Sean Hannity 'Can't Handle The Truth'... Is Fox News Too Big To Sue?
Once again Media Matters caught Fox News cropping video to create a completely different representation of President Obama's speech in Egypt yesterday to support their agenda.
Clearly Sean Hannity, much like Rush Limbaugh, can't handle the truth. If they allowed themselves to acknowledge the truth, they would be out of a job.
But isn't this video cropping illegal and shouldn't Fox News 'BE SUED' for this? It is bad enough that they misrepresent everything but to crop video in order to make it appear as though others have actually said things the way they prefer for their own purposes... that is unacceptable. They are going beyond misrepresentation here.
Are they getting away with this just because they have the financial power of Rupert Murdoch behind them? This is criminal behavior and there must be a way to put a stop to it. Perhaps we should do an hour long crop of Hannity demonstrating the views 'we wish he had'? Would THAT be legal? (or is it only illegal if you don't have billions of dollars?)
From a "used to be" fan of Sean - I am pleased to see that someone is acknowledging his trickery to put HIS point across. His constant misrepresentation of the facts is deplorable. Good for you, Synch.
June 6, 2009 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Maggie,
My mom used to think that people on Fox News were telling the 'news' and the 'truth' until I was able to show her that she was being lied to. I think she finds them even more disgusting than I do, because of this... There are trusting people ot their that would never imagine that people would lie and manipulate like this.
This video cropping... I think Fox would jump all over me if I cropped their video to make it appear as though they admitted that POW's have been tortured and that Bush and Cheney should be held accountable etc. I am pretty sure that the would see it as criminal behavior.
June 6, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
File a complaint with the Federal Communication Commission: click on the following link.
http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm
June 6, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're not too big to sue in the legal sense - no one is other than the Feds. They do have enough lawyers and enough money to make you bankrupt yourself pursuing legal action, though.
June 6, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes,
TheraP has reminded me before that the money to bankrupt people makes this impossible for the avge person to do anything about. But there must be somebody... some way. How else can we keep our media healthy if we can't take any action to stop this kind of criminal behavior? I guess I'll write my senators and congressmen and ask them. There have to be enforcable boundaries like, if you repeatedly demonstrate criminal behavior in use of airwaves, you lose your right to broadcast!
June 6, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is what makes me crazy! I don't know if it is because Hannity's show is "commentary" not news, or what, but this twisting or "spin" if you prefer, is just WRONG. Yet another example of a "Christian" behaving in a way that causes me massive embarrassment. I DO NOT understand why he can't see what he is doing.
June 6, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, thanks for staying on top of this, dolphin girl! Rec'd
June 6, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Stilli,
We don't have Murdoch's money but we must have the capacity to be far more clever... there must be a way to do something about this.
Hey maybe I could get some of those new up and comming political video bloggers to create a song/video making fun of 'entertaining', lying criminals.
If we tell our minds 'there must be a way' and send it on a mission to find it... it will usually do it's damndest(sp?) to find at least one somewhat plausible possibility...
June 6, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we all could start fileing complaints with the FCC about the incitement and illegal takes on FOX and let them do the investigations, even if it comes out just to small fines, maybe if enough of us do this it just might put a dent in the criminal acts going on at FOX. It is worth a try.
June 6, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
File a complaint with the Federal Communication Commission: click on the following link.
http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm
June 6, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent Thanks for the Link. We should probably have it bookmarked for every day...
June 6, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, it is really quick. I have filed my complaint and suggest that we all make it a point to campaign from our e-mail list of address to get as many people to file as possible. TPM, Huffingpost and Media Matters are good sources to watch for out takes involving bias FOX news offenses, they are a daily occurance.
June 6, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been saying this for years. To crop video to have someone say what you want them to say is criminal. In a court of law, you'd be thrown in jail for perjury. A point of view is one thing; to blatantly lie about someone is wrong ...
June 6, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Definitely...
June 6, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blah, blah, blah...
And so it goes.
Another post on TPM where everyone gets to whine and rants... and then moves onto the next topic.
There was a post here recently talking about Bill OReilly and his "Tiller the baby killer" comments.
How many of you wrote and complained to the FCC about that as I suggested? How many tried to get their like-minded friends and relatives to do the same?
Seriously... how many?(*)
There is a lot of sanctimonious preaching at TPM but the "action" is lacking.
And that is why things don't change.
If you want to start tearing at FNC, pick the easiest crack and relentlessly pick at it. Most of the people that seem to post here are 45+ years old. But they, too, lack the focus of the MTV generation.
