 |
|
Add to My Group
|
November 12, 2008 at 12:29:57
Promoted to Headline (H2) on 11/12/08: by Gustav Wynn Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
 
|
When the election is over and the people have spoken, it's time to get behind the incoming commander-in-chief to signal to our children and the world that we are a country united in democracy. But Sean Hannity has continued his faux-panic, planting doubt and implying Obama has radical, extremist loyalties even after the argument fell flat and drew wide criticism. Hannity can now be considered anti-American by his own measure - for years he's criticized anti-war activists of not supporting the President. Now it is he who is undermining the authority of the incoming President. The people heard the smears on Hannity's top-rated radio and TV shows and felt there was not enough basis in fact, calling for a loftier conversation of issues. Following the historic election, Hannity continued to make the same accusations: Obama is not to be trusted, an evil side of him will emerge. The back up? Hannity specifies nothing, flailing at undefined evil, doubting the electorate's ability to decide and discern. Without tangible evidence for these claims, who is the extremist now?
Perhaps Sean Hannity's father never had that talk with him. You know, the one fathers and sons have when the kid, just learning how American politics works, sees his preferred candidate has lost and continues to bad-mouth the winner. That's when the grown-up explains the American tradition to the child. My father told me plainly, when the election is called, it's time for the whole country to get behind the new leader and give the benefit of the doubt, because we are a representative democracy.
Some call it grace, being a gentleman, sportsmanship, or showing character - but elections in America and Zimbabwe are vastly different because win or lose, Americans defer to majority rule and established laws in peaceful transitions of power between administrations, especially given our diversity and established history of party pendulum swings.
But times may be changing. Sean Hannity's post-election broadcasts continue the same impugning of the incoming President's character McCain himself hesitated to use, because it was based more on conjecture than the concrete. Hannity's arguments ignore or distort Obama's policy proposals, for example telling listeners Obama wants to raise their taxes when most would receive a net tax cut under the new structure. Hannity also emphasizes a trillion in new spending without factoring in the expected military cuts that would greatly offset this.
Throughout the campaign, Sean's tactics were almost exclusively unsubstantive and negative, hinging on indeterminate musings and speculation. Hannity's plan was to plant suspicion based on radical theories - Obama as terrorist, Muslim, Marxist, racist, anti-American, election cheat, you name it.
It's true a handful of Barack Obama's past associations have detracted from his storybook narrative, but the level to which these relationships were used to smear Obama were alarmingly disproportionate to any facts established. Relative to known scandals marring our other choices, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, Obama's were minute, only affirming that the idea that insider experience in this Congress was exactly what swing voters opposed. They heard the allegations, followed the discourse on Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko, made their decision and moved forward.
Unfortunately, all sides in campaigns use isolated clips today to magnify misstatements, inconsistencies and embarrassing moments, but to continue doing so beyond election day is unprecedented to my recall - a new low. Though our expectations for media in general have sunk, parents and educators in particular know we set examples of moral authority for our young. Broadcasting to perpetuate discord shows a deliberate intent to pit Americans against eachother and distract us from a recently improving discourse. Senator McCain showed admirable poise in his concession speech, showing the world why American democracy is a model for peaceful, orderly transitions of power.
The suggestion that democracy did not work here exposes Sean Hannity's prioritization of his personal causes: tax advantages for the very wealthiest, deregulation, and a free hand for the most aggressive war-hawks. Along with #1 juggernaut Rush Limbaugh, the talk radio industry is a daily infomercial for the neoconservative movement and military-industrial complex we were warned about by President Eisenhower in 1961. In other words, this is not your father's Conservative, calling for small government and strong ethics and fiscal responsibility. Sean is a neocon, combining the unethical campaign tactics used by Nixon with cowboy foreign policy and deficit-be-damned defense spending seen under Reagan.
This is not to say the incoming President should not be questioned or criticized - just the opposite, he should be engaged in continuous dialogue with the American people. The selection of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff has already been heavily questioned from the left, but the Obama administration's first email blast just went out this week, asking for the input of ordinary people in shaping the future of America at change.gov. Having the President enjoin the millions on his email list in two-way conversation is a refreshing use of technology to push democracy forward.
