Despite touting Colmes as "balance," Hannity to host own Fox News show
On January 7, Fox News will premiere a new weekly show, Hannity's America, starring Sean Hannity, who currently co-hosts the Fox News show Hannity & Colmes along with Alan Colmes. Hannity and others have defended themselves against charges that Fox News leans conservative by pointing to the purported conservative/liberal balance represented by the co-hosts of Hannity & Colmes, but Colmes apparently will not be a co-host of Hannity's America.
According to a January 4 Hollywood Reporter article, Hannity's America will "blend the debate style that Hannity is noted for on TV and syndicated radio," featuring interviews and reports and a "debate component, called 'Hannity's Hot Seat,' [that] will feature a lightning round of five yes or no questions put to a liberal and then a debate." Each show will also reportedly include "the naming of a 'Great American' ... 'people that on a daily basis make this a great country and never get noticed." According to a Fox News advertisement that aired during the January 2 edition of Hannity & Colmes, Hannity's America will air every Sunday at 9 p.m. ET; Hannity will continue to co-host Hannity & Colmes and his daily ABC Radio Networks show.
As Media Matters for America has noted, several people, including Hannity himself, have previously defended Fox News against charges it skews to the right in part by pointing to the pairing of Hannity and Colmes on their show. For example:
- CNBC's The Tim Russert Show, August 7, 2004:
TIM RUSSERT [host and NBC News Washington bureau chief]: Do you think that Fox News Channel has a conservative spin to it?
O'REILLY: If you look at the Fox News commentators in prime time, starting with Hume and ending with Van Susteren, it comes right down the line, OK? Van Susteren is a liberal, Colmes is a liberal, Hannity is a conservative, I'm a traditionalist, Shepard Smith is really nothing and -- you know, he's just in -- a neutral guy, in the neutral zone, and Hume, I would say that he's slightly conservative, but certainly no bomb-thrower. All right?
PAUL KRUGMAN [New York Times columnist]: Unbelievable.
- The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, August 4, 2004:
O'REILLY: You're going to really enjoy this [New York Times columnist Paul] Krugman-O'Reilly shootout. It's not much of a shoot-out, I have to say. It's not like [the July 27 O'Reilly Factormeeting between Michael] Moore and O'Reilly. You know, Krugman, you know, he's just -- he's not strong enough to stand up to me. And I didn't take any mercy on him, I have to say.
Anyway -- one of the points that he was trying to make was that FOX is a right-wing network. You know, he's trying to put us in the right-wing radio category and I ran down -- I said, OK. Let's take it from 6:00 [p.m.] to 11:00 [p.m.]. Brit Hume? Leans a little bit right. Shep Smith? No bias at all. Just straight down the middle. O'Reilly? Traditional guy. If you want to put him a little right, go ahead.
Hannity? Right. Rabid right. Colmes? Rabid left. [Fox News host Greta] Van Susteren? Left. Add it up. And then commentators -- right down the middle. And guests -- more liberals than conservatives. So, Krugman, what is your complaint? Humma, humma, humma, humma, humma, humma. [chuckle] It's a great moment.
- A November 29, 2003, Washington Post article headlined "For Alan Colmes, Nothing but Left-Handed Praise":
In his book, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," [comedian and radio host] Al Franken mocks Colmes by rendering every mention of his name in tiny type. Franken writes that "Colmes' duties as co-host of 'Hannity & Colmes' include adding toner to the copiers and printers [and] loofah-ing Roger Ailes in his personal steam room." Colmes dismisses Franken as a "liberal satirist." Such knocks, he says, are consistent with the belief among many liberals that Fox News is a conservative network -- a conclusion he rejects. "If you're going to make the argument that Fox is conservative, you can't make it very easily unless you diminish my role," Colmes says.
Unlike, say, CNN's Paul Begala, Colmes says his career has been as a broadcaster, not as a politician or advocate. Colmes, who like Hannity was raised on Long Island, has hosted a string of successful radio talk shows in New York. Fox News hired Hannity -- himself a radio talk show host -- before Colmes. (The show's unofficial in-house title was "Hannity & LTBD" -- "Liberal to Be Determined.") Colmes was hired partly at the suggestion of Hannity, who knew Colmes from New York radio circles.
