Chuck Todd or George Stephanopoulos‎, who is most biased? NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, FOX...

The Search For Pundits Who Have Reasonably Fair Political Views:


Are there any Pundits that provide political commentary that is reasonable, sensible, intelligent, and fair?  Has patriotism become a bad word among the major TV News organizations?


The TV Pundits who are versed on international and domestic politics do seem to have limitations on time for presenting a coherent assessment. Maybe some of the people who worked within former White House administrations are best at this, but it usually is far from being middle of the road commentary.


Just to pull a name up as someone who may have gained trust among the most Americans, I’d look back to TV broadcaster Walter Cronkite who said “In seeking truth you have to get both sides of a story.” But aren't there often more sides to the issues than just two sides? It is difficult or impossible to assess every side completely.   However, the Pundits express views for us to ponder and debate.


The Pundits who provide political commentary on TV and radio have widely varied perspectives for sure.   However, some are more obvious than others to be supportive of a particular political ideology. There are a few Pundits that tend to express views that can land within the middle of the road rather than on the extreme edges.


The ‘Talking Heads’ became Pundits by way of a rough and tumble process stemming from the various communication and media giants. It seems the people that get to be on TV as Pundits are the chosen few that have mastered the ratings grab through one-liner jabs that sometimes give an appearance of wit. But some are empty-suit-hacks disguised as authoritatively cerebral and bright.


On the extreme edges there seems to be people who are single-issue advocates rather than allowing for the sum of the parts. I’m not saying that this is wrong or right. The hot button issues seem to have no room for compromise at times.


So, are there any Political Pundits that express views that are towards the middle of the extremes for liberal, conservative, independent, progressive, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, etc.?


An initial list of names was developed, but lately many seem just wrong for a list of evenhanded Pundits:

Susan Page - USA Today

Gloria Borger - CNN

Kristen Anderson - The Selfie Vote

Major Garrett - CBS

Molly Ball - The Atlantic

Michael Steele - Former RNC Chair

Maggie Haberman - NY Times

Charles Krauthammer - NY Times

Ezra Klein - Vox

Nia-Malika Henderson - CNN

Chris Cillizza - The Fix

Tavis Smiley - TV Show Host

Michael Needham - Heritage Action For America


As for TV hosts that are the most biased, the list might be as follows:

Anderson Cooper - CNN

Chuck Todd - MSNBC / NBC

George Stephanopoulos - ABC


Some of the media personalities are clearly members of the opposition party to each other both for and against the Democrats and Republicans or against or in favor of a particular POTUS administration.


Does anyone have a nomination to offer for the best evenhanded Pundits on politics?


Also, does anyone have nominations for the most biased Pundits & TV Hosts on politics?


