Sean Hannity

Did Sean Hannity Host A Terrorist Leader?

Posted by on October 9, 2008 at 3:36 pm. NO Comments :

During a heated discussion with Barack Obama’s communication director, Robert Gibbs, Sean Hannity blurted out the names of controversial figures that he said have been guests on his show. He was defending himself from Gibbs’ assertion that basing an entire episode of his Hannity’s America on the commentary of noted anti-Semite Andy Martin could tag Hannity as an anti-Semite himself. Gibbs was actually just attempting to demonstrate that such guilt by association is not a valid strategy for debate.

One of the names Hannity listed in his defense was Khalid Mohammad. Was this the same Mohammad that was Osama Bin Laden’s propaganda chief? He is presently a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay and is considered one of the highest profile Al Qaeda leaders yet captured. The 9/11 Commission described him as “the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks,” and he has reportedly confessed that he had personally decapitated the American journalist, Daniel Pearl.

Hannity may have been referring to another Khalid Mohammad who was the national spokesman for Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam (NOI). He is hardly a less controversial character. This Mohammad referred to Jews as bloodsuckers and was dismissed from the NOI for being too radical (for the NOI?). In February 1994, Congress issued a denunciation of Muhammad, condemning his speech as “outrageous hatemongering of the most vicious and vile kind.” He died in 2001 of a brain aneurysm, so if Hannity had him on his show it was at least seven years ago.

It would be interesting to find out to whom Hannity was referring. But either way Hannity admits that he pals around with some unsavory folks. He surely has no business criticizing Barack Obama.

John McCain: I Didn’t Really Love America Until…

Posted by on June 19, 2008 at 9:48 pm. 16 Comments :

Dan Abrams has uncovered a video of John McCain saying…

“I really didn’t love America until I was deprived of her company.”

This has the potential to upend this campaign. Given the criticism of Michelle Obama’s remarks about pride, how can the right still press the patriotism of the Democratic candidate’s wife when the Republican candidate himself has made remarks that are arguably much worse?

The quote of McCain came from an interview with Sean Hannity:

Hannity: You spent two years of this five-and-a-half-year period in solitary confinement. What does that do to a person, to spend that much time in solitary confinement?

McCain: I think it makes you a better person. Obviously, it makes you love America. I really didn’t love America until I was deprived of her company, but probably the most important thing about it, Sean, is that I was privileged to have the opportunity to serve in the company of heroes.

Is anyone surprised that Hannity didn’t challenge McCain’s statement?

It doesn’t matter what McCain meant to say in these comments. What matters is that he and his surrogates have to cease their despicable slander of Michelle Obama’s patriotism. After all, If Cindy McCain can get away with saying, “All I know is that I have always been proud of my country,” can’t Mrs. Obama just as rightly say, “All I know is that I have never stolen from a charity to satisfy my drug habit.”

This crap has to stop. And if there is a silver lining to the new McCain dialog, it is that this might lead to the end of these childish attacks.

Partisan Pied Pipers Part Republicans From Reporters

Posted by on February 8, 2008 at 1:09 pm. 4 Comments :

A new Harris Poll was released that purports to identify the most and least favorite news personalities. Harris’ definition of both “news” and “personalities” stretches credulity just by including names like Tucker Carlson. Nonetheless, there are still some interesting results.

Far and away, the consensus loser is Rush Limbaugh who was voted least favorite by 42% of respondents. He was first amongst the least of both Democrats and Independents. Plus, he was even the #3 choice for worst amongst Republicans.

Bill O’Reilly was the favorite choice of 23%. But he was also the least favorite of 23%. His place atop the favorites list was fueled by a block 42% of Republicans who prefer him. That’s about twice the number of any other choice on the list for Democrats or Independents.

This poll, however, tells us something more than the obvious popularity contest drivel. It tells us something about the perception gap between the right and the left with regard to what constitutes news.