Hannity, by contrast, seems to be facing several dead ends, trying to claim voters rejected "Republicanism" while they still love Conservatism. Hannity is playing games with nomenclature to defend himself after supporting President Bush and Dick Cheney throughout both terms, praising their economic and security policies daily and even giving them air time on his show. The public has overwhelmingly rejected Bush, but it doesn't erase that Hannity called him one of "our greatest modern presidents", a "masterful crisis president" and a "defender of our liberties".
In fact, Hannity's broadcasts have run so closely parallel to the Bush's daily talking points, many questioned whether Hannity was in direct contact with the White House. When Bush's former Press Secretary Scott McClellan confirmed Karl Rove did in fact have a "massive operation" running from the White House to supply comprehensive talking points to friendly talk show personalities, Fox's Bill O'Reilly bent over backwards to make clear he was not involved in this violation of domestic anti-propaganda laws. Hannity has not yet denied whether he has been in direct contact without disclosure, but as soon as Karl Rove left his White House post, he began appearing on Hannity's TV and radio shows in heavy rotation.
In full-on panic today, Hannity complains that a larger Democratic majority will enact some version of the Fairness Doctrine to silence him, cleverly painting himself as a victim. In fact, the Fairness Doctrine was never used to censor anyone, rather to compel them to provide responsible journalistic balance to the best of their ability. For example, Hannity wouldn't be able to state that Obama sat in Rev. Wright's pews for twenty years listening to hate-filled diatribes without also giving the fuller picture that the vitriolic rantings of Rev. Wright made up only a very tiny portion of the known sermons he's delivered over the decades and nothing available proves Obama was present during any such controversial speeches.
Before 1987, it was the broadcasting corporations who chose not to air lopsided political arguments because it was cheaper and easier to avoid back and forth debate. Enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine was difficult and inconsistent. Today, those who suggest reviving some version of the law are concerned about a serious issue - wholesale ignorance. The U.S. has been long ridiculed internationally for wrongly believing Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 and it's no news to anyone who our top rated "news" sources are - Fox on TV and Limbaugh/Hannity on radio. Our founding fathers created public education so our voters could not only discern candidate choices intelligently, but could keep an informed eye out for shenanigans.
Are not call-in talk shows better for their controversy and difference of opinion? Not on The Sean Hannity Show, where the guests are predominantly on the same page as the host, the make-up of aired calls doesn't approach real-world diversity, and the news items cited exclude altogether events like the filing of Articles of Impeachment in Congress against the President and Vice President, the removal of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General, or the polls showing national disapproval of continuing the Iraq War.
1 | 2
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
| 34 comments |
|
This is a JOKE, right?
Quite a few radio hosts on the LEFT, and more than a few people on this very site are STILL complaining and running a negative campaign, against Bush regarding the 2000 election! Why didn't people get behind Bush to run the country then? Or was it OK then because the election was "stolen"??? If you think that it is treasonous to complain that your side LOST, then maybe there are quite a few, RIGHT HERE, who should have been thrown in JAIL... As fortunes have it, however, we STILL have, (though probably not for too terribly much longer,) a FIRST AMENDMENT, to REMIND PEOPLE that we were endowed, since birth, with the freedom of political expression. You don't like Hannity?? Do like I do and turn the radio OFF! Apple created this really great thing called an IPOD... That is what I listen to during the Hannity program... (Either that or NPR, or WXPN, the University of Pennsylvania Radio Station) Anyway, stop worring about Hannity and enjoy the fact that your candidate won... If it makes you feel better, stick your tongue out in his general direction! Ciao, CZ by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 4:02:26 PM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: No Joke, this is the #1 radio show in the country
Bush got incredible benefit of the doubt in 2000 - we know now what happened during the election, but I'd criticize anyone on the left (read my previous articles) who also bashes people without any factual basis, namecalls or impugns character instead of talking issues. If you read the piece above, you'd know I don't want Hannity's freedom of speech curtailed, I want him to answer harder questions and stop planting fear and doubt unless he has something to back it up. The whole point is that he knows he's lying when he says Obama is raising taxes. He's also fighting America to say the Iraq war should continue, no? by Gustav Wynn (77 articles, 65 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 421 comments [34 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 4:17:39 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: All I am saying is simply this
Turn off the radio! I can offer chapter and verse of the myriad of people, on the left who have come up with crap with no factual basis whatsoever! look at all of the attacks of Sarah Palin, from people on this very forum... The Daily Kos with the pregnancy thing... Do you really need the evidence? Or are you OK with the idea that plenty of people on the left say stuff, STILL say stuff about Bush with 0 facts, and gain 0 credibility... Hannity is a hack, I can't listen to him or his moronic flock of sheep followers who call on a regular basis acting dumb. When you demand that he answer questions, we start heading down a very slippery slope as to the nature of said questions, what happens while the on air personality is waiting to answer said questions, who is responsible for saying this is right or saying that this is wrong.. Whatever.. Government does not have a say in what is broadcast.. WE THE PEOPLE, however, do... I chose to turn off the radio, or change the channel. Ciao, CZ by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 4:30:09 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I happen to agree with Gustav on this.
