Hannity agonistes
This week brought what may be one of the starkest moments yet in America's appraisal (reappraisal?) of Fox News and its role in our national political conversation.
The backyard relevance here is that Fox played an instrumental role in elevating Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman in the NY-23 race.
The network also helped mightily in driving Republican Dede Scozzafava out of the contest. In doing so, Fox clearly slanted Scozzafava's record and repeated inaccurate information.
On his Daily Show program this week, Jon Stewart pointed out a clear case of deception in Sean Hannity's coverage of a recent Republican rally in Washington.
Hannity's program spliced video of much larger crowds at an earlier event into his coverage of the GOP event.
Hannity later acknowledged that Stewart "was right." According to Hannity, it was an "inadvertent mistake but a mistake nonetheless."
I'll be blunt: Hannity's claim is implausible. Somehow video of a much larger event months earlier was accidentally spliced into a report?
It just doesn't wash. Clearly, Hannity's team wanted to inflate the importance and popularity of the GOP rally, even if that meant deceiving audiences.
Which brings me to the Fox News problem.
I don't mind Fox serving as an advocacy news organization, pushing a particular (in this case, conservative) agenda.
That kind of activism has always been a respected part of journalism. Some of my favorite magazines and newspapers have a distinctly conservative bent.
What troubles me is that Fox -- an incredibly powerful media organization -- would intentionally deceive its audience.
We've seen it before. In the NY-23 race, Fox hosts told audiences over and over again that Scozzafava was "endorsed by ACORN." That simply wasn't true.
These days, consumers of news have to be far more savvy than ever before. When watching Fox, I suggest turning up your skepticism-filter as high as it will go.
posted by Brian Mann @ 11/12/2009 08:52:00 AM
31 Comments
31 Comments:
There is NO honest/unbiased mainstream news source anymore, I don't that there ever was. What Fox does provide is an alternative view. Hannity is a yappy little lap dog for the RNC, so this is no surprise. I also have to question is he would have even been aware of it. I rather doubt he does the splicing himself.
Fox is no worse than MSNBC/CNN/CBS/NBC/ABC. But since they offer the opposing view they're considered "slanted". That's hypocrisy at best, intellectual dishonesty at worst.
You mean the 'fair and balanced' Fox News? I no longer watch any cable news shows - haven't for several years now. They all seem to be quite slanted. BBC is probably the most honest news organization around. Oh yes, NPR/NCPR do a pretty good job and the local broadcast channels too.
For Bret4207 - you should rephase your comment to say there is no news organization more biased than Fox news. That would speak more to the truth of the matter. Fox is far worse than those other news organizations you listed. All you have to do is read the same story from all of the news organizations you listed to see who slanted the story more. I regularly do just that and Fox is the absolute worst in distorting and lying about anything that will forward their agenda. To say Fox is the yappy little lap dog for the RNC is "intellectually dishonest" because a lot of people watch this "news" organization and take what they say for fact. Whats the point in providing news if its all lies? Why would Fox news be lying to the American public? I'll let all of you figure that out for yourselves...Tanis
Let's here it for The Daily Show! Thanks Brian for this report. You list just one tiny example of how FOX operates to deceive their audience 24/7.
Why is it, that whenever proof is given about the ethical/moral lapses of "right wing" personalities and/or their media mouthpiece, FOX News, that some "righties" still wrongly refuse to apologize when called on it? Nor, will there be any counter-facts offered to demonstrate that what is seen and heard on FOX is correct.
Instead we read the same refrain - all media sources are equally biased and corrupted. Politicians - ditto. Political parties - ditto.
It reminds me of the schoolyard - Someone confronts a bully and say's something like, "maybe you wouldn't be such a bully if you had parents who loved you." The bully responds, "oh yeah, you're a bully for saying that to me, therefore your parents don't love you either."
You see, when caught out in abhorent behavior, just rationalise that everyone else is doing it.