The top three choices amongst Republicans are Bill O’Reilly (42%), Rush Limbaugh (28%), and Sean Hannity (27%), none of whom would be described as journalists by neutral observers. They are partisan commentators with well known biases. The top three choices amongst Democrats are Anderson Cooper (22%), Brian Williams (20%), and Charles Gibson (19%), all of whom are bona fide news professionals. They may have biases of their own, but they are also practicing journalists who at least attempt to keep their reporting opinion-free.

Keith Olbermann barely registered in the poll. What’s notable about that is not his standing. He is neither loved nor hated by the poll’s respondents, although there are predictable up/down ticks by party. What’s interesting is the conspicuous absence of anyone else like him on the list. He is the only subject in the study that is remotely progressive. Every other name is either a nonpartisan journalist or a right-winger. This comports with the ideological makeup of the television news community overall. Olbermann stands alone as voice for left-leaning viewers.

In the end, it’s the perception gap that is the most significant insight provided by this poll. When Republicans favor their ideological Pied Pipers over the more reputable Town Criers, you are left with villagers that are less informed, even misinformed, and unable to distinguish fact from fiction (see The Cult of Foxonality). While much in the mediasphere requires reform, it appears that there is an important flank that has been neglected. More work needs to be done to educate news consumers as to what really constitutes news. That does not mean that Republicans need to be re-educated into Democrats (although it wouldn’t…no, never mind). It means that they need to learn to differentiate commentary from journalism. Bill O’Reilly, whether you agree with him or not, is not a journalist. Anderson Cooper, whether you agree with him or not, is not a blathering, egomaniacal, browbeating purveyor of distortions and lies.

The Fox Frame: Hannity Vision

Posted by on August 28, 2007 at 11:45 am. NO Comments :

Sean Hannity conducted an interview with a Christian televangelist named Bill Keller. Keller has a reputation for engaging in hate speech against Muslims.

Unfortunately, the picture over Hannity’s shoulder is that of Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, whom I’m sure Hannity thinks is a purveyor of hate speech as well. But really…

Media Gangs Up On John Edwards

Posted by on June 1, 2007 at 4:39 pm. 2 Comments :

In the past couple of weeks, the press has taken a decidedly negative turn on John Edwards. The ferocity of the attacks and the diversity of their origin is curious, to say the least. Their obsession with housing and haircuts and speaking fees has become all-consuming. This media phenomenon was apparent to media critic and author Jeff Cohen who wrote:

“The focus on these topics tells us two things about corporate media. One we’ve long known – that they elevate personal stuff above issues. The other is now becoming clear – that they have a special animosity toward Edwards.”

Edwards is receiving treatment that is generally reserved for front-runners like Clinton, Obama, or Giuliani. Here is a sampling of the assault:

Jonah Goldberg: “[Edwards] gives new meaning to the term “poverty pimp.”

USA Today: “Edwards, most prominently, has undermined his passionate advocacy for ordinary Americans by seeming to be anything but ordinary himself. Expensive haircuts reinforce the elitist image of a wealthy trial lawyer…”

Sean Hannity: “[Edwards isn’t] up to the task of understanding the nature in the battle in the war that’s being waged against us.”

Jim Cramer (on Hardball): “[Edwards is] public enemy #1.”

Bill O’Reilly: “The former vice presidential candidate has sold his soul to far left interests […] Edwards is running a preposterous campaign. He lives like a sultan in a 30,000 foot North Carolina house […] Talking Points tries to respect all of those who want to serve their country, but Edwards is an exception. I have no respect for him. He’s a phony and is in the tank for special interests to damage this country.”

As an added bonus, O’Reilly offers swag for sale at his web site about which he says, “remember, when you buy anything on BillOReilly.com, a good portion of what you spend goes to charities, send a lot of kids, poor kids to camp this summer.”