I think it is time we better start being more aware of what these hate mongers are saying rather than continued to be surprised at how very ignorant most Americans have become. I believe in free speech but that doesn't mean we should arrogantly turn away from what we don't wish to hear when we know in fact how dangerous it can be. Look how quickly Palin gets her crowds going. We have a responsibility to listen to the complaints of the other side and make it a point to counter them. We've seen the damage they can cause, and how quickly they organize when given the chance. We better not think we can walk away from them again. I say turn that radio up good and loud. Know the enemy. Let them know we're listening. And we're happy to debate them any time they want. Call them up. Flood their stations. Let their audience know we're being screened out from calling in. And Sean, if you're reading this, how about a little respect for the new president? You don't want to sound anti-American, do you? Because if you really don't like it here, you can always leave, right? Isn't that what you've been telling us all these years. Yes sir. America. Love it or leave it. And right now? .... you gotta love it. Oh yeah, Baby. by Nick van Nes (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 596 comments [150 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 7:32:05 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: In this, he's telling you the truth
Mr Wynn wrote: The whole point is that he knows he's lying when he says Obama is raising taxes. No, in that Mr Hannity is telling you the truth. I never believed a word of what he said about raising taxes only on those earning above a quarter mil, and cutting taxes for the middle class; that was just a repitition of Bill Clinton's intentional "middle class tax cut" lie. But, even if Mr Obama really did mean it when he began his campaign, the fact is that he can't cut taxes. We had a $455 billion deficit in FY2008, and that was before the $700 billion financial services bailout. Now we're hearing noises about an auto industry bailout. Even if he pulled us out of Iraq in a month -- which he has already said he would not do -- we're looking at a trillion dollar deficit. He couldn't keep his tax cut promises even if he wanted to. Instead, he'll do the easy thing, and simply let the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire, lmeaning an automatic tax increase on everyone, period. by Dana Pico (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 193 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 8:37:33 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: True
Obama has clearly stated he was going to raise taxes on people, including small businesses, making more than $95,000 per year. Now pretend you’re an investor and the businesses have been put on notice they are going to be taxed to death. Are you going to invest in that businesses future? Not if you have a brain. You have been put on notice that Obama plans to reinstitute the capital gains tax. Over the last 8 years your investments in all those companies have made you quite a bit of money. Do you sell off all your capital investments now to avoid capital gains tax? Or do you wait to give Obama 40% of your money? I don't need Hannity to explain this to me. If you did, just think, your dumber than Hannity. by Gallaher (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 990 comments [34 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:11:44 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Not the full truth...
Unless I'm mistaken, Obama's plan takes the cuts that represent the difference between Reagan era tax rates and Jr. Bush era tax rates, and redistributes those cuts to favor the sub $250,000 earner. So it's possible Obama will raise your taxes, but you'd be in the upper 5% of earners if so. by Gustav Wynn (77 articles, 65 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 421 comments [34 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:16:27 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Oh, please!
