On Good Morning America, Hannity offered a host of misinformation to attack Michael J. Fox
SUMMARY: On Good Morning America, Sean Hannity accused Michael J. Fox of, as host Diane Sawyer put it, "shilling" for Democrats, claimed without elaboration that Fox's campaign ad in support of Missouri Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill contained "factual inaccuracies," and baselessly defended Rush Limbaugh's accusation that Fox was "exaggerating the effects of the disease" in the ad. Similarly, on The O'Reilly Factor, Culture Campaign president Sandy Rios falsely claimed that Fox was "lying" in his advertisement.
On the October 25 edition of ABC News' Good Morning America, Fox News host Sean Hannity accused actor Michael J. Fox of -- as host Diane Sawyer put it -- "shilling" for Democrats, claimed without elaboration that Fox's campaign ad in support of Missouri Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill contained "factual inaccuracies," and baselessly defended conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh's accusation that Fox was "exaggerating the effects of the disease" in his McCaskill ad. Similarly, during the October 24 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Culture Campaign president Sandy Rios claimed that Fox was "lying" in his advertisement. In fact, Fox is campaigning for candidates who support embryonic stem cell research and has -- contrary to Hannity's suggestion that he has campaigned only for Democrats -- appeared in a campaign ad for Republican Sen. Arlen Specter (PA). Also, in his McCaskill ad, Fox stated that McCaskill's Republican opponent, Sen. Jim Talent (R-MO), "opposes expanding stem cell research"; and, in fact, Talent has opposed legislation that would "expand[] stem cell research," as Media Matters for America has previously noted.
On Good Morning America, Hannity suggested that the "very political" Fox would support only Democratic candidates, asserting that Fox "wants to defeat these Republicans" and accusing Fox of engaging in "a little hypocrisy here" due to his support of Maryland Democratic Senate candidate Ben Cardin. But Fox has not limited his endorsements to Democrats. In 2004, he supported Specter. Fox appeared in a Specter campaign ad and, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, "prais[ed] Specter for his support of stem cell research and his role in doubling NIH [National Institutes of Health] funding for biomedical research."
Moreover, Hannity's charge of "hypocrisy" by Fox is baseless. According to Hannity, "Ben Cardin voted the opposite way," on stem cell research than Fox would have "wanted." Hannity then asked of Fox: "Why isn't he running ads against the Democrat [Cardin]?" Hannity did not elaborate on how Cardin "voted the opposite way" on stem cell research, and Cardin's voting record does not bear out Hannity's point. Cardin voted for H.R. 810, a House bill supported by Fox that would have "amend[ed] the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research." On July 13, 2005, Fox spoke at a Senate rally in support of the bill, saying, "[T]he science is clear. Even the NIH says that more embryonic stem cell lines are needed." By that point, Cardin had already voted in support of the bill. After the bill passed the Senate on June 18, President Bush vetoed the legislation on June 19. Cardin then voted to override the veto, a bid that failed to gather the required two-thirds vote to succeed. Cardin did vote against the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, but that bill was opposed by the two lead sponsors of H.R. 810, Reps. Michael Castle (R-DE) and Diana DeGette (D-CO). As Castle noted in his floor speech voicing his opposition, "It requires researchers to develop new ways to create or isolate embryonic stem cells before the research with embryonic stem cells can even begin. So you add a whole additional step to the process. And in speaking with Dr. Leon Kass, the former director of the President's Bioethics Council, it could take years to develop these isolation techniques, which means the research is being held up even further." DeGette opposed the bill for similar reasons, summarizing her opposition by stating: "Frankly, this bill does worse than nothing. This bill diverts attention and resources away from embryonic stem cell research, which is the research that really shows promise for diseases that affect tens of millions of people, diseases like nerve damage, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and so many others."