Are you willing to pick up the gauntlet and move forward -- even without a crowd to back you?
(*) To those who have: right on! But speak out here about doing it! It might encourage the slackers.
June 6, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
And which are your top five picks for "easiest crack", speaking of calls to action by a TPMer?
June 6, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Start with the #1: Flood the FCC with complaints about OReilly.
Focus all energy on this... for now.
June 6, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is the #1 instance? Or are you just painting O'Reilly with a broad tarred brush here? Maybe you mean the Tiller references...
June 6, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many times do I have to say "Tiller references"???
June 6, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Often enough, I guess.
It's kinda ironic that in a blog about how clips distort the truth you're calling for an attack on O'Reilly apparently because you've seen clips of his Tiller references.
June 6, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tiller reference? That is one for the DOJ not the FCC.
June 6, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Negative thinking.
Ever wonder why you feel politically impotent?
I explained this before.
Squeaky wheels get the grease... or are you just a political newbie?
June 6, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
AS A PERSON WHO CONSTANTLY TAKES ACTION, I AM GOING TO IGNORE YOUR COMMENT HERE AS
in your words
"Blah, blah, blah...
And so it goes.
Another post on TPM where YOU get to whine and rant... and then move onto the next topic."
:)
Seriously you sound like you are just pissed because you didn't get the attention you wanted or something... really not helpful.
June 6, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't need the attention. The issues do.
TPMers really miss as much as the general populace.
Their agenda is to tweak the system around the edges without it having to really affect their lives.
That's why nearly everyone hear can't handle the issue that all of our problems come from having too many people on the planet.
I suggest you go re-watch EARTH 2100 and think about how it's discussed how everyone was "good about recycling"... and how much good it did in the long term.
June 6, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is the link and information the FCC requests on an online complaint:
http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm
1. What is the name of the company that is the subject of your complaint?
2. If your complaint is about a radio or television station, provide the following information:
1. Station call sign (e.g., "KDID," "WZUF," "KDIU-FM," "WZUE-TV"):
2. Radio station frequency (e.g., "1020" or "88.5"): or TV channel (e.g., "13"):
3. Station location: City: State:
3. If you are complaining about a cable or satellite operator (e.g., Comcast, Time Warner, DirecTV), provide the following information:
1. Operator name:
2. Operator location: City: State:
4. If you are complaining about a particular program, provide the following information:
1. Network:
2. Program name:
3. Date of program (mm/dd/yyyy):
4. Time of program:
5. Provide the details of your complaint, including the time, date and nature of any conduct or activity complained of and identifying information for companies, institutions or individuals involved (if not already described above):
1. Date (mm/dd/yyyy):
2. Time:
June 6, 2009 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the FCC site it gives the statistics on the number and type of complaints, for the last 3 months of 2008 complaints in the 'radio TV broadcast' category, which would include bias, comprised about 2800 of 180,000 total complaints.
I was unable to find any FCC rules or standards on news/opinion broadcasts relating to the illegality of lying or making stuff up and claiming it was true on an FCC regulated radio or TV station.
I guess if you have a president who lies for 8 years it might affect the level of enforcement in this area.
June 6, 2009 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for all of the info. Feeling a bit discouraged as I did find some info online that Fox went to court to assert its write to lie. I am doing more research. Some serious effort needs to go into coming down on Fox and really boundaries with anyone doing this type of garbage. I did see some potential for a case of libel by ommission. Apparently there is still some room for things to end up in court but it would probalby not be a good time for that. Better to fight in other ways first.
June 7, 2009 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have serious objections to your broad postulation on what I and other TPMer's to and don't do according to your magic ball. I would rather have just seen a post encouraging action without all of the unhelpful blather.
June 6, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
And by the way I took action against the incitement of violence and wrote to the DOJ, representatives, and the white house about the lack of enforcement of existing laws regarding inciting violence. And I wrote in particular to the president that the rule of law is meaningless if laws are not enforced and let him know that I could never be impressed with his 'regard' for the law if I did not see him taking action to 'enforce' it.
June 6, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good Job--we all need to take action to encourge the DOJ to take action before it is too late againist this real threat. Maybe Tiller would have been alive today if the Bush corrupt DOJ had enforced the laws.
June 6, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh huh.
HAVE YOU FILED TO THE FCC?????
Please don't lecture me how it's a DOJ matter.
Massive complaints to the FCC (and cc'ed to your national elected reps) get news coverage.