Mr Wynn, we all know what Mr Obama's campaign promise was: tax increases for those above $250,000, and tax cuts for those earning less, with possible tax stability for those in the $120,000 to $250,000 range. What I am telling you is that he can't keep that promise, even if he really, really wanted to keep it. We just finished FY2008 with a $455 billion deficit, we just added a $700 billion financial systems bailout, and now we're talking about a $50+ billion bailout for the domestic automobile industry; there is a looming trillion dollar deficit staring Mr Obama dead in the eye. Just letting the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire is the easy way to do things; Congress need take no action at all, and Mr Obama need sign no distasteful legislation, and taxes increase automatically. by Dana Pico (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 193 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 5:46:37 AM (0+)
|
|
Showbiz
Thanks for this piece of writing. I think Hannity's bottom line is what is in play here. Stepping out of his "brand" is impossible for him to contemplate. The man is selling an infotainment product, and that's all. Asking him for intellectual honesty or balanced reporting is like asking Bozo to take off the greasepaint. He can't do it, it's part of his act. And THAT is to me what is in need of intense examination in this country. We need to remove the "entertainment" factor from the information services. Information isn't a "product", it's necessity, especially in terms of a functioning democracy. The Fairness Doctrine was enacted at the end of WWII because our forebears saw what unregulated propaganda had wrought in Europe. It's unfortunate that people like Rupert Murdoch and Mr. Hannity don't bother to study history, and thereby spare civilization the repetitions. by Jennifer Hathaway (16 articles, 16 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 760 comments [220 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 4:28:08 PM (0+)
|
|
Jennifer, you nailed it.
"infotainment" it is. Motivated not by doctrine, or patriotism, but by commercial interests. What is missing here is critical thinking, a working BS meter acquired by education. As writers we should try to change that. by Richmond Shreve (30 articles, 70 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 156 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 4:42:07 PM (0+)
|
|
Freedom Of Speech
Let Hannity rant as much as he likes. He is basically a political entertainer and many find him interesting. If the government stops him we are creating a bad precedent. It is true that he gets a large segment of his audience from frightning them but so did the Frankenstein movies. by melpol (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 28 comments) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 4:50:28 PM (0+)
|
|
Hannity should be locked up...
and the key thrown away. He actively works against every human value that every bona fide educator tries to instill in children. But last I heard and wrote about, after doing considerable homework on this nutcase earlier, he makes $5 million a year from ABC (that station that is DEF). by Daniel Geery (26 articles, 95 quicklinks, 126 diaries, 912 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 5:06:39 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Locked up?
On what charge, Mr Geery? I'm certain that you've heard of the freedom of speech, given that you have exercised it yourself, on this fine site. by Dana Pico (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 193 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 8:31:13 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: There are limits to freedom of speech...
a great, great many. Hannity engages in hate mongering, racial profiling, lying on public airwaves, libelous statements (why more folks don't sue him is beyond me). There is also fraud and fraudulent representation. We now have the Patriot Act, which can have you thrown in jail for saying much less than Hannity says. I'm not a lawyer, but you would not need to be very creative to find a way to lock this social cretin up. There are huge bodies of law on all these subjects, available to anyone with time to read it. I suppose more importantly I wonder why Bush and his crowd are still free at large--while just the other day I had a gun pulled on me by a cop at a local park, while I was walking down the sidewalk and got between him and three very peaceful and young looking teenagers, who shot their hands in the air even before the cop drew his gun. by Daniel Geery (26 articles, 95 quicklinks, 126 diaries, 912 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 7:55:14 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: if he did...
he would be off the air, and would have been found guilty and hit with all sorts of lawsuits. to say he should be in jail because you don't like what he says is completely different from him actually saying things that would warrant him being put away. Ciao, CZ by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:31:34 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: So, Mr Geery, why shouldn't we limit YOUR speech?