Additionally, Hannity and Rios both claimed that Fox's ad was inaccurate -- Rios accused Fox of "lying" in the advertisement and claimed that it was "not true" that "Talent is against the expansion of stem cell research," while Hannity claimed the ad contained "factual inaccuracies" and stated that he "believe[ed] it [the ad] will backfire in the end because there is false information in the ad." In fact, Talent has indeed opposed expanding some forms of stem cell research. As Media Matters for America has previously noted, while Talent supports adult stem cell research, he is opposed to stem cell research which involves "destroying a human embryo." Talent has also opposed a proposed Missouri constitutional amendment to legalize stem cell research in the state and has voted against easing the restrictions President Bush imposed on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
Further, after being questioned by Sawyer on whether Hannity felt Limbaugh went "too far" in attacking Fox, Hannity purported to defend Limbaugh, replying: "My take on what Rush said, was that Rush was referring to Michael J. Fox's own admission in his own book where he said that he stopped taking medications." Fox stated in his memoir Lucky Man (Hyperion, 2002) that he testified before Congress in 1999 "without medication." However, contrary to Hannity's suggestion, Limbaugh did not merely accuse Fox of not taking his medications. As Media Matters noted, Limbaugh initially accused Fox of "exaggerating the effects of" his "disease" and asserted that Fox's visible tremors were "purely an act." Later in the program, Limbaugh added that Fox could have neglected to take his medication, stating, "this is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting, one of the two." As Media Matters has noted, it was not until the next day that Limbaugh pointed to Fox's statement in his book to justify his accusation that Fox had not taken his medication.
From the October 25 broadcast of ABC News' Good Morning America:
HANNITY: What's so sinister about this ad, first of all, it's an 11th-hour ad. It comes out, Michael J. Fox knows he's -- well, he wants to defeat these Republicans, that's why two weeks out of an election, he's come in here. Michael J. Fox -- the issue of the medication came up because of that. Look, there are some factual inaccuracies in the ad and need to be debated. And I think, you know, unfortunately, he wants to create an impression here, Republicans don't care about the health of people, they don't want to cure Parkinson's. This is only about the funding of federal stem cell issues.
SAWYER: Well, well. But Rush Limbaugh, even in his apology, said that Mike Fox was allowing his illness to be exploited, shilling for a Democratic candidate. If you have Parkinson's disease and you believe embryonic stem cell research is the answer, a possible answer, a possible cure, don't you have a right to speak up?
HANNITY: You have a right to speak up, but he also has a right to be criticized. He's a guy that is very political, he wants the defeat of these candidates. You know, there is some little hypocrisy here. He's supporting a guy in Maryland, [Democratic Senate candidate] Ben Cardin, and Ben Cardin voted the opposite way of which he wanted. Why isn't he running ads against the Democrat? He supported [2004 Democratic presidential nominee] John Kerry, he supported [Sen.] Chuck Schumer [D-NY]. He wants these guys defeated. It doesn't -- he's not immune from any criticism.
SAWYER: Right. Bottom line, did Rush Limbaugh go too far for you?
HANNITY: My take on what Rush said was that Rush was referring to Michael J. Fox's own admission in his own book where he said he stopped taking medications.
SAWYER: He didn't say that.
HANNITY: Well, that's my understanding.
SAWYER: He didn't talk about the congressional testimony. He was talking about this ad.
HANNITY: I didn't hear the comments, but my understanding is that Michael J. Fox had admitted that. Look, you know something, Diane? Everybody wants Michael J. Fox to get well. Every Republican I know, every Democrat. Everybody wants a cure for cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and Parkinson's. It is an insidious, difficult disease. What's unfortunate and deceiving about the ad, though -- this is important -- is that this is about the federal funding embryonic stem cells. Stem cell research is legal in Missouri. It's being funded, and it's going on in state universities, and that's not put in the ad.
SAWYER: Well, there's a big difference between adult and embryonic, as we know. But anyway.
HANNITY: Yes.
[...]
SAWYER: OK, quickly from you. We know the latest poll from ABC, 54 percent think the Democrats in their congressional district should be elected; 41 percent, the Republicans. What's going to happen? Thirteen days.
HANNITY: Boy, if I could pick those, I think I'd be a pretty wealthy guy. You know, look, it's always the sixth year of an election, as you know, is always tough for the party in power. But I sense, being on radio talking to people three hours a day and television one hour a night, that there's been a momentum shift. I think this Michael J. Fox ad is going to backfire. I think -- I believe it will backfire in the end because there's false information in it. I think, you know, I think if the Democrats want to play the race card, I think that'll backfire. And I think the race ultimately is going to be decided on issues. National security, immigration, taxes. And when people focus on that, I think that benefits the Republicans.
From the October 24 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
RIOS: Bill, everybody feels terrible for him. That ad is just really hard to watch. I mean, we all love Michael J. Fox and the things that he's done, but his illness and the severity of it does not give him license to mislead people in a political commercial, which is what he did.
And actually, the problem is -- could I just say that even in your setup, the misleading part is to say that Michael J. Fox is helping support those people that want more research on stem cell research.
That's not the point. Everybody wants more stem cell research. Adult stem cell, cord blood has been very successful.
The controversy is on embryonic stem cell research.
O'REILLY: All right, so you say he's misleading the public. How?
RIOS: He's actually lying. He's said Jim Talent is against the expansion of stem cell research. That's not true. Jim Talent is against embryonic stem cell research, because embryos have to be destroyed for that process.
O'REILLY: So Fox didn't make the distinction between all stem cell research and embryonic?
RIOS: That's what lots of people are not doing. And so therefore, people like Jim Talent and [Republican Senate candidate] Peter Roskam here in Illinois and [Republican Senate candidate] Michael Steele in Maryland are becoming -- they're becoming smeared. As though they don't care about Michael J. Fox?
[...]
O'REILLY: But wait, wait, wait. But the stem cell lobby says flat-out, "If you don't want all kinds of stem cell, including embryonic, then you're holding up the process." That's their argument.
RIOS: Bill, the research does not show that at all. Embryonic stem cell research, in the cases where it has been used -- and it has really been used in very few studies because they're kind of afraid of it -- has caused tumors. It has been a woeful failure.
O'REILLY: OK. I got it. I don't want to --
RIOS: The advances in stem cell are adult.
O'REILLY: I don't want to debate the issue because it never ends. You know what I'm talking about?
RIOS: But this is the truth.
To wish these illnesses on the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and their loved ones?
Maybe that's what it will take for these low lifes to stop playing to the Religious Right and start thinking of the benefits to mankind.
They can't just let it go. Limbaugh obviously made a very poor choice (intentionally, of course)...but, these aggressive freaks just can't let it go. They have to keep digging and digging... until, people acquiesce. Hannity is the worst. I try not to 'hate' unduly... but, this guy is such an obvious dullard and an aggressive, lying jackass... There must be some sort of punishment for this abuse.
Yes it would.
Call me Un-christian.
Diane Sawyer asks him if he defends Rush's comments about Michael J. Fox in the commercial. He says he didn't hear the comments. What a liar. So he's never heard or read the comments in the past few days when this controversy was going on? So he didn't hear Rush's comments but he heard Rush's defense that he was only referring to a book by Michael J. Fox. What an ass.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
Just done with his meeting with Bush co and has new talking points to brainwash the American people. Newsflash to Hannity- Its not working.
You have been exposed for what you are . A lying weasil.
What is newsworthy about what Sean Hannity has to say? He's not even a political activist; he's a paid liar for the Republican party. They should at least post a disclaimer warning that whatever he says is most likely a load of crap.
He has no book to plug. He already fills the airwaves 4 hours each day. What other reason would ABC have for giving him another platform? Have they had anyone on to defend the Democratic candidates or Michael J. Fox? Are they even going to attempt to appear to be neutral or will they roll over once again for the right?
Anything newsworthy or relevant coming out of Sean Hannity's mouth, other than his shameless denial of any fact that puts his precious Republicans in poor light, would be the actual news - but it never happens.
For the record, I admire people that stick to their principles and don't waver in their convictions due to polls or the whims of the wind - however, when someone like Hannity will stop at nothing, admit nothing negative, distort facts to suit his agenda, apologize and rationalize for his perception of the "cause" - all at the expense of fairness, truth, accountability and honor...........well, he shouldn't be taken seriously for much of anything beyond his own self importance and ego.
We often agree on this point. To be fair this kind of detachment from reality is fairly common in today's polarized political environment on BOTH sides.
I can respect standing by principles, but we need to be grounded in reality. That appears to be the missing ingredient with partisan hacks.
I think I've been able to put 2+2 together on this one...
What network does Halperinwork for? ABC
Didn't Halperin just go on air and verbally declare that his network will "prove to conservatives that we understand their grievances..."?
It seems to me that putting people like Hannity on are probably just orders from the top of ABC.
I think this assault on Michael J Fox's illness has been beyond pathetic, and frankly, I hope the right-wingers keep it up. I have to believe this is getting independents to see what they get with teh right wing.
Yes, Hannity has his own show, but that's listened to by a small amount of people who care enough to tune in and listen to his unintelligible rambling. When you put him on GMA, you're putting him mainstream and exposing him to a larger segment, which I think can only help the dems.
if Hannity were to indorse a liberal Democrat.
It would be newsworthy if Hannity were to tell the truth.
It would be newsworthy if Hannity were to display some wit.
However, Hannity lying & attempting to witlessly savage someone for holding a nonfacist opinion is just another case of dog bites man.