AND NEWS COVERAGE IS HOW THINGS CHANGE
I'm sure a White House staffer will read your letter and log it.
Congrats. I'm sure it made you feel better.
What ironic here is that on a blog about how FNC get hold the agenda by promoting a certain type of media coverage, people miss the fact that they can do the same... and without even lying.
June 6, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The inciting of violence is far broader than O'Reilly and the jurisdiction of the FCC but once again you have NO IDEA what others are doing and not doing... you clearly have a massive PROJECTION problem.
Sir, based on your broad generalizations regarding fellow TPM'ers and your ignorant behavior of constantly determining what 'others' are and are not doing... I can't give any of your perhaps valid points my attention. You have signaled to me that you wish to make an enemy of your community and belittle all who are not you.
Good luck to you.
June 6, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
*I* have no idea?
Okay, why don't you tell me then.
If you can't, then you have no legitimate argument to simply nullify my premise.
June 6, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
clearthinker - do you know the relevant FCC statute which defines legally and prohibits slanting the news, lying on air, done by so many on FOX News, Limbaugh etc we could refer to when complaining?
Frankly I believe most of this stuff is beyond the realm of any FCC enforcement, and any given instance would be a case that could be argued for years in our labyrinthine legal system.
June 6, 2009 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do think you may be right that existing regulations and laws do not protect us or give us a way to really hold the media accountable for abuse and if that's the case this is something else we really need to do something about.
June 7, 2009 3:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have you filed?
June 6, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah... have you?
Or are you just going to be willfully obstructionist?
June 6, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find Hannity disgusting, but I don't get what specific problem you have with his clips in this case.
From MM:
June 6, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the article as it appears on Huffpost:
"On his Fox News show, Sean Hannity
'edited'
a clip of the speech
'to make it sound as if'
Obama "decided to give 9-11 sympathizers a voice on the world stage."
Media Matters explains: "In fact, the context of Obama's words makes clear that Obama was condemning those who would 'justify the events of 9-11.'"
Fox has been caught before cropping video to fit their agenda... this is a BIG problem as far as I am concerned. This time it happened to be Hannity doing it.
I am sure that they would take fierce action against me if I cropped some of their video having them state things that I would like them to say and posted that online...
My issue is not in particular with Hannity so much as FOX and the fact that there is so much money and power behind it... how do we find a way to push back and have some boundaries? I believe we that when it comes to deliberately cropping someone's video/words etc. to have you say whatever they like... THAT requires boundaries. And I feel that if there is no action against them now... it will only get worse... they will keep seeing what they can get away with.
June 6, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
But Obama DID decide to do that!!
What is the significant distortion? Hannity is pointing out that mentioning 9/11 that way acknowledges, on the world stage, that there are a variety of opinions about 9/11 including "sympathizers" (whatever that means). That Obama went on to condemn something about 9/11 doesn't mean Hannity created a lie by clipping it that way. Obama did validate the existence of contrary views of 9/11, perhaps contrary to his views.
Hannity does not say or imply that Obama favors AQ or its sympathizers. So exactly what is the lie here, direct or implied?
It looks to me like Hannity "handled" the truth here. Is that your true beef, that Hannity et al can handle to the truth, to spin things without crossing some line?
June 6, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
(*sigh*)
June 6, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is how you handle the truth. :(
June 6, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
No Eds'
It is just how I am handling you...
I don't see Hannity 'handling' the truth and you do. There's really nothing more to say.
June 6, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
It appears it's how you handle everyone that engages you in debate.
June 6, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, CT, not you.
Eds tries to engage respectfully we are just not seeing the same things.
I don't blog here to get in 'fights' or 'need to win'. I do this to engage and to learn... it is intellectually stimulating.
Why are you here CT? Seriously, based on what you say, what are you getting out of it?
June 6, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since no one bought up these issues on this blog, it's quite telling that you made this statement.
June 6, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was in reference to your mention of the word 'debate as in
It appears it's how you handle everyone that engages you in debate.
Again you state that I 'appear' to handle 'everyone' ...etc.
CT I am sure that I have not received enough of your attention for you to know how I handle even 'some' people who engage me in debate.
You may be familiar however, with how I engage you.
June 6, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, there is plenty more to say, if you only will say it.
From my point of view you are buying into some divisive ideology and doing so uncritically. You have not yet given a sound basis for the claim that Hannity is doing anything wrong, much less that what he did should be illegal or prosecuted in law. That MM made hay out of it is not a basis, because MM is no authority, it has its own biased agenda and can make mistakes as well.
