Art of Manliness: This Just In…..The 11 Manliest Anchormen of All Time
Raconteur
· 9 months ago
Meh. Commentators aren't news men, so I don't mind them being blowhards, whether on the right or the left. As commentators I judge them on what they stand for, what they're pushing for, and how much they can get done. Some of those guys are surprisingly effective at actually helping people.
But I don't put them in an anchormen hall of shame because they're not anchormen. Except in the case of Matthews and Olberman, who MSNBC keeps putting behind the desk to cover news events. That's ridiculous. It's one or the other. Not both. Most places respect that boundary.
I think there are a lot of anchormen, nowadays, who could go into an anchorman hall of shame, sadly. The news is a crumbling institution. That's a bad thing, but hopefully something better will rise from the ashes.
Charlie on PA Tpk
· 9 months ago
Your overall premise is fine, but you lose it in the details.
You have mixed commentators with newsmen. Commentators like Messrs. Hannity, Olbermann, O'Reilly, Matthews, Colbert, and Stewart should not be mentioned in the same breath as Messrs. Grimsby, Murrow, Sevareid, Smith and Schieffer. (I understand Ron Burgundy was just a throw-away for a laugh). They aren't anchormen in the true sense.
Peter Jennings Walter Cronkite were true newsmen in their youth, but they lost a lot of their cred when their bias began to seep into their news. For example: few people would doubt Mr. Jennings dislike of President Bush and the GOP, and Mr. Cronkite lamented his inability to 'set the agenda' in the newsroom as recently as 2002. I had thought the anchorman's job was to report news, not to 'set an agenda' (that's the commentator's job, right?). Arguably, these men had cred to spare, but it would be wrong to say their were non-biased.
Other newsmen that deserve their due: Edward Newman Morton Dean Christopher Glenn Ted Koppel
Craig
· 9 months ago
I agree with Raconteur . Was about to add that same comment.
Scott
· 9 months ago
I would have to agree with the above comments in regards to the confusion of anchormen and commentators.
But... since they have been thrown in the same list, I find it odd that Stewart would be considered "manly" while Colbert wouldn't.
Helen
· 9 months ago
Jon Stewart, Anderson Cooper and Ron Burgundy, manliest anchormen of all times..I don't think so!!
Jack
· 9 months ago
Anderson Cooper? Manly? I'm not getting it.
Brandon Harshe
· 9 months ago
I don't know about Jon Stewart or Anderson Cooper. I would also agree with Charlie about Jennings and Cronkite.
victor
· 9 months ago
Out of all the Hall of Shame members, Steven Colbert should be given a pass, yes my favoritism is weighing in on this, but he just isn't as bad as the other rotten apples you have there.
rob
· 9 months ago
how could you forget tom brokaw as one of the greatest anchors of all time???
and how could you not put dan rather on the wall of shame?
Joe McLaughlin
· 9 months ago
As noted, this article mixes commentators with actual journalists. If the line between the two can be drawn thicker and respected more, the actual news will be reported better.
Also, as much as I disagree with Colbert the man's politics (as opposed to those of Colbert the character he plays) if you're going to have a slot for either Colbert or Stewart, Colbert deserves it with no question. Colbert the man DOES attack his own side when they're wrong. And doesn't it take huevos grandes to stand up there every day and jokingly attack your own side and hope people pick up on the satire?
On the other hand, Stewart's reputation as a bipartisan badass is wholly undeserved. Stewart's show is primarily him showing a clip of a conservative that sounds stupid out of context, and showing it without context, and then giving a one line response, and waiting for the laugh that any mention of George Bush gets him. What does he do to be bipartisan?
If you're not going to restrict the list to actual journalists, Colbert and Stewart should be switched.
Steve
· 9 months ago
I'm pretty sure they mean Colbert the (fictional) character, not Colbert the person. And its actually a pretty good observation. Colbert (the character) talks a big game but doesn't always back it up. Of course, he's deliberately drawn that way.
As for Anderson Cooper, don't let looks deceive. He may not look like you'd want him on your side in a bar fight, but he has walked the walk in his reporting, going to a lot of dangerous places in order to get a story.
Tommy T.
· 9 months ago
What's consistent in the comments so far is a distaste for the inclusion of commentators and satirists, as well as mention of heavyweights who were left off the list. I agree. I enjoy the articles at AoM very much and hope the publishers aren't feeling pressure to provide content for the sake of filling up a page. That's how we ended up with the confusion presented by this article.
The cream rises to the top, and with three networks, the best anchors were ubiquitous when real news broke. With dozens of channels today, anchor desks need to be filled and not always the finest are on display. This article (which is inconsistent due to the inclusion of buffoonery) would run well as a Maxim feature or in Details mag, but I don't come here to read what can be readily found in so-called Men's periodicals. Please try and do better next time.
Also, the literacy rate of Americans when it comes to current events is not furthered when the distinctions called for here are ignored. Jon Stewart himself lamented the notion that anyone would turn to him for their news, and Colbert is spoofing the commentators (that he spoke at the National Press Club just adds to that confusion). Bill Maher's role could also be lumped in here. These guys are first and foremost, Comedians. I respect them as such, but how serious would Murrow or Cronkite have been if they played it for laughs. So again, please do better.
As for who to include in your updated list, don't forget the late Tim Russert of Meet the Press. His books about his father "Big Russ" alone put him in the Pantheon of manhood.
Jon
· 9 months ago
I have to disagree with you on Olberman. Yes, he can be a little bit of a blowhard, a bit loud. But he never failed to call bullshit on anyone who tried to pass it off on this country. He also co-opted Murrow's signoff but in 20 years I think he will be remembered for calling out the hipocricy, lies and other fallacies that were thrown about the last eight years.
Jon
Chris
· 9 months ago
As usual, your list of manliest men is an absolute joke. Judging by the comments, most other men who read this feel the same way. Categorizing Colbert, Jon Stewart, Olberman, Bob Schieffer(WTF???) as "manly" is as puzzling as it is absurd.
How many times have we ever seen this blog pay tribute to the common modern man in the trenches? The average fireman, policeman, construction worker, soldier, steelworker, truck driver? Never.
I know a lot of your articles are written by a very well intentioned woman, and it obviously shows. These silly posts now even more lead me to believe you know nothing about "manliness."
I think this site should be renamed 'The Art of Metrosexul Liberal Manliness'
Hayden Tompkins
· 9 months ago
I think the inclusion of Jon Stewart was genius. I know folks want to make the distinction between "anchors" and "analysts" but this list is really more about truth telling and trust.
As for whether he is partisan, with the bulk of his show existing during the Bush Administration, it can look that way. But so far he's been all over the Obama administration as well.
Maybe it's an age thing, but I trust Jon Stewart over anyone on the Hall of Shame list.
Chris
· 9 months ago
I noticed that you put mostly the right-wingers in the Shameful section. Mostly every anchorman has some sort of bias, not just the right winged people. It kind of pisses me off how your just putting our political views into something that is the difference between who is manly or not. If Colbert has some sort of bias, he can still be manly.
Xander
· 9 months ago
I believe as well that Colbert the personality should be in limbo, as he is "macho" manly, but not actual manly.
I love his show because of the flamboyant hypocrisy, while still being straight faced enough to keep the act going. This is best seen during his "The Word" segment and during his interviews with elected officials. He's very much a Trojan Horse of satire, where as Jon seems more disciplined strategist.
I wish the list was longer, but I'm very happy with the selections, even if it was missing a few others.
I'm going have to echo confusion about this article.
I know Ron Burgundy was in it for a laugh (and I did laugh), but I think it hurts the post overall. Joke or not, someone who is as clueless and chauvinistic should not be considered manly at all.
Hank
· 9 months ago
Please tell me you're kidding with this? Jon Stewart? Ron Burgandy? Then you include news analysts as anchormen just to put them on a wall of shame. I realize it's probably supposed to be tongue in cheek, but then you write it in a style that asks us as the reader to take these selections seriously..not likely. This should have been a comedy post not an attempt at some form of serious analysis.
The Maniliness Evangelist
· 9 months ago
This entire post was complete GARBAGE. Not one of these people are men of character in any way shape or form. They are not examples of manhood. Worst Post ever.
Brad
· 9 months ago
Jon Stewart does some of the best television journalism available these days.
Bob K
· 9 months ago
I can't take Anderson Cooper seriously. His name sounds like an accounting firm.
Bernie Franks
· 9 months ago
Re: Joe McLaughlin's comment, "On the other hand, Stewart’s reputation as a bipartisan badass is wholly undeserved. Stewart’s show is primarily him showing a clip of a conservative that sounds stupid out of context, and showing it without context, and then giving a one line response, and waiting for the laugh that any mention of George Bush gets him. What does he do to be bipartisan?"
Would comparing an Iraq speech of Obama's to one of Bush's with side-by-side video count? Or is comparing Obama to Bush too liberal?
Christopher
· 9 months ago
The first half is very fun. I enjoyed learning about the Anchormen of past generations.
I'm with Raconteur, Charlie on PA Tpk and others. If there weren't enough real anchormen to actually have anchormen on the hall of shame, I'd be happier to see it skipped. Actually, why even list the hall of shame either way? I'd rather keep it positive, and just stick with the good anchormen we can hearken back to and learn from..
Justin H
· 9 months ago
This is the intro to the "Hall of Shame" portion...
"Today’s newsmen host “opinion news” programs and try to outdo each other in the amplitude of yelling, fluff, snark, sarcasm, hyperbolic accusations, and gimmickry."
While this is the description of Jon Stewart, a supposedly manly anchor...
"Although mostly known as the wise-cracking, sarcastic anchor of the “fake news” show, The Daily Show, Stewart is one of the most ballsy men on television."
I personally don't understand how Stewart, by far the most sarcastic of the gentlemen listed, does not fall into the description for the Hall of Shame. I understand that he hosts a comedic show, but why does his sarcasm get a pass? Bill O'Reilly has no hesitation confronting his opponents, so shouldn't he be placed on the same level as Stewart.
I recommend you stay away from posts such as this, that can be construed as biased and political. It is certainly not up to the standards of this site when you promote such double standards.
Justin H
· 9 months ago
This is the intro to the "Hall of Shame" portion...
"Today’s newsmen host “opinion news” programs and try to outdo each other in the amplitude of yelling, fluff, snark, sarcasm, hyperbolic accusations, and gimmickry."
While this is the description of Jon Stewart, a supposedly manly anchor...
"Although mostly known as the wise-cracking, sarcastic anchor of the “fake news” show, The Daily Show, Stewart is one of the most ballsy men on television."
I personally don't understand how Stewart, by far the most sarcastic of the gentlemen listed, does not fall into the description for the Hall of Shame. I understand that he hosts a comedic show, but why does his sarcasm get a pass? Bill O'Reilly has no hesitation confronting his opponents, so shouldn't he be placed on the same level as Stewart?
I recommend you stay away from posts such as this, as these posts can be construed as biased and political. It is certainly not up to the standards of this site when you promote such double standards.
Andy
· 9 months ago
No glenn beck?
Chris
· 9 months ago
Hey you sports lovin beer swillin jackasses,
Colbert's persona is all a joke. He is not a conservative. ITS A JOKE. Its his character, his schtick. He is an actor, playing the part on a made up show, on a comedy network, meant to make fun of real conservative talk shows.
Seriously, if you dont get that joke, your dumb & humorless. Plain and simple, your just dumb.
Ryan
· 9 months ago
I like the Jon Stewart choice, he's got the guts to call out what's wrong in America. However, Colbert should be up there with him, but I have a feeling the Colbert and Burgandy choices were just for kicks and giggles.
Tim
· 9 months ago
Regrettably, I must agree with many of the other commenters thus far. This article is not up to par with previous AoM work.
Greg Throne
· 9 months ago
Sorry, but manly anchors including a fictional character (Burgundy) and a comedian? This post unfortunately does a grave disservice by putting heavy-weight , serious newsmen from the era when broadcast journalism was working at being serious fact-based reporting with clearly labeled analysis (Remember the "White paper" documentaries of the 1960"s?) in the same venue as the current crop of light-weight commentators.
Drew
· 9 months ago
I liked your article, though i will slightly disagree with your pick of Stephen Colbert.
The Colbert Report, like its parent The Daily Show, has a parallel in terms of how it presents today's headlines: satire, comedy, etc.
Though a lot of what is said and done on the CR is borderline ridiculous, one has to consider that Stephen Colbert is (in real life) a left-leaning person, which is completely opposite of who he portrays on the CR, a Republican (technically speaking anyway).
I will admit though the style is different between the CR and DS (myself preferring the DS), but that isn't enough to warrant his place in the hall of shame.
Cory
· 9 months ago
I think Brian Williams should be up there with the manly anchors. I think its manly that he's trying to bring back "good news," especially in this sensationalist era we live in. I'm tired of hearing about doom, gloom, and bottom feeding celebrities. Mr. Williams personifies exactly what this website is about. More importantly, his reporting is unbiased...a rarity in this day and age.
Dan
· 9 months ago
You moron..... commentators are not anchormen. They are supposed to be partisan. You were right to put Olberman in the Hall of Shame because he is blatantly partisan while pretending to be a newsman. As for the others, they don't pretend to be anything but what they are, and that is partisan commentators.
This post is probably the lamest one I have ever seen on AOM.... I know, everyday can't be perfect, but pick it up tomorrow.
Jason
· 9 months ago
Tom Brokaw!
Britt
· 9 months ago
I will have to disagree with you on this one....The lack of Manliness is not what is killing news from traditional sources.
What is (in my opinion) killing news from traditional sources is the quite obvious lack of real Journalism. Todays news presenters, when they can take the time to talk about the news (How many times do you turn on the news to see 3 talking heads all chatting with one another, as if that is of interest?) are really Editorialists... They are not reporting the news, they are biased, one sided, only reporting what they want to tell you and then not reporting the facts but using that age old tool Rhetoric, to report in such a way as to try to bias the audience. They no longer trust us to look at the facts and make a conclusion, but try to force feed us one particular conclusion through the use of spin doctoring and biased reporting.
Journalism has died, there are only taling heads with fake tans and plastic surgery, and they are only reporting what they want us to hear, what they want us to think. Britt...
Jack McNiel
· 9 months ago
Anchormen... manly...? Are you sure?
Colbert is a fool playing the fool to poke fun at the pundits and putting their folly on display... Plus he's really funny. Alternatively, Jon Stewart is a really just a plain ol' fool trying to be serious.
Benno Weigel
· 9 months ago
To much Lefty BS for me....Time to unsubscibe....Good bye and Good Luck
Наталья
· 9 months ago
Прикольный пост. интересно было почитать
Bill
· 9 months ago
Do I agree with all of your selections? Not really, but I never agree completely with a number of your articles. I find some of your criticisms from people absurd though, about how all of a sudden this is liberal propaganda. How dare you criticize Bill O'Reilly?
Tim
· 9 months ago
I am usually pretty impressed with AoM articles, but not here. If you wish make the criteria for your "Anchorman Hall of Shame" to be people overwhelmingly expressing their opinions then you might as well put the entire MSNBC, CBS, CNN, and NBC networks on that list because they are an embarrassment to what they claim "reporting the news." Not to mention Jon Stewart? Really? Not AoM's finest hour.
Kurt
· 9 months ago
Assuming you take this article with a grain of salt, it is a very entertaining read. And that is what it was meant to be. And all of you hard-core republicans getting all upset about the author calling these guys on their obvious bias need to take a pill and relax.
Ever wonder why the UN ranks Norway, Sweden, and Canada the best countries in the world in which to live? Guess the left isn't so bad afterall.
James
· 9 months ago
I'm confused. What is the difference between Hannity and Stewart? Both are commenters. And the rest are manly news men? These men supported sides without being questioned because the were all that was on. This article itself reeks of unprofessionalism. Ron Burgundy? What the hell?
AoM this is the worst article I have ever read on your sight. It does not promoted manliness. It promotes mediocrity and immature ideals.
Remember these? Perhaps you should filter articles based on principle. That's what men would do.
Dave
· 9 months ago
I laughed not at this article because I think it's drivel and just not good, but because of this comment:
"Seriously, if you dont get that joke, your dumb & humorless. Plain and simple, your just dumb."
The guy is calling out people for being dumb, ye the cant even learn the difference between your and you're. Oh i would have been fine if it was spelled "youre." At least the letters would be correct. I can deal without perfect punctuation. I guess I should be thankful he didn't use "ur." We get the joke that Colbert is making. It's just not that funny.
Now as for the article, it's clearly biased. I didn't think Stewart's ambush of Jim Cramer was really good. Jon Liebowitz, yes that's his real name, is just spewing the White House's populist rhetoric. I really wouldn't be shocked to find a fax from Bob Gates giving Stewart the talking points of the day. Anyone who watched Cramer knows he is a fool and completely irresponsible, so going after him like Rosie did Tom Selleck all those years ago is just lame. Everyone else hit the rest of the points I had
Patrick
· 9 months ago
I'm certain that the only reason Colbert and Stewart are on the list is in an attempt to get Colbert to respond to being called unmanly. Stephen has been known to do such things on his show, and hopefully this site has a high enough profile for him to take notice and maybe mention it in a show, possibly even listening to AoM's suggestions.
Would be nice to get the site some more exposure, and would be funny to watch.
Joe
· 9 months ago
Don't you know the difference between newsmen and commentators? How can it be a Hall of Shame without Dan Rather? This site has become a Hall of Shame on the Manliness chart. Where do I unsubscribe to this mess?
Yavor
· 9 months ago
Ron Burgundy is the manliest man, no doubt.
Gene
· 9 months ago
This may not have been the best essay, but it does point out a real truth I see we have all picked up on -- mainly that our news folks are more propaganda/spin artists than true journalist these days. I think most of the greats of the last 50 years - Cronkite, Rather, Jennings, etc. all started as classic journalists, but something changed them as time went on; maybe they believed their own hype?
I had great respect for Dan Rather as a young man - he went to great lengths to bring a story to us - I remember he cut his teeth reporting a hurricane while it was passing by. But I totally rejected him in the 1992 elections, when at 7:00 PM, the moment he went on the air reporting election night coverage he crowed :Clinton wins Georgia!" Good grief - people were still in line out here (yes, I live in Georgia).
And Jennings -- I watched most of my 9/11 coverage with him that day - until I realized he didn't like President Bush, and had begun a subtle smear of the man because he didn't rush back to Washington, but diverted to other airbases. If you look back at his comments of that day you will note he just couldn't get it in his mind that security for the President is an important thing.
TV journalism has sunk just as has the print media. Very sad, really.
Tom
· 9 months ago
Kurt- Did you just link Canada with Norway and Sweden? Far from it my friend. If anything, our governing party is more like your Democratic Party... which is nothing like the Socialist governments of Norway and Sweden. Only pockets of Canada are rated high with the UN and that's because we have less people up here so our major cities are smaller and more affordable than yours, it has nothing to do with left wing governments.
Logan
· 9 months ago
John Stewart on the list shakes the very foundation of this great blog.
Jim
· 9 months ago
Brett & Kate McKay started off well and then went south with including Stewart. he is a commentator same as O'Rielly. Then they confused the issue by throwing in the rest of the commentators. they also missed a bunch of really good anchors... if they want "modern anchors" with guts and style, why not Brit Hume or even Charile Gibson?
Sorry to disapoint but Cooper is not manly. Metrosexual, maybe, but not manly.
I agree with others on this... Weak AoM, very weak not up to standard. Their next article should be "This just in... we lost fans on this one by vering left."
Brett
· 9 months ago
Whoa... Just got back from my vacation and took a look at the comments. Yikes.
First, the accusations of this being leftist drivel makes no sense to me. In our Hall of Shame section we equally went after those on the left and on the right. I'm not sure how you could miss that. We tried very much to make the article quite even handed.
Second, this post was supposed to be fun. When we first started the site our goal was to mix in some fun stuff with our serious stuff. Lately, we've felt we've been on a more serious steak. So we wanted to do something less heavy, and thus included fake anchormen like Ron Burgundy and Stephen Colbert. Lighten up. Life's too short for everything to be taken so seriously. I'm constantly surprised by AoM's contingent of hard core curmudgeon readers, who think being a man should be about as fun as a root canal.
I also find the argument that this post was flawed because we apparently mixed news "commentators" with "new anchors," rather hollow. "Anchorman" is a broad term; it simply means a man who anchors a news program-whether that program just delivers the news or comments on the news. Many of the old time anchors in the "manliest" list also occasionally engaged in opinion/commentary-which doesn't negate their anchorman-ness. Giving one's opinion or commentary isn't a problem (which is why Stewart made the list)-it's how you do it. While those in the Hall of Shame don't fit the mold of past anchormen-that's really the point-these are arguably the anchormen of today, and they've changed the delivery of news for the worse. The purpose of the Hall of Shame was therefore to show how news programs have gone downhill.
Kevin
· 9 months ago
John Stewart's interview of Jim Cramer has got to go down as one of the most significant interviews of this generation, if only because it took a goofy news show to expose the shady double-dealings on Wall Street. Where are our manly (real) newsmen to shed light on these financial shenanigans?
Stewart stepped up. Give him his props, people.
Jim
· 9 months ago
"I’m constantly surprised by AoM’s contingent of hard core curmudgeon readers" wow, Brett, way to insult your readers. Nice.
Justin
· 9 months ago
@Brett: I'm just confused as to how Stewart, the most blatantly sarcastic of all (even if in jest), was in the "manly" section while sarcasm was listed as one of the negative characteristics in the Hall of Shame.
Brett
· 9 months ago
@Justin-
Stewart anchors a comedy program and as such, sarcasm is appropriate. The anchors in the Hall of Shame on the other hand purport to be doing a serious news show. Again, it's true that their shows are a mix of news and commentary, but they advertise and label themselves as the best places to get the real news about what's going on and as places to get the most fair and unbiased news. And they don't deliver that. If they're going to make such claims to seriousness, then they should carry themselves in a way that underscores their purpose. Stewart delivers an awful lot of snark, but he doesn't pretend to be anything but a comedy program. I will admit that Stewart can get way too smug and snarky-to the point that I actually flip the channel sometimes to avoid it. But he is one of the few people in the media that actually calls politicians and other media types out on their BS, and so while he isn't perfect (an none of the anchors listed were), on the whole he deserves some accolades.
Justin
· 9 months ago
@Brett: Fair enough. Either way, love the blog, keep up the good work.
Brett
· 9 months ago
@Justin-
Thanks. And thanks for couching you comments in a reasonable manner. Constructive criticism and comments are always welcome.
Jack
· 9 months ago
Where's Rush Limbaugh and Paul Harvey? Rush is especially versed in "the art of manliness."
Charlie on PA Tpk
· 9 months ago
The anchors in the Hall of Shame on the other hand purport to be doing a serious news show. Again, it’s true that their shows are a mix of news and commentary, but they advertise and label themselves as the best places to get the real news about what’s going on and as places to get the most fair and unbiased news.
Before I go further, I enjoy AoM, and am not suggesting I would stop reading it.
That said: you're again blurring the lines between news and commentary. Sean Hannity (taken as your first example in Hall of Shame) never anchored a news broadcast. Bill O'Reilly hasn't anchored a news broadcast on Fox News either (he may have on a prior network). They're paid for their commentary.
Contrast that to Mssrs. Matthews & Olbermann who have anchored recent party conventions and other events. The respective networks of these commentators call themselves unbiased, but that clearly is meant to mean their news reporting, not in the commentary; one cannot often comment in an unbiased manner.
The fact remains: news alone doesn't sell well on TV, not any longer at least. Case in point: remember when CNN's Headline News was just that: 30 minutes of news, followed by another 30 mins, etc. 24 hrs a day?. Without commentary programs - mixed with a healthy dose of debate - the networks would probably pull lower ratings (again: O'Rielly will debate with people, Olbermann only has people who parrot his views; guess who wins in the ratings?). So long as their news programs are unbiased, that will keep them true to their slogans.
Giving one’s opinion or commentary isn’t a problem (which is why Stewart made the list)-it’s how you do it.
You're right; back in the day, the true Anchormen gave their opinions with a chyron saying it was an editorial or an opinion (much like the Editorial page of a newspapers is distinct from the front page -- or at least ought to be). Now, anchors drop subtle and not-so-subtle views into their copy (See Walter Cronkite on "setting the agenda"). If they took the time to editorialize in a proper fashion, I'd give them respect; otherwise, they blur their own lines and deserve none from me.
Jay Archibald
· 9 months ago
From north of the border, Canada-way, don't forget Peter Mansbridge, who has been the voice of the nation and the CBC since May of 1988. Calm, cool, and professional, he carries the weight of the news with grace and dignity.
Brett
· 9 months ago
"Sean Hannity (taken as your first example in Hall of Shame) never anchored a news broadcast. Bill O’Reilly hasn’t anchored a news broadcast on Fox News either (he may have on a prior network). They’re paid for their commentary.
Contrast that to Mssrs. Matthews & Olbermann who have anchored recent party conventions and other events. The respective networks of these commentators call themselves unbiased, but that clearly is meant to mean their news reporting, not in the commentary; one cannot often comment in an unbiased manner."
I respectfully submit that you are again narrowly defining the term "anchorman" and "news broadcast," and then criticizing the article based on this personal definition. Note that this article is not about the manliest "newsmen" or "news casters" or "new reporters." It's about anchormen. Anchormen anchor a program related to the news. If Hannity and O'Reilly don't anchor a "news broadcast" than I'm not sure what they do. Yes they don't just report the news, but their whole show is based on them commenting on the news. The shows are based entirely around the news and their take on the news-is that not a news broadcast? While it's true that people still associate "anchormen" with the old nightly news broadcasts, there are a whole array of news shows these days that could clearly be said to be anchored by the hosts.
And it's not just the networks that say they are unbiased, so it cannot be that they are simply referring to their news reporting and not these men's commentary as you argue. O'Reilly boldly declares that his show is in the "No Spin Zone" and presents himself and his program as fair and balanced-as the most fair and balanced place to get the news. To say such things, but to clearly have a bias lands a anchorman in the Hall of Shame.
I understand that debate and commentary help these shows do well in the ratings and I honestly have no beef with having these things in a news-based program. But there can be debate and commentary that doesn't involve yelling over guests and exuding an unmanly and unprofessional smugness and disdain for those who disagree with you.
At any rate, Charlie, while I disagree with your criticism, I do understand what you're saying and respect that point of view, even if we don't see eye to eye.
Shar
· 9 months ago
Stephen Colbert is more of a MAN! Than this website will ever BE! So he likes dungeons and dragons so do I. What is wrong with that, and lord of the rings too I love the movies, and I donot like to read either, but he reads the news everyday! And he is better than Jon Stewart more tonque and cheek than him that is just his character. Who knows who the real Stephen Colbert is? But to call him NOT MANLY I wag my finger at you.
Evan Mathews
· 9 months ago
Some of these guys are men and some are not. Remember, just because some of these guys are mentioned on the net in a blog does not make it so.
Robert Scott
· 9 months ago
Most honest person ever on TV, Mr. Hugh Downs. I will never forget Brokaw reporting election returns, and he said "When we take Iowa", Old-marble mouth really bared his leftist feelings. Rather and Brokaw what a pair of fair-minded journalists.
ramirez
· 9 months ago
"i stabbed a man in the heart with a trident."
if THATS not what real journalism is all about, i don't know what is.
fideli
· 9 months ago
Wanted to suggest a couple manly Colbert moments: watch the 2006 Whitehouse correspondents dinner and the 60 minutes Colbert interview.
Jones
· 9 months ago
Here's an interesting article comparing Jon Stewart and Edward R. Murrow:
...and they are all WHITE! (even the afke ones). What about Bernard Shaw of CNN (hunkered down in that hotel in Baghdad while the bombs were landing) or Max Robinson of ABC or Bryant Gumbel of NBC and HBO or Ed Bradley of CBS 60 Minutes (now he was the coolest anchor ever!)....
DC
· 9 months ago
Major ommissions on this list include Paul Harvey, Ed Bradley, and the greatest voice ever: Bill Kurtis.
All Comments
But I don't put them in an anchormen hall of shame because they're not anchormen. Except in the case of Matthews and Olberman, who MSNBC keeps putting behind the desk to cover news events. That's ridiculous. It's one or the other. Not both. Most places respect that boundary.
I think there are a lot of anchormen, nowadays, who could go into an anchorman hall of shame, sadly. The news is a crumbling institution. That's a bad thing, but hopefully something better will rise from the ashes.
You have mixed commentators with newsmen. Commentators like Messrs. Hannity, Olbermann, O'Reilly, Matthews, Colbert, and Stewart should not be mentioned in the same breath as Messrs. Grimsby, Murrow, Sevareid, Smith and Schieffer. (I understand Ron Burgundy was just a throw-away for a laugh). They aren't anchormen in the true sense.
Peter Jennings Walter Cronkite were true newsmen in their youth, but they lost a lot of their cred when their bias began to seep into their news. For example: few people would doubt Mr. Jennings dislike of President Bush and the GOP, and Mr. Cronkite lamented his inability to 'set the agenda' in the newsroom as recently as 2002. I had thought the anchorman's job was to report news, not to 'set an agenda' (that's the commentator's job, right?). Arguably, these men had cred to spare, but it would be wrong to say their were non-biased.
Other newsmen that deserve their due:
Edward Newman
Morton Dean
Christopher Glenn
Ted Koppel
But... since they have been thrown in the same list, I find it odd that Stewart would be considered "manly" while Colbert wouldn't.
and how could you not put dan rather on the wall of shame?
Also, as much as I disagree with Colbert the man's politics (as opposed to those of Colbert the character he plays) if you're going to have a slot for either Colbert or Stewart, Colbert deserves it with no question. Colbert the man DOES attack his own side when they're wrong. And doesn't it take huevos grandes to stand up there every day and jokingly attack your own side and hope people pick up on the satire?
On the other hand, Stewart's reputation as a bipartisan badass is wholly undeserved. Stewart's show is primarily him showing a clip of a conservative that sounds stupid out of context, and showing it without context, and then giving a one line response, and waiting for the laugh that any mention of George Bush gets him. What does he do to be bipartisan?
If you're not going to restrict the list to actual journalists, Colbert and Stewart should be switched.
As for Anderson Cooper, don't let looks deceive. He may not look like you'd want him on your side in a bar fight, but he has walked the walk in his reporting, going to a lot of dangerous places in order to get a story.
The cream rises to the top, and with three networks, the best anchors were ubiquitous when real news broke. With dozens of channels today, anchor desks need to be filled and not always the finest are on display. This article (which is inconsistent due to the inclusion of buffoonery) would run well as a Maxim feature or in Details mag, but I don't come here to read what can be readily found in so-called Men's periodicals. Please try and do better next time.
Also, the literacy rate of Americans when it comes to current events is not furthered when the distinctions called for here are ignored. Jon Stewart himself lamented the notion that anyone would turn to him for their news, and Colbert is spoofing the commentators (that he spoke at the National Press Club just adds to that confusion). Bill Maher's role could also be lumped in here. These guys are first and foremost, Comedians. I respect them as such, but how serious would Murrow or Cronkite have been if they played it for laughs. So again, please do better.
As for who to include in your updated list, don't forget the late Tim Russert of Meet the Press. His books about his father "Big Russ" alone put him in the Pantheon of manhood.
Jon
How many times have we ever seen this blog pay tribute to the common modern man in the trenches? The average fireman, policeman, construction worker, soldier, steelworker, truck driver? Never.
I know a lot of your articles are written by a very well intentioned woman, and it obviously shows. These silly posts now even more lead me to believe you know nothing about "manliness."
I think this site should be renamed 'The Art of Metrosexul Liberal Manliness'
As for whether he is partisan, with the bulk of his show existing during the Bush Administration, it can look that way. But so far he's been all over the Obama administration as well.
Maybe it's an age thing, but I trust Jon Stewart over anyone on the Hall of Shame list.
I love his show because of the flamboyant hypocrisy, while still being straight faced enough to keep the act going. This is best seen during his "The Word" segment and during his interviews with elected officials. He's very much a Trojan Horse of satire, where as Jon seems more disciplined strategist.
I wish the list was longer, but I'm very happy with the selections, even if it was missing a few others.
Colbert, O'Reilly, Hannity, Stewart? Really? Anchormen?
I know Ron Burgundy was in it for a laugh (and I did laugh), but I think it hurts the post overall. Joke or not, someone who is as clueless and chauvinistic should not be considered manly at all.
Would comparing an Iraq speech of Obama's to one of Bush's with side-by-side video count? Or is comparing Obama to Bush too liberal?