And if that were indeed so, do two wrongs make it right? Depends upon what one means by "right" these days.
The National Review is one Con pub that I read each month. The library has copies.
Your use of the movie-making term "spliced" shows how little you know about television news production. I doubt Fox did this intentionally, as it was sure to be spotted - why would the network invite such criticism? As for Fox being biased - its content stems from a different set of assumptions than those on America's left. Whether you consider it biased depends entirely on your own set of assumptions about society, politics, etc.
Brian Mann wrote: "That kind of activism has always been a respected part of journalism."
Yes, but not always BROADCAST journalism. That's what makes cable news so vexing. Two decades ago, it was against the Fairness Doctrine (uh-oh, here comes Bret!) to vet opinions like that on TV news casts, and outright lies were really frowned on.
Fox News has had it both ways, using the perceived "neutrality" of Huntley-Brinkley era newscasts while pushing a socially conservative and rabidly corporatist agenda, a la talk radio. And not being above fabrications like the ACORN one you mentioned. (And yes, MSNBC and CNN have "agenda" shows now, too, but most are conservative--insert tears here for Lou Dobbs; MSNBC finally discovered there might be a market for counterprogramming with Olbermann and Maddow, but they've still got Scarb and Mika in the morning.)
As to Anon 10:51's assertion, "I doubt Fox did this intentionally, as it was sure to be spotted - why would the network invite such criticism?"
Because it often gets away with it, without criticism. Who besides the Daily Show caught this? Nobody in the MSM that I'm aware of. And nobody in big media listens to Media Matters. This stuff shouldn't be left to TV comics, but it is.
Thanks Anon. for explaining how "truth" is all relevant depending upon one's political leanings and perception.
Now I am convinced that FOX never lies or intentionally misleads its viewers. This is true because the viewers of FOX news percieve, and therefore receive, the news as they want to hear it.
If there are lapses in FOXs "fair and balanced" reporting, it can simply be laid at the feet of incompetent interns who don't know how to "splice" digital images. Sean Hannity lie and decieve? Never.
And besides, even if he does, as pointed out earlier we now know that all media outlets engage in decieving their intended audiences.
Beyond the ACORN comments made by Fox about Dede, what was misleading about their coverage of her positions? I'm curious because I hear about how her reputation was tarnished and etc. but I didn't see or hear it.
I learned today that there were some robo calls that were mean but what else? I thought New Yorkers were supposed to be tough and enjoy the bare-knuckle fist fights of politics. Or is that only for men? Are we employing a double standard here?
jpm
Tanis, if you'll go back and read what I wrote you'll see you misread it. I said Hannity is a yappy little dog, not all of Fox. Some of Foxes reporting is just as accurate or inaccurate as anything you'll find on the other stations. In know that irritates friend Frank, but it's true. The days of responsible reporting on TV news is long gone. You can't believe a word Oldbermann says for instance.
Pick on Fox if you want but at least be honest enough to realize the others are just as bad.
Hannity is nothing more than a modern day Elmer Gantry. The good news is that he is preaching to the choir. The only people that take him seriously are the ones who already want to believe what he says. For every person he " Hannitizes" there is one or more who are so alienated by his act that they jump to the other side.
The bad news is that it is Circus acts like his that make informed discourse on anything hard to initiate or sustain.
The elections of 2006 and 2008 are proof that the louder and more insane guys like him become, the more people turn away from the ideology they try to push on America.
How dare you question Sean Hannity's honesty!!!
Bret4207 wrote, "You can't believe a word Oldbermann says for instance."
Another example of my guys behave badly and so do yours.
I could fill "The In Box" with numerous examples of the "mistakes"(I'm being polite) that FOX News makes every single day of the week. After all, FOX does warn us - "We Report, You Decide"
I would welcome Bret4207 defending his statement about Olbermann. Does Bret4207 actually watch Olbermann or does he get his ideas about the man from FOX?