If you were just venting, okay. Otherwise you've put a claim out there which is not justified by the facts in evidence. I'm asking you to justify your claim or retract it, despite the revulsion I experience when I watch Hannity. I stated my position, you blew it off with a sigh.
Whatever. It's up to you to handle the truth.
June 6, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eds,
Okay, I am trying to think of a context that will have an impact here. I disagree with you completely that he has handled the truth. He has committed lying and slander by ommission.
President Obama stated that some have the notion of justifying the acts of 9/11, precisely in order to condemn them. He stated clearly why those arguments were intolerable and do not agree with the facts.
If you made comments acknowledging there are those that feel that acts of violence and the killing of doctors that perform abortions is justifiable and then proceed in your remarkes to condemn murder and the inciting of violence against what is a legal procedure in our country,
and then on television I show and state only that you have given voice to those who support acts of violence and murder against those who perform abortions... well I can't speak for you if someone did it to me I would consider it slander.
I feel confident that if I publicly did something similar to Hannity he would consider it slander and take action to stop me. I would disagree with you in calling this a representation of 'fact' or 'truth' because of what is omitted.
I understand that you feel nothing illegal or without fact has taken place... I feel differently that it is an error or lie of ommission and equal to defamation of character. This is why I simply 'sighed' in response because
I understood what you were saying but could see we were not going to agree.
June 6, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"He has committed lying and slander by ommission."
You still refuse to look at your own false beliefs critically. Hey, everyone is entitled to their cherished illusions, but that's not an excuse to post them publicly and then walk away. Hannity made a specific true point, that Obama showed respect for 9/11 sympathizers etc. on a world stage. No lie. No slander.
Whatever. May enlightenment come to you...
June 6, 2009 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look,
What I am speaking of is not 'an illusion'
And there is nothing misguided about my blog. I am making a point, perceiving a boundary here that you are not interested in recognizing. So be it. As I said we are not going to agree but it has nothing to do with Hannity being factual.
He can't handle the truth and in this case as far as I am concerned he committed libel by ommission.
If someone did it to Hannity you'd be sure to know about it!
http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=6154
Boundaries have been violated regularly... does that mean we just throw our hands up in the air and say 'abuse away'. That's not for me.
I am not pretending anything Eds. I am not ignoring anything here. I seriously doubt there would be a question if the same was being done to Hannity. I understand you despise him but you can't just call someone a Nazi Sympathizer because they stated something about the position of the the Nazi sympathizers as they proceed to he wrongness of their facts. That not 'truth'.
June 6, 2009 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"He can't handle the truth and in this case as far as I am concerned he committed libel by ommission."
I understand that is your dogmatically asserted opinion. I also get that you are defending it by larding out bull which might make some kind of sense to you but which looks like chaff, not wheat, to me. We can leave this if you want to.
I early on pointed out why Hannity's words are not libel, slander, or any such thing in the context. You have refused to respond directly to my points. What you consider omission was simply not relevant to the point Hannity stated. It might have been relevant to some OTHER point you're imagining, but if you read carefully what Hannity actually was talking about was that Obama promoted alternative views of 9/11, and did so in a Big Tent situation. Hannity did not pretend to give a complete analysis of the speech, so leaving stuff out isn't any sinister omission, much less libel. Hannity's point may have been childish or nit-picky or any of a number of other qualities, but those don't generally rise to the level you claimed.
You might reasonably believe that Hannity was trying to insinuate something about Obama, but that goes well beyond what he factually did, thus it's in your imagination. I believe that even our cultural "enemies" deserve better than what you offered here, thus my interest...
June 7, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
(posted below...forgot to hit reply)
Eds,
Here is the POINT
We completely disagree on what you state HERE!
"but if you read carefully what Hannity actually was talking about was that Obama promoted alternative views of 9/11, and did so in a Big Tent situation. "
YOUR 'careful' reading does NOT agree with MINE
there we have it bottom line not other words necessary. I consider your statement to be false.
Not true. Incorrect. I can add to it all of the other aspects of what I feel makes this even worse but I you consider all of that blather so let's leave it out here
June 7, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You "consider" but you cannot show it to be false, because it's true. Your replies consistently show that you fail to consider what is written, substituting your own lies or faulty imagination for the plain truth and sound rationality.
Simply pouting and saying the likes of "Well, you're incorrect, so there!" is childish at best.
I guess we're done here.
June 8, 2009 3:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
What you say is great because you could turn it around and say it just the same about your own statements
It doesn't it make it so, that you say it.
