About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Hannity makes a habit of distorting quotes to smear progressives

July 09, 2009 9:12 am ET

SUMMARY: Sean Hannity has repeatedly smeared progressives and Democrats by cropping their comments in ways that misrepresented them. Most recently, he cropped President Obama's answer to a question about the Cold War to falsely suggest he wasn't acknowledging the achievements of past presidents in freeing Eastern Europe.

171 Comments

Over the past few years, Fox News host Sean Hannity has repeatedly smeared progressives and Democrats by cropping their comments in a way that misrepresented them. Most recently, during the July 8 edition of his Fox News show, Hannity spliced President Obama's answer to a Fox News reporter's question about the Cold War to suggest that Obama did not acknowledge the actions of past U.S. presidents in freeing Eastern Europe. As Media Matters for America documented, Hannity edited out the part of Obama's answer in which he said, "I'm very proud of the traditions of Democratic and Republican presidents to lift the Iron Curtain."

Media Matters has documented numerous instances in which Hannity has cropped quotes or clips to misrepresent what actually was said. Some of the most egregious examples include:

  • During the June 4 edition of his Fox News show, Hannity deceptively edited a clip of Obama's June 4 speech in Cairo to claim that Obama "decided to give 9-11 sympathizers a voice on the world stage," when Obama was in fact specifically condemning the attacks. Hannity played Obama's comment that "I am aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the events of 9-11." Hannity left out what Obama said next: that Al Qaeda "chose to ruthlessly murder" 9-11 victims, who "had done nothing to harm anybody," and that "these are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with."
  • On April 3, Hannity played a clip of Obama saying in an April 3 speech in Strasbourg, France: "In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America's shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." Hannity then said: "And the liberal tradition of blame America first, well, that's still alive." He later asked: "Why is there this anti-Americanism in Europe?" In fact, immediately after the part of the speech Hannity played, Obama criticized anti-Americanism in Europe and Europeans who "choose to blame America for much of what's bad."
  • During the March 6 edition of his Fox show, Hannity purported to "go to the videotape" and "show the audience at home" Obama's "campaign promise" of "no earmarks." He then aired several clips that purportedly showed this "campaign promise." In fact, in three of the clips, Obama was referring to reforming the earmark process, and in a fourth, he was asserting that an opponent was being hypocritical for taking earmarks and then advocating against them. Hannity's fifth clip, which showed Obama saying, "We are going to ban all earmarks -- the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review," was actually taken from a post-campaign media availability, during which Obama made clear that he wanted to "ban all earmarks" from the "recovery and reinvestment plan," not from "the overall budget process."
  • During the August 15, 2008, broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Hannity falsely asserted that Obama had "openly complained about 'white folks' greed.' " As evidence, he played a clip of Obama saying, "White folks' greed runs a world in need." But the clip is from the Obama-narrated audiobook edition of his memoir, Dreams From My Father, in a passage in which Obama quotes parts of a sermon by Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
  • During the July 10, 2008, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Hannity distorted former President Bill Clinton's remarks to claim that Clinton was "obviously taking a shot at Senator [John] McCain." Hannity aired the following parts of Clinton's remarks: "[E]very living soul on the planet has some often highly justified anger"; "[I]f you know anybody who was ever a POW for any length of time, you will see that you go along for months or maybe even years, and then something will happen, it'll trigger all those bad dreams, and they'll come back, and it may not last 30 seconds"; and, "It's not like all that stuff just went away." But Clinton was discussing what former South African President -- and political prisoner -- Nelson Mandela means to him. Indeed, the sentence from which Hannity took his final quote actually read in full: "It's not like all that stuff just went away, but he [Mandela] disciplined himself and his mind and his heart and his spirit to always work to constantly overcome it every day."
  • During the October 28, 2008, broadcast of his radio show, Hannity aired Obama's statement from a 2001 radio interview that "[t]here's a lot of change going on outside of the [Supreme Court] that, you know, the judges have to essentially take judicial notice of. I mean, you've got World War II. You've got the doctrines of Nazism that we are fighting against that start looking uncomfortably similar to what's going on back here at home." Hannity aired the clip twice, then stated: "He's comparing -- looking similar to what Nazism is back here at home? Has anybody picked up on this in the media?" But Hannity left out Obama's next sentence, which made clear he was not speaking about modern-day America: "You've got African Americans who are returning from the war with certain expectations in terms of, 'Why is it that I'm now in uniform and yet am denied more freedom here than I was in France or Italy?' "
  • During the June 17, 2007, edition of Fox News' Hannity's America, Hannity aired a clip from a December 15, 2003, speech by then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, in which she said, "I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. ... We have no option but to stay involved and committed." He then asserted, "A year into the war, when most Democrats completely turned their back on the president's decision to invade Iraq, Hillary maintained her support." But almost immediately after the first sentence that Hannity quoted from the speech, Clinton said: "I have had many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used, but I stand by the vote to provide the authority because I think it was a necessary step in order to maximize the outcome that did occur in the Security Council with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors."
  • On July 15, 2007, Hannity asserted that "Hillary's time as partner in the [Rose] law firm was closely associated with her husband's political seat in the state of Arkansas," then stated: "George Wells, a reporter who covered the courts for Arkansas papers, said the following in a 1994 interview with the Baltimore Sun, quote: 'A few people would say that the Rose Law Firm was married to Governor Clinton -- and there were businesses that thought it was to their advantage with the state to go to Rose.' End quote." But the next sentence in the Sun article quoted Wells saying: "But no one in the firm that I know of ever solicited business based on the governor's wife being a partner there."