Mr Geery wrote: There are limits to freedom of speech, a great, great many. Hannity engages in hate mongering, racial profiling, lying on public airwaves, libelous statements (why more folks don't sue him is beyond me). There is also fraud and fraudulent representation. We now have the Patriot Act, which can have you thrown in jail for saying much less than Hannity says. I'm not a lawyer, but you would not need to be very creative to find a way to lock this social cretin up. There are huge bodies of law on all these subjects, available to anyone with time to read it. You know, this would be hysterically funny, if it weren't so sad. Maybe I've missed it, but I've never heard of anyone being locked up under the Patriot Act for simply expressing his opinion. If Sean Hannity hasn't been sued for libel, maybe it's because he hasn't libeled anyone! Of course, it's pretty difficult for a public figure to win a libel case, but I don't recall anyone even trying when it comes to Mr Hannity. Most humorous of all was your statement, "you would not need to be very creative to find a way to lock this social cretin up." Mr Geery, you are writing on OpEdNews, a site which has freely published about the harshest criticism of President Bush, Vice President Cheney and the rest of the administration to be found, all in the exercise of your freedom of speech and of the press rights. I find it absolutely stunning that someone who so proudly and vigorously exercise his freedom of speech would be so quick to wish to deny freedom of speech to someone with whom he disagrees. Let me put it this way: Barack Obama is not our president yet; George Bush is still our president, the Justice Department is still run by Republicans, and all of the US Attorneys are still Republicans; why shouldn't they be looking at your speech, to see if "they would not need to be very creative to find a way to lock you up?" by Dana Pico (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 193 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 1:29:50 PM (0+)
|
|
Hannity's purpose is to serve
as a red herring. A nasty sort of person but... he serves a purpose. There are myriad reasons to be very wary of Obama. Hannity plays the absurd ones to engender outrage from the left. Soon, you will be so invested in defending Obama that you won't recognize the very real problems Obama embodies. You won't recognize the freight train until after it runs you down. You are being played. just imho. Behavioral and mass psychology have been so well studied and used for such a long while. They are both being applied against You. The process will be tragic but interesting to watch. Reactions are so predictable. by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 8:22:47 PM (0+)
|
|
Guess you haven't heard about
Freedom of Speech -- it's in the Constitution. The same document people have been using to exercise their rights to say anything they want about their leaders from the moment it was written (even before). (Unless you are more inclined to adhere to the Alien and Sedition Acts?) This isn't yet a dictatorship in which we all have to fall in line behind the Leader. Free Speech it's what those people risked their lives for when they crossed the ocean to make a new life. Freedom of Speech -- give it a try. Very refreshing. by fou (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 98 comments) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 8:27:20 PM (0+)
|
|
Did you follow your own advice?
Mr Wynn wrote: Some call it grace, being a gentleman, sportsmanship, or showing character - but elections in America and Zimbabwe are vastly different because win or lose, Americans defer to majority rule and established laws in peaceful transitions of power between administrations, especially given our diversity and established history of party pendulum swings. And you did that following the 2004 election, right, the one in which George Bush won a majority of all votes cast? "Radio Treason," huh? Is it your contention that disagreeing with the government -- or, in this case, the government coming in a couple of months -- constitutes treason? by Dana Pico (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 193 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 8:28:51 PM (0+)
|
|
Hannity is just another moronic rightwing gasbag
...like his idol Limbaugh. Sure he has a right to speak. If he doesn't ...then we didn't when we criticized the incoming Bush administration. Although, we did have the fact that the GOP stole that election. But, the only place where I'd advocate silencing him by having him fired is simply if we were to employ the same standard of behavior that he has demanded of those left-of-center. I'm sure if we dredge up his line of argument for the last 8 years you'll likely find him commenting how we should be put in prison or exiled for not supporting Bush. But... why do that? We're better than he is, ...any day of the week. by chariotdrvr14 (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 159 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 8:45:53 PM (0+)
|
|
But seriously, folks
"...put in prison or exiled for not supporting Bush..." I can tell you don't listen to his show. Hannity has never said anything like that. I wouldn't put it past Michael Savage to say something that stupid, but that's the only right-wing yakker that I would expect to do that. Seriously, do you really expect Hannity or any other conservative talk-show host to suddenly talk 100% nicey-nice now that Barack Obama will be our next president? Besides, Hannity has said repeatedly, "I am very concerned about what Barack Obama's policies will do to this country, and I still question his associations, BUT I hope, for the sake of our country, that he is a successful president." Slightly related note: Here's one way to lose your talk show. KGO's Karel has been fired after he let loose this tirade when he thought his mic was off: "F*** g**d*** Joe the g**d*** plumber! I want that m*****f***** Joe the plumber dead!" Oops. Um...buh-bye. by Scott (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 744 comments [30 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:52:33 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I don't know who KGO's talk show host was . . .