Listen, we disagree. Clearly there are others who see this in a similar fashion. Media Matters saw it and posted their piece. I read it and see the situation in a similar fashion.
This is why there are courts because sometimes things are arguable.
I see that we disagree but I am not going to accept your dismissal of my views as 'lying'.
What Fox did there should be illegal as far as I a concerned. As I said, if someone did it to Hannity everyone would know about it and he'd fight it. The president is not going to do that.
Once again, from your perspective I am 'lying'. From my perspective I absolutely am NOT:)
June 8, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
"you could turn it around and say it just the same about your own statements "
I'm talking about Hannity's conduct, not mine. You made unfounded accusations. I pointed out how he did not lie. You went off into left field.
You have not, that I've seen, ever pointed out clearly and rationally what is so wrong, much less should be illegal, in what he did. I've pointed out what he did for you, but you simply reject the evidence I put forth.
Whatever.
June 8, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The following is your comment Eds, that is your opinion. I think you feel you established 'fact' by stating this but I disagree with what you say here.
What Hannity said was this, "He also decided to give 9/11 sympathizers a voice on the world stage"
THAT is what Hannity said and you interpret that differently than I do and THIS appears to be okay with you and it is completely out of line. Hannity wouldn't accept if it were done to him. I wouldn't accept that if it were done to me. It is not acceptable or 'factual' in my book.
__________________________________________________
The following is previous comment by Eds further up, I don't know how to make it apear in gray
But Obama DID decide to do that!!
What is the significant distortion? Hannity is pointing out that mentioning 9/11 that way acknowledges, on the world stage, that there are a variety of opinions about 9/11 including "sympathizers" (whatever that means). That Obama went on to condemn something about 9/11 doesn't mean Hannity created a lie by clipping it that way. Obama did validate the existence of contrary views of 9/11, perhaps contrary to his views.
Hannity does not say or imply that Obama favors AQ or its sympathizers. So exactly what is the lie here, direct or implied?
It looks to me like Hannity "handled" the truth here. Is that your true beef, that Hannity et al can handle to the truth, to spin things without crossing some line?
_______________________________________
He crossed the line in my book Eds. His 'handling' of the truth was to LIE.
Your right we are done here... should have been done when the post went offline...
June 8, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I think you feel you established 'fact' by stating this but I disagree with what you say here."
I know you might think that, but what you think isn't so in fact. If you could disagree with what I said, you should have done so rationally, not just by stamping your feet over and over again in empty denial.
In fact I posted the truth of what Hannity did, and you cannot handle the truth.
You have never stated your 'careful' reading, you've merely asserted that you have one.
June 8, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
If anyone is stamping their feet here it's you Eds.
However you have taught me one thing. That my first response was the appropriate one.
In fact we disagree and I accept that your opinion is that I can't handle the truth... that is your opinion and I accept it.
And in my opinion Hannity was dishonest and this was unacceptable. We clearly disagree.
June 8, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disabled comments because I didn't want to keep going back and forth after this blog had gone offline.
However I decided that I would open this up because my final response to you is that I find myself in good company.
Check out The Daily Show w/Jon Stewart for Monday June 8 2009:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=229023
June 11, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the deal Eds
You are telling me that my 'belief' is false. But Mr. that in itself it 'your' 'belief'.
We disagree here let's leave it at that.
June 8, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hannity and FAUX - We Slice and Dice the News into our Opinion - You Decide
June 6, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice blog Sync.
Complaint lodged and registered.
June 6, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually I do have an idea, Synchronicity, of what TPMers are like.
All I have to do is look around.
And see responses here.
I would suggest you leave your popular psychologist diagnoses to real pros (and I'm not talking about anyone here). I have found when someone attacks the someone's personality (rather than actions or message), it's because they are unable to attack the message.
Your approach is anti-intelligence itself. I suggest if you can not handle even having a rational discussion of points on an Internet board, then your belief system is very weak indeed and requires the support of like-minded individuals so you don't have to think too much about what you are saying (it's called preaching to the choir).
Your pompous diatribe about "making an enemy of the community" is hysterical in light that much of the TPM community vilifies or condescends to those who are not quite "progressive" enough for them.
Of course, the most amusing aspect of all of this is that many TPMers are hypocritical in the extreme. Time after time we hear on these boards how "they" won't share with "us". And how you have a "right" to the same health care, cheap energy, etc. as "them".
