The Top 10 Worst News Presenters

Luis R. Miranda

Every so often I hear from readers, family members and friends about a problem I have because I only write, talk and worry about serious current events.  So I thought it was a good opportunity to break the tradition and make them all happy by writing something different.  It is still about news, but less important than the usual issues I write and talk about.  This is my first list of  Worst News Presenters.  So let’s get right to it!

Keith Olbermann

Coming at number one is Countdown’s Keith Olbermann.  He has earned his place on this list given his hypocritical double standard.  Mr. Olbermann went from being my favorite news presenter to being the worst in only one year.  Although he rightfully criticized former president George W. Bush and even asked him to resign, he seems to think that Obama can do everything Bush could not do.  Rendition, torture, violation of Habeas Corpus and freedom of speech do not seem to be important anymore.  If Obama does it, it is acceptable.

Rachel Maddow

On number two, I have placed MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.  Ms. Maddow has championed an insatiable appetite for criticizing conservative views regardless of them being right or wrong.  Her show has become another Countdown.  She also strongly criticized Bush’s illegal policies, but now is an avid defender of Obama and the same policies she once strongly criticized.  After Obama got to power, she seems to fill her show up with Democratic National Committee talking points.  Just as Olbermann, she could not keep her stance on the issues and turned ‘the news’ into useless partisan politics.

The number three spot is for Fox’s Sean Hannity.  Mr. Hannity could easily be occupying the number

Sean Hannity

one place, however, given his unchanging positions I reserved this spot for him.  There is no lack of hypocrisy from his part, though.  He has been critical of Mr. Obama’s tenure in the white house when it comes to government spending, socialization of health care as well as of cap-and-trade and the global warming fraud, but there has not been lack of deception from his part.  He still continues to agree with the neocon views of invading countries, murdering millions of people and then rebuilding those countries for the sake of Democracy and Western values.  As many others at Fox, he also agrees with the military helping to take care of the poppy fields in Afghanistan.

Glenn Beck

Coming on number four is Glen Beck; another strong candidate to occupy the number one place.  In fact, the only reason why he is not there, is because there are other 3 worse television presenters.  Beck has managed to deceive most of his audience, which apparently is composed by conservative people.  I say deceive, because although he strongly criticizes the Obama administration for all their lies and crimes while lifting the patriot movement, he also calls tea party members and other unhappy citizens dangerous criminals who may, at any moment, try to assassinate the president or cause terrorist attack in the United States.  He usually interviews and congratulates Ron Paul, but calls his supporters lunatics, dangerous and kooks.

Number five is good old Bill O’reilly; or as Olbermann would call him Bill O’rally.  O’reilly is one of those

Bill O'reilly

Sean Hannity types who supports and believes in neocon policies like war and nation building for the sake of saving face.  He supported all of Bush’s Constitution-murdering policies, but hypocritically dismisses sound economic and financial policies.  He is quick to point out that taxes need to be raised and created to pay for the government’s gargantuan deficits, although he calls himself a conservative.  The no-spin zone is an everlasting spinning capsule that accommodates his ever-changing views according to what is kosher.  ‘Billo’ used to be a real reporter many years ago, but the millions he gets paid together with his cowardice and egotistical personality changed his good work for the crap he calls fair and balanced reporting.  That is why is officially the list’s pin head.

Chris Matthews

Next on the list is Chris Mathews, also from MSNBC.  Mr. Mathews, a sick follower of politics and politicians is the hardest working news presenter when it comes to keeping the audience inside the left-right paradigm.  His show is a never-ending salad of talking points propelled by a bunch of talking heads who, instead of improving the program, simply make it unwatchable.  It is liberal against conservative galore.  Never watch Hardball, as he calls his show, if you are looking for independent, objective views on current events.  Since Hardball is mainly an opinion mouth piece, there is nothing of substance.  Instead, it is plumped with baseless attacks between guests and up to the minute lies on current affairs.  Mr. Mathews’ intoxicating, obnoxious on-air personality makes him a strong candidate to become number one of this list.  On the positive side, Chris Mathews does not label himself fair, balanced or anything of the sort.

