Hannity cried "media bias" for delay in reporting Allen's Webb novel accusations, but sang a different tune on Foley scandal
SUMMARY: Sean Hannity suggested that major media outlets were "bias[ed]" against Republicans in choosing not to report that Sen. George Allen's campaign had identified what it called "simply disturbing" portions of novels written by James Webb, "until 11 days out" from the midterm elections. But when discussing a story that could hurt Republicans instead of Democrats, the Mark Foley scandal, Hannity suggested that the purported withholding of the disclosure until closer to the election had the opposite effect.
On the October 27 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity suggested that major media outlets were "bias[ed]" against Republicans in choosing not to report that Sen. George F. Allen's (R-VA) campaign had identified what it called "simply disturbing" portions of novels written by Allen's Democratic opponent, James Webb, "until 11 days out" from the November 7 midterm elections. But when discussing a story that could hurt Republicans instead of Democrats, Hannity suggested that the purported withholding of the disclosure until closer to the election had the opposite effect, stating that the nonprofit organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) had coordinated with Democratic officials to delay the release of emails allegedly written by former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) for "partisan" reasons. Republican strategist Karen Hanretty replied to Hannity's accusation by claiming that "[o]f course, there's media bias," and declared that "the things that [Webb] wrote in those books were a hundred times worse than anything Mark Foley ever wrote to a 16 year-old-boy in an email."
Hannity suggested there was a "media bias" in delaying the reporting of Allen's accusations that portions of Webb's novels, in the words of Allen campaign "general consultant" Chris LaCivita, "continue to show a pattern of disrespectful treatment toward women." Hannity asserted that the media "did hit Senator Allen hard on the 'macaca' comment," and then asked Hanretty, "[W]hy didn't they go back in this particular case, Karen, until 11 days out? Why didn't the media do their job?"
Yet, when the story broke that Foley allegedly engaged in sexually explicit electronic communications with underage former congressional pages, Hannity agreed, as Media Matters for America noted, with U.S. News & World Report senior writer Michael Barone's suggestion that Democrats "time[d]" the "release of documents" to "hurt" Republicans. Hannity baselessly accused CREW, which in July obtained emails Foley allegedly sent to an underage former congressional page, of holding the emails, thereby "prioritiz[ing] partisan politics over the safety and security of children." Hannity also called for an investigation into whether "there was any contact" between CREW and Democratic officials in July regarding Foley's alleged communications with the pages. In fact, CREW provided the FBI with the emails allegedly sent by Foley to a former page on July 21, two months before ABC News reported their existence, as Media Matters noted.
From the October 27 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: The only thing I would argue -- and, for me, Karen, this is a bigger media issue, because you know what? They did hit Senator Allen hard on the "macaca" comment. They did go back 30 years in his past. They talked about everything that he has ever done. And what I think here is, why didn't they go back in this particular case, Karen, until 11 days out? Why didn't the media do their job? Is there a media bias?
HANRETTY: Of course, there's media bias. And, you know, here's the other thing about Jim Webb's book. He profited from writing salacious things about women, pedophilia. And the things that he wrote in those books were a hundred times worse than anything Mark Foley ever wrote to a 16-year-old boy in an email, and yet, you know, that story has been going on for week after week after week and, quite frankly, could cost the Republicans the House.
And Republicans censored their own. And I haven't seen one Democrat come out, not one, and say, "You know what? What he wrote in those books was wrong, and I don't know that that's the kind of person who should represent us in the U.S."
These morons are comparing actual predation of teenage boys by a Congressman to a novel with graphic passages written by a Congressional candidate many years ago... a novel that is, BTW, reportedly of literary merit. The world of Sean Hannity requires Olympic leaps of logic and a strong stomach.
Foley scandle is what cost Republics the house, that means he really doesn't get it.
Notice what's not in the news any more? Karl Rove is good at media manipulation, I'll give him that.
Professional Reading Program includes James Webb's novel "Fields of Fire" - recommending it as the best Viet Nam novel written.
I seriously doubt they are going to recommend Mark Foley's email messages any time soon.
Sheer Insanity has been grasping at straws for weeks. He tried to compare the langauge in Webb's novels to Sen. Allen's alleged use of the "n-word." Huh? Maybe Insanity's problem is he just doesn't read much.
He certainly doesn't understand what fiction is...
the correct citation is "The classic novel of the Vietnam War."
[link to www.mcu.usmc.mil]
Of course he does. Everything Sean Hannity says is fiction. Fox News. We distort, you decide.
It's we distort, you ABIDE. I have the bumper sticker on my car. (Some moron with a bumper sticker stating, "10 0ut of 10 Terrorists say Anybody But Bush" frowned at me yesterday because of it. He must be one who thinks that Hannity is human, not a Joe McCarthy clone.)
Well he IS a college drop-out, who has never had any job outside of radio.
So, yes, he is very unedjamacated.
... A male member of Congress engages in predatory behavior toward teenage pages (gender notwithstanding), Congressional leaders are either clueless about it or have chosen to put their own political fortunes ahead of the safety of young people in their care......
And all that concerns Hannity is some conspiracy between Democrats and CREW that he offers no evidence to support?
How can this man claim to offer listeners/viewers "comprehensive information" when he obviously DOESN'T comprehend what really matters?
The only "comprehensive information" that his listeners/viewers want is that which reinforces their own right wing beliefs and biases.
Big difference, Hannity, Webb's book is a work of FICTION, Foley's words were real.
It's like writing about murder, and really commiting murder.
Another thought on that point... Just to dispel any notions that the sensational scenes that Webb wrote about came from the recesses of his mind and reflect some dark psycholgical depravity, Webb has said that in Viet Nam he actually saw those things he wrote about. What he incorporated in a work of fiction were actual scenes he had witnessed... something that any good novelist does, that is borrowing from his own personal life experiences. Of course, in the simplistic world inhabited by Sean Hannity and his minions, where everything is either black or white, any such nuance is lost.
And, since they're so intent on covering every detail of Jim Webb's award winning fiction, why doesn't Ball-less Hannity confront bill o'leilly on his second-rate porn novel?
You love to break up quotes until the sentence you desire is created. Hannity simply said that Foley incident was politically motivated and timed. Allen Webb on the other hand has seen little to no attention in the mainstream media, only fox and small-time bloggers have really made any fuss about it. If it were being covered by the media to anywhere near the extent of the Foley incident then I would accept your claim of hyporcrasy. But all the media has done with the Webb novel is used as a way to show how petty and low the republicans are for using "fiction" to attack someone. Apparently for the media unless you are a republican, writings of fantasy are never worrisome even if they contain pedophilia, rape, incest, graphic sexuality and the like. Even you, who are at least admittedly biased, instead of reporting on Webb's writings like you did Foley's, have instead written about how a single republican was hypocritical in his opinions. But its not like anyone would ever cite you as a source of objective information anyways.
If you don't get it - that there is no comparison between a legitimate work of fiction and internet love notes by a predatory grown man to teenage boys - then you deserve Sean Hannity and FOX. Congressman Foley's "writings" were a newsworthy story by any journalistic standards; Webb's book, written many years ago, was generally regarded as a laudible literary work of fiction that in some parts depicted harsh realities of Viet Nam was not newsworthy, except in the minds of ultra right wing FOXers attempting to give aid to George Allen's campaign.
First, it's Jim Webb (and his opponent George Allen). Second, do a spell check. Third....what's your point?
Nothing was taken out of context, and the only people who take Flunky Hannity seriously are those clamoring for a media "authority" to tell them what to think. And the Republican strategist speaking of Webb's novel has no context into which to fit ANYTHING. She, like Hannity, is a WHORE.
objective source of information if they set your house on fire. I cant get over you pretending that writings that were an acual attempt by a Congressman at sexual predation on a minor are somehow camparable to a fictional novel. I tell you what. I will make you a deal. I will buy and read Webbs novel and YOU can give your sixteen year old son's email address to Foley.
BTW, as to ad-hominem attacks, I am questioning why Hannity is even on the stage.
Hannity has zero qualifications to speak on anything execept maybe EQ settings, and running a board.
Hannity is a college dropout, has no professional background in anything except "radio entertainment". He has no business, political, legal, journalistic, acedemic, military, etc background. The only professional job he has ever held is speaking his opinions into a microphone.
So how does Hannity have qualifications to speak on anything?
He smuggly talks with pseudo authority, yells over others when they are answering his questions, and meanwhile he couldn't even run a Burger King.
If I'm sitting on a medical discussion, I'd expect to be surrounded by experts, likewise with a legal panel, so why can unqualified talking heads judge political and military policy and tactics?
So it's not an ad-hominem attack, it's a valid question: Mr. Hannity, you are expert in nothing, why are you even here?
He doesn't. Welcome to America! He's got a full head of air; an impish bad-boyishness; a ready (fake) smile; he's kind to old ladies; and he'll try to rip the guts out of liberals like they were Thanksgiving turkeys. Of course, because everything about him and his show are stage-managed, he doesn't have to tangle with really smart liberals. So just like in the cowboy movies, on his show he always wins. I'm surprised they don't dress him in a white cowboy hat and six guns.
Agreed. Rush has the exact same profile as Hannity, and thus also unqualified.
"Hannity & Colmes" and CNN's "Crossfire" with Buchanan and Kinsley had the same formula (or staging). They'd have the loud and healthy Republican bully, and the nerdy sickly Democrat, that even Democrats couldn't root for.
There was no debate, just who could shout the loudest. Obviously these people never took debate in school, because the person who began to shout was usually viewed as losing because having emotions creep in usually meant you couldn't support your case. But this is television, and who can create the greatest drama wins, even if they're wrong.
And to those morons who reply to my original post saying soemthing like, "Bill Gates was also a college dropout" -- well you either have education or skills, Bill could program before he could look over the dashboard. Richard Branson was also a dropout, but created his first business in his teens.
To qualify to judge others, you must have background and experience yourself. Hannity and Rush have none, yet they sit in judgement of others, and rake in the dough, but ad nothing creative to the issues, just another critic.
I know these guys have researchers at their disposal and access to many important people. But many times I get the impression that they are not well read. Being busy celebrities as they are, constantly in demand, I don't know when they would actually have the time to read books. This may sound delusional, but I sometimes think that some people here, some other people I know, and even sometimes myself are better informed... because we passionately read everything we can about issues that are important to us. These guys, though, are doing a job. They prepare just enough to get through a show. Sometimes when I hear Bill O'Reilly spout off about AlQaeda operating in pre-invasion Iraq I'd love to pull him aside and say: "You got a few minutes? Let me explain to you why what you are saying (as gospel truth) is preposterous." It really is amazing how little substance it appears to take to become a well-paid television or radio celebrity. What's discouraging is the tremendous influence these guys have over people who look to them for uncomplicated information; for guidance in what to think; for reinforcement of their own fears and prejudices. People need to read more and to stop relying on these spin merchants... but that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Unfortunately, these guys are giving a segment of the public exactly what they want.
When AMERICAN IDOL and FLAVOR OF LOVE are some of the most watched shows, it's easy to understand how the spin sticks ;-)
I had to read the name on the post, it looked just like something i would have wrote. I was just thinking the otherday about how shallow right wing pundits pool of knowledge seems to be. If they get in trouble they just yell louder. I still remeber Bill O telling McCain about torture. Yea Bill, McCain doesn't know about torture.
to read of people who feel the same way I do. Forgive me, who KNOW what I KNOW.
Unfortunately, there are people who take unqualified, gutless morons like Limpballs and Hannity seriously. (By the way, if you're into documentaries, Hannnity plays a minor role in one called "This Divided State" about a college in Utah who scheduled Michael Moore to speak. The reactionaries hired Hannity as a reaction--who charged nothing but required a private jet, etc. for the total price of $50,000!)
What do we do about Faux News that doesn't entail violence? I'm really wondering. The right wing demagogs like Hannity, o'lielly, Limpballs (who's not Faux) have a large enough following that they have this country painfully divided. What are we doing to do about that?
According to the kool-aid drinkers like Jodabomb, fictional scenes in novels may be used against those running for political office. They have the same import and criminal intent as actual, seductive emails sent to minors. We know this thanks to Sheer Insanity and his Nazification of America. Go back to your bizarro planet, troll. You and Mark Foley know a lot more about circle jerking than we do.
Someone should tell this GAS BAG that Jim Webb's books are a must read for the Armed Services. So where is the issue? Is it that the Pentagon encouraging its soldiers to real sleaze? What about all the other writes out there? Are we now proposing a covert form of censorship! In the latest listing of countries that have A Free Press, the US ranks #119, below El Salvador and Guatamala!
Funny how Republiconvicts seem to forget that Webb wrote these novels while he was still a Republican ... and isn't Lynn Cheney still a Republican when she wrote the lesbian sex scenes? (Wonder why she knows how to write about lesbian sex scenes anyway ...)
But the only question left is: Does Hannity spit or swallow after "helping" conservative pols.
Whatever they tell him to do.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
James Webb wrote the scenes in his novels based on things he saw in real life. He also based the novels on his own experiences in Vietnam. John McCain praised his book, "THE LOST SOLDIERS." His book has been recommended by literary organizations. Lynne Cheney wrote lesbian sex scenes in novel. Bill O'Reilly wrote scenes in a novel where a teenage crack whore performs oral sex on a grown man, and a scene where a man performs oral sex on a woman. Where is hypocrite Hannity's outrage at that? This guy is a pure propogandist. If he had any shame, he would apologize and resign from his television show and his radio show.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com