And yet, when these same TPMers become the "them" (e.g. Americans or Westerns compared to the rest of the impoverished world), they jealously guard their "rights" to procreate as the most simple example.
I have news for you: much of what TPMers consider "right wing" is highly progressive compared to western civilization 500 years ago. There is no natural order to promote democratic regimes. Indeed, these ideas are born on a lavish lifestyle, one of relative plenty. So when our way of life goes, you can kiss all of these "assumed" right away as well.
We are not any better enlightened beings than our ancestors. When you are cold and hungry, you will find how many of these issues debated on these boards matter in the long run.
June 6, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You clearly thought way too hard on this one CT
It does not take a psychologist to recognize when a person is making sweeping statements about a community of people and what they do or do not do. It's not interesting... it's not even funny which would at least be well, fun.
If you consider me unintelligent, I invite you by all means to ignore my blogs and converse with those people that you consider worthy. I cannot begin to understand why you comment here at all based on your words. Talk about hypocrisy...
June 6, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The hypocrisy is when you ask if Sean Hannity can handle the truth... you find that you may not be able to.
June 6, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, not a problem for me CT. Even when the problem might be my own limitations. Wish I could say the same for you.
June 6, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sync, that is why I try to catch Media Matters four or five times a week. Catches them all the time with 'spinning' like your example.
Keith O has caught them labeling some politician deep in mire a dem when in fact he is a repub. Stewart has too, of course.
No, no real legal ramifications that I know of. At least under NYTimes v. Sullivan. You have to prove real solid intent on the part of the publisher.
June 6, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks DD I will add MM to my favorites along with the link for the FCC to facilitate future responses to this garbage.
But I have the feeling DD that if I cropped video of Sean Hannity and did the same sort of thing in reverse, he would call it criminal and he would most likely sue me if I posted it online or at least try to force me to remove and retract it.
June 6, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
We know he would, they would, rush, sean, savage...hell Brit Hume who is the worst since he pretends he is the baritone voice of reason.
June 6, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cherry picking is repugnant. Distorting the meaning of what one is saying is maybe not against the law, but it is dishonest.
Hannity is free to have his opinion. What he is not free to do is be free from criticism when he relies on misdirection and falsehood to bolster his worldview.
Unfortunately, lying is not against the law, but "not being truthful" does have consequences.
There was no good reason to take Obamas speech out of context, other than to discredit the President of the United States.
What is telling is that no one ever needed to take Bush or Cheney (the little POTUS) out of context. The right will not blink at anything as "quaint" as decency, and it is up to decent folks to point that out. The failure to do so resulted in the mess we're in now, so keep on speaking out, Sync.
It's hardly useless. It's like a snowball, it gets larger and gains momentum.
I am very glad Sync spoke up and out.
June 6, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Cheeckan
(I am of course now thinking of the movie the Fith Element)
I do think it is libel by omission. If you stop in the middle of what you are saying and only represent that 'there are americans who feel that murdering those who provide abortions is righteous and justifiable and I stop there when you go on to condemn such inciting of violence etc. and I falsh on television you saying only the first part of what you said... I would be committing libel against you. I do not feel this is just a matter of a lying about what the president said. showing only that portion of what the president said is in my perception public defamation of character.
I am very interesting in find the boundaries here.
June 6, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree we need to solidify those lines, Sync. We've had a concerted 8 years of successful blurring. The consequences of that are pretty apparent.
I really appreciate your eloquence and willingness to cut through the BS here.
Thank you.
June 6, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sean Hannity can't "afford' the truth & like all of Fox, their not in the truth business. They fiddle as the nation burns & constantly try to distract from reality & what's important.
The days of having all the power & milking the money are over for them. They still can squeeze their audience for every red cent for a few more years though.
June 6, 2009 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eds,
Here is the POINT
We completely disagree on what you state HERE!
"but if you read carefully what Hannity actually was talking about was that Obama promoted alternative views of 9/11, and did so in a Big Tent situation. "
YOUR 'careful' reading does NOT agree with MINE
there we have it bottom line not other words necessary. I consider your statement to be false.
Not true. Incorrect. I can add to it all of the other aspects of what I feel makes this even worse but I you consider all of that blather so let's leave it out here.
June 7, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even if I can't sue Fox. At least I can watch Jon Steward blast them for this very issue:
Check out The Daily Show w/Jon Stewart for Monday June 8 2009:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=229023
June 11, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
bwak said if I type a comment into an old blog my dashboard will clear up... let's see if it works.
June 16, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
test
June 18, 2009 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink