Opinions on Sean Hannity Wanted

[Libertarian]

Okay, I admit it, the paltry 50 stations I get via satellite do not even include the Fox network, so I've never even seen Sean Hannity. However, I've heard his radio show a few times.

My first recollection of his intellect was his reading a list of outrageous court settlements and lawsuits. He was trying to show how screwed up "society" and the legal system were. So outrageous were his examples, that I went to Snopes and found that the list he was reading from was a bogus item circulating on the Internet, i.e. none of the cases were real. Obviously, SH is no intellectual Titan.

My other impression of him is that instead of debating ISSUES, he is constantly trying to steer the debate to an "us versus them" sparring match. I don't know a lot about Mike Ferrel's (MASH actor) politics, but I doubt I'd agree with him on much. However, when he was on SH's radio show, he was trying to make specific points for his position on the Iraq war and the Bush administration, while SH kept going on and on about people who love the good ol' USA and those other, liberal people who hate it. Like I said, I doubt that I agree with Ferrel very much, but after listening to the exchange, I thought a lot more highly of him than I did SH. He is forever using the word "liberal."

How does SH rate a TV show? Is this the state of political discourse today, i.e. opinions shouted at both sides with no intent of actually AFFECTING the opinion of your opponent?

[c0rbin]

Shock jock?

A far cry from journalism?

Mata Hari for the me me me people?

Concience medicine for modern-day social darwinists?

[Landis]

Sean Hannity has his eyes on Bill O'Reilly's success. While he lacks the capacity to research his topics and present them with a logical bases like Bill O., he clearly sees the right wing shift in American Politics after 911. I believe he views himself as a bulldog for the right, justified as a counter balance to all of the so-called liberal media i.e. the Public Broadcasting Network. Of course he's out to capitalize on his growing notoriety (hence the book) and after all, isn't that what America is all about? Who- ever makes the most money wins.

[Lurker]

Ooohhh, I would have loved to hear Hannity talk about those fake cases. Will Hannity correct himself when he finds out the truth? No way! The First Rule of being a conservative talking head

1. Never admit you are wrong. Never, never, never! And I mean NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you find yourself in a situation where someone is using actual facts to show you that you are wrong follow one of these tactics:

A. Divert
B. Call their stats "opinions"
C. Ignore
D. Call them far left liberals or any other derogatory name so the debate can devolve.
E. Kill their microphone

My opinion of Hannity? He rarely talks substance. In watching Hannity and Colmes, Colmes always seems pretty fair and tries not to interrupt and stays on the topic and does nto call people names. Imagine the polar opposite and you have defined Hannity.

Lurker

[hgc]

Originally posted by Lurker
snip

B. Call their stats "opinions"

snip
That's trademark Bill O'Reilly!

[Lurker]

Originally posted by hgc

That's trademark Bill O'Reilly!

That's why I wrote it! For each and every artifice I cited I had in mind something I have witnessed just in case someone asked me to back up my assertions.

Lurker

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Landis
Sean Hannity has his eyes on Bill O'Reilly's success. While he lacks the capacity to research his topics and present them with a logical bases like Bill O., he clearly sees the right wing shift in American Politics after 911.

Light weight Pol BSer.

O'Really doesn't research... he pontificates from the hip as well.

If Feaux News really "reported" and let us "decide" the reactionaries wouldn't tune in nearly as frequently or as fervently as they do now.

[corplinx]

Hannity seems to be merely a tool for other conservatives. His radio show seems to be a place conservatives like Newt, Bill Bennet, Ann Coulture run proxy shows of their own.

I think many Hannity listeners are so for these people and not for Hannity himself. My biggest complaint is that he is too caught up in finding inconsistency (much like some people on this forum). Inconsistency is of course a sign of baloney. However, I find people who reach too hard to prove inconsistency (or hypocrisy as they like to call it) are bores and not skeptics.
Inconsistency should be simple. Hannity is simply too hung up on "the hypocrisy of the left" to be as effective as Limbaugh.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Lurker
My opinion of Hannity? He rarely talks substance. In watching Hannity and Colmes, Colmes always seems pretty fair and tries not to interrupt and stays on the topic and does nto call people names. Imagine the polar opposite and you have defined Hannity.


I can't watch that show for Hannity being on. Its fun seeing him be outclassed by Colmes but seeing Hannity botch the presentation of conservative viewpoints with which I agree makes me want pull an elvis on the TV.

I think Alan needs his own show Hannity-free.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by corplinx


I can't watch that show for Hannity being on. Its fun seeing him be outclassed by Colmes but seeing Hannity botch the presentation of conservative viewpoints with which I agree makes me want pull an elvis on the TV.

I think Alan needs his own show Hannity-free.

Come on, Corplinx. I am agreeeing with you twice in ONE day? Inconceivable!

I agree Colmes outclasses Hannity every show. Hannity is far too argumentative and argues about little of substance. But we both know who will always succeed more on Fox.

To Hannity's credit, I like him better than Coulter. Coulter seems most intent on being famous. She slings the insults and shock statements far more than Hannity. Hannity has a veneer of being polite.

Lurker

[blackadder65738]

Originally posted by Lurker


Hannity has a veneer of being polite.

Lurker

Yeah, but I think he's losing it. It seems that Sean is starting to maybe realize that if he doesn't shout down his opposition or cut off what they're saying, he loses the argument. Lately he's been losing his temper more and more. I've seen him grab onto the arm of a guest more than once and yell right in their face. He seems frustrated. Apparently he just can't understand why people won't love George Bush and Ronald Reagan. There must be something wrong with them if they don't in his world. The more you watch, the more you can see through his yelling and bluster and it becomes apparent that he wishes he could stop and discuss this stuff reasonably, but if he does that he loses. He would like to be more like Alan Colmes, but that doesn't work if you're on the wrong side of the issues. Barring that possibility, he would probably like to get Colmes off of the show altogether, so he can have an unchallenged format, like Rush.

[Landis]

"O'Really doesn't research... he pontificates from the hip as well."

While it's true he does plenty of pontificating, he does have a much larger budget and therefore employes a full time staff to research his daily subjects. He is very careful not to fall into the traps that Hannity jumps into head first and therefore much harder to nail. I am not saying he is right, just much more crafty and liberals who attack him should be careful.


Also, under the conservative attack tactic B: I would change the word opinions into "spin". O'Reilly always interrupts people, especially when they are making valid logical points, with the statement, "now you are spinning, Mr. X. This is the No Spin Zone!"

[Ladewig]

I've seen him grab onto the arm of a guest more than once and yell right in their face.

At that point it should be pretty clear to the guest that no amount of rational dialogue can take place. The appropriate response is to then accuse him of assault and ask him why he has no respect for the rule of law.

[Cain]

Sean Hannity is funny. He's slightly modifying Rush's non-guest confrontation format. You see, he has a guest on, and asks "Why do you hate America?" Any reply is to the abusrd question is immediately ignored, and he follows as though no one is present.

Good stuff.



To this day Rush Limbaugh (Hannity follows him and sometimes fills in for him) will never do a show where anyone can call him on anything. When ABC first tried promoting him, they had him as a guest on all the regular talk shows, including an appearance on "Nightline" as an environmental expert up against Al Gore. Needless to say he looked rather foolish and stopped that altogether. This new breed of conservative shock-jock can get away with a lot more, and apparently doesn't care how silly they appear.)

[Tmy]

Hannity is nothing wh/o Allen Combs!!!! HAHAHAHAH whered they get such a geek to play the "libral". They favor Hannity so much over him.

[corplinx]

I think Fox knows exactly what it is doing having Hannity on in primetime. Let's face it, he probably gets better ratings with his style versus having someone like Cal Thomas or Bill Krystol on.

For everyone claiming Fox is so biased, I find it hard to believe that they would put a shill like Hannity on versus an independent thinker like Colmes. Look at CNN, they put left wing shills like Carville on crossfire.

I think the Fox formula for H&C might be a bit like pro-wrestling announcing. You have the straight man and the "color" man. Lawler and Ross, Vince and Heenan, etc. The straight man calls the match, the moves, etc. The "color" man was traditionally a hell (Jesse Ventura for instance) who added "color" by poking fun at the good guy wrestler and being more bombastic in general. In this situation, Alan Colmes would be the straight man doing while Sean seems to be there for "color".