George N Romey Added Jan 30, 2017 - 3:45pm
Some are worse than others but all of them seem to have little clue about America and in particular the state of the economy.  They really believe the only pissed off Americans about the employment situation are old white dudes whose factory jobs went to Mexico or Asia.  Then of course comes the inference that a college degree would have solved all that.
They are clueless to the sheer number of Americans with multiple degrees or advanced degrees stocking store shelves, working as product promoters or delivering take out.  Its not like the real statistics aren't there but they are too lazy too look.  
The Democratic Party has become the party of the 10%.  People with advanced degrees from the most prestigious university and family connections so they aren't sending hundreds of resumes into the big black cyberhole of job hunting.  Add to that the social justice warriors that believe the biggest problem that America should be confronting is which bathroom should a transgender person be allowed to use.  And these guy mentioned in the article jump on and report it like its the end of times.
The flyover states are where they go from time to time to conduct a special report, very happy afterwards to return to their multi million dollar apartment in Manhattan.
Opes Added Jan 30, 2017 - 6:32pm
Yes many seem to intentionally exhalt themselves with elitism to a point of not having to be bothered with the needs or concerns of the middle class, working class, or any group below their idea of brilliance who don't follow them like robots.
George N Romey Added Jan 30, 2017 - 7:15pm
Opes there is a mentality among them that if you didn't go to an Ivy League school or come from money then your concerns need to be subordinate to capitalism, the financial system, and the Hollywood A listers.  Since they have no real ideas of how to address real problems they get caught in silliness like Transgender bathrooms or what just came out of Donald Trump's mouth. They are the 21st century court jesters.
Opes Added Jan 31, 2017 - 12:55am
Watching Hardball with Chris Matthews (MSNBC) compared to The Factor with Bill O'Reilly (FOX) provides an assortment of pundits to see and hear.  But the hosts of those two shows are obviously biased in opposite directions.  But they are very opinionated.  Chris worked for former President Carter, so he is always going out of his way to excuse the mistakes on the left, while Bill attempts to exude intellectualism but doesn't pull it off so well.
Dino Manalis Added Jan 31, 2017 - 8:25am
You need to analyze the news yourself, regardless of the source, individuals spin the data according to personal preferences.
Opes Added Jan 31, 2017 - 11:50am
Dino Manalis True it makes good sense for those who can analyze the News themselves to do so.  The concern is that there might be too many people who cannot discern the information they are being fed.  Too many people seem to believe the news to be absolutely fair and honest.  Biased news leads to half truths and partial facts.  With information overload the flood of data does seem to obscure or overwhelm, but the really bad actors are misleading by omission of detailed and important factors within current affairs.
Thomas Napers Added Feb 1, 2017 - 4:05am
I’m not sure what it means to have a reasonably fair political view or for a pundit to be even-handed? 
We should expect unbiased reporting of the news by news anchors and biased analysis of the news by news pundits.  Because Chuck Todd and George Stephanopoulos are news anchors, the only thing that matters should be whether or not they are unbiased.  While on occasion I’m sure they have done something that was obviously biased, for the most part they do a fine job. 
As it relates to punditry, absent on your list is any pundit from Fox News, where my favorite pundit of all time currently works…Charles Krauthammer.  Like all good pundits, he’s not afraid to let you know his opinion.  In his case, it’s always a well-articulated and intelligent remark, which more often than not makes liberals look bad.  To be sure, he’s not a big Trump supporter, but the criticism expressed towards him is a pittance to the things he’s said about Obama and other prominent liberals.  An even-handed pundit sounds like someone that should probably change jobs and become a news anchor. 
Opes Added Feb 1, 2017 - 9:57am
Thomas Napers
Your comments about Charles Krauthammer seem valid except for the fact that I did mention him in my original list, you might have read passed it because i associated him with the NY Times instead of with FOX TV.
You brought up an interesting point when comparing the necessity of unbiased hosts to biased pundits.  A lot depends on the type of program the person is a host.  Yes, some of these program want to exhibit pundits from various sides of the political topic, but can we at least have some that are intellectually honest about what they present within their opinions?
Is it folly to seek out an intellectually honest pundit and host?  I offered the list as a starting point of potential unbiased pundits who mostly seem intellectually honest.  But I also named hosts that seem to be overly biased and not intellectually honest.
Thomas Napers Added Feb 1, 2017 - 11:16pm