Please give some examples of how Keith Olbermann lies just like Hannity does. Hannity, the Fox of FOX? Gives foxes a bad name.
If you tell a lie enough times people will beleive it. The correction is usually missed. Olberman is just as bad as Insanity. Every time I see him I want to slap him in the face and tell him to quit crying. Insanity just makes things up.
Jeeze Frank, I gave you more credit that you apparently deserve. Oh well, Google is your friend here-
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/08/10/olbermann-expelled-milbank-distortions-himself-distorts-conservatives
http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2009/11/will_keith_olbe_1.php
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/08/shocker-keith-olbermann-lies-about-tea-party-violence-compares-protesters-to-hamas-hezbollah/
There are whole websites devoted to Olbermanns exaggerations, lies and his omissions. I'm sure some people will say an exaggeration or omission isn't actually lie, yet they'll accuse Fox of the same thing under the same circumstances.
Tome they're all the same. All have a slant, they all lean one way or the other. I don't understand just why recognizing that infuriates Frank, but apparently it does.
The mistake many people make, IMO, is considering Olbermann, Hannity, Beck or Limbaugh journalists. They aren't, although Olbermann claims he is. They're commentators, editorialists, pundits. Of all of them I find Beck the most palatable, something some will no doubt find insane. Sorry, but calling for responsible politicians, fiscal responsibility and some basic honesty rings true to me.
Keith Olbermann ran video of Glen Beck preparing for a photo shoot. Beck has Vicks Vaporub smeared under his eyes to induce tears. Olbermann never has shed tears. He allows himself mock indignation and does tend to emulate Stewart, Colbert and, Keith's hero, Ed Morrow, in style of delivery. He uses humor in exposing the constant drum beat of lies on FOX.
I will go through every site Bret4207 has listed.
I will be pleasanty surprised if they are not from FOX News, Ann Coulter or some other "right" wing mouthpiece.
In the meantime, I'm contacting the producers of Olbermann's show to see if they'd like to help Bret4207 see the difference.
Does hannity Lie? Well , of course he does, everyone knew that. What is more troubling is the sliding scale that conservative puppets like him live by. If they actually stood for something, I could be forgiving, but they stand for NOTHING. Deficits are fine if they come from conservative administrations. Wars of choice are fine if theyy are ordered by their " guys."
Hannity is a true conservative. he will say anything, but stand for nothing: Here is what I mean.
Hannity, April 5, 1999
Sure, Milosevic's a bad guy...but that doesn't mean we should go to war...
During the lead-up to the War in Kosovo...
"Why should one U.S. airman give up his life when our national security is not in imminent danger?"
- Hannity, March 24, 1999
Two words for so called non biased network news: DAN RATHER. f you cannot admit that networks are biased then you yourself are already there.
More4les
Frank, I've watched more than enough Olbermann to last me a life time. He's just another talking head spewing the same lies, distortions, omissions and whatnot as any other out there. The difference to me is that he seems to think he's a real live news man. But like Colbert and Stewart he's not, unlike those two he's also funny.
I don't know how you can watch that tripe and then Fox and not see the similarity even they are at opposite ends of the spectrum.
Being biased is problematic. However, I wish FOX's only fault was their bias. They take their bias and turn it into a full fledged circus of daily misinformation.
I'm biased towards the Yankees, but I will call a foul a foul and a strike a strike. It does not please me if/when the Yankees do well only because the Umpire got the call wrong.
If you need to believe and insist upon the claim that Olbermann is the same kind of "reporter" as that lying sack of wingnuts, Sean Hannity, then so be it.
You keep on watching FOX and I'll keep on watching Olbermann.
I believe that I'll be the better informed citizen for doing so. you on the other hand?
Just my bias.
Being biased is problematic. However, I wish FOX's only fault was their bias. They take their bias and turn it into a full fledged circus of daily misinformation.
I'm biased towards the Yankees, but I will call a foul a foul and a strike a strike. It does not please me if/when the Yankees do well only because the Umpire got the call wrong.
If you need to believe and insist upon the claim that Olbermann is the same kind of "reporter" as that lying sack of wingnuts, Sean Hannity, then so be it.
You keep on watching FOX and I'll keep on watching Olbermann.
I believe that I'll be the better informed citizen for doing so. you on the other hand?
Just my bias.
Frank- I DON'T WATCH FOX!!!!! I might catch Beck or Oreilly once a month or so or watch Fox or CNN if there's something going on. Other than that, I gave upon all the network and cable TV years back. My watching Olbermann was to see if he's as big a pompous buffon as I'd heard. Sorry Frank, but the guy is just a left wing version of Michael Savage in my opinion.
I get my news from NPR, CNN Radio and North Country Now.com. If I hear about something interesting I research it on Drudge or another site. I also get a lot of off the wall news from several sites I visit that involve things I'm sure would give you the heebies jeebies.
So kindly stop making assumptions about me. I know it irritates you when I point out the obvious similarities between left and right wing, but it's just what i observe.
Drudge is the site that Fox news takes its talking points from everyday. "Drudge gained radio notoriety in the early 2000s by becoming a constant reference for news material on Limbaugh's, Sean Hannity's, and Mark Levin's radio shows."
It is run by a man who failed at everything he did, was put in a Jewish psychiatric Treatment Ward and emerged as the Brain Center of the far Right.
When you add in the homosexual history of the man, it might be argued he and Rove were twins separated at birth.
Nobody goes to Drudge for news or the truth. OMG.
So now we're down to anti-Semitic hate speech and homosexual references to defend a view point? Wow, I really am among the intelligentsia....
"So now we're down to anti-Semitic hate speech"
What did you infer that from? He was raised Jewish, it was only natural that the Court and his family chose a Jewish Treatment Center for him . How hard is that to understand?
More importantly, do tell us where Drudge gets his information for his "site" from? Does he have investigative reporters out there pounding the pavement? Of course not. He uses blog sites that any moron with a modem can fill with trash.
Drudge worked for Fox, they get their " news stories " from him. therefore, they are one and the same.
Antisemitism and homophobia aside Drudge uses numerous sources for his site. Go their and you'll find links to every news organization you can think of. This is just more of the pot calling the kettle black.
Antisemitism and homophobia aside Drudge uses numerous sources for his site. Go there and you'll find links to every news organization you can think of. This is just more of the pot calling the kettle black. You really do have your blinders on.
This post has been removed by the author.
http://freedocumentaries.org/difference.php
http://www.votestrike.com/sheeple_on_strike
This "Hannity agonistes" line started by Mr. Mann (you dirty birdy - my apologies to S. King)is a never ending story.
Here goes another posting. bret4207 says in a previous post above that "I get my news from NPR, CNN Radio and North Country Now.com. If I hear about something interesting I research it on Drudge or another site. I also get a lot of off the wall news from several sites I visit that involve things I'm sure would give you the heebies jeebies."
Is Bret4207 telling us that by getting news from sites that are 'Off The Wall' he gets messages from Michael Jackson's moonwalking spirit? Recently disturbed by our bombing of the moon.
That would give me the heebie- jeebies for sure! You betcha.
Bret4207 sounds very "1984"ish - Bret4207, report doubleplusquick to Room 101.
Just joshing you my bruthaa.
But, seriously, Bret4207, President Obama wants you to report to Room 101 posthaste.
:-) Big Bruthaa
Frank, we have had the chance to discuss things. You apparently have no defense to your positions, so you make personal attacks and snide comments. I don't know what your problem is, but if you want to disagree with me then at least try and make a coherent argument.
Bret4207, PLEASE report to Room 101doublesplus quick.
Peace and Love.
yours truly,
Big Brutha :-)
Does that help?
Post a Comment
<< Home