. . . but if he said the things you stated, he was in deliberate violation of FCC decency standards, including airing some of the "seven dirty words" an FCC-licensed broadcaster may not put out over the airwaves. That'll get the station a big fine. by Dana Pico (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 193 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 5:50:45 AM (0+)
|
|
THE QUESTION IS
whether there should be some way to counterbalance the effect a talk show host has on people when he or she clearly uses subtle references to violence or makes claims that have been clearly discounted by the public record. For instance, Hannity's show begins by stating, "Welcome to the center for resistance..." and at other times refers to itself as the center of the anti-Obama underground, both of which references contain sinister implications from American and world history that include violence. Additionally, both he and Limbaugh repeatedly make reference to alleged facts that have long been proved false. Just yesterday, for example, Limbaugh had short pieces running on Clear Channel all day comparing George Bush's supposed grace in transitioning power from his administration to Obama's with that of Clinton's to Bush where the Clinton administration vandalized and defiled the White House as a parting present before leaving it for the Bushes. Limbaugh knows that the GAO investigated this claim and found that other than normal wear and tear the Clinton administration did no such thing, but is already setting up his audience to stir up their rage at Democrats for alleged past misdeeds. Because of the very liberal libel and slander laws in the United States relating to persons of public interest, no one is likely to sue for this slander and Limbaugh knows this. The only effective deterrent to the creation of a hostile environment and the perpetuation of unfounded and disproved allegations is to enforce a Fairness Doctrine. While Hannity and Limbaugh complain that this would silence them, it would do no such thing. It would only force the station that carries them to grant equal time to a host that could rebut their allegations if he or she sought to do so. And this is only right, considering that the airwaves are a public resource to which monopoly access for private gain is granted to private interests. What Hannity and Limbaugh and their lesser evil siblings really fear is not that they will be silenced, but that they will be exposed for the liars and manipulators they are. by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 5:29:00 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: The left has long wanted . . .
. . . a counterbalance to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and the best y'all could create was the abysmally bad Air America Radio. AAR was simply not very good, and that's why it would have already failed had we not had generous millionaires providing life-support through cash infusions. I know that you won't want to hear this, but Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have audiences because the hosts are good radio people, and people want to listen to their shows. by Dana Pico (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 193 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 6:01:18 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: NO
They have an audience because they are able to prey upon ignorance and fear without regard to truth and logic. Journalists on the left, however, attempt to report facts in a logical manner and demonstrate how a progressive agenda could solve social problems. Hannity and Limbaugh merely get their talking points from Grover Norquist's Wednesday meetings and then will say anything that helps promote Norquist's twisted, anarchist ideology. Progressive journalists actually follow no set ideology, often arguing among themselves (something you will never see on the right), combing public records and researching publications to present facts to the public so that the electorate remains truly informed. This is not a matter of mere opinion, but has been repeatedly confirmed by in depth research. I suggest you read, The Big Con, Jonathan Chait, Houghton Mifflin 2007, for a wealth of sources comparing the approaches of the rightwing media, the MSM, and the liberal media. Even your own conservatives admit the purpose of their media is to propagandize the Republican Party line, and that this is an advantage they enjoy over the Democrats. Come out from your radio and read some real research, and then let us debate again. But for the sake of the country, if you want to be a real patriot, do not just swallow the pablum the right wing radio hosts are selling without researching the facts for yourself. You are an American, an heir to greatness of thought, and it is your job not to listen to demigogues who broker no dissent within their ranks, but rather to seek out the knowledge that has difficulty finding its way into the public discourse; for that knowledge which is hidden will be the knowledge most worth knowing. by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:55:58 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Your false assumption