There are a number of careers that can be taken on without a college degree.  With other careers, getting a college education may be

From left to right: Mika, Willie and Joe

an option, depending on what the job is.  And then, there are those things you learn on the fly and simply wing them.  All of this is contained in our number 7 title holder: the Mika and Joe morning comedy show.  Also known as Morning Joe, this program is an example of everything that is wrong with news and journalism today.  It is a combination of three egos: Joe’s, Mika’s and the other dude, who wants to be like them.  Oh, yeah, his name appears to be Willie Geist.  It is the typical smart-looking, cute face, funny dude show-biz combination.  As I said, these presenters are all that is wrong with news and journalism.  First, going by their bios, they don’t appear to be journalists, at least not with a diploma.  And believe me, Journalism is one of those professions you cannot wing your way around.  Although there are some people who ‘make it’ without going to school in the current news business, these three fellows are not examples of them.  Take it from me, a 14 year professional journalist.  By the way, is Mika the daughter of Zbiniew Brzezinski?

Kyra Phillips

Towards the end of our list -at least for now- we have CNN’s Kyra Phillips.  Although she is simply impossible to watch and pound for pound worse than the previous seven presenters, I decided to give her a break.  The reason for this is that she is not a lady with an agenda, but simply a news presenter.  She is one of those who seats at the booth or desk and reads the prompter no matter what.  As an example of why she occupies a position in this list is her latest gaffe on live television.  She had the nerve to conduct an interview about whether or not homosexuality was in need of a cure.  Of course, she was just reading the tele-prompter, ‘the news’, doing her job.  Watch the video here.  She then allowed a guest to compare homosexuals with sexual predators.  That guest was a former homosexual as he called himself.  In one sentence, she is just sad to watch.  By the way, she changes looks come and go like seasons.

The last two spots in the count are reserved for two of CNN’s best known faces.  Number nine for Anderson slick Cooper.  Mr. Cooper

Anderson Cooper

is the anchor all the girls fall for.  However, that does not save him from making this list, because just like all other previous presenters, he is a man with an agenda.  Cooper is one of the most prominent heirs of the Vanderbilt Empire.  Yeah, don’t let the Cooper side make you think he is just another “Joe”.  He is on the way to becoming the ‘most trusted’ man in Americas news industry; that is if you trust Pentagon written news or Skull&Bones.  And one little secret that CNN does not want you to know about Mr. Cooper: He trained at the CIA.

Larry King

Lastly we have an old timer at CNN.  Who doesn’t know Larry King?  The veteran show-biz presenter has been fading away through the years not only due to the quality of his show, but also because he refuses to quit.  Part of the refusal may be because CNN has arranged he does not quit until it is physically impossible for him to present his show.  Unbelievably, Larry King Live continues to be one of CNN’s top shows.  No wonder the network is dead last.  The problem with King, or Lawrence Harvey Zeiger, as he was born, is not necessarily himself, but the quality of the content he talks about.  That is why I put him last on my list.

So this is it folks.  I hope you enjoyed my list of worst presenters.  And for all of you who enjoy real news rather than insignificant personality-oriented crap, I promise I won’t do it again!

World Health Organization Moving Ahead on Billions in Internet and Other Taxes

Fox News

The World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations’ public health arm, is moving full speed ahead with a controversial plaWHOn to impose global consumer taxes on such things as Internet activity and everyday financial transactions like paying bills online — while its spending soars and its own financial house is in disarray.

The aim of its taxing plans is to raise “tens of billions” of dollars for WHO that would be used to radically reorganize the research, development, production and distribution of medicines around the world, with greater emphasis on drugs for communicable diseases in poor countries.

The irony is that the WHO push to take a huge bite out of global consumers comes as the organization is having a management crisis of its own, juggling finances, failing to use its current resources efficiently, or keep its costs under control — and it doesn’t expect to show positive results in managing those challenges until a year from now, at the earliest.

Fox News initially reported last January on the “suite of proposals” for “new and innovative sources of funding,” prepared by a 25-member panel of medical experts, academics and health care bureaucrats, when it was presented of a meeting of WHO’s 34-member Executive Board in Geneva.

Now the proposals are headed for the four-day annual meeting of the 193-member World Health Assembly, WHO’s chief legislative organ, which begins in Geneva on May 17.

The Health Assembly, a medical version of the United Nations General Assembly, will be invited to “take note” of the experts’ report. It will then head back with that passive endorsement to another Executive Board meeting, which begins May 22, for further action. It is the Executive Board that will “give effect” to the Assembly’s decisions.

What it all means is that a major lobbying effort could soon be underway to convince rich governments in particular to begin taxing citizens or industries to finance a drastic restructuring of medical research and development on behalf of poorer ones.

