Sean Hannity demonstrates Faux news

[Trinity]

Didn't we already go through this garbage when it came to him "being tougher" on the government of Iran during their election protests? He answered the question the way he wanted, without resorting to the typical "We're #1 and America kicks ass" rhetoric that conservatives need to hear once in a while in order to stroke their fragile egos. Faux News edited down Obama full comment to focus in just isolated sound bites to make him sound less profound on the subject matter. Hence the ill-witted critique from Hannity about historical importance which is also rhetorical in nature. This is not arguable for the video CLEARLY demonstrates this. So please, stop trying to change the subject.

There was no subject change. It is the subject because you and others choose to misinterpret Hannity's critique.

Now the question really is, is that lying or misrepresentation? There is a difference.

Cheers

There is no lie or misrepresentation if some people disagree with Obama and his supporters on the issue of representing the significance of the contributions of American Presidents to ending the cold war...it is apart of history. Hannity's critique didn't center on whether Obama knew Walesa, but on what Walesa is quoted saying and Obama refused to say.

Any school kid knows a lie, except for Trinity

"Always Wrong" (TM) ...that's your title Sparky and well earned.

No it did not.

Do you and Major Garrett seriously expect the President of the United States to go to Russia, the second most powerful and important nation in the world, and rub their noses in the fact that "the West", specifically the USA, lead by it's presidents, won the Cold War? How foolish and rude would that be? What exactly would a US president accomplish by doing so? I doubt that even GW Bush would be so clueless as to do such a thing.

Garrett's question is what's irrelevant. Obama's answer was gracious. As was his speech at the New Economic School in Moscow. Here is the passage of the speech that got Hannity's and Garrett's knickers in a twist:

"And then, within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Now, make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful."

Maybe you are not old enough to clearly remember the Cold War and it's ending Trinity. But I am, and every word in that short statement is completely true. And diplomatic.

Vince, you and some on this site may truly believe that Garrett's question was pointless and you may also agree with Obama's style of "being diplomatic," however many Americans do not agree with this assessment and their critique of Obama is just as valid as your opinion.

Reporters on the left may not ask that question but there will be reporters asking Obama questions that don't agree with everything he does and represents differing opinions of the electorate.

Obama's habit of what conservatives view as Obama placating to other nations at the expense of America has been and probably will continue to be a point of contention for those who don't agree with it.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I think some need to keep in mind, Hannity never claimed to be fair. He's a commentator, same with Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, etc.

That's fine... but Hannity works for an organization that claims to be "Fair & Balanced". That means no bias or slant towards one side, and it's clear that they do not operate in that manner. If Hannity wants to portray a different message that strays away from that "Fair & Balanced" moniker, he should pull a disclaimer that states otherwise. However, he chooses not to do that which further adds to the purposely deceptive practices he engages in. Whereas Olbermann & Maddow work for MSNBC, and the company tag line is "The Place For Politics". That's exactly what you get, regardless of the slant towards a liberal bias. They're not claiming to be "fair", nor are they claiming to be "balanced". You know going into it what to expect.

False advertising on false pretense, catering to an audience that doesn't care or even want to read between the lines. That is Faux News. Splitting hairs on this matter just makes it even worse for anyone trying to defend them.

 

[sparky11point5]

False equivalence, you might not like Keith Olbermann, but you can fact check him. And, Rachel is a goddess of Reason.

 

[Flashy]

I do not know why anyone bothers to waste their time talking about Sean Hannity.

 

[vince]

I do not know why anyone bothers to waste their time talking about Sean Hannity.

I agree he's bore, (boor?) if that's what you mean and he is a waste of time. I'm very happy that a satellite provider replaced Fox with al Jezeera. But like it or not, he's quite an influential commentator with a segment of the American population and I think his (and other's) twisting of facts to fit an agenda is a fair discussion for a political forum.

Trinity, you didn't answer my questions...

 

[Flashy]

I agree he's bore, (boor?) if that's what you mean and he is a waste of time.

i do not know that he is "boring" (i didn't care enough to ever make it more than 30 seconds through one of his segments on the rare occasion i have ever seen him), i just really do not care what he has to say and the way he says it. I do not care about his myopia or obnoxiousness either, anymore than i care what Rush Limbaugh, or any of the types who are the far-left equivalents have to say.

 

[Industrialsize]

There was no subject change. It is the subject because you and others choose to misinterpret Hannity's critique.



There is no lie or misrepresentation if some people disagree with Obama and his supporters on the issue of representing the significance of the contributions of American Presidents to ending the cold war...it is apart of history. Hannity's critique didn't center on whether Obama knew Walesa, but on what Walesa is quoted saying and Obama refused to say.



"Always Wrong" (TM) ...that's your title Sparky and well earned.



Vince, you and some on this site may truly believe that Garrett's question was pointless and you may also agree with Obama's style of "being diplomatic," however many Americans do not agree with this assessment and their critique of Obama is just as valid as your opinion.

Reporters on the left may not ask that question but there will be reporters asking Obama questions that don't agree with everything he does and represents differing opinions of the electorate.

Obama's habit of what conservatives view as Obama placating to other nations at the expense of America has been and probably will continue to be a point of contention for those who don't agree with it.

I can't believe that a person who was a vocal, loyal Hillary voter in the Democratic Primary is defending Sean Hannity.(and doing a poor You do realize he thinks Hillary Clinton is akin to Satan. Don't you?

 

[Industrialsize]

There was no subject change. It is the subject because you and others choose to misinterpret Hannity's critique.



There is no lie or misrepresentation if some people disagree with Obama and his supporters on the issue of representing the significance of the contributions of American Presidents to ending the cold war...it is apart of history. Hannity's critique didn't center on whether Obama knew Walesa, but on what Walesa is quoted saying and Obama refused to say.



"Always Wrong" (TM) ...that's your title Sparky and well earned.



Vince, you and some on this site may truly believe that Garrett's question was pointless and you may also agree with Obama's style of "being diplomatic," however many Americans do not agree with this assessment and their critique of Obama is just as valid as your opinion.

Reporters on the left may not ask that question but there will be reporters asking Obama questions that don't agree with everything he does and represents differing opinions of the electorate.

Obama's habit of what conservatives view as Obama placating to other nations at the expense of America has been and probably will continue to be a point of contention for those who don't agree with it.

I can't believe that a person who was a vocal, loyal Hillary voter in the Democratic Primary is defending Sean Hannity.(and doing a poor job I might add) You do realize he thinks Hillary Clinton is akin to Satan. Don't you?

 

[HazelGod]

I do not know why anyone bothers to waste their time talking about Sean Hannity.

For once, we're in complete agreement.

 

[Flashy]

For once, we're in complete agreement.

we have been in complete agreement a couple times before Hazel...it is not that much of a rarity :wink::biggrin1:

 

[Redsquall]

That's fine... but Hannity works for an organization that claims to be "Fair & Balanced". That means no bias or slant towards one side, and it's clear that they do not operate in that manner. If Hannity wants to portray a different message that strays away from that "Fair & Balanced" moniker, he should pull a disclaimer that states otherwise. However, he chooses not to do that which further adds to the purposely deceptive practices he engages in. Whereas Olbermann & Maddow work for MSNBC, and the company tag line is "The Place For Politics". That's exactly what you get, regardless of the slant towards a liberal bias. They're not claiming to be "fair", nor are they claiming to be "balanced". You know going into it what to expect.

False advertising on false pretense, catering to an audience that doesn't care or even want to read between the lines. That is Faux News. Splitting hairs on this matter just makes it even worse for anyone trying to defend them.

We're going to have to agree to disagree.

Hannity has an obvious bias, and he doesn't try to hide it. He's a commentator, not an anchor.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

We're going to have to agree to disagree.

Hannity has an obvious bias, and he doesn't try to hide it. He's a commentator, not an anchor.

Well, we know that he does have a bias as does the majority of celebrities on Faux News. They're the source for information that caters to the conservative base. What I'm saying is that Faux News should be more up front and honest about their biases. When you hear their pundits, as well as their commercials talk about how they're "Fair and Balanced", it sends a completely different message... especially to new people who may not be familiar with CNN or Faux News, its shows or its political alliances and/or biases.

I expect a news organization that promotes itself as "balanced" to deliver the news in that fashion. You give both sides of the story in its entirety and allow pundits to discuss further, ultimately allowing the viewer to make a more informed decision. Neither CNN or Faux does this, however, CNN doesn't go around all day and night claiming to be "balanced". Watch Faux News for 24 hours and count how many times they use the terminology "Fair & Balanced" (or any derivative of that term), then get back to me. :wink:

 

[Industrialsize]

Well, we know that he does have a bias as does the majority of celebrities on Faux News. They're the source for information that caters to the conservative base. What I'm saying is that Faux News should be more up front and honest about their biases. When you hear their pundits, as well as their commercials talk about how they're "Fair and Balanced", it sends a completely different message... especially to new people who may not be familiar with CNN or Faux News, its shows or its political alliances and/or biases.