Media Matters has previously identified many instances in which other Fox News figures have also misleadingly cropped the statements of progressives or Democrats.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by dexteritas0071418 (July 09, 2009 9:21 am ET)
      11  
      Being intentionally dishonest & misleading is never moral or ethical, even if you think the ends justify the means. Hannity is one of the worst offenders of this, if not THE worst.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 09, 2009 9:41 am ET)
        7  
        He IS the worst. Quotes are taken out of context all the time - O'Rielly has made that his bread and butter over the years - but no one crops them quite as egregiously as Hannity.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Victor Colorado (July 09, 2009 10:06 am ET)
          7  
          Hannity (and his video people) and indeed the WORST. The most recent example of splicing is perhaps his worst (or "best" if you're a truth hater) to date. The 40 second mark of the clip seamlessly goes from Obama saying "freedom" to "we", cutting Obama's exact words that destroy Hannity's cold war point. Fox News propaganda undercuts our Democracy in a truly insidious manner. I can't believe that I'm still capable of getting outraged by their lies. I guess that's a good thing.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by neon desert (July 09, 2009 10:54 am ET)
            12 3
            To ridicule Shyawn Hannitard, he of limited intellect and attention span, for shortening up quotes and stuff to the point where he can follow along without getting distracted by a shiny object or the smell of popcorn, is akin to making fun of the efforts of a special olympian, and I'm ashamed for you all.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by dexteritas0071418 (July 09, 2009 11:27 am ET)
              5  
              Who dares give neon's post a thumbs down??? It's the post of the thread so far IMO.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 09, 2009 11:42 am ET)
                4  
                Not I. As the father of two special-needs childeren, I guess I should be proud of what Hannity has achieved, and hopeful that my two sons may oneday be as successful as he is. (Hopefully a bit more honest though.)
                Report Abuse
                • Author by robyn20094113 (July 09, 2009 11:20 pm ET)
                  2  
                  Thank you Eddie for putting mind at ease. I worry myself sick about the future of my special-needs, twin grandsons. I forgot they can make millions working for Rupert Murdoch. To think I thought Rup was all bad. I never looked at it as him helping those with special needs and at such a high rate of pay. Wait, my nine year old grandsons have special-needs, they do not lack in decency. Back to the drawing board.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by snoopy (July 09, 2009 1:20 pm ET)
                1  
                Neon has a stalker who hates neon for being neon. Neon could be talking about hot dogs and his lil reichwing will give him a thumbs down.
                Report Abuse
        • Author by switchblade (July 09, 2009 11:27 am ET)
          4 1
          Yes and the both of them will whine and cry like a two year old whenever Rush or one of them is quoted verbadim on that dishonest, vile, unamerican web site Media Matters.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by justjoe628 (July 09, 2009 12:47 pm ET)
              11
            I don't think Media Matters is un-American. I think it's sad and a little funny that the liberals are so scared of what Rush, Hannity, Beck and Fox news have to say that "someone" is providing the funds to have a whole website dedicated to making a counterpoint to whatever they say. Liberals never said a think about the leftist mainstream media spouting their liberal propaganda. And now that there is an alternative....uh oh!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by IRONY 101 (July 09, 2009 12:59 pm ET)
              4  
              Liberal propaganda...? Oh, you must mean fact-based news. Then again, those pesky facts are liberally biased aren't they?
              Report Abuse
            • Author by foghornleghorn (July 09, 2009 1:21 pm ET)
              8  
              We're not scared of what they have to say. We're scared of the effect is has on people who believe their lies.