“Intellectually honest” is a different metric than the one you presented in your article.  In your article, you discussed “reasonably fair” and “even-handed.”  All of these terms, including “intellectually honest” are ambiguous at best.  After all, to a liberal everything on Breitbart is intellectually shallow/dishonest and to a conservative everything on MSNBC is intellectually shallow/dishonest.  I think your list is dangerous and a waste of time.  As a consumer of news, you need to decide what meets your criteria for good journalism. 
As for me, I spend very little time reading or watching liberal media sources.  For good, honest journalism that recognizes the merits of capitalism and rejects socialism, I read the Wall Street Journal. If I feel like vegging out in front of the television I watch Fox News.  My favorite television is the 6:40pm mark of Special Report with Brett Baier.  At that time they bring on a panel of three pundits to discuss the news of the day.  The pundits are usually conservatives, but occasionally they find a liberal.  Krauthammer is a regular, every other pundit rotates.  For me, it’s the smartest 20 minutes of television one can watch, but I’m quite confident a liberal would describe it as intellectually dishonest, unfair and far from even-handed. 
Opes Added Feb 2, 2017 - 10:30am
Thomas - "...As a consumer of news, you need to decide what meets your criteria for good journalism."
That is precisely what I'm driving at here.  But further to the point, can there be some consensus among a majority of the people consuming the news?  The example of Krauthammer possibly meeting the standard criteria for good journalism might be acceptable for political centrists, center-right, and the right.  Just possibly that is a majority.  I would not discount that objectivity of some people on center-left and  the left might also be accepting.  You mention the list of possibilities as  dangerous which I assume you think this because it names media personalities directly from which might open up to personal attacks on character etc.
Based on your comment I intend to try watching the TV show "Special Report with Brett Baier".
Lady Sekhmetnakt Added Feb 3, 2017 - 12:34am
Dino is correct. If you don’t analyze the news for yourself, you don't have anyone to blame for being fooled by biased propaganda. Don't have time to do this? Then maybe stick to simpler things like reality TV. 
George Steffy (as I call the over rated hack is either biased beyond belief and completely sold out to the disinformation patrol, or a total idiot as the story at this link clearly demonstrates either way he is basically useless and utterly devoid of any semblance of professionalism. 
Utpal Patel Added Feb 3, 2017 - 9:11am
Interesting conversation you and Thomas are having.  I also watch Special Report, if Krauthammer wasn’t on for the last 20 minutes, I probably wouldn’t watch it. 
I concur with Thomas about the dangers of a list like the one you’re making.  The country is divided, those that agree with liberalism are simply not going to be able to respect Krauthammer and vice versa for Krugman (to name one highly regarded liberal pundit).  Anyone in the middle, probably doesn’t keep up with the news and should have no opinion on these people.    
Opes Added Feb 3, 2017 - 7:59pm
Currently it interests me the shakeup at NBC with Megyn Kelly coming to their networks.
Also interesting if true is that surrogates of Trump administration are now avoiding to appear on CNN.
Bill H. Added May 27, 2017 - 10:49am
Either way, either side, we need the news media around to keep the government under check.
Yes, they need to constantly dig and expose all of the dirty deeds and "scandals" that both parties create and are responsible for. If it wasn't for these people watching, uncovering, analyzing, and exposing, one could imagine what trickery the politicians and the president from either party could get away with without the citizens being aware until it is too late.
Without and observant and reactive press and media, we very well could be living in a true dictatorship and only hear what the government let us hear.
Trump is obviously trying to move in just that direction, but I have faith in the system and it appears that a free press will be around for a long time
If any of you remember, FOX News was all over both Obama and Bill Clinton during their terms, just as MSNBC was hounding GWB and now Trump.
If one happens to be a subscriber to either political party, it is always disheartening to hear negative news about their side, and obviously will cause anger and disbelief. Some news will be unfounded (as we have recently observed from both FOX, CNN, and MSNBC), but either way it is a part of our system that we can never allow to be stifled.
Opes Added May 28, 2017 - 12:31pm
Wondering if the following is unfounded and false?
Cable News Network (CNN) has the moniker of Most Trusted Name In News.
Bill H. Added May 28, 2017 - 5:26pm
Actually BBC, The Economist, and the Wall Street Journal are the most trusted names for news and have been for years.
If you are a Trump worshipper, than FOX is for you. If you despise Trump, I would recommend MSNBC. Either way, you will get exactly what you want to hear.
If you don't mind real and unbiased reporting and are a centrist, then BBC is unmatched.
Opes Added May 28, 2017 - 6:34pm
What about C-Span?