I expect a news organization that promotes itself as "balanced" to deliver the news in that fashion. You give both sides of the story in its entirety and allow pundits to discuss further, ultimately allowing the viewer to make a more informed decision. Neither CNN or Faux does this, however, CNN doesn't go around all day and night claiming to be "balanced". Watch Faux News for 24 hours and count how many times they use the terminology "Fair & Balanced" (or any derivative of that term), then get back to me. :wink:

I can't abide CNN with Wolfie Blitzed and John King, Give me MSNBC any day. I watch it because of it's liberal leanings, but it would never push those leanings as Fox News does.

 

[Ajacoid]

I'm suprised someone hasn't taken him...Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh out already. They all just spew lies and hate 24/7 and idots buy into their crap.

I'm surprised you don't see the hypocrisy in your statement.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I can't abide CNN with Wolfie Blitzed and John King, Give me MSNBC any day. I watch it because of it's liberal leanings, but it would never push those leanings as Fox News does.

The hubby and I have become big fans of Rachel Maddow lately. We like her investigative style on certain issues, and how she puts pieces together from previous news to form a bigger picture.

 

[Redsquall]

Well, we know that he does have a bias as does the majority of celebrities on Faux News. They're the source for information that caters to the conservative base. What I'm saying is that Faux News should be more up front and honest about their biases. When you hear their pundits, as well as their commercials talk about how they're "Fair and Balanced", it sends a completely different message... especially to new people who may not be familiar with CNN or Faux News, its shows or its political alliances and/or biases.

I expect a news organization that promotes itself as "balanced" to deliver the news in that fashion. You give both sides of the story in its entirety and allow pundits to discuss further, ultimately allowing the viewer to make a more informed decision. Neither CNN or Faux does this, however, CNN doesn't go around all day and night claiming to be "balanced". Watch Faux News for 24 hours and count how many times they use the terminology "Fair & Balanced" (or any derivative of that term), then get back to me. :wink:

I guess we'll agree to disagree then.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Fine with me.

 

[MalakingTiti]

I do not know why anyone bothers to waste their time talking about Sean Hannity.

Bingo! You said it Flashy. You're a man after my own heart.

 

[Trinity]

I can't believe that a person who was a vocal, loyal Hillary voter in the Democratic Primary is defending Sean Hannity.(and doing a poor job I might add) You do realize he thinks Hillary Clinton is akin to Satan. Don't you?

You posted a specific segment from Hannity's show and called it out for twisting Obama's words. Can we stay on the actual subject? Or just because Hannity doesn't like Hillary Clinton I'm supposed to let that cloud my reason?

The fact remains in this instance you misinterpreted Hannity's critique of the President. Many people disagree with Obama on his habitual need to placate other nations at the expense of America.

And to answer the question posed by Vince, point blank - Obama should have no problem giving proper credit to American Presidents from both parties for playing a significant role in winning the cold war. Obama could have added it to the rest of his remarks where he acknowledges all other contributions. By leaving out the significant contributions made by Reagan, Walesa's own quote demonstrated that a part of historical significance was missing from Obama's remarks.

 

[Bodaddio]

Wasn't it Hillary Clinton who thanked Fox News and said they had the most fair interview she had had? It went something like that.

Keith Olberman? Everyone knows he would have to have a wardrobe change after interviewing the President because of the huge cum stain he would have on the front of his pants.
I will give it to Rachel, not as bad as most, but I think she would go straight from the President.
You have to give Fox a little credit, yes they are right leaning(the only one out there by the way) but at least they will bring out the enemy to give their side. Almost every piece has a Liberal or Democrat on there. As you stated MSNBC is liberal! Should they have to put up a disclaimer also?
Just my opinion but this is one of the reasons news organizations are going into the tank. Journalists are supposed to be like our judges. You don't let your personal views cloud your judgment. You report the facts. You report what happened, that is all. You aren't supposed to try to sway people's thought our ideas. All of the networks are one big informercial for whatever party they like.
If you believe Sean Hannity and Fox News is the only one out there to misrepresent what is going on, you are just sorry.
All this talk, really what has Fox News out and out lied on? Do you believe they are the only ones?

Cheers