No, I'm much more angered by the laziness of the article. Not the writing. The idea of the article.
Mr. Ozersky starts off suggesting both In and Out and 5 Guys are overrated, based on their top spots in this Consumer Reports list. But then goes on to contradict his stance by suggesting not only are their worse hamburgers out there, but that most fast food hamburgers are probably worse.
It's at this point that to me, the article not only should be over, but perhaps should never have been written in the first place. The Consumer Reports list was for best fast food hamburger. Not best hamburger of all time.
Mr. Ozersky of course does go on, explaining why he personally doesn't like the aforementioned hamburgers, and then mentions some places he chooses as better:
Steak and Shake
I can't comment on Steak and Shake or Smashburger, as I've never tried them. I'll take his word that they're chains - though he does suggest Smashburger is "new" so I'm not sure they should be considered. But whatever.
Fuddruckers, I really wouldn't classify as fast food. I mean it's a sit down place. Like an Olive Garden. I realize getting into the philosophical definitions of fast food is a slippery slope, with personal opinion probably getting in the way of the true matter at hand, but never once have I listed a Fuddruckers as a fast food alternative. I have yet to ever see them as a choice at a highway rest stop.
And White Castle. White Castle? I certainly will admit to a craving of their "sliders" at different points of my life, usually after Phish concerts and bong circles (redundant, I know) but ranking them as one of the top fast food burgers?
That goes a long way to establishing credibility.
I'm Paul Harvey... Good Day.