WML wrote: Come out from your radio and read some real research, and then let us debate again. But for the sake of the country, if you want to be a real patriot, do not just swallow the pablum the right wing radio hosts are selling without researching the facts for yourself. You see, you have assumed that because I have defended their freedom of speech, I must love and listen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. The simple fact is that there is no radio at work, so I can't listen to them, and I don't, though I have in the past. I do know, however, that both men have generated huge audiences. Radio is a cutthroat medium: you either get ratings, or you are history, and history quickly. Neither Mr Limbaugh nor Mr Hannity would be as successful as they are if they weren't good at what they do; no one is somehow compelled to tune in the Rush Limbaugh Show. It seems to me that for my friends on the left, there is simple denial of the fact that the conservative talk radio hosts are good at what they do; y'all would prefer to think that their listeners must all be mind-number robots. It seems beyond you paradigm to think that maybe, just maybe, conservatives are fairly bright people and conservatives think about things, too. In the election just passed, some 57 million people voted for John McCain and sarah Palin, 46% of the electorate. It was, unfortunately, not a majority, but you'd better be prepared to realize that not everybody thinks the way you do. by Dana Pico (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 193 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 1:40:24 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: THUS
you do not know whether he makes logical points or merely preys upon fears and paranoia. Since you do not listen, that is. I listen. And I can rebut anything the idiot says without thinking too hard about it. He habitually lies about facts already disproved and distorts the records of people and history to fit the argument he wants to make. by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 9:01:06 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Um,
if they have an audience, it means people are listening. Or, do you think that people are gullible fools, susceptible to being hypnotized by lies? These guys have an audience because people enjoy their shows. If you want a counterbalance, then build one. That's what radio talk show people did. This is the Land of Opportunity -- you have a dream, you build it, people buy it or they don't. You can't legislate an audience. Unless of course you're advocating a dictatorship. by fou (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 98 comments) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 1:48:12 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Thank you!
For pointing out the crux of the problem and a reasonable solution to it! I will fight for the Fairness Doctrine and spread word to others concerned that this may be a good way to approach the problem. by Oh (7 articles, 5 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 321 comments [41 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 9:24:29 AM (0+)
|
|
Hear, Hear!
Indeed, so far he only added people to his administration who take care of the interests of warmongers and bankers. Actually I've never seen candidates more likely to loose than -- blink, blink -- McCain and -- wink, wink -- Palin. by Han (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 228 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 5:30:23 AM (0+)
|
|
Why is Hannity important
Anyone remember Joe Pyne? He ranted and raved in the 60's but he did not really have any real ideas except it made good theatre and a living. Hannity found a place to shout and scream and an audiance that likes his rant but he is not really important. I suspect he has no real core beliefs at all. I choose to ignore. by virginius "gin" arnold (18 articles, 7 quicklinks, 47 diaries, 516 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:57:24 AM (0+)
|
|
It doesn't matter
WML wrote: THUS you do not know whether he makes logical points or merely preys upon fears and paranoia. Obviously I haven't made my position clear: it doesn't matter to me whether he makes logical points or not, freedom of speech is freedom of speech. THere is nothing in the First Amendment -- nor should there be -- which says that someone's speech must pass some sort of test to be allowable. For the past eight years, we have had George Bush as our president and conservative control over the Justice Department. If you believe that the quality of someone's speech ought to determine whether it should be allowed or not, you should also remember that if such were the case, there would also have to be someone in charge of determining that quality -- and there's a decent chance that someone would be someone with whom you'd disagree. This fine site is one which has celebrated the freedom of speech by being strongly opposed to our current government; I must admit, I cannot understand how people, educated people, could be so willing to exercise their freedom of speech, yet decide that what some other people say ought not to be allowed. by Dana Pico (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 193 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 5:40:27 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: THE FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS
is the purpose of freedom of speech in that it promotes the general welfare by keeping the electorate informed. Two conditions are required. First, you must be able to understand what a person is stating. In your reply to my comments, you indicate that I want to prevent someone from exercising their freedom of speech. But I never said that at any point. Much to the contrary, I welcome the illogical, fanciful, factually baseless, rants of Hannity and Limbaugh because they are so easily rebutted by anyone armed with the actual facts or an understanding of basic logic. Hence, you fail to understand what is plainly written before you, and my freedom of speech is wasted upon you. Second, all sides to an argument must have the equal ability to communicate to the electorate so that the populace can decide who commands the better control of facts and logic and, therefore, the better argument. When it comes to the radio, the airwaves are a public resource. The public grants their use to private corporations or individuals for generating individual profit. But since the airwaves are public in nature, the public has an unquestionable interest and right in ensuring the airwaves are used for the general welfare of the population in keeping the electorate as educated as possible about the political and economic issues of the day. The government then has the right and duty to require that radio stations give equal time to persons with opposing views on such issues. This had long been the case under the Fairness Doctrine, which was only abolished when Ronald Reagan came into office because a broad consensus had developed in America between the Democratic and Republican parties regarding the role of government and the progressive tax table, and he sought to break up that consensus when introducing the radical idea of supply side economics by withholding, if possible, the Democratic side of the argument from the electorate, if he could. Hannity, and his ilk, know that their freedom of speech is not quenched by the Fairness Doctrine, but by the fact that when confronted with hosts following their shows that have facts, figures and logic to rebut their inanities, the American people will no longer be so easily fooled. When your job is to convince people to vote against their own interests and in favor of the interests of multinational corporations, the job is much easier if you can lie, mislead, distort, use logical fallacies, and appeal to the basest of emotions in human beings. The Fairness Doctrine would force the Right to prove its case; which, of course, it cannot do. Otherwise, it would welcome equal time with the great intellects of the Left. Finally, I have noticed that both responses to my comments were quite Hannity-like, in that both committed the logical fallacy commonly called a red herring. Ignoring the thrust of my arguments, the responses argued minor side issues such as whether one commenter listened to the radio, and the other arguing that I was urging the abridgement of freedom of speech. The first point was irrelevant, and the second was inaccurate. I wonder where the author picked up these nifty little tricks. by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 12:17:55 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Regulating content is not the free exchange of ideas
WML wrote: THE FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS is the purpose of freedom of speech in that it promotes the general welfare by keeping the electorate informed. Two conditions are required. First, you must be able to understand what a person is stating. In your reply to my comments, you indicate that I want to prevent someone from exercising their freedom of speech. But I never said that at any point. Much to the contrary, I welcome the illogical, fanciful, factually baseless, rants of Hannity and Limbaugh because they are so easily rebutted by anyone armed with the actual facts or an understanding of basic logic. Hence, you fail to understand what is plainly written before you, and my freedom of speech is wasted upon you. Second, all sides to an argument must have the equal ability to communicate to the electorate so that the populace can decide who commands the better control of facts and logic and, therefore, the better argument. Your argument here presupposes that there are no other media by which people who differ from the conservative talk show hosts can put forth their ideas. Even there, the point is missed: there were plenty of opportunities for liberal talk radio, and they pretty much failed, because they simply weren't good enough to attract the size audience that listens to Rush Limbaugh. And that is the real issue here. Behind all of the arguments for the "Fairness Doctrine" stands the fact that liberal talk radio has been a commercial failure, and any attempt to force radio stations which have been successful broadcasting Rush Limbaugh to broadcast three hours of Air America as balance really attempts to get the radio station to broadcast neither, because it can't afford three hours of lost revenue. There is, of course, the other side. If you would force radio broadcasters to broadcast three hours of Randi Rhodes, wouldn't you also require MSNBC to broadcast equal time with Fox News people, require CNN to give equal time to conservatively-oriented shows? Of the broadcast television stations, the news programs are pretty uniformly to the left of center. National Public Radio is primarily liberal in its news department. Wouldn't your ideas force those outlets to give more time to conservatives than they do? The right thing to do is simply leave things alone, simply not add government regulation and control of speech and content. There are so many outlets for every point of view that anyone can find anything. by Dana Pico (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 193 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 16, 2008 at 6:24:04 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
