Hannity pledged "maximum" contribution to Clinton challenger Pirro; asked listeners to donate too
On the September 20 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Fox News host Sean Hannity pledged to make the "maximum" contribution to the campaign of 2006 Republican Senate candidate Jeanine Pirro, who is running against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY). Hannity also said he wanted his listeners to donate to Pirro's campaign, asked Pirro "how can people get in touch" with her to make a contribution, and promised to provide a link to her campaign website on his own Web page, Hannity.com. Pirro's campaign website features a photograph of her with Hannity above the caption "Fox News commentator and popular syndicated radio host Sean Hannity comes to support Jeanine Pirro at a local event held in her honor. February 2005."
From the September 20 broadcast of ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show:
HANNITY: Now let me ask you a question, OK? How much am I allowed to give to your campaign? Because I want to give the maximum.
PIRRO: Awwww. Thank you, Sean. Well, you know, because there's a possible primary, it's $4,200 a person for the, you know, the whole cycle. And that's this year and next year. And certainly, you know, money is what we need to make sure that we can get our message out. I have been all over this state, Sean, and I am greeted with a great deal of enthusiasm, with energy, with people who say, "You know what? We need someone who's going to listen to us!" I'm an upstate New Yorker, you know? When I was a kid, I worked in a dairy. And I really feel for upstate New York. It's been ignored, and New York is not a doormat. It --
HANNITY: -- Well, so's Long Island.
PIRRO: You don't come to New York and use it as a springboard to the presidency.
HANNITY: Not only that. Just don't be a phony about it. If you're gonna run, say, "Yeah, I'm planning on running. I'm thinking of running." But don't play this cat-and-mouse game and not get away with answering the question. Listen, I'm gonna have to run, but I want people to donate to your campaign. I read [New York Post state editor] Fredric Dicker's column, and you gotta, you know -- I'm gonna give you a check for the maximum that I can give, and I really want other people -- where is, how can people get in touch with you?
PIRRO: It's JeaninePirro.com. It's J-E-A-N-I-N-E -- Pirro -- P-I-R-R-O dot-com, and, Sean, thank you so much.
HANNITY: I'll link that to my website, Hannity.com, because I'm gonna tell you right now, it is such a bunch of -- I need people to get to know you. If they know you as well as I do, everybody'll vote for you.
Media Matters: The right-wing media's election analysis just ain't that good
The Friday Rush: For conservatives, $400 million buys defeat at the ballot box
The myth of Fox News' ratings spike
With Hannity's support, and speeches like the one linked below, how could Pirro possibly lose?
[link to www.crooksandliars.com]
Beware, this might be one of the most hilarious video clips you have ever seen.
HANNITY: Just don't be a phony about it. If you're gonna run, say, "Yeah, I'm planning on running. I'm thinking of running." But don't play this cat-and-mouse game and not get away with answering the question.
The Inquisition
...reading between the lines of their talking points, it sounds like they think they have the Power of Inquisition; don't play cat-and-mouse (with Authority Figures like FOX's Sean), answer the question!
(because burnin a lady at the stake, is what The Inquisition does; screw him, and them, and it, The Inquisition; don't answer the question. give em the finger instead; it's what Joan wished she had done)
To my way of thinking, this sort of behavior goes way beyond the boundaries of what could even remotely be considered journalistic ethic -- not that I expect a whole lot of that from Hannity anyway! I realize that political endorsement is by no means unusual within the press, such as when a newspaper "supports" a candidate -- but even that seems a far cry from the sort of blatant campaigning that Hannity is doing.
Newspapers do not endorse candidates on their news pages, just the editorial section. The real question is, does "Hannity & Colmes" classify as an independent news show or just another "Crossfire"?
What Hamity has done is broken several state and federal election laws. Supporting a candidate on a private show while soliciting donations, and not giving equal time to opposing candidates. It will probably be a slap on the wrist, but he certainly won't be allowed to continue this. Oh wait! I momentarily forgot who's running this country.
Weird. I know the New York Times has a policy preventing its columnists from endorsing any candidate; presumably many other papers have a similar policy.
Does Faux News not?
at least hannity's finally being honest, unlike o'reilly who always tries to portray himself as nuetral.
Hannity's endorsement would not bother me (I don't care for either candidate) except the Center for Digital Democracy reports the following.
"According to an article by Brendan Koerner in Mother Jones, "The radio industry, with FCC approval, has consolidated into four companies that control 90 percent of the advertising revenue and beam their programs nationwide.""