Is this a successful formula for news analysis? I can't say, don't watch it enough to know. If I want to see more thoughtful analysis of the news I tune into the last 15 of Special Report on FoxNews to see people like Charles Krauthammer, Mort Kondracke, Juan Williams, Mara Liason, and others discuss the day's events.

I think by the time primetime rolls around, you have to have someone like Hannity on just to make things interesting.

[Skeptic]

Sean Hannity has his eyes on Bill O'Reilly's success. While he lacks the capacity to research his topics and present them with a logical bases like Bill O.,

Bill O'Reilly RESEARCHES his topics and presents them in a LOGICAL manner? Fooled me. In my view, he's an ignoramous blowhard. He is always superemely confident his views on an issue (reached after fifteen whole minutes of reading notes prepared by his assistants, I suppose) are more valid than that of the guest, who spent their lives researching it. Very annoying.

all of the so-called liberal media i.e. the Public Broadcasting Network.

I don't necessarily disagree about media bias, but THAT'S your example? PBS? When was the last time anything it broadcasted had the least influence on American politics?

[3-toed-sloth]

What is so sad is that these show are presented as "news" shows. These shows aren't news, they are just entertainment.

What I think they should do is just allow fighting similar to what used to be permitted on Jerry Springer. Whenever Mr. Hannity disagrees with a guest, he could just punch them in the face. That would be great for ratings. That way nobody would be fooled into thinking that these shows offer any semblance of a rational discussion of relevant issues.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Lurker

1. Never admit you are wrong. Never, never, never! And I mean NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lurker

I would agree with this with these right wing talking heads.
However, does the left ever admit its wrong either?

I am still waiting for the apology from Walter Mondale and others that Ronald Reagan's policies were going to lead to a nuclear war.

:p

[davefoc]

I agree with most of the negative stuff said about Hannity. especially with what Corplinx said. I am sorry that this type of person is put forth as a spokesman for conservatives.

I like commentators that are driven more by ideas than partisanship. I prefer commentators like Larry Elder and Michael Medved that can discuss issues based on their personal philosophies rather than an unrelenting sense of partisanship. Some of the liberal members of this forum might not like these fellows either, but at least their shows are .about issues and not about pushing a conservative agenda.

[blackadder65738]

Originally posted by davefoc
I prefer commentators like Larry Elder and MICHAEL MEDVED that can discuss issues based on their personal philosophies rather than an unrelenting sense of partisanship. Some of the liberal members of this forum might not like these fellows either, but at least their shows are .about issues and not about pushing a conservative agenda.

Is that a joke? Medved is such a Christian wingnut it's not even funny. He is a deeply tortured and bent individual, who wishes for Theocracy right along with Pat Robertson and his ilk. Saying he's not advancing an agenda is like saying Rush doesn't have an agenda. Ha!

[gnome]

Originally posted by Mike B.


I would agree with this with these right wing talking heads.
However, does the left ever admit its wrong either?

I am still waiting for the apology from Walter Mondale and others that Ronald Reagan's policies were going to lead to a nuclear war.

:p

I have to drop the point here that to be wrong about a prediction is not the same as being wrong about a fact.

If I see somoene playing with matches, and say "Hey, if you don't stop that, you're going to burn the house down"... if good luck prevails and there is no fire, does that mean I was being foolish to question it?

Should I apologize that there was no fire?

Perhaps it is a place for separate debate but I believe Reagan's nuclear policies were highly reckless and that Mondale has no need to apologize for saying so.

[davefoc]

Michael Medved is Jewish.

[davefoc]

blackadder65738, I wonder if you were thinking of somebody else. Michael Medved, while admittedly conservative, is a pretty accomplished fellow, who has written several critically aclaimed books.

He has always impressed me as very knowledgeable about the topics he discusses whether I agree with him or not. He seems to be very even tempered and not the kind of fellow I would expect to generate such feelings as you express unless that is the way you feel about everybody that disagrees with you.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Mike B.
I am still waiting for the apology from Walter Mondale and others that Ronald Reagan's policies were going to lead to a nuclear war.

The apology you're waiting for sounds like this: (http://www.hillzoo.com/staffers.htm)

Q: What was your first political experience?

A: I remember marching through the streets of lower Manhattan protesting Ronald Reagan for fueling the nuclear arms race. In fact, the day Reagan was sworn into office everyone in my classroom hid under the desks, because we thought he was going to start a nuclear war (and, just like duct tape will save you from a chemical attack, everyone knows that hiding under desks is really the best way to survive a nuclear attack). Anyway, thank goodness for Gorbachev, since he was the leader most responsible for ending the Cold War.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by gnome


I have to drop the point here that to be wrong about a prediction is not the same as being wrong about a fact.

If I see somoene playing with matches, and say "Hey, if you don't stop that, you're going to burn the house down"... if good luck prevails and there is no fire, does that mean I was being foolish to question it?

Should I apologize that there was no fire?

Perhaps it is a place for separate debate but I believe Reagan's nuclear policies were highly reckless and that Mondale has no need to apologize for saying so.

I would respectfully disagree Gnome.

In fact, I think this is the 800 pound gorilla the left has always avoided talking about.

As much as I disagreed with Reagan's tax policy, he was 100% right in matching the Soviet's moves.

I don't know how old you are, but as I recall in the early 1980s, Reagan put Pershing II missles in Western Europe to conteract the Soviets putting their SS-20s there. At the time we heard the usual charges, "stupid, cowboy, simplistic" (sounds familiar?)

The fact is the Soviets backed down and signed the IMF treaty that removed all of their SS-20s. They expected Reagan to act like Carter and be do nothing as they attempted to split NATO apart.

The link Aerocontrols provided shows that the left has still not gotten over this and rewritten history to some extent.

[Skeptic]

Is that a joke? Medved is such a Christian wingnut it's not even funny.

Isn't Mike Medved jewish???

[Skeptic]

Perhaps it is a place for separate debate but I believe Reagan's nuclear policies were highly reckless and that Mondale has no need to apologize for saying so.

They weren't reckless. All he did was match the Soviets' introduction of SS-20 missles into eastern Europe by Pershing missles into Western Europe.

This of course was attacked as "agression" by the Soviets, with their typical hypocracy, and as "dangerous" and "needless provocation" by those in the west who saw any sort of standing up to the Soviets as horrible.

Those "rational critics" were usually the same people who previously considered the western impotence in the face of the Soviet rape of Hungary and Czechoslovakia as the height of "rational politics" and "moderation", and the shameful betrayal of South Vietnam as "peace". It's, of course, very easy to be a moderate, peace loving person--as long as nobody YOU know is being sent to the gulags as part of the "price of peace".

Reagan ignored all that and called the Soviet's bluff. This, together with his famous "empire of evil" speech, for all its Hollywood theatrics, was a significant force in convincing the Soviet leaedership that it will not win Western Europe by force or intimidation. This in turn was an important factor in the west winning the cold war.

Did he take a risk? Sure. Could it have backfired? Of course. But, Reagen reasoned, if taking this risk MIGHT lose, NOT taking it and "rationally" and "peacefully" ignoring Soviet provocations and acceding to their demands would SURELY lose. So, taking the risk was not reckless: it was necessary.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Is that a joke? Medved is such a Christian wingnut it's not even funny.

Isn't Mike Medved jewish???

Indeed.

[corplinx]

I thought a bit more about Hannity. The best comparison I can come up with is that his radio show is like a conservative fanboy program. Conservative fanboys can tune in and hear their favorite conservatives talk with Sean. Sean himself is one of the fanboys and not the originator of ideas. Sean also criticizes (albeit gently) those heavyweight conservatives he thinks are wrong (most recently Jack Kemp).

Is Hannity the "Harry Knowles/Aint it Cool News" of conservative talk radio? The fanboy who lauds and criticizes?

[blackadder65738]

OK, so he may be jewish, but he's still a religious wingnut a la Laura Schlessinger. I'm basing this on his TV appearances where he spouts religious right opinions whether he's Christian or not. His books may be different, since he was a secular writer, a movie critic, for the most part until he apparently got religion at some point and started beating the bible. I don't know if it's the old or new testament, but I've heard him do it. He did do something I like, I think him and his brother(?) did the Golden Gobbler(?) Awards, where they can bad movies. As an MST3K fan, I love that stuff. But somewhere along the line he became at least an imitation wingnut like Dr. Laura, and least when on TV. Maybe you've read a book from before he lost it. Sorry for hijacking your thread, Libertarian.