Top 7: People Paid to be Incorrect
With 600,000 media outlets per market nowadays, that means there are plenty of people paid to be wrong, in addition to the ones that you run into on a daily basis. I tried to narrow the list down to seven. It was hard.
7. TV political analysts
There is no difference than the political “expert” and the sports “expert,” except one talks about something incredibly important, and the other one deals with elections.
6. Drive-thru window employees
You drive through KFC, and you clearly state that you want your three-piece meal to consist of two breasts and a leg. Once home, you realize that they still threw a thigh and a wing in there! Nothing can possibly ruin a day more than that. I’m not sure why I used KFC as an example, but when this happens with Popeye’s chicken, I become nearly violent.###MORE###
5. Hollywood Squares celebrities
Granted, they are probably not pulling in too much cash for being on the show, but that counts for being paid. And are they ever getting things wrong. The simplicity of questions makes Wheel of Fortune seem like you are transplanting someone’s skull. Joan Rivers may get the middle square, but that doesn’t mean she knows what a square is. Jm J. Bullock may be popular among contestants, but he doesn’t even use vowels in his own first name. And Shadoe Stevens has never answered a question correctly, Hollywood Squares or no Hollywood Squares, in his entire life.
4. Fantasy sports experts
Anyone can tell you that Hanley Ramirez, Albert Pujols, and Tim Lincecum are good fantasy players, so it’s up to the legions of fantasy sports writers to try to make their “sleeper” picks, or project those for breakout seasons. They’re usually wrong. Football experts are worse–they week-to-week try to project which players will have good and bad stats. And sure enough, the week that they assure you to not start your borderline wide receiver, he blows up for 200 yards and three touchdowns.
Punxatawney Phil may not always be right when he predicts six more weeks of winter, but he is a groundhog. With the Department of Defense-like budgets news stations allow their high-tech weather divisions, one would assume they could tell whether it was going to rain or snow or not by now. By the time a huge storm goes down and they are break into overtime of a March Madness game to tell you about it for 30 minutes, you can pretty much look out the window and see your own trees blowing over and put 2 and 2 together yourself. Since there were no hurricanes this past year, they have now moved onto snow, and when it snows, you can be ready to feel like the world is ending. Case in point—last week.
2. NFL referees
Instant replay has proven that even having an event on video doesn’t mean that everyone can agree that it happened or not. Don’t sell them short though—they get plenty of unreviewable plays wrong as well. It was a tough call on which sport’s officials to include on this list. Pro wrestling referees come in a close second, but at least they have excuses—they are by themselves and clearly being distracted by a wrestler’s manager or tag team partner. Plus, the one chance that the pro wrestling referee union had for instant replay was shot down during a panel discussion at WrestleMania VI.
1. Skip Bayless
If conventional wisdom, old man anger, and overall idiocy were facts, Skip would read like a freaking almanac. Instead, the reason that he can be so consistently wrong is that he has an incredible skill for throwing out opinions without anything to back him up except for crankiness of the purest form. Sometimes when reading, watching or listening to him, you wonder if he’s actually an ingenious parody of the overanalyzing, overzealous sports columnist. Then you realize that he is actually being serious. This Top 7 could have easily been a Top 784, merely consisting of all of the columnists and talking heads similar to Skip, but for the sake of time, it was condensed to include just the one true King of Incorrectness.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?