Anderson Cooper 360°

This show constantly tries to create hate against the POTUS. This show is biased and unfortunately radically left.

Anderson Cooper 360 is a decent show but not a great one. When its at its best, its does an insightful and entertaining take on the news. Kind of like a "Behind the scenes" look at the news; showing why, how, and where it happened they way it did. At its worst, it painfully showcases Anderson Cooper seemingly amateur anchor skills. Don't get me wrong, Cooper is an excellent field reporter and a more than capable journalist. But put him in a studio and drape him in a nice suit, he loses his "it" factor.

He's young and ambitious. So, I have little doubt that he will find his anchoring voice evidently. He's far more than just a pretty face. If anything, I see Anderson Cooper 360 as less of a show but more of a training ground for Cooper to fine tune himself to an excellent anchorman.Its far more entertaining to watch if you view it in this matter.It makes his occasional goofs, mistakes, and misses more endearing than annoying and when he gets it right, you could easily picture him as a future network news star. For that reason alone, he's show is worth watching occasionally but certainly not a must see every single day. Unless, you think Anderson is just that good-looking.

Anderson Cooper is definitely not a radical leftist - greetings from Europe. Instead of dealing with such an analysis-free "thesis", one should just take a look at how Cooper deals with topics in a journalistic way: Sometimes he deals astutely with topics that either nobody else takes up or he questions circulating media discourses quite well. On the other hand, Cooper quickly jumps on a moving train when it comes to certain issues without questioning whether he should even take any of the train connections for this issue. So it is understandable that supporters of the former President of the USA Donald Trump are not too happy with Cooper, but that all of his reporting with the reckless mistakes and / or deliberate misjudgments regarding the Trump issue is unreflected and at least just as negligent. Anderson Cooper was also working journalistically with a hit and miss mission at Trump, but he should be credited with the fact that he was most likely to be able to question mistakes that he himself made in his journalistic work.

I'm a conservative and even a Bush fan, but I can't help but LOVE Anderson Cooper!! I'm a closet Cooper fan! Shhh!! Don't tell anyone at my church. I hate the CNN channel because everything on there is so biased and left of center, and they don't report the news. They sponsor and pay liberals to be on their programs. They give more airtime, uninterrupted to liberals and conservatives are shut off, cut off or over-talked when on the shows (except Larry King).

I give the show a 9 out of 10 because I don't consider this a "news" show. I consider it a talk show and I like the format of the show where he is not behind a desk reporting news. He goes a full 360 degrees around the globe reporting news and events and topics from the source. I like that. Very appealing, unique and innovative. Anderson Cooper is also very easy on the eyes and attractive and soothing. He's great. I have never seen a complete episode from start to finish, but I always see the first 15-20 minutes after Larry King.

Just cut out all the commercials. I swear, they have 10 minutes of commercials for every 5 minutes of programming. That's when I tune out and watch a different show and forget to come back.

Anderson Cooper, as hot as he is, is as liberal as they come. He "moderated" the CNN/Youtube debate in July 2007 and he seemed to be a big fan of a couple of contenders there and even joked with a few. You can tell by his "news" program that he is a staunch supporter of the donkey, liberal issues and candidates and on "THE VIEW" on August 3, 2007, he actually said that he didn't think that viewers knew where he stood politically because he's so centered on his show.

Yeah, right.

Anderson Cooper BELONGS on CNN because he is a liberal fanatic and a mess. He does not "report" news. His simple actions and reactions to news clearly shows viewers how he stands on issues and he gives the "evil eye" to conservatives and is very shut-down in front of them. It's very sad.

If you want a news program that just reports the facts without giving their side of the issue and allows guests free reign to talk, turn to Fox News or watch Larry King. Larry King is gracious, unbiased and doesn't over talk his guests. He's great. Liberal, but great. But Anderson Cooper is very biased, shallow and reminds me of Bill Maher. Both are intelligent, attractive and great talkers, but they are both very liberal.

"Larry King Live" can't hold a candle to "Anderson Cooper 360". Cooper's 10:00pm offering was also surpassing Lou Dobbs who recently resigned from the network. While the color tone of Larry King's hour keeps getting lighter and lighter (I think he interviewed Michael Jackson's family and friends during the entire month after Jackson's passing), Cooper's hour is a breath of fresh prime-time air, a return to hard journalism after an hour of the trivial and the banal. Cooper started out some years ago as the new pretty boy on the CNN block, a kind of news star for teenyboppers and twenty-somethings. But I think after having rubbed shoulders with the likes of Wolf Blitzer and many other heavy-hitters of journalism, both Cooper and his colleague John King are forging careers more and more reminiscent of Mike Wallace and David Frost rather than light-weights like Larry King and Matt Lauer. If you don't agree, consider that Cooper has even done assignments for "60 Minutes".

One of the strongest aspects of Cooper's show is the inclusion of David Gergen and Jeffrey Toobin as political commentators. Gergen may be the finest political commentator on the television airwaves, with Mark Shields and David Brooks of PBS right behind. (In fact, Gergen had been paired with Mark Shields at PBS before he had been asked to help at the Clinton White House in the early 1990's.) Gergen has an amazing insight into the psychology of the American political landscape that is just simply unmatched outside of print journalism. So you have to credit Anderson Cooper playing the same role as Jim Lehrer does on Fridays on PBS, asking probing questions to get to the meat of all matters political concerning current issues. While Gergen is certainly Cooper's cleanup hitter, Jeffrey Toobin and some of the other commentators also rank as top-notch journalist-commentators, particularly Carl Bernstein and Ed Rollins. (Although in an amusing moment, Toobin was caught watching a Boston Red Sox game on his laptop the night of the 2008 presidential elections! I don't think CNN was paying him to watch baseball.)

Anderson Cooper's stories are insightful, relevant, and he is not afraid to engage in field reporting which is where he started. Occasionally, he'll be on assignment in Afghanstan or Iran, plowing through the mud of the human experience to get the real story. That's real journalism, pure and simple, not just pontificating opinions at a studio desk with a microphone. (Anybody with half a brain and studio backing can do that.) Cooper engages both conservative and liberal commentators. I disagree strongly with some of the assessments made here that 360 leans left. David Gergen served republican presidents Nixon, Ford and Reagan, although he is declared as an independent. Ed Rollins, who is just about as conservative as they come, is a regular commentator-contributor. (Although if your idea of conservative is Bill O'Reilly, I have nothing further to say on the point.) Cooper has done well to balance on the center divide of issues allowing both sides of the political spectrum equal time. Whether this will eventually land Cooper a position as a television news anchor is hard to tell, but I don't think that's where his strength lies. Cooper is showing his meat as a relevant hard-nosed reporter striving to use journalism for what it was meant to do: inform to make a difference, not just entertain. How can the public possibly make informed decisions and evaluations about its leaders if it is not informed?