[link to www.democraticmedia.org]
i should think that mr. hannity's "show" now qualifies as "in kind" campaign contributions to ms. pirro, the value of which should be reported to the FEC.
further, this would seem to put fox's license to the public airwaves at some risk: this is beyond merely endorsing a candidate, he is actually soliciting campaign contributions for her, using public property to do so.
Fox is a cable network. It doesn't use the public airwaves therefore Hannity can endorse and solicit campaign contributions for anyone he pleases. I'm not defending Hannity or his ilk but I don't see why MMFA even bothered with this one. No lies and nothing illegal.
Hannity is wasting his time. There might be a Republican out there who could beat Hillary but it ain't Pirro.
He said it on the radio PUBLIC AIRWAVES !
I agree-- I sent an e-mail to ABC radio network, which aired the show on radio, asking whether they are going to claim this as an in-kind contribution or the grounds of any contention that this blatant "commercial" for Pirro is outside of FEC requirements. I would like to bring it to the FEC's attention because (while I am no expert on campaign law) this sort of conduct just cannot be right...
There is also that nagging little issue of journalistic ethics, as bluestocking has pointed out. Hannity is, allegedly, a TV journalist on the "fair and balanced," "most powerful name in news," (or whatever their slogan is) cable network.
Here is a link to the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics: [link to www.spj.org]
Just for fun, take a look at the list and see how many rules Hannity has violated over the years. I did this once for O'Reilly and came to the conclusion that he is either a grossly unethical journalist, or he is not a journalist at all. We report - you decide.
Plato
Shall we write to the FEC about this?
The real question you are not asking is does the right wing have the right to give air time for the purposes of solicting contributions under the guise of "news". No they don't and it is illegal unless the declare it which I doubt either Fox or Hannity did. This kind of activity goes well beyond the pale of what is allowable.
Fox is clearly contributing to Pirro's campaign in the form of free airtime. Just a guess, but I bet it has not been reported by Pirro. Someone should bring a lawsuit. Even if the result is technically a loss, which it should not be, the case will highlight how outrageously biased FOX is and how they are meddling with our political process.
Abso-freakin'-lutely.
This is mostly about Hannity's rabid, festering antagonism towards Hillary Clinton. He regularly states on his show that he will do everything in his power to stop any 2008 plans she may have. It's his "solemn vow". I doubt you'd see him doing anything like this with any other race in the country.
His obsession with Hillary is almost demonic. He seems possessed with her and it is actually scary.
His taste for Clinton blood is crazy. It's the old, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." He probably doesn't know a damn thing about Pirro and what her ideas or her platform is. All he sees is that see is running against Hillary. Talk about trying to live vicariously through someone else. If she does win, which is about a likely as Bush telling the truth, then Hannity would propably claim he is fact defeated her, without is awesome power and support backing Pirro it never could have happened. What a right wing hack.
This seems outside the purview of Media Matters.
Hannity is a partisan not a journalist and makes no pretense otherwise. He is publicly endorsing a candidate and putting his money where his mouth is. How is this deceitful? Being a complete jerk isn't a crime and there are, certainly, plenty of times Hannity lies and misleads but this ain't one of them.
This looks like a cheap. petty, smear on your part and it isn't necessary. There is plenty of real media bias out there to attack, besides, I like Hillary but everytime she acts coy about running she seems less honest. I prefere Biden's approach, if not Biden himself: "Yeah, I'm thinking about it." Good for him.
"This looks like a cheap. petty, smear on your part ... "
============
Show us exactly where Media Matters editorialized and "smeared" Hannity in this item. Show us something in this item that is not factual.
MM simply and straightforwardly presented Hannity's comments. They merely repeated what Hannity said on the airwaves.
If this makes Hannity look bad, then I'd suggest you send your complaints to Hannity. They are his own words.
A Right wing pundit violates federal campaign laws in order to press his agenda, and that's "outside the purview of Media Matters"?
Okay, whatever!
Hey, just look the other way, man. If you were a patriot, you wouldn't be worried about such lefty, socialist things as "laws" or "rules." Pinko.
"Show us exactly where Media Matters editorialized and "smeared" Hannity in this item. Show us something in this item that is not factual." dave_chicago
This is the first paragraph of "Who We Are" by Media Matters
"Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
It's not about Hannity. When one turns to Media Matters, which I do daily, one expects to see stories of conservative misinformation. That is the whole purpose. The smear comes from inferring this event was somehow dishonorable or deceptive by placing it in the middle of hundreds of stories detailing dishonor and deception. It's guilt by juxtaposition. It's a cheap shot. It's Rovesque and unworthy.