I too was wondering what the heck Hannity is being interviewed about this for, especially since he apparently hasn't even heard what Rush had to say. Is he gunning for Tony Snow's job?
Oh and... "Everybody wants Michael J. Fox to get well. Every Republican I know, every Democrat. Everybody wants a cure for cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and Parkinson's."
It's just that some nutcases feel that it's more important for the government to save cells than it is to save humans. And today's Republicans always side with the nutcases.
Rush Limbaugh presented a propaganda paper today from some organization called DoNoHarm, which opposes all embryonic stem cell research. The paper lists dozens of diseases which are supposedly helped by Adult Stem Cells, and claims that there are Zero diseases helped or potentially helped by Embryonic Stem Cells. Apparently this is a huge battlefront for the troglodytes. Personally, I think Rush picked this fight on purpose, just to get these people fired up for the election.
To me the whole thing is laughable anyway, but it's easy to argue that with MORE research on embryonic stem cells, maybe they would lead to more disease being cured.
Of course, the nutcases always care less about the living than about the unborn.
We are pleased to bring you liars and misinformation on our program especially just for you viewers! We don't edit our programming, even when, well...let's just say, when a person, uummm..., makes a mistake! Yeah- that's the ticket...makes a mistake when trying to tease out all the pertinent information about a subject or a person, because as all you loyal Americans know, everyone has the right to free speech! Since funds are abundant because of the stock market, we have decided that monies are better spent giving air time to Sean Hannity because he is so gosh-darn-smart! Monies that were previously spent on fact checking ($15.99 a month for internet service) are now, thankfully, used for better purposes. Remember, if you hear it on our show from people from other shows, it says a lot! Lastly, tune in next week when we pay Ann (hit-list) Coulter to say things such as..."Grrrrr!!! Give me the Dali Lama's head by sundown, or else!" Thank you, and please write a thank you note to Mr. O'Reilly for taking time out of his busy day to get that damn liar, Michael J. Fox, outed as a partisan hack!
Sincerely, big media
Hannity is a political pundit for Fox. What is ABC interviewing a political pundit from another network for? Doesn't Hannity get enough time on Fox? Can't ABC find any experts? The result is an expansion of the neocon propaganda echo chamber.
...they just want the answer that will fit the Repub voter agenda NOT anywhere near the truth or in this case the sympathizing with Fox's condition. I thought morning shows were suppose to uncontrollably fawn over celebrities. Now I guess they can only fawn over Repub celebs. Expect to see Patricia Heaton's (the politically fascist actress who played Ray Romano's wife) every day until Nov. 7.
I love watching Republicans, and the hand maidens of the media moguls are tredding water in a hurricane, and sinking fast.
Michael J. Fox sincere plea for medical research that he'll likely not benefit from vs Republican pundits spitting up all over themselves..
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
West1
I was thinking the same thing while scrolling down the comments. First ABC runs their little revisionist history piece on 9/11 and now they're giving exposure and credibility to one of the most divisive and intellectually dishonest "shills" of the administration. What gives?
What "liberal" MSM?
Diane Sawyer seems like she did a decent job with Hannity. She could have easily poked more holes in his ridiculous FOX News rhetoric (the ad is "sinister"? Two weeks before the election is "11th hour"? BS.) but she did keep him in check a bit.
And I'm sure Michael J. Fox would happily endorse other Republican candidates who share his views on ESC research, if there were any. Unfortunately, they seem to be in thrall to the extremist Christian voting bloc.
What's really silly is this notion that Fox is being "exploited" by anybody. The guy's not naive. He's acting entirely on his own behalf, as he has for years. But this talking point gives the righties a chance to invoke some shadowy liberal conspiracy so they don't have to address the advocate's issues - just like they did, and do, with Cindy Sheehan.
In the past, Michael J supported Senator Arlen Spector (R) Pa and I'm sure if there were Republican supporters of Stem Cell research running against Democratic opponents of stem cell research he'd throw his support to the Republican.
Soon, the counter offensive is going to start. The right will be bringing out their Show Biz big shots Jim "Jesus" Caviezel and Patricia Heaton, both big stars to be reckoned with. I guess Drew Carey is working.
With all due respect, these situations are vastly different, in my opinion. I have said how Fox has every right to voice his opinion on this issue, heavily medicated or not, isn't the issue. His disease and the life he leads everyday due to his affliction gives him personal authority and a stake in the stem cell debate.
As for Cindy Sheehan, being a grieving mother absolutely personalizes the War for her more than most, however some of her actions and words, and buddy buddy with Chavez, etc - well, she invited criticism and is mostly responsible for it herself.
Fox did not.
had nothing to do with whether Fox and Sheehan are open to criticism. My point was that saying they're being "exploited" by some shadowy liberal forces is a cheap diversion to avoid addressing them head-on. O'Reilly does this to Sheehan all the time.
She's been public about her conservative views for years. She actually walked out of an awards show a few years ago because she thought the language being used was too obscene. I think it was the American Music Awards in 2003 when they were hosted by the Osbournes. Wonder how Raymond's wife feels about Mark Foley and the Republican leadership covering it up. She must be outraged at that, considering that she has young children. Don't bet on it.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
What a uncalled for slam at Patricia Heaton. You have no clue about her level of outrage where Foley is concerned. Why is so difficult to stick to the topic at hand and without ad hominem personal attacks? You just look small and devoid of substantive thought.
"You have no clue about her level of outrage where Foley is concerned. "
Exactly. That's why he said, "[I] Wonder how Raymond's wife feels about Mark Foley and the Republican leadership covering it up."
He doesn't know but wants to know what someone so devoted to conservative causes and "morality" would think of a conservative that was abusing children. A legitimate question.
I am a moderate democratic-leaning individual who does not believe in abortion (and have five children to prove the point). I really do not see what is wrong with stem-cell research. I, like the majority of Americans support stem-cell research and believe that federal funding of this research would be a good use of taxpayer dollars.
Polls show that 80% of this nation supports stem-cell research. And this begs the question; why are 80% of us allowing a 20% minority to dictate policy?
Vote for your local Democrat and let's tell the 20% that they are not the only ones who get to set policy.
You apparently missed what I was saying. I was saying that if the Democrats had done something similar to what the Republicans had done in covering up for Mark Foley, Patricia Heaton probably would have spoken out against it, and not only her, other conservatives as well. Maybe she is outraged, but probably not the same way or as much as she would be if it were Democrats who did it. By the way, were you saying it was difficult only for me to stick to the topic at hand without ad hominem attacks or were you talking about posters in general?
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
embryonic stem cell research has brought about any therapies that actually work? Maybe they have and I just haven't heard of them.
I've heard there are at least 70 therapies now in use from adult stem cells.
Thanks
Let's fund BOTH of them at the same levels and the same scale and find out.
Otherwise it is apples and oranges, but I think you know that.
Of course you know there aren't any. And you also know that ESCs have only been isolated for research since 1998, which in the world of scientific research isn't very long. And you also know that the draconian, religion-based ban on federal funding has stymied ESC research. Of course you know these things, which could lead me to wonder why you ask such a question, other than to troll (verb).
But we should all thank God that our wise leaders have seen fit to deny federal funding. Otherwise all those little frozen divine sparks would have been used for potentially beneficial research, instead of flushed down the toilet.
As these cells (snowflakes, whatever you are calling them) simply wink out and disappear into the ether. So to do thousands of lives that could benefit from therapies that will be developed. Ten years is nothing in terms of science and there have been great strides in that time. If the Right can provide someone to carry these children to term I be right there with them, if they can provide an adequate social net to protect this children I there, but they have no plan or will to. If you believe that it is an unforgivable sin, you have to provide the answer because their (embryos, cells or whatever) are going to die in numbers. Of couse reality has been a stumbling block for the Right, especially of late. So, what is the plan to clone women to carry them to term.
missile, unaided, with SDI, I guess we ought to end Federal spending on that too RIGHT?
Maybe part of the problem lies in the fact that embryonic stem cell research is still in its infancy (no pun intended). As others have said, research on them had not been feasible up until 1998. Perhaps another part of the problem is that it has been kept in its infancy through a lack of funding.
In any case, objections to embryonic stem cell research on the basis that "the embryos will be destroyed" is as moronic as it gets. The embryos in question are slated for destruction anyway, and will be regardless of whether they are used for research or not. Furthermore, there are more cells in the brain of the common house fly than there are in the embryos in question. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to hinder this research.
I do not care for course language either. But then I also use modesty in my personal dress unlike Patricia who's been known to display her boobs ala Mary Carey. So I don't give her much credence. She should walk the talk all the way if she wants to be "family values". Was she too naive to know about the shenanigans at these music awards? Sheesh, I won't even watch them on TV let alone attend. Flag me, I just had to say that after seeing her on that ad for prop 2 and since someone else already brought it up.