              How quickly you forget that not too long ago a sizable percentage of Fox viewers believed Saddam was behind 9-11 and that the WMD's were found. Now THAT'S scary.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by snoopy (July 09, 2009 1:22 pm ET)
              5  
              What liberal media? But thanks for pointing out that if there was one that lying conservatives are considered an alternative to liberal truthfulness.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by jjamele2880 (July 09, 2009 1:39 pm ET)
              5  
              If criticizing these bloviators means we're "scared," does the fact that you criticize us means that you are scared, too?

              When Hannity spends three hours a day criticizing Obama and Pelosi, does that mean he's scared of them?

              Do you own a dictionary? Criticism is not generally a bi-product of "fear." Nice attempt at shutting down the conversation though. Did it work on the playground?
              Report Abuse
            • Author by skepticplease (July 09, 2009 1:41 pm ET)
              6  
              Cite proof of a liberal media. Prove it. Sensational claims require sensational evidence. For forty years, the right has been hammering on this red herring and in the process has destroyed the press's ability to provide Americans with the facts that we can use to make well-informed decisions. Scared? The reason this site HAS to exist is because a huge portion of what Rush, Hannity, Beck, and Fox News give us is SIMPLY NOT FACT-BASED, is distorted, misleading, employs numerous logical fallacies, and often is just plain false. It should bother you that their response to Media Matters is not to challenge this site's assertions but to attack them as thugs and Nazis. If the truth was on their side, wouldn't they provide that truth?
              Report Abuse
            • Author by harley (July 09, 2009 1:47 pm ET)
              2  
              I think it's sad and a little funny that the liberals are so scared of what Rush, Hannity, Beck and Fox news

              Please provide proof that liberals are afraid of the uneducated idiots (that never served this country) on Faux and am hate radio. Thanks.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by harley (July 09, 2009 1:48 pm ET)
              3  
              I think it's sad and a little funny that the liberals are so scared of what Rush, Hannity, Beck and Fox news

              Please provide proof that liberals are afraid of the uneducated idiots (that never served this country) on Faux and am hate radio. Thanks.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by justjoe628 (July 09, 2009 6:26 pm ET)
                  6
                I'd love to provide proof. If I had access to interviews done with conservative then I could most certainly show you, but I don't. If you only see the video of whats on TV, then you only see one side of the story. You think Katie is gonna show you her edited for news story and then maybe offer you the whole interview online so you could pick it apart. Not likely. It's really nice when some "shadow" individual who is funding a whole website to pounce on every time Sean Hannity says something wrong. Ever think you were being mislead by Media Matters. Did they give you the whole transcript of the interview or just the little piece they wanted you to see. I did however offer 2 studies that showed a left leaning media, however those post have failed to show up. Interesting? Even though I've probably done close to a hundred post by now, don't call names and stay on topic,, my posts still have to be "moderated".
                Report Abuse
                • Author by creeksneakers2 (July 09, 2009 9:56 pm ET)
                  4  
                  You think you have the other side of the story. What you have are lies. That's why the media doesn't always run right wing stuff, because it isn't true. Its pretty easy to see through it if you aren't a dittohead.

                  You think the mainstream media is left because you don't know what the real left side of it is. If all you listen to is right wing propaganda, you'll continue to have misperceptions.

                  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/24/eveningnews/main4476173.shtml
                  On the left, its almost all there on the web. Do you think they left out a part where Sarah was brilliant?

                  Report Abuse
                • Author by jwcoop715110 (July 10, 2009 12:04 pm ET)
                  2  
                  Ah, so, you'd love to provide proof, it's just that, as a coalition of the clueless con/inshannity apologist, you have none cause the facts ain't doin' ya any favors.

                  Gee, must be rough.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by TadekKorn (July 11, 2009 9:41 pm ET)
                  1  
                  The issue is not one of right versus left, it's of right versus wrong, of true versus false. In this respect, the right--at least as it emerges from the likes of Hannity, O'Reilley, Limbaugh, et. al.--is not merely consistantly wrong and consistantly false but egregiously so. That so much money is available for their smear tactics and propaganda should not only give us pause but should compel the decent among us--and I believe there are many and those interested in some semblance of truth outnumber the liars--to continue to support this web site and the journalists fighting to keep us well-informed.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by jmille426471 (July 09, 2009 3:34 pm ET)
              7  
              I will not abide the stupidity of people like you anymore. Conservatives have their own t.v. news station, hundreds of radio stations,their own syndicated newspapers across the country and they absolutely dominate research think tanks. Liberals simply have nothing comparable. Conservatives never have to face criticism of their worldview. At anytime, anywhere in this country, they can retreat into an alternate universe. Yet somehow its not enough, is it?