- Hannity & Colmes, June 18, 2003:
COLMES: [Former Al Gore campaign spokesman] Doug [Hattaway], the guy you used to work for, Al Gore, appeared with me on this program. I asked him about this perception about the Fox News Channel being fair and balanced. And here is the conversation that Al Gore and I had.
[begin video clip from the December 10, 2002, Hannity & Colmes]
AL GORE [former vice president]: You probably wouldn't -- well maybe you would -- but maybe if we got off-camera you might not dispute the proposition that overall Fox is pretty well tilted towards the conservative republican.
COLMES: We've got [then-Fox News war correspondent] Geraldo [Rivera], we've got Greta Van Susteren, we've got me. O'Reilly, I think, is pretty unpredictable.
GORE: But overall, wouldn't you say that it's more --
COLMES: I would say that we give vent to conservative voices that previously had not been heard necessarily as loudly on cable news.
GORE: Well, I'm not going to urge you to bite the hand that feeds you.
- Hannity & Colmes, February 17, 2003:
MIKE GALLAGHER [radio host]: But the problem with Alan, like most liberals, is they don't -- you guys don't use enough logic in your arguments. You want to say Republicans want to take away the seniors' health prescription. You know, George Bush wants to go to war just to satisfy his own personal gain.
COLMES: That's not my argument, Mike. Don't put my -- that's not what I'm saying. Gloria, go ahead.
GLORIA ALLRED [attorney]: Let me tell you about logic. You have Sean out there talking about how Hillary and Bill are behind this as though if they were that would be a terrible thing. I think it's great.
HANNITY: Wait a minute, Gloria. Hang on, Gloria.
ALLRED: He never mentions Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes behind the Fox News network, and they are well known conservatives. I have no problem with that.
[crosstalk]
HANNITY: What is Alan Colmes, a potted plant? Is [Newsweek contributing editor] Eleanor Clift and Ellen Ratner -- they're all on our payroll, Gloria. They're all liberals. They get paid here. Now let me move on to the more important --
ALLRED: The last time I checked, they were not hosts of a show.
HANNITY: They get paid. Alan is a -- we have a stopwatch in the control room. He gets half my time. It drives me nuts.
[crosstalk]
ALLRED: Alan, Alan, Alan. That's not enough for a 24-hour-a-day all-news network.
HANNITY: All right. Listen, let's stop the whining here because it's driving me nuts.
ALLRED: It's advocacy.
- Hannity & Colmes, September 15, 2000:
ELLEN RATNER [radio host]: Well, you know, Sean, I mean, you're pro-Republican. What do you expect? Everybody has a little bit of a media bias, and you're not talking about The Washington Times and what they did.
HANNITY: No, no --
RATNER: So I think that every paper has an editorial opinion. Every paper has a little bit of a bias. You know what it is. We know what it is with you, Sean. What's the difference?
HANNITY: No, no. But there's one difference. No, no, no! And this is important, Ellen, because I am a conservative, and I'm outspoken, and I'm on the record. We have Alan Colmes here to balance this act out.
COLMES: I am balanced.
HANNITY: He is a liberal.
COLMES: Oh!
HANNITY: And he's on record -- these papers are supposed to be giving us news stories. They're supposed to be objective.
RATNER: They do give you news stories, Sean, but it depends --
HANNITY: Well --
RATNER: -- where they place it and how --
HANNITY: No.
RATNER: -- important they think something is.
- Hannity & Colmes, July 18, 2000:
CONRAD MUHAMMAD [radio host]: Well, Sean, you're not exactly [former CBS News anchor] Walter Cronkite. I mean --
HANNITY: But I'm --
MUHAMMAD: The media has moved --
HANNITY: But I'm different. I don't claim to be objective. I got Colmes here. That's his job is to balance me out.
MUHAMMAD: That's a fair point. But you know the media is moving to a more advocacy position, otherwise, there wouldn't be a place for guys like you. You're not exactly impartial --
HANNITY: But I'm honest about it. I am a conservative. He's a liberal.
Part of the LEFT? Greta Van Susteren is Natalie Halloway's mother, not a political commentator.
Conservakookfantasyland, more like it.
...already watches Hannity & Colmes and listens to Hannity's radio show. Not having Colmes there won't make any difference, as he's already not there.
This doesn't really change anything about Fox News -- it's right-wing biased now, and it will still be when Hannity's America premieres. Letting Sean Hannity run unimpaired by a "cohost" is just good business sense. More proof that Fox is in the business of selling right-wing propaganda to the base, but not really a big revelation.
The pity is that there's any money in it at all.
Hannity has a co-host named Alan Colmes? You're kidding!
"a lightning round of five yes or no questions put to a liberal"
This is a signature Hannity trope: the thuggish loaded question, to which only a "yes" or "no" is permissible as an answer.
"Do you still beat your wife, yes or no? Yes or no? It's a simple question, Senator!"
I don't disagree that Nazism & fascism are closely related. Though there are ENOUGH differences so that using them interchangeably is not accurate.
Using the term NAZI in this day & age is an inflammatory label, AND certainly does NOT accurately describe the American Far-Right.
First off, it was the name of a [German] Party whose goal was the unification of all German-speaking people. Hitler's Nazism, was based on racial hatred, efficient militarism, and totalitarian power in the interest of the *Master Race*. Anti-Semitism and extreme racism which was official state policy and cannot be found in, for example-- WWII Italian Fascism. [though Mussolini DID ratchet it up later to be MORE in line with Hitler's views] The Nazis used massive executions, and slavery to eliminate their opposition. Nazis went to extremes [not used by Bush 0r the neocons] to acquire total power....
I fully UNDERSTAND that for someone who lived through WWII that Bush & the neocons of the Far-Right bear SOME eerie similarities to your memories of the Nazis...
Sam, the USE of the word Nazi [by some on the Left to describe the Far-Right], like the use of the words Socialists OR Communists [by some on the Right to describe the Far-Left-and Liberals] are MEANT as SLURS, not, IMO, as accurate descriptions.
I think referring to someone [on the Right] as a Nazi, isn't all that different as labeling someone [on the Left] a Pinko Commie.
Sam, I in NO way support Bush or the Far-Right. BUT I think using 'Hitler' or 'Nazis' to describe either just goes TOO far. At least I hope so :-/
Sam, I've left links to 2 articles I hope you'll take the time to read.
-----------------------------------------
What Is a Liberal Democrat?
Written by Richard Geno
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
The accurate term for "Liberal Democrat" is "socialist." These people are pathological ideologues who see everything through the prism of anti-American, anti-Bush, anti-free enterprise; but for government programs and high taxation.
[link to www.chronwatch.com]
-------------------------------------
Another Look at Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, and Communists
Written by Richard Geno
Friday, January 05, 2007
Last week I wrote an article that indicated that liberal Democrats were, in reality, socialists. That begs the question: "Are all liberal Democrats socialists?" Of course not. Some are outright communists. My liberal acquaintenances bristle when I refer to them as socialists; however, it is my feeling that political correctness has already caused us all quite enough denial of reality.
It suffices to say that if it quacks and walks like a socialist, it might be a socialist. If liberal Democrats espouse the same things as the Democratic Socialists of America, and if they have the same goals as the Communist Party of the USA, then anyone not in total political denial can conclude that liberals and progressives are indeed socialists and communists.
[link to www.chronwatch.com]
I'm guessing that when some lefties compare Bush et.al. with the Nazis--which, while I think it's kind of interesting, is not at all helpful--their comparisons are on a more abstract level than yours. Not Gestapo, not concentration camps, not mass slavery. People aren't disappearing in the middle of the night; no groups have been explicitly targeted for extermination. The Nazi (and Fascist) comparisons have slightly more legs in terms of reliance on propaganda, constant construction of "enemies," close relations (or even synonymy) between government and big business, and dreams of empire.
You're far from a wingnut, so I'm guessing/hoping that your point with the chronwatch links is to show that irresponsible labeling is outrageous from either side--that Geno's characterizations of liberals are as boneheaded, prejudicial, and ill-informed as concretely equating the Right with Nazis. ('Cuz Geno IS a wingnut.)
I did leave those 2 articles to show that "irresponible labeling" is used by BOTH sides. After I hit 'Post' it did occur to me that I SHOULD have explained my reasoning for doing so.
I was replying to a poster named SamsComputer who had referred to Hannity's America as "Nazi America". I suggested "Fascist America" MIGHT be a less inflammatory [and MORE accurate] description. But Sams & my posts were deleted [can't figure out why] and NOW my 2nd post to Sam is kinda hanging out there in limbo ;-)
Ages ago a number of posters HERE were in the habit of using 'Hitler' & 'Nazis' whenever referring to Bush or Republicans. After awhile, it made civil discourse a bit difficult. When the Left & Right throw Nazi & Commie back and forth at each other, it makes serious discussion nearly impossible.
At first I didn't even buy into the 'Fascist' labeling of Bush & the neocons...BUT I do now.
(I DID wonder what exactly you were responding to... We'll probably get deleted as well.)
"Nazi" is just too loaded a term. It's SO very loaded that it tends to shut down discussion, even if it's a defensible comparison in some limited respects. More defensible than its occasional use by the right to refer to Democrats--Santorum used the label of couple of times--but still, as you note, a virtual guarantee that the discourse will become (more) uncivil.
MMFA dropped our posts for some reason?! I had thought that we were free to say what we believe here. Looks like I've been censored. I'll find out by posting this response for you. If it gets deleted then I'll know. This reminds my of that Elvis Song - "Return To Sender"
Wikipedia says Nazism and Fascism are very closely related? But as you have suggested, I will do some research to see if they are wrong.
Nazism and Fascism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
In both popular thought and academic scholarship, Nazism is generally considered a form of fascism - with "fascism" defined so as to include any of the authoritarian, nationalist, totalitarian movements that developed in Europe around the same time. Including the fascists in Germany. The idea mentioned above to reject all former ideas and ideologies like democracy, liberalism, and especially marxism.
When George Said: - “I'm the decider!, and I decide what's Best!” he reminded me of Nazi Dictators and other deciders who don’t care what the citizens want.
In my heart of hearts, I really, honestly don't think I'm name calling or taking a cheap shots at all.
In my mind there is a very reasonable likeness because this is how Nazism got its roots. I will tone it down to Fascism unless I can verify that Wikipedia has it right. They say that Nazism is generally considered a form of Fascism.
To me far right-wingers reminding me of the path through which the Nazi Party developed. Just like the Iraq War reminds me of the Vietnam War that I served in. Our troops died in Vain in both wars. Still dying!
But I do have some choice comments to make if Bush continues to send more troops to die in vain. I might just invoke such names as I think appropriate. I believe all the dead bodies coming home is politically CRIMINAL. So if even more troops are sent in this week, you may not appreciate what I have to say about that.
When you weigh in with your objections I’ll be delighted to explain why I said something. If I find that you’re correct and I’m wrong about something I’ll be happy to admit it.
I'd be very interested in seeing MMFA do a study, not just on the division of time between the conservatives and so-called liberals on Fox, but on the substance contained in that time. I mean we have people like Hannity and Murdoch spewing this incredibly weak argument claiming that Van Susteren, Colmes and even Geraldo are liberals, but what is their time used for??? Take a good look at Hannity and Colmes - sure Colmes gets equal time, but it's generally used for intros, previews of upcoming stories and covering stuff that has little if any relevance to political issues. By contrast, Hannity gets to use his time almost exclusively for pushing GOP talking points and demonising the left. By the same token, Greta Van Susteren devotes most of her time to white murder victims and missing college kids. As for Geraldo, how anyone could describe him as a liberal and keep a straight face is a mystery to me. O'Reilly is not a traditionalist (whatever that means), he's a salesman who does a very good job in serving Murdoch and Ailles' interests. Take any episode of any of these shows and do a scholarly, scientific study of this hypothesis and i think you'll find I'm right about this. There is no further room for politely debating this issue - Fox's bias is an affront to the fine traditions of professional journalism - from the relentless attempt to undermine the Clinton Presidency, to the outrageous conduct of George Bush's cousin calling the 2000 election from the Fox control room to the morally bankrupt indifference over the death of over 3000 U.S soldiers as they cheered the White House, it is painfully obvious trhat these people are a disgrace to the idea of America. I've heard Murdoch say that the objectivity of Fox is in the eye of the beholder - that is a lie and histiry should judge him as the criminal that he is.
There are conservatives out there who are actually expert in something or other. There are conservatives with knowledge and competence.
There isn't any conceivable reason, financial or political, to give this unremarkable doofus who only knows eleven things a third show. Surely a real conservative with insight can draw an audience? Surely an intelligent conservative can advance conservative causes better?
With a better than room temperature IQ. THAT would be an improvement for Hannity
I already know how America would look if Hannity and his ilk got his wish. It's called "China".
Fox News Television has had the Hannity and Colmes show, 5 nights per week for years with the conservative Hannity and the liberal Colmes.
Fox News Radio gave Colmes his own 5-night per week radio show.
Now Fox News Television plans to give Hannity a once per week television show.
It all sounds balanced to me!
ABC radio produces Hannity's radio show.
MMFA has been running a sidebar to complain to Fox about Hannity's radio show:
"Last week on his nationally syndicated radio show, Fox News host Sean Hannity..."
I do not know their reasons, but MMFA refers to Hannity as a "Fox News host" even when complaining about his ABC radio show!
Talk about conservative misinformation...
Is Hannity or is he not a Fox news host? And what he ISNT a Fox news host because he goes on the radio and works for ABC ? No he is STILL a FOX news host. Does the president stop being president when he plays Golf? When he campaigns for other candidates? If he writes a book does that mean he is an author and no longer president? This is so simple it is embarrassing to have to explain it to you. In your zeal to slam MMFA you have left logic miles behind.
When Bruce Wayne puts on the bat-suit, he's no longer Bruce Wayne. He's Batman. And that perfectly describes Sean Hannity: a mentally unbalanced vigilante with a split personality.
So, in all fairness, when referring to Sean's radio show, MMFA should call a "conservative propagandist for ABC".
In the context of a Fox show, MMFA should call him a "conservative propagandist for Fox".
And in the context of a dinner theater production of "My Fair Lady", MMFA should call him a "conservative propagandist for the Arts".
Obviously, you have not clicked through in the yellow section to the right of MMFA's screens. I will reproduce the appropriate sections (4 paragraph) in their entirety:
Last week on his nationally syndicated radio show, Fox News host Sean Hannity encouraged Democratic voters to "stay home on Election Day," adding that, "your vote doesn't matter anyway." He asserted that Democrats should not turn out to vote "for the sake of the nation" because Democrats' votes "won't change who occupies the White House" and Democratic "candidates have absolutely no idea how to win the war on terrorism."
On the same program, Hannity misrepresented the Democratic Party platform, stating: "I don't think abandoning our troops on the battlefield, or closing your eyes to enemy communications or listening to enemy communications in our country, or killing the economy, or supporting illegal immigration, I don't think that's something to run on."
Comments like this demonstrate how Hannity and other right-wing media figures hope to impact the upcoming election -- regardless of their spin about being objective.
Please click here and tell your friends about this Fox News commentator's rabidly partisan attacks.
<-/b>
I have no complaint about MMFA referring to Hannity as a Fox News host. However, look at what they have done:
Two paragraphs complaining about what he said on his ABC radio show.
Two comments about his association with Fox News, one of them a call to complain to your friends about him.
Zero/nothing about these comments being made on ABC.
No Batman here: It is just MMFA slamming Fox News (as usual).
By the way, there are only 3 posts about this "Call to action" and two of them support Hannity!
>>>Fox...has had the Hannity and Colmes show....Fox News Radio gave Colmes his own 5-night per week radio show....Now Fox News Television plans to give Hannity a once per week television show....It all sounds balanced to me!<<<
You somehow "forget" to include Hannity's radio show---with 13 million listeners.
Now Hannity has a weekly, one-hour TV show, with Hannity as sole host. And Colmes has..... what?
When "Alan Colmes' America" debuts on Fox (right after pigs fly), there'll be something approaching balance.
Until then, your idea of "balance" is to put your finger on the scale. It's just an act.
(p.s.: try and point-out where Media Matters is "complaining" about Hannity's ABC radio show, as you falsely claim)
I don't know how else to say it:
Look at this section in yellow to the right side of MMFA screens:
It includes this link:
Not fair, not balanced: Sean Hannity shows his true colors
I just went into detail answering someone else about this.
do you imagine this undermines MM's points about Hannity? All they've done is reproduce comments from his ABC radio show without clearly noting that he made them on ABC. He's STILL a FOX News host. And, from these excerpts, it seems he takes exactly the same sort of positions on ABC that he takes on FOX.
So what's your point?
I sometimes try to determine how other people think and act and relate it to how I think and act.
If I were MMFA and wanted to complain about Fox News host Sean Hannity, I think I would look over the past 10 years or so of his cohosted show on Fox News and cite some examples of things I objected to. If I wanted to object to something on his ABC RADIO show, I would note that he hosts an ABC RADIO show and ask people to complain to, um, let me think, uh, ...ABC!
As I noted earlier, only 3 people responded to MMFA's Action Item about Sean Hannity, and 2 of those supported Sean. Again, if I were MMFA, I would be embarassed about that and remove it instead of leaving it up for, what, one or two months now?
Colmes is a hand picked characature of the indecisive, weak-willed, overly compassionate nerdy vision of liberals that Fox so desperately wants to project. I have listened to his radio program late at night and it is embarrassing with voice overs with leads like: "Is Alan making you mad? Call him up and tell him what you think." Like that would fly on Hannity or O'Reilly's show.
As for the lighting round concept, what liberal in their right mind would submit to that. I am sure that Hannity thinks that he is a literary and debate genious for being the first to pose questions that force the subject to choose between two equally unflattering, oversimplified and mischaracterizations. How did our democracy survive for 200+ years without that foum?
That is precisely what he is.
I called O'Reilly on his radio show today when he was lambasting NBC for not having any conservative voices. I immediately reminded him that MSNBC ahs the Tucker Carlson show (a Republican commentator) and then was cutt off. I didn't even get a chance to mention that Hardball is hosted by a guy who says he voted for Bush twice, and thereafter comes Scarborough Country hosted by an ultra conservative former Republican Congressman. He cut me off as soon as mentioned Tucker's name. He stated that MSNBC doesn't count. What did count, though, was the notorious fluff piece the Today show. There is his proof of liberal bias at NBC news. That's right, the show that brings you sinag alongs in Manhattan in the summer, the show that brings you cooking tips, the show that tells you about the hottest gadgets while also discussing the latest Hollywood gossip, that show is the epitome of the New Bias at NBC. HUH????? Is there a con in this room that wants to defend O'Reilly? How about you O'Reilly? I know you read this website everyday because you're a narcisist, so log in under your phony name on here and defend yourself. PS, you're still a punk who punked out of the Vietnam draft by becoming a school teacher until the draft ended.
For helping me do some research on ISM's.
I'm a Independentism who likes Ike, FDR, JFK, Carter, Ford, Clinton, Truman & Washington, Lincoln and Others. Such as Ross Perot and many of our Republican and Democratic legislators.
When I want to find out what the generally accepted usage is, or definitions and descriptions of words I am careful about my sources. I will not do my research from a source that has it's own agenda or commitments. And I would not recommend it to anyone.
Such as a Far Left or Far Right Book or WebSite. I would politely suggest that you use sources that provide information considered as generally accepted popular and academic thought. That's where I go to find what is true about things.
Did you send me to that WebSite with the intention of showing me the true meaning of Liberal? Because that Site was focused on a very negative and inaccurate criticism of Liberals.
If I wanted to explain Conservatism to you I would send you to a credible, main stream source. Britannica, Wikipedia and Others, but Heaven Forbid, I would never send you to a site like the one you showed me to cut your cherished Conservatism down.
What was your objective for doing that?