Inciting one's own limited viewpoint viewers is not of great value, in my opinion.  Contribution would be measured in terms of actual content, with facts and reasoning, and which forwards the knowledge of the individual and leads him/her to better fair and balanced conclusions.

A+  Fareed Zakaria
A    Juan Williams
A-   Andrea Mitchell
A-   Van Susteren
B+  David Gregory

Good attempt but distinct leaners

B+ Bill O'Reilly (Misaccused, smart fellow, conservative leaning, but fair and balanced mostly)
B-  Chris Mathews (One of my favorites, but he can get heated to the left and distort some things)


B- Rachel Maddow - Definitely a left agenda and an advocate, but some good content at times

Most aggressive and biased and/or hatefulish

D+ Hannity - Not at all fair and balanced, contentious, interrupts and is a strong advocate

D-  Keith Olberman - Hateful
D-  Rush Limbaugh - Hateful
F+ Ed Schultz - Hateful

COMMENTS, IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BY LAST NAME: (Comments are intended to be about the rhetoric and the balance and the value, not about the person.  Please read them from that viewpoint.

Olbermann - See his comments related to the Gifford shooting, under Gun Rights.

"Then Fox demanded a war and got it, at the cost of 4,400 American lives...
Then the banking and investor class Fox pimped crashed the economy."  Is this neutral, informative, contributory speech, that a normal rational person would engage in?  Source of the quote: BusIns.

June 1, 2009: 
"Fox News Channel will never restrain itself from incitement to murder and terrorism – not until its profits begin to decline, when its growth stops." Referring to O’Reilly, he also declared that "the goal here, to get this blindly irresponsible man and his ilk off the air," and that "we must again make the world safe for people condemned by the Fox News Channel."

January 10, 2011:  He acknowledged his mistakes and that his rhetoric had been inciting - and he promised to no longer engage in it.  (See the info under Gun Rights.)  Hopefully there will be a change that would cause him to be more of an "adult" - then, of course, it will be my pleasure to change the grade.)

Limbaugh - There is no way he would be considered a rational contributor.  Extreme comments are obvious. Not a contribution to this country overall.

Shultz - He could be worse than Limbaugh, but in that "way out" territory there is little need for discrimination.  He appears to just want to prove he is "right", the left is "right", and the "right" is "wrong".