Sean Hannity calls Tea Partiers "Tim McVeigh wannabes" and tea partiers cheer

[katautumn]

How so?

I've always wondered that myself. My only complaint about Sean is that he's a bit like Nancy Grace - he's bad to take one topic and just run it into the ground. Still, he's not hysterical like Michael Savage and he isn't quite as provocative as Rush Limbaugh and he isn't as quick to say offensive things as Anne Coulter. Hannity is really like the nice guy in regards to political commentary.

 

[Grizzly]

Grizzly, surely you know better than to think anyone in that group would cheer over being aligned with Timothy McVeigh. They were cheering because it was the end of Hannity's speech. I know many conservatives, some of whom attend Tea Parties here in Georgia, and none of them would ever want to be compared to that monster, Timothy McVeigh.

Oh I agree completely. Plus, people are conditioned to applaud at the end of a show and they probably didn't even realize that Hannity statement could be construed they way it was if said without a sarcastic tone.

Of course, it would have help Hannity had he said "supposed" Tim McVeigh wannabees. The sarcasm that should have been in his voice wasn't there. It's one case were intonation makes a huge difference

 

[Received]

How so?

I provided my opinion in the rest of the post.

I've always wondered that myself. My only complaint about Sean is that he's a bit like Nancy Grace - he's bad to take one topic and just run it into the ground. Still, he's not hysterical like Michael Savage and he isn't quite as provocative as Rush Limbaugh and he isn't as quick to say offensive things as Anne Coulter. Hannity is really like the nice guy in regards to political commentary.

Well, when you compare him to those guys, of course he's going to look alright. But this doesn't negate the fact that he suffers from a dangerous herd mentality -- one which is destroying this nation --, uses rhetoric to support his own side while falling under the banner of "fair and balanced" (a big problem with Fox, which could be easily solved through dropping the banner during its opinionated nighttime shows), ostensibly is blind against criticisms towards Bush while offering them towards Obama (e.g., deficit spending), has used intentionally questionable and/or manipulated information (e.g., such as how he used footage from Beck's 9/12 rally to make it appear that there really were plenty of other people at a rally protesting the health care bill months later) and never takes the time to bring people with substantial standing opposite his political beliefs on the show.

Of course, don't think I have a high regard for much of cable news. Opinionated shows are fine as an alternative to "just the facts, sir" programming, and I have my own little preference (MSNBC's conservative Joe Scarborough's morning show, for example), but Hannity ain't the way to go. Sadly, considering how CNN reported a 40% drop in ratings since 2009 (along with data that support that opinion-pervaded networks like MSNBC and Fox are thriving), this tells me that people are beginning to prefer slanted interpretations rather than "just the facts, sir" reporting, which admittedly is boring in comparison with a news with a narrative.

But yeah, I agree that Hannity is better than most from the rightwing media. My preferred media conservative is Scarborough, though (along with Pat Buchanan). He's down with old school, traditional conservatism, which aims at pragmatism rather than ideology -- a somewhat complicated discussion on what constitutes conservatism historically versus what we see today (which I opened the discussion table for with my thread, Fantastic Talk on (Real) Conservatism).

 

[Zoooma]

I provided my opinion in the rest of the post.

No, you didn't really say how and that's why people were wondering.....

but I just wanna address the matter of Fox as "fair and balanced" . . . during the Hannity hour, they're not balanced. He has on one Democrat for his panel discussion at the end of the hour but that's generally it.

As far as the other nighttime shows -- Greta seems pretty balanced as she has on just as many Dems as Repubs. If Fox was truly Republican propaganda, when she goes for interviews in the Capitol, she'd only talk to Repubs but that's not the case (which people would see if they'd watch.)

And then there's Mr. O. He used to have the baddest rap on the network until Beck came along and Obama won. Now I rarely hear O'Reilly lumped in with Beck & Hannity. ANYWAY . . . O'Reilly actually talks to a LOT of Dems on his show to get their view point on issues. Of course O'Reilly gives his own opinion but he's fair. I know many would want to throw bricks at me for thinking such a thing, they'd want to denounce me as an idiot . . . but if they actually watched an hour with an open mind, they might find themselves agreeing with O'Reilly or at least they'd see he's not all about hating Obama/promoting the Republican party.

So anyway, fair and balanced the network is most of the day. The 3 a.m. hour (Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld) has on liberals but the host is a conservative. Beck almost never has on liberals but he's not all about hating Obama and promoting the Republicans either. He speaks the truth (again: bricks, I'm an idiot, Beck lies, yeah, I know, whatever.) Hannity -- next to no liberals. So the channel bends conservative but it's not a propaganda machine as some would say. That's an outright lie. They're not completely evenly balanced but they are more balanced than any network on TV.

 

[Received]

Well, let's not ignore the pertinent analyses:

FAIR Archives: Browse by Media Outlet / Personality

The most damning of which is the somewhat dated 2001 article: The Most Biased Name in News

Or if you prefer a documentary: Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism

Once again, don't expect high praise from me regarding cable news in general, what with MSNBC (albeit more factually on par and without near as much evidence of information manipulation and distortion) and opinionated journalism on the rise and "down the middle" journalism of CNN on its deathbed.

 

[Zoooma]

Well, let's not ignore the pertinent analyses:

FAIR Archives: Browse by Media Outlet / Personality

The most damning of which is the somewhat dated 2001 article: The Most Biased Name in News

Or if you prefer a documentary: Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism

FAIR is a left-leaning organization.
and
Robert Greenwald who made Outfoxed is a left wing activist.

Ummm . . . yeah, your sources aren't exactly from a non-biased point of view.

What else ya got?

 

[reverend B]

That's unfortunate.

I dislike the politics of Charlie Wrangel, Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Olbermann, Paul Krugman and others but if someone blatantly lied about them, I'd stand up and say that liar is wrong. It should not be painful to defend someone when they are innocent. That's an honorable thing to do.

i'll take this as a backhanded compliment. you cut my defense of hannity from what you quoted. i did stand up for him. the comment you quoted was a tongue in cheek commentary on how nauseating the man is to me, but obviously i put my money where my mouth is when it comes to defending him when unfairly attacked.
your post doesn't acknowledge an adversary playing fair. that's too bad, because that is what's wrong with our dialogue. you looked for a place to attack, rather than appreciate that a political opponent wanted the rhetoric to be "fair and balanced".
i agree. what i did was honorable. too bad you chose not to notice. your post is a good example of the problem we have in the current political climate.

 

[Received]

LOL. You just can't win, can you, when you claim that anything different than one's position, which one is trying to analyze, is automatically biased, hm?

Seriously, Zoooma, if we take this position to its logical conclusion, all political debate would be impossible, simply because people take political positions, and according to your logic these political positions are automatically biased and lacking credibility, therefore any two people who get in a debate with different political positions (which is the basis of all debate) are automatically without credibility in relation to one another. Please try to correct the inexorability of this reasoning.

It's the people on the right who have used the political labeling as a reason for discrediting an individual, not the left. We should stick to what the evidence presents, and I don't really see any substantial media equivalent on the right to counter the claims made by the "leftist" organizations such as Fair and Greenwald. The FAIR analysis takes up Fox at its own words; Outfoxed presents witnesses and evidence that Fox is yet to substantially counter. Unless we accept your impossible reasoning regarding credibility, we've got to go to the one who makes the best case. And that most certainly isn't Fox.

 

[chaz345]

I'm going to say this very plainly and simply.

Anyone who HONESTLY believes that
A) Tea Partiers really are like McVeigh
or
B) Thinks that Hannity was actually saying that they want to be like McVeigh
or
C) Thinks that Tea Partiers would cheer if THEY really thought they were being compared to McVeigh

is an idiot.

Now since I don't believe that many here are idiots, I can only conclude that those here that are agreeing with either A, B, or C are simply being partisan ideologs. Which when you think about it, really isn't much above being an idiot.

 

[reverend B]

fox went to court to defend their right to broadcast a story that they knew was false. that is who they are.
saying o'reilly is fair and balanced because he has liberals on his show doesn't take into consideration that he often winds up screaming at them and bullying them. the network is a non-stop onslaught of conservative indoctrination, and the fact that zooma can no longer see that shows how truly effective they are.

 

[xMinionX]

Since we don't have footage of the entire event, it's difficult to say whether or not Hannity's comment was poorly placed, although I do agree that it was sarcastic.

I worded myself poorly, my fault. I should have said that it was poorly spoken. His voice didn't sound sarcastic. I think that's where a lot of this is coming from.

As for the cheers, I don't put anything behind that. It was the 'applause' point in his speech. I think if he had made reference to pink Nazi elephants at that point people would have cheered.

 

[Zoooma]

fox went to court to defend their right to broadcast a story that they knew was false.

This happened once? When was this and what was it?

saying o'reilly is fair and balanced because he has liberals on his show doesn't take into consideration that he often winds up screaming at them and bullying them.

