Which newscaster do you trust, and why?

Which newscaster do you trust the most, and why?
I asked my mom this question, and she named a local newscaster. I asked her why she would trust him, and she said he looked like he wouldnt lie. I asked her if maybe thats why he was hired?

I was going to do a social experiment and just go take a poll at the grocery store or something, and find out who trusts who, and why.

Have we ever met any of these people, and know them on friendly basis? So why do we believe that they wouldnt lie to us, or that they wouldnt have some agenda, or be androids controlled by reptilians from deep in outer space for all any of us know.

People used to say "Dont believe everything you read", and recently even say "Dont believe everything you read on the internet", but I have never heard anyone say "Take what Stone Phillips has to say with a grain of salt", or "Dont believe everything Walter Kronkite said".

Thoughts, anyone?

The ones with the shortest skirts!

I don't trust any of them. It's all talking points anyway.

reply to post by aching_knuckles


Some I believe more than others........ but all, I do my research on and check other sources. The only way to get verifiable information these days is to get info from all sides and come to your own conclusions.

I am under the impression that all msm reporters, report on what their network interests are. Therefore I cannot trust anyone of them. They tell the stories that are put infront of them. I used to like Dan Rather until I looked into how CBS was formed, gov't propaganda specialist as noticed by the all seeing eye logo.

Your analogy fails to mention talking heads generally read from teleprompters that are fed by journalists, reporters and overseen by editors.

The question is more akin to what parrot has the best squawk?

So who makes the best crackers?

I do not watch the news ever, and never will, get what news i need from net, and there is plenty of it. I can pick and choose what i watch and listen to.

So no one, and i am sure plenty out there understand that.

As far as i am concerned they are just actors, and i would say alot of them off screen would probably have a critical view on what they say on screen. Remember reporters are supposed to be people who question, so off screen probably they know its bull.

It's a mistake to "trust" any of them.,,,mainstream or otherwise. In fact, they've probably become pretty much obsolete and useless, and most of them are probably hyperaware of this...hence the gradual and probably soon to be completed switchover to punditry and not reporting or investigative journalism. The danger lies in people not being aware of the switchover and still operating under old paradigms or people who've never know anything else.

The best answer would be none of them completely.

The time when you could get balanced news reporting from any single outlet is dead.

You have to know who generates the agenda for each station and use that to read between the lines of what is not reported, what is reported (and what slant is placed upon that reported).

The personalities of the presenters are irrelevant as they will simply say what comes up on the auto-cue. They are presenters, not journalists.

I have to agree with the majority here. Absolutely none of them are trustworthy imo. The days of Murrow and Cronkite are long gone.

reply to post by aching_knuckles


Since the FCC runs things, they are all speaking for the Government. The news is not new anymore or meanful. Alot of news these days comes from talks shows or it is a story from a week to two weeks ago presented as "new" Hardly any research is done. The best source for news I have found is ATS.

...the tv news reporters of yesteryear just seem to have more integrity than the actors of today...

...i remember when jfk was assassinated... the news that followed over the next week or so left me with the suspicion that i was watching one of my grandmother's soap operas...

...the goomer that was the dallas chief of police - i asked my grandfather how someone that stupid got such an important job... his answer was money...

...on 09.11.01, when my eldest called home and told me that the radio news was saying we had been attacked and were now at war, i didnt believe the story behind the tragedy... in the days that followed, it was deja vu all over again - badly written scripts, timing errors - a soap opera...

Hey man! Great question, I'd have to say Glenn Beck! jk, anyway, honestly the one I trust the most is Tom Hartman off of Free Speech Channel.

S&F

while anyone hired with a contract that has stipulations at a mstv news can't be totally trusted and must show restraint and skirt issues and tread carefully,,,,

i do like judge nap,,,, stossel,,, and to an extent dylan ratigan,,, he exposes wall st and the fed but still throws
liberal slant on much of it,,, but he is on msnbc so i guess it should be expected


i would certainly take the judge's word anyday over alex jones, that's for sure

reply to post by aching_knuckles



Chris Matthews, 100%.

Everytime he opens his cake-hole I can trust that he will show himself to be a meathead.

If their lips are moving, then they are lying. None of them can be trusted.

reply to post by aching_knuckles


Fred the weatherman from Granada Reports, cos you can't spin the weather report

No, seriously, John Snow from Channel 4 News because C4 aren't afraid of being controversial when its needed


You yanks are missing out big time. I've seen Fox before as it's on Sky and the UK wouldn't stand for it. Sky News, though, is Fox's UK cousin, although it's still Murdoch, and a bit questionable, is nothing on your crap over there! The BBC is just one sided government propaganda.

But Channel 4, well it is just exemplary and honest, and shows both sides of the coin, even in regards to Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran etc... 10/10

i trust the analysis and news worthy trends given by Bob Chapman of 'the international forecaster'
and Jim Willie...he has a couple outlets including 'golden jackass'


i know neither person is an 'anchorman' in the vein of a Walter Chronkite, or the team of
'Huntley - Brinkley' (wayyyyy before most readers here were born)

reply to post by aching_knuckles


Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

The reason I trust them is simple, they're fake newscasters. Unlike folks like Glenn Beck Stewart and Colbert readily admit that their show is satirical with Jon playing primarily to the left and Colbert primarily parodying the right. We know they're joking and because we know when they're joking we also know when they're actually making a point.

Just after the Tuscon shooting Stewart did an opening to an episode that was one of the most heart-felt and Cathartic things I've ever witnessed, while pundits on the right and, to some extent, the left, were overblown in their rhetoric Stewart's wasn't overblown.

It's the liars and jokers who don't warn you about what they are that you need to look out for.

The only news program that I watch at all is 60 minutes, and that only occasionally. I enjoy when they cover things like the Iraq or Afghanistan war, because they seem to come closest to the way things actually are on the ground, rather than trying to paint some rosy delusional picture about how they wish things were. Unfortunately, they tend to cover some really pointless stories too, but in any given show there is usually at least one or two stories of importance regarding topics we at ATS are interested in, and without bending over to what 'they' want them to say. (or at least so it seems to me...)