The scheme would leave WHO in the middle, helping to manage a “global health research and innovation coordination and funding mechanism,” as the experts’ report calls it.

In effect, the plan amounts to a pharmaceutical version of the U.N.-sponsored climate-change deal that failed to win global approval at Copenhagen last December. If implemented as the experts suggest, it could easily involve the same kind of wealth transfers as the failed Copenhagen summit, which will send $30 billion a year to poor nations, starting this year.

The WHO strategy involves a wide variety of actions to transfer “pharmaceutical-related technology,” and its production, along with intellectual property rights, to developing countries, according to a condensed “global strategy and plan of action” also being presented to the World Health Assembly.

Regional “networks for innovation” would be cultivated across the developing world, and some regions, such as Africa, would be encouraged to develop technology to exploit “traditional medicines.”

According to the condensed plan of action being presented to the Assembly, a number of those initiatives are already well under way.

Click here to read the plan of action.

The rationale for the drastic restructuring of medical R and D, as outlined in the group of experts’ report, is the skewed nature of medical research in the developed world, which concentrates largely on non-communicable diseases, notably cancer, and scants research on malaria, tuberculosis and other communicable scourges of poor countries. It cites a 1986 study that claimed that only 5 percent of global health research and development was applied to the health problems of developing countries.

(In dissecting contemporary medical R and D, however, the expert report glosses over the historical fact that many drugs for fighting communicable diseases in developing countries are already discovered; the issue in many cases is the abysmal living and hygienic conditions that make them easily transmitted killers.)

What truly concerns the experts, however, is how to get the wealth transfers that will make the R and D transfers possible — on a permanent basis. The panel offers up a specific number of possibilities.

Chief among them:
• a “digital” or “bit” tax on Internet activity, which could raise “tens of billions of U.S. dollars”;
• a 10 percent tax on international arms deals, “worth about $5 billion per annum”;
• a financial transaction tax, citing a Brazilian levy that was raising some $20 billion per year until it was canceled (for unspecified reasons);
• an airline tax that already exists in 13 countries and has raised some $1 billion.

Almost casually, the panel’s report notes that the fundraising effort would involve global changes in legal structures — and policing. As the report puts it: “Introducing a new tax or expanding an existing tax may require legal changes, nationally and internationally and ongoing regulation to ensure compliance.”

As a backup, the panel offers some less costly, voluntary alternatives, including “solidarity contributions” via mobile telephone usage, or set-asides on income taxes.

Yet another alternative: new health care contributions from countries such as China, India or Venezuela, or higher contributions from rich countries — neither idea looking likely in the current climate of international financial crisis. In the report’s words: “channeling these resources in this way can only be achieved if there is political will to do so and a convincing case is made.”

Click here to read the financing report.

As follow-up, the experts suggest that WHO promote each and every suggested approach for new financing, along with “regulatory harmonization and integration” in the developing world, “research and development platforms in the developing world,” and new “product development partnerships” to kick-start the global medicines program.

Just as big an issue for WHO, however, may be whether it can adequately manage the money it is already getting — or trying to get — for its current planned needs.

Other budget documents intended for the World Health Assembly, and obtained by Fox News, paint a picture of an organization where:

• spiraling financial demands are beginning to outstrip the ability of member-nations to pay;
• outsized headquarters budgets, in contrast to the regional and country networks where WHO’s public health work is largely done, are rising even faster than the overall budget; and
• efforts to control onerous staff costs are just getting underway.

Those challenges are laid out in WHO’s proposed biennial budget for 2010-2011, which calls for a combination of mandatory and voluntary contributions from the world’s nations — meaning, overwhelmingly, the three dozen richest ones — of $5.4 billion — a whopping 27 percent increase over the same initial draft figure for 2008-2009.

But that increase, large as it is, will likely be far less than WHO needs before the latest biennium ends. In 2008-2009, the initial $4.23 billion draft budget was “revised” to a final $4.95 billion during the two-year period, a 17 percent increase.

Using the same inflationary measure, WHO’s spending could well climb to $6.3 billion before the end of 2011.

Click here for the draft 2010-2011 budget.

One of the biggest jumps would come in the spending centered on WHO’s headquarters in pricey Geneva — a 44 percent climb in its share of program budgets, from $1.18 billion to $1.7 billion, even before any future “revisions.”

More…