I'm with Raconteur, Charlie on PA Tpk and others. If there weren't enough real anchormen to actually have anchormen on the hall of shame, I'd be happier to see it skipped. Actually, why even list the hall of shame either way? I'd rather keep it positive, and just stick with the good anchormen we can hearken back to and learn from..
"Today’s newsmen host “opinion news” programs and try to outdo each other in the amplitude of yelling, fluff, snark, sarcasm, hyperbolic accusations, and gimmickry."
While this is the description of Jon Stewart, a supposedly manly anchor...
"Although mostly known as the wise-cracking, sarcastic anchor of the “fake news” show, The Daily Show, Stewart is one of the most ballsy men on television."
I personally don't understand how Stewart, by far the most sarcastic of the gentlemen listed, does not fall into the description for the Hall of Shame. I understand that he hosts a comedic show, but why does his sarcasm get a pass? Bill O'Reilly has no hesitation confronting his opponents, so shouldn't he be placed on the same level as Stewart.
I recommend you stay away from posts such as this, that can be construed as biased and political. It is certainly not up to the standards of this site when you promote such double standards.
"Today’s newsmen host “opinion news” programs and try to outdo each other in the amplitude of yelling, fluff, snark, sarcasm, hyperbolic accusations, and gimmickry."
While this is the description of Jon Stewart, a supposedly manly anchor...
"Although mostly known as the wise-cracking, sarcastic anchor of the “fake news” show, The Daily Show, Stewart is one of the most ballsy men on television."
I personally don't understand how Stewart, by far the most sarcastic of the gentlemen listed, does not fall into the description for the Hall of Shame. I understand that he hosts a comedic show, but why does his sarcasm get a pass? Bill O'Reilly has no hesitation confronting his opponents, so shouldn't he be placed on the same level as Stewart?
I recommend you stay away from posts such as this, as these posts can be construed as biased and political. It is certainly not up to the standards of this site when you promote such double standards.
Colbert's persona is all a joke. He is not a conservative. ITS A JOKE. Its his character, his schtick. He is an actor, playing the part on a made up show, on a comedy network, meant to make fun of real conservative talk shows.
Seriously, if you dont get that joke, your dumb & humorless. Plain and simple, your just dumb.
The Colbert Report, like its parent The Daily Show, has a parallel in terms of how it presents today's headlines: satire, comedy, etc.
Though a lot of what is said and done on the CR is borderline ridiculous, one has to consider that Stephen Colbert is (in real life) a left-leaning person, which is completely opposite of who he portrays on the CR, a Republican (technically speaking anyway).
I will admit though the style is different between the CR and DS (myself preferring the DS), but that isn't enough to warrant his place in the hall of shame.
This post is probably the lamest one I have ever seen on AOM.... I know, everyday can't be perfect, but pick it up tomorrow.
What is (in my opinion) killing news from traditional sources is the quite obvious lack of real Journalism. Todays news presenters, when they can take the time to talk about the news (How many times do you turn on the news to see 3 talking heads all chatting with one another, as if that is of interest?) are really Editorialists... They are not reporting the news, they are biased, one sided, only reporting what they want to tell you and then not reporting the facts but using that age old tool Rhetoric, to report in such a way as to try to bias the audience. They no longer trust us to look at the facts and make a conclusion, but try to force feed us one particular conclusion through the use of spin doctoring and biased reporting.
Journalism has died, there are only taling heads with fake tans and plastic surgery, and they are only reporting what they want us to hear, what they want us to think.
Britt...
Colbert is a fool playing the fool to poke fun at the pundits and putting their folly on display... Plus he's really funny. Alternatively, Jon Stewart is a really just a plain ol' fool trying to be serious.
Ever wonder why the UN ranks Norway, Sweden, and Canada the best countries in the world in which to live? Guess the left isn't so bad afterall.
AoM this is the worst article I have ever read on your sight. It does not promoted manliness. It promotes mediocrity and immature ideals.
Remember these? Perhaps you should filter articles based on principle. That's what men would do.
"Seriously, if you dont get that joke, your dumb & humorless. Plain and simple, your just dumb."
The guy is calling out people for being dumb, ye the cant even learn the difference between your and you're. Oh i would have been fine if it was spelled "youre." At least the letters would be correct. I can deal without perfect punctuation. I guess I should be thankful he didn't use "ur." We get the joke that Colbert is making. It's just not that funny.
Now as for the article, it's clearly biased. I didn't think Stewart's ambush of Jim Cramer was really good. Jon Liebowitz, yes that's his real name, is just spewing the White House's populist rhetoric. I really wouldn't be shocked to find a fax from Bob Gates giving Stewart the talking points of the day. Anyone who watched Cramer knows he is a fool and completely irresponsible, so going after him like Rosie did Tom Selleck all those years ago is just lame. Everyone else hit the rest of the points I had
Would be nice to get the site some more exposure, and would be funny to watch.
I had great respect for Dan Rather as a young man - he went to great lengths to bring a story to us - I remember he cut his teeth reporting a hurricane while it was passing by. But I totally rejected him in the 1992 elections, when at 7:00 PM, the moment he went on the air reporting election night coverage he crowed :Clinton wins Georgia!" Good grief - people were still in line out here (yes, I live in Georgia).
And Jennings -- I watched most of my 9/11 coverage with him that day - until I realized he didn't like President Bush, and had begun a subtle smear of the man because he didn't rush back to Washington, but diverted to other airbases. If you look back at his comments of that day you will note he just couldn't get it in his mind that security for the President is an important thing.
TV journalism has sunk just as has the print media. Very sad, really.
