Sean Hannity, Idiot.

so this sean is a person on foxnews.

isn't that a crime against humanity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, it's not fine. Hannity et al get to lie and mislead, their views get to be amplified throughout the US public discourse, and everyone else gets to deal with the consequences of having the majority of the public worldview based on the factual ignorance of amoral and dimwitted corporate shills.

Mean ones.

There is no immunity to a constant diet of Fox News. The mere absence of coherent and significant physical reality breeds delusions in somewhat the same way that a sensory deprivation tank breeds hallucinations, and when on top of that one includes the guidance of these delusions by the most sophisticated marketing and propaganda professionals the world has ever seen, it becomes obvious that frequent and loyal viewers who think they can allow for the bias and see through the bs are kidding themselves.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Mod Hat - Redirect

Mod Hat — Redirect

No complaints or anything like that. It's just shaping up in more political terms than a discussion of the bees or any of the related scientific issues (bear, volcano, beaver—say it three times fast). So I'll send it over to Politics.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

All you have to do is look at Joe Scarborough. He was as crazy as the rest of them at Fox News, and now he's practically a liberal apologist at MSNBC. He's about as Conservative at Colmes was Liberal.

These guys do it for the money. I bet Hannity's not half as stupid as the character he portrays on his fake news show.

 

Oh Scarborough can turn on the Republican rhetoric when he feels like it. However he is often critical of the Republican Party which is a good thing. Too often in the past and still to this day, you cannot be critical of the Republican Party and still be a Republican...which is most unfortunate. It reminds of me of facist regimes.

 

You could make a plausible argument for Limbaugh along those lines, but I've never once doubted the sincerity of Hannity's stupidity. I still remember when a caller asked him why the political left and right were so named, and Hannity didn't know. Any college freshman who has taken an introductory poli sci class knows that it dates from the French revolution. He's loud, but he's dumb.

 

Yeah, just like Colmes can be a "liberal" when he wants to be. They both show signs occasionally, and I'm sure both are actually of the party they claim to be. But my point was that they're only retarded because they get paid good money to be retarded. It's one thing when Joe legitimately criticizes his party, but it's another thing entirely when he sucks the Liberal boob, and bashes the Republicans for no good reason. I've seen it. He's a hitman for MSNBC just like he was for Fox News. He's a weak Righty, which is what he's supposed to be.

And it's hard to be a facist regime when you're out of power, isn't it?

Eh, maybe. For all I know the question caught him off guard. Also, I have never taken poli sci, and have no idea why it's called the left and right.

 

Mega dittos, on those few times when they inadvertenly put hannity against some of intellect on the program the only way hannity could prevail was to yell and talk over the speaker so that no one could hear or understand the speaker.

 

Well you and I are going to have to disagree. I watch Scarborough in the mornings. And I generally like the show except when he goes off the Right wing deep end. And I admire him for his ability to show some balance in his show.

 

Well, fine, we can disagree. To me, he's just doing the same thing he did at Fox News, except now he's a pseudo-liberal.

OK, did you really just compare the Republican party to the Nazi party?

And if we're talking definitions, my point was it's hard to be a regime when you don't have power, not that it's hard to be a facist.

 

No I compared the politics of some members of the Republican Party to the politics of Hitler. Hitler used the same techniques as do certian members of the Republican Party (e.g. limbaugh, hannity, et al.)

 

Dude, that is beyond weak. That's the same as the arguments neo-cons used when they compared Obama's passionate addresses to Hitler's.

Give me a break. Drawing the Hitler comparison is one of the most intellectually dishonest things a person can do in a discussion.

 

Truly free speech though, every conceivable crazy viewpoint should be given a forum. We don't have a good way in present time of realizing who is closer to the truth (before hearing them) so we should try to hear from just about every viewpoint. After they speak, we evaluate what they said and test their argument to see if it holds water. Those that do not, discard (do not let them back on).
Ok, now what I've described is how an objective, dispassionate, dis-prejudiced, and arguably scientific media would conduct its business. What we actually get is a mix of this (I argue small) and the media serving its own interests. In my estimation the variable with the most weight as to how the corporate media pursues the news is the forementioned. And now realize when it serves its own interests it represents what the people want before the truth. It's a sort of populism, corruption (make the distinction between populism and corruption), and ignorance (how many journalists understand their responsibility and are capable of thinking objectively? Many perhaps, but far fewer than many inside the corporate media).

I offer this because it seems some of you may be looking too downstream at this. You have to realize the strengths and weaknesses of the medium by which you are receiving your news before you can consider yourself informed or dare I say ready to take action based on the understanding you think you have. Read Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent' or just google 'biased media'.

Also, I'd argue Hannity may be a hypocrite but he very well may just believe what he says. And he's not at all alone. For example, 48% of people in this country believe in creationism apparently (I can't find the source where this comes from, I'm relying on memory). In 2004 it was even worse:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml

There are a large numbers of variables at play every time anyone on television speaks, you should be able to account for most of these (populism, self interested media etc) and weigh these factors into what you see on television. You'd be better served to look at Hannity as a symptom of a larger problem. Focusing on his inadeqequecies is to a large degree pointless. Remove him and I guarantee he'd be replaced in seamless fashion and you'd be back here having the same argument about Hannity 2.0.

 

? Mornin' Joe is and has always been a tool of the authoritarian right, on MSNBC and everywhere else.

Sincerity is not the issue. The better tools are often sincere, and the talking heads that get high profile jobs on major TV stations have been thoroughly vetted throughout their careers for their ability to be good tools.

 

That is hysterical.

Nothing on MSNBC is a tool of the right, authoritarian or otherwise.

 

? Almost everything connected with news and events on the major US TV stations is strongly right authoritarian biased, as preferred by their corporate ownership and control, and on MSNBC that would include everything except Olbermann's and Maddow's shows - which the few times I watched them all the way through were generally balanced in their approach and framing, with no strong tilt overall on a standard left/right scale (they both tilt a bit authoritarian).

Both those shows are recent additions, both are outliers from the run of even that station (let alone the run of US TV), and both are controversial within the station's management despite their generally fluffy and pleasant and non-combative demeanors.

The mere presence of occasional left or libertarian viewpoints expressed is not bias, see. It's where the "balance" comes in.

There is no such balance on Mornin' Joe. Recent example? Review the Sotomayor coverage so far. The right authoritarian framing has been to discuss her possible pro-affirmative action bias and possible "liberal" activist leanings, using the Ricci case as a basis and taking rightwing authoritarian assumptions about the Court as granted ("activist" only applies to left or liberal, etc). That was Joe's framing and context for his entire discussion and approach, true?

 

We're going to disagree on this one, ice.

 

I pointed to a recent example of MSNBC's major news-related programs presenting, as always, the rightwing authoritarian frame and approach.

Do you have an example of Mornin' Joe dishing the leftwing libertarian propaganda line?

 

:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

OMG! By far the FUNNIEST shit I've seen on this forum, EVER!

 

But the example isn't right wing authoritarian! That's what you apparently can't grasp!