Often? How often? Once a night? Two or three times a night? Once a week? Once a month? Have you got statistics of O'Reilly's scream at liberals rate? (You obviously don't watch otherwise you'd know this is rare. You're just going with the flow, on the hater bandwagon, without actually experiencing the rhetoric of which you spew forth. Again -- if you actually watched I'm sure you'd see he's fair with 99% of his liberal guests. He lets them speak. Watch and see.)

the network is a non-stop onslaught of conservative indoctrination, and the fact that zooma can no longer see that shows how truly effective they are.

Non-stop? 24-7? 1,440 minutes a day minus commercials? All of that is conservative indoctrination? Really?

So the Democrats that Fox News has on the air EVERY HOUR OF THE DAY (except maybe during Beck,) they are indoctrinating folks with conservative point of view? Hmmm . . . I did not know this.

 

[Received]

Well, Zoooma, if you'd actually look at the uberliberal presentation in Outfoxed, you'd see that Fox News has a history of using well-known rightwingers as guests juxtaposed with virtually unknown pseudolefties -- i.e., Blue Dog Democrat types, who are either conservative or moderate, despite the liberal label (even if it's self applied). I mean, it's based on testimonies from people who worked there.

 

[reverend B]

This happened once? When was this and what was it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre



Non-stop? 24-7? 1,440 minutes a day minus commercials? All of that is conservative indoctrination? Really?

So the Democrats that Fox News has on the air EVERY HOUR OF THE DAY (except maybe during Beck,) they are indoctrinating folks with conservative point of view? Hmmm . . . I did not know this.

we know you did not know this. that was the point of my previous post.

 

[LightHorseman]

You don't get it.

Example: I'm not going to read Nazi propaganda just so I can point out it makes false claims. IT'S NAZI PROPAGANDA.

Likewise, (and no, I'm not comparing the left to Nazis) I'm not going to read left wing propaganda that caters to the extreme left just so I see if it's factual or not. The Daily Kos is just that [left wing propaganda] and to spend more than a minute at their site would be a waste of time. They don't deserve to be cited because they're so laughable. Actually their hatred isn't laughable, it's pretty sad. They can't be moderate and unbiased; they're out to slam the right before the first syllable is even typed. That's not a source one should be going to for information. People should prefer to spend their time where comments aren't taken out of context in order to smear like the comment related to this thread.

How do you know its false without reading it?

I'm no great fan of Nazi propaganda, but I sure have read a lot of it to form my low opinion of it.

 

[reverend B]

Originally Posted by Zoooma

You don't get it.

"Example: I'm not going to read Nazi propaganda just so I can point out it makes false claims. IT'S NAZI PROPAGANDA.

Likewise, (and no, I'm not comparing the left to Nazis) I'm not going to read left wing propaganda that caters to the extreme left just so I see if it's factual or not. The Daily Kos is just that [left wing propaganda] and to spend more than a minute at their site would be a waste of time. They don't deserve to be cited because they're so laughable. Actually their hatred isn't laughable, it's pretty sad. They can't be moderate and unbiased; they're out to slam the right before the first syllable is even typed. That's not a source one should be going to for information. People should prefer to spend their time where comments aren't taken out of context in order to smear like the comment related to this thread." (red highlight is mine)

if you haven't spent more than "a minute at their site" why would any of us consider you credible in critiquing their product? you are proudly uninformed.
still waiting for you to thank me for standing up for sean.

 

[tulc]

I worded myself poorly, my fault. I should have said that it was poorly spoken. His voice didn't sound sarcastic. I think that's where a lot of this is coming from.

As for the cheers, I don't put anything behind that. It was the 'applause' point in his speech. I think if he had made reference to pink Nazi elephants at that point people would have cheered. (emph. added)

"Pink Nazi elephants...I HATE pink Nazi elephants!"
tulc(...wants to watch "The Blues Brothers" now)

 

[trunks2k]

This happened once? When was this and what was it?

It's a story that often gets attributed to Fox News but it wasn't Fox News, it was a Fox network affiliate (think your local Fox broadcaster). The local news on the affiliate produced some story on, IIRC, cows and antibiotics, that they knew contained false information. Someone sued them and the affiliates defense was basically "we can lie if we want to" and they won.

 

[LightHorseman]

"Pink Nazi elephants...I HATE pink Nazi elephants!"
tulc(...wants to watch "The Blues Brothers" now)

Its 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, its dark, and we're wearing sunglasses

 

[tulc]

Its 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, its dark, and we're wearing sunglasses

Hit it!
tulc(is on a mission from God)