Sean Hannity admits under oath he “didn’t believe” Trump election lies - but aired them anyway

Seems Trump supporters are all in with Trump no matter what. As far as the stolen documents, there is no reason why Trump has not been charged yet, anyone else would already be in custody.

 

Anyone else would have heard handcuffs clinking the moment he finished threatening our DOJ with "big problems like we've never seen.".

The only thing I can think of is he has Maxwell's documents. It just doesn't make sense for officials, all the way up to SCOTUS, NOT to rein him in. I posted that J6 was a trial run and we would be facing civil war if he was left unmuzzled. I really, really wish I had been mistaken.

The attacks on our power grids.
Lawyers and judges getting death threats.
He just threw Pence under the bus again a few days ago.
Priming them to side with Russia so they see us as their "enemy".

Further, where the heck is Garland? None of his co-conspirators should have been on midterm ballots, let alone, re-elected.

 

I'm not going to speculate why, just that he answers for his crimes.

 

Yes, you did already explain this, but I wanted to clear up one misconception at a time, so was holding this argument of yours, in reserve. So if this is your entire rationale, for calling Hannity pure entertainment, with no considerable news value, I would say that is an opinion which is non representational of the facts (I have to watch my words, thanks to a particular ******, around here). I agree with you, in not seeing Hannity as a good source for reliable information, but I submit that his millions of fans do not see his show that way. Nor, would I contend that Fox promoted his show, as unreliable information. These are arguments which I have already presented, but to which you have yet to offer a response.

I would add that Hannity has done numerous, serious interviews-- not chit-chats-- with important politicians, such as then-President Trump, and on important, timely issues, as with candidates, involved in tight races: I think it was Roy Moore, I remember hearing him interview, about it not being appropriate for an adult man, to be dating young girls. Entertaining, certainly, but clearly meant to be a forum for Moore to clean up his image, and affect the voting public, in that Senate race. How is that not serious news?

Please provide examples of Hannity dismissing the seriousness of his program, other than when under oath.

 

I would not say Hannity show is PURE entertainment but I would classify his show under opinion and entertainment. Similar to shows like Tucker, Ingraham, The View, Daily Show, Colbert Report, Full Frontal, The Five, etc... I would not think he is similar to shows like Friends, Star Trek, CSI, etc... which are also entertainment.

I probably did not respond because I see nothing wrong with the statement. I agree for the most part. I said some of his viewers may use his show as a source of information BUT that does not change the type of show you are. If someone watches The View and learns something or forms an opinion about politics or current events it still does not change the fact they are not journalist and not a news show. You can watch Braveheart and learn something about Scottish history but it is not a good source of information or make it a serious documentary.

What would be a more interesting discussion, (which I briefly touch on in a previous post), is how much of Hannity's audience do you think truly believes the information presented. I still think the majority know better but will not say it. I think the majority knows there was no significant voter fraud. I have asked others this but if they truly believe the Democrats are capable of this level of voter fraud why would you waste your time voting. If I knew someone was cheating at cards I would not play poker with them.

Hannity has about 4 million viewers. What percentage do you think believe Sidney Powell's theories on the Dominion voting machines?

Yes, Hannity has done interviews with serious people, (notice the difference, it was intentional). People criticized him for his softball interviews of Trump and extremely hardball interview with Hillary but that just re-enforcers the fact he is not a journalist. A real journalist would not do that but a pundit pushing an opinion would.

Many shows have interviews with serious guest. Obama has been on the Daily show and numerous late night shows. I used to like to watch Kimmel interview ex-presidents because he always asked them about Area 51. The View, Fox and Friends, Colbert Report all have interviews with serious people but that does not make them news or journalist. Even morning shows interview serious people but all of these are usually fluffy interviews catered to their audience.

If you really think all of these shows qualify as "serious news" just because of those interviews with serious people, then you and I are going to constantly disagree on this subject because I would never consider any of the shows I listed as serious news.

Two quick examples
2016 on his radio talk show: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sean-hannity-not-a-journalist_n_570fc4f3e4b0ffa5937e6cd2

2020 on his Fox show: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment...TBawxNy08wqsWssAxWjZ5egkPWg23OBAfpU-WspzlW9dE

 

YOU are the one, who'd brought up NEWSPAPERS, purportedly as part of your argument, as to why it is OK in your mind, for Hannity to have different types of content. And I agreed with you, that as long as they are separated, this is fine. Otherwise, it can get confusing. And, while one could figure out the difference between political news, sports news, entertainment articles, and comic strips, in a newspaper, the same cannot be said for Hannity conducting an interview with an elections fraud freak, in the identical manner as he would, for any "real" political story.

You are now arguing against your own example.