The problem for me isn't that it makes Hannity look bad. Who cares? He looks bad every day but this story is just a guy supporting a candidate. So what!? It's not misinformation. It's not unethical. It's nothing at all, so why stick it in here as if it were?
The problem for me is it makes Media Matters look bad and I don't want that because it does important work.
Maybe this is more like misconduct as opposed to misinformation, but that seems a little hair-splitting in this case and I feel it is within the MMFA scope. Hannity is certainly no journalist by any stretch but tries to present himself as a 'news' source. He regularly touts his show as a place where one can hear news that's unavailable elsewhere. I have a feeling a lot of people view him as a journalist and are simply blind to his total lack of objectivity, a quality that used to be quite important in a news source.
He practices a perversion of journalism which he is using in this case as a huge public forum to endorse a candidate for blatantly obvious reasons, namely that he has a patholigical dislike of her opponent. It may not be deceitful, but it's cheap, transparent and just plain wrong.
les,
Be aware that articles in the right column of the front page are not misinformation articles. They are just reported instances of typically unethical behavior observed in the media.
Misinformation articles are always and only on the left column of the front page.
Check out this link.
[link to newyorkmetro.com]
If you're going to follow Hannity's advice, you're probably throwing money down the drain.
This whole thing about it being somehow unethical to use an elected state position to springboard to the US presidency is somewhat hypocritical. I seem to recall a certain Texas governor that did exactly that. Dubya knew prior to his FIRST run at the Texas governor’s seat that he was positioning himself for national office. By the time he ran for re-election it was no more than a formality to make the announcement. So when Shawn criticizes Hillary Clinton he is being somewhat disingenuous. But, Hanity can’t open his mouth without lying. It’s in the fabric of his being. I just recently got done reading James Hatfield’s Fortunate Son. It outlines in great detail the events leading up to Bush’s run for elected office. An illuminating read, I highly recommend it. One better is that Jean Pirro is currently using her elected position of DA to springboard to higher office, so isn’t that somewhat hypocritical? And the fact that Jeanine Pirro is spending time appearing on Shawn’s show demonstrates the cloth from which she is cut. The only purpose she will serve is to bloody Hillary. Jean Pirro doesn’t have a ghost of a chance in a progressive state like NY.
If you dont like what is on the show, TURN OFF YOUR TV. This is America. Why have the government interfere if you disagree with something? Whats next, the Department of Homeland Shoe-Tying so you people dont have to worry about which one to loop and which one to swoop? Clearly this is an opinion show, with a Left-Wing talker (Colmes) and a Right-Wing talker (Hannity). Thats where the Fair and Balanced comes from.. Fair in that they get equal time, and balanced in that opposing points of view are presented. Is that really so difficult to comprehend?
How does turning off your TV affect Sean Hannity's radio show?
Colmes talks?!?!
C’mon now, you don’t actually think it’s even supposed to be a fair fight between Shawn and Alan on HANITY & colmes. Shawn Hanity is to the Harlem Globetrotters as Alan colmes is to the Washington Generals. colmes ain’t NEVER going win an argument w/ Shawn. Never, ever, ever. He doesn’t even try. He’s just Shawn’s foil. If colmes were to point out how wrong Shawn “facts” are, the next time colmes was emptying the garbage in Roger Ailes office, (that’s also in his job description) Roger would kick him right in the coconuts. Ouch. colmes is just supposed to sit there and look ridiculous. I would LOVE to see his contract. I’d bet it’s spelled out. Item 1 A – never under any circumstances point out inconsistencies and lies spewed by Shawn.
PIRRO: You don't come to New York and use it as a springboard to the presidency -
Why does everyone forget that this is exactly what JFK did?
Just once, I'd like to hear someone say something like "just because JFK did it, that doesn't mean Hillary can!" instead.
Not that I agree, mind you; I don't. I'd just rather hear that than what Pirro actually said.
Who is shocked that FOX News Hannity acted unethically in endorsing and shilling for Pirro? Call me when he acts nice to a liberal and doesn't bully and lie. THAT would shock me.
What Hannity and Pirro did was violate the FEC regulations about "in-kind-contribution."
You can ask the FEC for their opinion by mailing them here:
info@fec.gov
I sent emails to the current opponents of Jeanine Pirro (Ed Cox & John Spencer websites)requested they complain to the FEC about the contribution or thing of value. These guys would love nothing better than to first, throw Jeanine "under the bus" and then get their swings at Sen. Clinton.
From a distance, I am duly impressed by Pirro!...she has challenged the 'smartest' woman in the world on several issues and left the 1st lady without retort!...love it!