You name it you have it news that is anytime day or night every hour updated by the minute, with watching "Headline News" a person has the world right at the fingertips. Despite no longer having the talented and beautiful Lynne Russell around this 24 hour news cable service channel is still the best around as other young and talented female anchors are now driving the way of news success. Day or night turn to "Headline News" for the best and most updated information of all sorts believe me you'll be glad you did.
5 Reviews
Great way to do the news, that's all over and forever. And many of the female anchors are eye candy for male viewers!
blanbrn23 May 2007
CNN's "Headline News" continues to be a powerhouse and is always informative and educational and fun and enjoyable to watch now even having many of it's shows like Glen Beck and Nancy Grace. Since it's 24/7 it always features breaking news anytime of the day and night most all of the time going live and right to the coverage no matter when and where an event takes place. For instance when crime occurs like deadly shootings at schools, or bank robberies then "Headline News" always reports live from the scene now the news has become so high tech that they show police and car chases live from helicopters on the U.S. interstates! Entertainment, money, and sports updates are provided all during the day and night, with an occasional guest in the studio, and even political speeches are commonly carried live. And by now many male viewers know the females that co-host and anchor and all are certainly sexy and very attractive with a classy touch of professional charm. Just to name a few of the beauties are Christi Paul, Linda Stouffer, Kathleen Kennedy, and Sibila Vargas. Plenty of eye candy that makes watching the news so much more enjoyable. So always at some point turn to "Headline News" for constant 24/7 updates anytime because it covers the whole globe and the most important stuff.
Not Brilliant, Not Inspired, Not Creative, Just Nauseating
FiendishDramaturgy7 January 2009
I would respect this show much more if they got rid of Mike Galanos. Mike Galanos is what's wrong with CNN and HLN with is alarmist reporting. He needs his prissy little sense of antiquated morality updated and upgraded with a strong dose of reality. Where was this guy raised? In Victorian era England? I rather doubt his views would have been accepted even then. This guy is a PRUDE with no apparent common sense whatsoever. His presence, just the sight of his face, ruins the show in my opinion, and remember legal department, this entire review IS OPINION.
He says, "Let's hear what YOU think," but he does not want to hear what we think, he wants other Metatrons who will espouse his opinions, embrace his views, and tell him how wonderful he is. Otherwise, he scoffs at the caller's viewpoints, challenges their opinions, and attempts to belittle his audience...you know...the people who actually WATCH his drivel?
Otherwise, this show is done in talk show style with a decent moral center...until Galanos's face looms onto the screen. Sorry folks. I have respect for CNN and what it does, but Galanos is entirely superficial and inflammatory. In my opinion, he has no business whatsoever pretending to have anything to do with the "news." He is, at BEST, an editorialist and nothing better. He opines, he does NOT report. Because of that, when he DOES report, I cannot trust him. A journalist is only as good as his word, and to me his word is nothing but spew.
Change the name of his segment, or SOMEthing.
I hate it. It's not news. It's an hour long alarmist editorial.
It rates a 2.2/10 from...
the Fiend :.
He says, "Let's hear what YOU think," but he does not want to hear what we think, he wants other Metatrons who will espouse his opinions, embrace his views, and tell him how wonderful he is. Otherwise, he scoffs at the caller's viewpoints, challenges their opinions, and attempts to belittle his audience...you know...the people who actually WATCH his drivel?
Otherwise, this show is done in talk show style with a decent moral center...until Galanos's face looms onto the screen. Sorry folks. I have respect for CNN and what it does, but Galanos is entirely superficial and inflammatory. In my opinion, he has no business whatsoever pretending to have anything to do with the "news." He is, at BEST, an editorialist and nothing better. He opines, he does NOT report. Because of that, when he DOES report, I cannot trust him. A journalist is only as good as his word, and to me his word is nothing but spew.
Change the name of his segment, or SOMEthing.
I hate it. It's not news. It's an hour long alarmist editorial.
It rates a 2.2/10 from...
the Fiend :.
Sensationalist Nancy Grace versus Intelligent Robin Meade
thraxus31417 June 2008
I have been watching CNN for years. I watched it before I even understood why or what the news meant. I have seen a trend, which I find, appreciative. Integrating humor, personalities and comments is a plus. Those comments have led me to respect Robin Meade, not as a beautiful face reporting, which she is, but someone with thought and knowledge.
When I come home from work, there's Glen Beck. At first, I thought he maintained certain perspectives that might not agree with my own. He did, however, intrigue me. The more I watched, I realized he is very pragmatic. I have come to respect his pragmatism.
Then there's Nancy Grace. Suddenly everything is sensationalized. All news is based upon a perspective. I understand that. Her language and videos and expressions accentuate certain facts over others. Her 'proof' of certain consistencies and inconsistencies...I find, less than appealing. I never would have watched her except that for some reason Robin Meade is supposed to promote her. I am curious about all things and will give most things a singular chance. I will not give her another chance. Does it matter, probably not. She's the t.v. inquirer so to speak and that seems to appeal to the majority.
I am simply curious as to why CNN feels a need to become the inquirer for x hours of the day? Is CNN greedy or losing money? Is this an experiment? All information contains a perspective. I trusted CNN's to be vetted. From the time Nancy Grace is on, I no longer know if I can trust CNN's information to be vetted. Will Nancy Grace spill into Robin Meade? May I still trust Robin Meade's information to be vetted?
When I come home from work, there's Glen Beck. At first, I thought he maintained certain perspectives that might not agree with my own. He did, however, intrigue me. The more I watched, I realized he is very pragmatic. I have come to respect his pragmatism.
Then there's Nancy Grace. Suddenly everything is sensationalized. All news is based upon a perspective. I understand that. Her language and videos and expressions accentuate certain facts over others. Her 'proof' of certain consistencies and inconsistencies...I find, less than appealing. I never would have watched her except that for some reason Robin Meade is supposed to promote her. I am curious about all things and will give most things a singular chance. I will not give her another chance. Does it matter, probably not. She's the t.v. inquirer so to speak and that seems to appeal to the majority.
I am simply curious as to why CNN feels a need to become the inquirer for x hours of the day? Is CNN greedy or losing money? Is this an experiment? All information contains a perspective. I trusted CNN's to be vetted. From the time Nancy Grace is on, I no longer know if I can trust CNN's information to be vetted. Will Nancy Grace spill into Robin Meade? May I still trust Robin Meade's information to be vetted?
What I think about the show
domonkassu21 December 2002
The few main drawbacks to the format of "Headline News" especially overnight is that it is very hard to find your favorite teams scores. I mean that during the half-hour breaks you might miss them so you have to watch another hour. The unrivaled beauty Rudi Bakhtiar does help one sit even through the most trivial day's news.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