As all I think I had said, was that this is a misleading practice, of Hannity's-- and I'll now add that it disproves the notion of his having any journalistic integrity (at least!)-- I don't know what specific "proposal" of mine, you are referring to. While I would not be against something done, in regards to this, there are lots of potential options, as well as many questions, including those to which you point, that would need be dealt with; so I think you are really getting ahead of our discussion. Let's just stick to the first point: was this misleadingly presenting an idea that even Hannity says he found dubious, as if it had more credibility than it actually did?

If a Democrat came on and presented an idea that Hannity found "fishy," would Sean question the Democrat's factual basis? But did he ask any probing questions, of the election denier? And so what would you assume that the typical viewer would make, of this starkly different treatment of the info?

 

The crucial difference, you ignore, in the false analogy, to which you so tenaciously cling, is that shows like The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and The View, would never present such pure propaganda, as if it were credible. I am not familiar with those other shows, that you mention; but if any of them-- like Tucker and Ingraham, both also on FOX-- do present propaganda as fact, while ostensibly pretending to be analysis of the news, then I would have the same criticisms of them. Let us cut to the chase. You claim that these shows are pure entertainment, and that no opinions can be considered to be based on fact, correct? So I would be satisfied if those programs led off with a NOTICE, to that effect. Would you see this as reasonable?

 

Exactly, give them what they want to believe, regardless of its validity, the more melodramatic, the better, and if it is done with pretensive morality, it sells

There is a reason prior Top 40 AM radio disc jockeys turned themselves into millionaires preying upon conservatives

 

No I never said that. I thought I was pretty clear. These shows are classified as opinion and entertainment. They can discuss topics based on fact. Just as the Daily show is entertainment they can discuss factual topics. I thought my Braveheart example was really good one because it was so extreme. Just because you can learn something factual from a show does not make it news or a documentary. That does not mean that shows that are meant to entertain can not present factual information. You can watch The Mummy and learn something about ancient Egypt that is factual. Imhotep was a real person and in fact hailed was the first real western scientist BUT just because the movie may present some facts correctly does not make it a good source of information. If you were in college and tried to submit a paper citing Hannity or The Mummy as a source it would probably get laughed at and rejected as opposed to citing a real journalist like Wallace or real historians or Egyptologist.

You seem to be under the impression that shows that are classified as entertainment should either present no facts or if they jump between facts and fantasy there should be a disclaimer. Should Braveheart have a little disclaimer popup that this piece of information is true or this piece was made up by the writers and may not be historically accurate just to ensure the viewer is not confused?

My opinion is consistent. Even though Braveheart may have some accurate facts do not use it as a source of information. If you want information on Scottish history find a more credible source BUT there are plenty of excellent reasons to watch Braveheart. (maybe others feel the same way about Hannity).

Look I would never ask for this BUT if the producers of the show decided they wanted to do so I would totally support it. If viewers of the show demanded it, again I would totally support it. BUT if the shows decides not to do it the only recourse I would support is for viewers to not watch the show or lobby the network or sponsors for change. For example, you want a notice on the show, so write the show and ask for one. If they do it, fantastic you got your wish. If they choose to ignore you or say no you have the option to not watch or lobby as I said earlier.

What I would not support is a government regulatory body that forces shows like Hannity to put this notice on.

If the private sector of television networks decides for the integrity of their product they need to set so form of standards, again they would have my full support. The is like any profession enforcing a level of standards.

So after all of these replies and back and forth I go back to my original post and still support the right for Hannity to have on guests such as Sidney Powell even though he personally does not believe her claims regarding Dominion machines. I would not suggest they believe her but if this is what Hannity's viewers want to see he is free to provide it.

I think we have covered everything. If we still disagree nothing will change our opinions now.

 

This is getting old. You are ignoring the fact that if any show mixes serious discussion, of factual information, with utter fantasy bullshit, that show needs some way of letting viewers know which one is which. In the comedy shows, you reference, it is very clear, when they are attempting to be farcical, and when something is meant seriously. But there was no differentiation made by Hannity, AFAIK, to cue viewers in, that the election fraud story was meant just as an "entertaining" hoax. It would therefore be unrealistic, in the extreme, to expect viewers to understand this. This can, therefore, only be seen as deliberately misleading-- as Hannity is certainly aware that all his viewers do not consider everything on his show to just be one big joke, or put-on, not worthy of being taken seriously, as you have suggested you would view it. This would be even more true, of Tucker Carlson.

So, it comes down to whether or not you want to have a discussion about reality: because, pragmatically speaking, Hannity's hosting of election deniers, propagated a hoax, which has been damaging to our democratically based system of elections and, consequently, to trust in our government & so to the very strength of our country, by further dividing its citizens, on an issue upon which productive discussion is almost impossible, as one group has been convinced of a purely fictional narrative. Can you not grasp any of that?

Yet, your argument, as far as I can tell, is that you think it is not only Hannity's right to sow national discord, through spreading disinformation, but that he should be beyond criticism, for doing so. I just wholely reject that point of view.

 

No, not at all. It would stifle most free speech at the beginning.

 

Though Colbert does do something like it.