Is O’Reilly a hypocrite as well because he is a multi-millionaire advocating help for poor kids? I might have a little more sympathy for these arguments if any of Edwards’ critics placed even a fraction of the effort on behalf of America’s poor that Edwards does. Edwards himself posed this question in response to these criticisms:

“Would it have been better if I had done well and didn’t care?”

This whole line of attack seems preposterous to me. First of all it is implying that you cannot be wealthy and concerned about the poor at the same time. If that’s true, it exempts about 90% of Congress and every presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican, except for Dennis Kucinich. Secondly, it is a rejection of the American Dream that holds that everyone can share in this nation’s prosperity; everyone except John Edwards, who is to be pilloried for the audacity of being born poor but achieving great wealth through hard work and determination.

You have to wonder why Edwards is getting hit so hard from so many directions. Jeff Cohen believes it has something to do with Edwards’ criticism of corporate-driven trade policies. Certainly that position would anger the captains of industry that wield so much influence in American government. And remember, many of those captains are at the helm of media conglomerates. It was probably not lost on those folks that Edwards was the first Democrat to refuse to participate in the Fox debate.

But I think that just brushes the surface of their objections. I think it goes much deeper into the matter of the class distinctions raised by Edwards’ “Two Americas” campaign. They are ultimately afraid that the populist appeal of a movement that truly seeks to bring economic opportunity to every citizen, instead of just the elite, could catch on. That’s why it has to be strangled in the cradle of a candidate who is running third in national polls. The risk extends beyond Edwards himself. If voters responded positively to the issue, the other candidates would adopt it. So even if Edwards does not become a contender, the issue stays on the table. This fear has already been articulated by Nina Easton of Fortune Magazine to Brit Hume on Fox:

“Well, I think the most interesting thing about these speeches was the extent to which both candidates borrowed from the No. 2 candidate we saw there, John Edwards […] to me it’s like they’re all joined at the hip on domestic policy”

It isn’t Edwards that they are all afraid of. It is economic populism, fair trade, and, in the end, the American Dream. That’s what the media and their mouthpieces in politics and punditry are trying to kill.

Hannity’s Call To Arms

Posted by on August 31, 2006 at 1:54 am. NO Comments :

In a fit of patriopathic® zeal, the sort that might have inspired Booth or Oswald, Sean Hannity, on his radio show, lashes out against a fearsome destiny that summons the faithful to the battlefield.

“I want to talk to you Republicans out there, both candidates and voters. Here’s some unsolicited advice: Ignore the polls, ignore the media, ignore the pundits. It’s 70 days to go. The end is not here yet. We still can turn this thing around.”

The “Thing” he hopes to turn around is the potential consequence of unrestrained democracy – a Democratic majority in Congress. So he issues what amounts to a fatwa.

“This is the moment to say that there are things in life worth fighting and dying for and one of ’em is making sure Nancy Pelosi doesn’t become the speaker.”

If this isn’t a contract on the Democratic leader in the House, I don’t know what is. Even if this is not his meaning, it is grossly irresponsible for a broadcaster to make an appeal that could persuade loyal listeners to carry out a literal consummation of his ramblings. What would his response be if Ms. Pelosi announced that one of the things in life that is worth dying for is keeping Hannity off of radio and TV?

These are the kinds of desperate and fanatical statements that generally foreshadow an empire’s decline. They reek of intolerance, aggression and tyranny. They come from Pat Robertson, praying for Supreme Court justices to die. They come from from Ann Coulter, disappointed that Sen. Chaffee has not been assassinated. They come from Glenn Beck, fantasizing about choking Michael Moore to death. They come from Bill O’Reilly, inviting al Qaeda to blow up San Francisco. Now they come from Sean Hannity.

Obviously Hannity is not alone in his lust for blood or his aversion to democracy. The best we can hope for is that his listeners selectively heed his advice, paying particular attention to the admonition to ignore the media and the pundits, which, of course, prominently includes Fox News and Sean Hannity.