Sorry to disapoint but Cooper is not manly. Metrosexual, maybe, but not manly.
I agree with others on this... Weak AoM, very weak not up to standard. Their next article should be "This just in... we lost fans on this one by vering left."
First, the accusations of this being leftist drivel makes no sense to me. In our Hall of Shame section we equally went after those on the left and on the right. I'm not sure how you could miss that. We tried very much to make the article quite even handed.
Second, this post was supposed to be fun. When we first started the site our goal was to mix in some fun stuff with our serious stuff. Lately, we've felt we've been on a more serious steak. So we wanted to do something less heavy, and thus included fake anchormen like Ron Burgundy and Stephen Colbert. Lighten up. Life's too short for everything to be taken so seriously. I'm constantly surprised by AoM's contingent of hard core curmudgeon readers, who think being a man should be about as fun as a root canal.
I also find the argument that this post was flawed because we apparently mixed news "commentators" with "new anchors," rather hollow. "Anchorman" is a broad term; it simply means a man who anchors a news program-whether that program just delivers the news or comments on the news. Many of the old time anchors in the "manliest" list also occasionally engaged in opinion/commentary-which doesn't negate their anchorman-ness. Giving one's opinion or commentary isn't a problem (which is why Stewart made the list)-it's how you do it. While those in the Hall of Shame don't fit the mold of past anchormen-that's really the point-these are arguably the anchormen of today, and they've changed the delivery of news for the worse. The purpose of the Hall of Shame was therefore to show how news programs have gone downhill.
Stewart stepped up. Give him his props, people.
Stewart anchors a comedy program and as such, sarcasm is appropriate. The anchors in the Hall of Shame on the other hand purport to be doing a serious news show. Again, it's true that their shows are a mix of news and commentary, but they advertise and label themselves as the best places to get the real news about what's going on and as places to get the most fair and unbiased news. And they don't deliver that. If they're going to make such claims to seriousness, then they should carry themselves in a way that underscores their purpose. Stewart delivers an awful lot of snark, but he doesn't pretend to be anything but a comedy program. I will admit that Stewart can get way too smug and snarky-to the point that I actually flip the channel sometimes to avoid it. But he is one of the few people in the media that actually calls politicians and other media types out on their BS, and so while he isn't perfect (an none of the anchors listed were), on the whole he deserves some accolades.
Thanks. And thanks for couching you comments in a reasonable manner. Constructive criticism and comments are always welcome.
Before I go further, I enjoy AoM, and am not suggesting I would stop reading it.
That said: you're again blurring the lines between news and commentary. Sean Hannity (taken as your first example in Hall of Shame) never anchored a news broadcast. Bill O'Reilly hasn't anchored a news broadcast on Fox News either (he may have on a prior network). They're paid for their commentary.
Contrast that to Mssrs. Matthews & Olbermann who have anchored recent party conventions and other events. The respective networks of these commentators call themselves unbiased, but that clearly is meant to mean their news reporting, not in the commentary; one cannot often comment in an unbiased manner.
The fact remains: news alone doesn't sell well on TV, not any longer at least. Case in point: remember when CNN's Headline News was just that: 30 minutes of news, followed by another 30 mins, etc. 24 hrs a day?. Without commentary programs - mixed with a healthy dose of debate - the networks would probably pull lower ratings (again: O'Rielly will debate with people, Olbermann only has people who parrot his views; guess who wins in the ratings?). So long as their news programs are unbiased, that will keep them true to their slogans.
Giving one’s opinion or commentary isn’t a problem (which is why Stewart made the list)-it’s how you do it.
You're right; back in the day, the true Anchormen gave their opinions with a chyron saying it was an editorial or an opinion (much like the Editorial page of a newspapers is distinct from the front page -- or at least ought to be). Now, anchors drop subtle and not-so-subtle views into their copy (See Walter Cronkite on "setting the agenda"). If they took the time to editorialize in a proper fashion, I'd give them respect; otherwise, they blur their own lines and deserve none from me.
Contrast that to Mssrs. Matthews & Olbermann who have anchored recent party conventions and other events. The respective networks of these commentators call themselves unbiased, but that clearly is meant to mean their news reporting, not in the commentary; one cannot often comment in an unbiased manner."
I respectfully submit that you are again narrowly defining the term "anchorman" and "news broadcast," and then criticizing the article based on this personal definition. Note that this article is not about the manliest "newsmen" or "news casters" or "new reporters." It's about anchormen. Anchormen anchor a program related to the news. If Hannity and O'Reilly don't anchor a "news broadcast" than I'm not sure what they do. Yes they don't just report the news, but their whole show is based on them commenting on the news. The shows are based entirely around the news and their take on the news-is that not a news broadcast? While it's true that people still associate "anchormen" with the old nightly news broadcasts, there are a whole array of news shows these days that could clearly be said to be anchored by the hosts.
And it's not just the networks that say they are unbiased, so it cannot be that they are simply referring to their news reporting and not these men's commentary as you argue. O'Reilly boldly declares that his show is in the "No Spin Zone" and presents himself and his program as fair and balanced-as the most fair and balanced place to get the news. To say such things, but to clearly have a bias lands a anchorman in the Hall of Shame.
I understand that debate and commentary help these shows do well in the ratings and I honestly have no beef with having these things in a news-based program. But there can be debate and commentary that doesn't involve yelling over guests and exuding an unmanly and unprofessional smugness and disdain for those who disagree with you.
At any rate, Charlie, while I disagree with your criticism, I do understand what you're saying and respect that point of view, even if we don't see eye to eye.
if THATS not what real journalism is all about, i don't know what is.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090413/alterman