 

Partly correct. I think he should be allowed to have Sidney Powell as a guest but I think anyone is allowed to criticize and do anything within our laws to express their displeasure. If they choose to boycott the show or the sponsors that is all fair game. If they wish to write the producers or network expressing outrage that is also fair. (I am really curious on what I wrote that would make you think I think he should be beyond criticism?)

What do you propose? You mentioned having a notification or disclaimer before his show. I have no problems with that idea but what if he refuses to have one? Do you think he should be taken off air? Should he be fined? Should it be a law? Who makes that decision on which shows need it? How is it policed? I told you I support a voluntary disclaimer if he chooses to add one but obviously voluntary is not good enough for you so how would you enforce it?

 

You are coming into the middle of an argument, but:

1) Cristiansoldier has maintained that Hannity's show is NOT fact-based journalism.

2) He says that Hannity agrees, that his show is nothing that anyone should trust, for real news.

3) So how would a statement, acknowledging these things, "stifle free speech?"


You seem to either have a very different idea than me, about free speech, or else you have lost sight of what I believe to be the fact that allowing truth to come out, despite efforts from the powers that be, to suppress it, is one of the primary goals of having "free speech."
(Allowing pseudo news sources to mislead a gullible public, IMO, was not part of the rationale).

 

The right to be elected may be what keeps the lid on. That's a bloodless way to make changes people who elect those people can effect changes they want.

 

There is

I apologize for entering at the middle of a conversation but this is a discussion board. You may place me on ignore, though I hope you won't

There is no Truth, just varying interpretations. Part of free speech is the freedom to lie. Mind, that doesn't mean you can defraud but as long as material facts are not involved....

People don't listen to Trump or Hannity or Sucker because they believe them but because they tell them what they want to hear. If these newscasters don't do this these people will go somewhere else

They Don't CARE if it's true or not.

 

These propaganda talking heads from both sides take the truth and present it in a way that distorts it, they voice the anger people feel and listeners react to that. The truth can be so distorted that it shapes the listener's belief as to what happened.

 

I hadn't meant to imply that your comments were unwelcome-- I had just wondered if you had made them, without realizing their overall context. From this reply, however, I see that there had been no misunderstanding. While I do believe that there is some truth, to what you say, I disagree with your overall thesis, that free speech is an implied endorsement for, specifically, news organizations, being free to manipulate the passions of the public, and create national conflict, over outright lies.

First off, this is because of the crucial role that the Fourth Estate plays, in our political system. Again, I was not advocating prohibiting any speech; I was talking about some way of validating that media that might appear to be "news," actually qualifies, at least at some basic threshold. Or, on the other hand, when a program is not striving for this minimal level of honesty, I do not see it as an infringement of free speech, to make that clear, to any who may be unsure. I mean, the show, itself, admits this. So the only thing that you seem to be defending, IMO, is the media's "right" to mislead the public. Again, I disagree that the right to free speech, includes this. By the same rationale, one could judge laws requiring truth in labelling, of foods and drugs, as a violation of free speech. Tell me how that is not an accurate analogy. This is at the heart of what I am talking about: truth in labelling/advertising, of ostensible "news."

The second reason (beyond the vital nature of the press, to our free society), that I deem this step, beyond your ideals of absolute freedom of speech, warranted, is because of the vastly expanded influence of the media, on our society. Having some guardrails here-- as prickly as the issues may be, which will be raised, in attempting to erect them-- is a pragmatic necessity, to the modern world; one that has gone neglected, already, for decades.

 

I
First off, this is because of the crucial role that the Fourth Estate plays, in our political system. Again, I was not advocatingW

as an infringement of free speech, to make that clear, to any who may be unsure. I mean, the show, itself, admits this. So the only thing that you seem to be defending, IMO, is the media's "right" to mislead the public. Again, I disagree that the right to free speech, includes this. By the same rationale, one could judge laws requiring truth in labelling, of foods and drugs, as a violation of free speech. Tell me how that is not an accurate analogy. This is at the heart of what I am talking about: truth in labelling/advertising, of ostensible "news."/

Well said and a good idea.

It won't work though. People who watch these programs would just say. "the Deep State made them say that" and double down on their beliefs.

These people aren't being misled as much as they're being reinforced. They're cheering on their team, not making a decision. Their minds were made up the minute they were born.

 

If you check your post in the next 5 mins or so, you'll see there was a technical error, if you wished to correct it. It seems it would be easy to fix, by moving up the bracketed "end QUOTE," in between my final words, "ostensible 'news'," and your first words, "good idea."

As to your reply: either you do not see the power of the media to create illusory realities, as being as great as I see it , or else I do not have quite as unredeemable view of mankind, as you do.

 

The wagons are still circled from the BS storm that was waged against Trump when he was in office. I for one no longer give left wing crap the benefit of the doubt. That doubt holds true for the recent coffee clatch of Democrats and Democrat lights that made up the committee in the recent Trump attack.