased source, it is much more likely to be the truth rather than a biased assessment of a situation. Research is still a good idea, but you can skip the step of jumping to the opposing view.

    So, your argument of my result being biased because the original source is biased, is completely illogical. The bias of the source need not be the bias of the researcher.
    (more)
  • Marek boltfox20 2012/09/27 22:05:37
    Marek
    OK,... that is how it supposed to work but I am not convinced that people are always intellectually honest. I am not directing this comment specifically at you but in general at those who do the research to find information that justify their bias then insist that they researched the topic therefore they can't be biased.
  • boltfox20 Marek 2012/09/28 20:05:06
    boltfox20
    If it's not directed at me, then there is no reason to mention it. =\

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Entertainment

2014/04/21 14:43:27

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals