DISQUS

Thanks for the shout out Tyler. Your dad's group is doing great!

<abbr>Bretts last blog post..Beyond Your Borders – Experiencing the World</abbr>

Test

Here's an interesting article comparing Jon Stewart and Edward R. Murrow:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090413/alterman

Thanks for all these interesting comments. I've enjoyed reading the responses.

@Kevin-

While using the pocket square for a hankie isn't ideal, as I said above, I do absolutely think it could do in a pinch. I certainly agree that it would be bad form not to hand a crying lady your visible pocket square for fear of getting it soiled. In such a situation a gentleman will offer whatever he has on hand, no matter how nice.

"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.

@Justin-

Thanks. And thanks for couching you comments in a reasonable manner. Constructive criticism and comments are always welcome.

@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.

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.

This is hilarious, Brett. Looks like no matter where you're from, Bros are exactly the same.

@ Brett C. Sorry to hear about your loss. I'm a fan of Case Pocket knives. High quality and made in the good ol' U.S. of A.

@Len-

OG=original gangster. It was the title of Ice T's 1991 album, but now has varied meanings. Here it means of the "original generation." We're just noting whether or not the soda maker is old school.

@ Khurt- I discovered Steaz last fall. I was looking for a aspartame free alternative to the Diet Mountain Dew I was drinking during law school finals. Steaz fit the bill. For those interested, you can find Steaz at health food stores like Wild Oats.

@Jack McNeil- Mexican Coca-Cola is where it's at. I lived in Mexico for a few years and that's one of the things I miss.

@chaplinandrews- Homebrew sodas sounds like a great article idea. We'll start looking into that.

In fairness to Tony, I should point out that I added the accompanying pictures, he didn't. My fashion knowledge leaves much to be desired, so if you have a beef with the pics, know that's it's all my fault. It's sometimes hard to find just the right, non-copyrighted photos for these things. I did my darndest.

Dear "Meh."

Your comments were not deleted because I don't agree with them, but because I'm tired of the incessant whiners on this site and I'm cracking down. "No whining" is part of our comment policy and I'm afraid you violated it. We welcome criticism, but complaining simply because a post doesn't line up with your interests is immature grousing. Take note sir, the world, and this blog, do not revolve around you. You also must give a legitimate email address to comment, and while I'm sure you find noway@f**koff.com incredibly clever, it doesn't meet the requirement. See ya!

@Charles-

"After all, there is a great deal of interesting literature that glorifies terrible things, and you can’t separate them. "

Classifying safari hunting as a "terrible thing," is interesting, but a debate for another day. What I question is such a narrow-minded avoidance of any literature that speaks of things with which you disagree or find distasteful. Should we not read books about WWII because war is a terrible thing? Because they glorify war? Is there no reason to read Mein Kamp or the Communist Manifesto if you deeply disagree with their contexts and arguments? Should we avoid any literature of the past because it may glorify attitudes and behaviors that are now deemed unacceptable? I would hope not. That would certainly eliminate a wide swath of the greatest books in history. I would hope that a man could read a wide range of things, dark things and light things, books with which he agrees and disagrees, and take the good things from those books and leave the bad. That a man could read stories of bygone safaris and be inspired to journey to Africa not with a gun, but with a camera. That a man could read a book about war and be both inspired by the stories of courage but disgusted by the violence. I would hope that such a level of maturity would not be too much to ask for among today's men.

@Eric- It's called humor. Learn it. It will get you far in life.

@ ramierez-

I understand your concern. My suggestion is to just stop reading the comments on a post if they're making you angry.

@Lee-

In truth, we haven't really posted many article on topics that could be seen as controversial-this is probably the most controversial topic we have touched. On other articles that were a bit controversial, say on chastity or marriage, I generally presented one side of things, because I felt strongly for that side. On this issue, I honestly don't have a strong feeling either way, and so I decided to bring in two people who did feel strongly about it, because they have done research on it and had something to present. This is not a post I felt would have been best treated with a "on the one hand," and "on the other hand" approach. To me it was best to present the strongest cases for each side and let people draw their own conclusions.

I don't have a problem with the fact that on this topic sides must be drawn up one way or the other. Because people will have to choose a side, and will have to make a decision on the issue. There can't really be halfway with the issue of circumcision.

The reason I feel that a bit of emotion and philosophy is appropriate is because it is not simply a medical issue, it is also a social/cultural/religious issue. It's both. To come back to my point about abortion or the death penalty, such issues have very rational components, but they are impossible to discuss without bringing in social/cultural/religious factors.

If the responses to the post are polarized, it is not the problem of the post, but of the commenters who may not choose to respond responsibly. This post is a classic debate-each sides presents a passionate stance, and people may decide which is more convincing.

@Mr. Van Lewis-

All the above quotes in your comment which you originally attributed to me were made by Lee, not me. He was addressing me in his comments. I have edited your comment to reflect this.

@Lee-

I don't think many people view this post as flame bait, which is likely the reason you are the first to voice such a concern. It was certainly never my intention to simply post an article simply to stir up controversy. I felt both points presented were well-written and cited scientific and rational arguments to back up their points. Yet this is also an issue in which it is impossible to write in a completely straightforward style-there are two deeply felt sides to the issue. You might as well ask for a straightforward piece on abortion or the death penalty. It's an issue in which there is a case to be made for both sides, and in which some amount of emotion and philosophy is appropriate. While you may feel it is a waste of time, I know a lot of couples who had a tough time deciding how to make this choice, and it is my hope that the article clearly presents both sides of the issue and will help people make an informed decision.

Kate/Adam/John-

So Kate, Adam, and John all live together and took turns on the computer reading the post and then posting a comment within a half an hour of each other? Very interesting.

Even this is true, you are required to enter a legitimate email address when you comment, john@hotmail.com, adam@hotmail.com, and specialsauce@hotmail.com, isn't going to cut it I'm afraid.

@Kate/Adam/John-

Please know that we can tell when a single commenter is commenting under various names. Pretending to be multiple people to increase the perception that there are many who agree with you is not manly or acceptable. Please cease and desist.

Fr. Priest Reader-

I'm a fan of Brylcreem. Nice and classic. It's true-just a dab will do ya. And it makes your hair look healthy and styled-not greasy.

@Worried Reader-We don't control the ads that show up on the site. Thus there is no "old" or "new" AoM. When we notice an ad we don't like (like the current one about getting a flat belly), we can request that it stop showing. But if often takes awhile to be pulled. Please have patience.

@Doc-The ratings given are relative to what's available. So while Esquire and MH got the top ratings, that doesn't mean they're anywhere close to perfect; it simply means that they are the best relative to the others.

@Greg A.

Men's Health does have some repetitive fluff but it also has some surprisingly interesting and in-depth stories on topics like men and anger, reconnecting with dad getting your life in order, ect. I always start out reading it with really low expectations, but there's always some real gems in the longer articles. Now that i think about it, maybe the rating I gave it reflects the low expectations I went in with! At any rate, it's a pretty enjoyable magazine.