              And as for the rest of the media, aren't they the same media that allowed government talking points to be spewed by retired generals in a pentagon coordinated propaganda effort? Wait, you didn't know that, did ya? Then again, that's why you watch fox news in the first place, so you don't have to be faced with these kinds of facts. You can cram these ideas down your own throat all you like, but quit trying to force everyone else to listen fox-style propaganda.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by anotheramerican (July 09, 2009 4:27 pm ET)
                  6
                jm,

                The nice thing is you can always turn the channel and/or turn it off.

                I recommend you get Sirius/XM. They still have the remnants of Air America on one station. Don't tell anyone, but I enjoy listening to them even though I seldom, if ever, agree.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (July 09, 2009 5:41 pm ET)
                  6  
                  I recommend you get Sirius/XM
                  Why would he have to? I listen to the local Progressive Talk station that carries Air America programming as well as other networks. All I need is an AM radio.

                  I think it's funny that cons say that the mainstream media is liberal (a myth) but when challenged on their blatant propaganda channels, they just advise people to change the channel. Why doesn't the same apply to the so-called "liberal" media that they bitch about constantly?
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by jmille426471 (July 09, 2009 9:08 pm ET)
                  2  
                  Glad you agree with me, AA.

                  Which I'm guessing is why your so afraid they're gonna bring the fairness doctrine back. You, like Ann Coulter, know conservatives have the media.

                  Sure I can change the channel, but unfortunately I can't change it when the majority of my countrymen believe something crazy like the idea that Saddam was behind 9/11.

                  Sorry Charlie, but I can no longer tolerate people mouthing the long discredited meme of "the liberal media". If you don't like it, change the channel, or go to another website.

                  Report Abuse
              • Author by justjoe628 (July 09, 2009 4:49 pm ET)
                  8
                Conservatives have one cable news station, liberals have MSNBC, CNBC and CNN. Liberals have 3 evening news CBS, ABC and NBC. Liberal have just about every major newspaper in every major city in the U.S. So since most Americas get their facts from the "news" and that is what shapes their opinions about issues, their views are shaped by the liberal media. The reason radio is dominated by conservative talk is because no one would listen to liberal talk. If there were a market for it, it would be there. Ever heard of Air America. It's gone, because it was crap.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by creeksneakers2 (July 09, 2009 10:03 pm ET)
                  2  
                  The only one of those outlets that carries the liberal view is MSNBC.

                  Conservatives are the biggest hypocrites. When their own media outlets run one side the conservatives answer that's OK because that's what the market wants. What about what the market is for network news or big city newspapers? Suddenly, those media are expected by right wingers to shun the bottom line and provide equal time to right wing liars. Isn't it possible those outlets are just going for ratings, same as your guys?
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by jwcoop715110 (July 10, 2009 12:14 pm ET)
                  1  
                  No, unlike faux, they're legitimate news organizations.

                  Once again, the media doesn't have a liberal bias, the facts do.

                  Furthermore, I hate to keep confusin' ya with the facts, joe, but Air America is still in existence. Like most gopologists, you just don't know up from down or what the hell you're talking about.

                  The oxy-moron is ignorant trash by ignorant trash for ignorant trash.

                  It's no wonder you're such a fan.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (July 09, 2009 5:04 pm ET)
              7  
              You should have stopped at your first two words. Thats right you dont think. You never will think. You dont have the requisite equipment to think. You regurgitate. You tune into the screechmonkeys, they TELL you what to think and you hunt around for some liberals to spew it at. No one is afraid of those idiots. How stupid do you have to be to think that either we ignore the lies, distortions and spin of rightwing pundits or we are afraid of them. That would sure fit the rights agenda. Stop pointing out how much the rightwing blovitors lie, how much they decieve like Hannity here. Just let them alone to lie and decieve the morons like Joe here. WWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH says Joe. Leve the liars I love alone. I WANT to be lied to says Joe its WWWWWWWAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH when you mess with the fantasy and show how dishonest they are. It makes Joe mad WWWWAAAHHHHHHHH.

              Leftist mainstream media propaganda is pure Limborg hogwash. You have to be as simpleminded as Joe to take it seriously but it was what he was TOLD to think and TOLD to say, so mindlessly he does. What a sad and pathetic little person Joe is
              Report Abuse
              • Author by justjoe628 (July 09, 2009 5:41 pm ET)
                  6
                Nice post. Prety typical from a liberal. It just so happens I was conservative in my politics long before Rush Limbaug, who I maybe listen to once a week. I can think for myself and I don't need to call you names and smeer you to get my point across. I personally don't like it when Hannity and Rush edit comments. I think Obama and Pelosi can hang themselve with their own words. I think the fact that Media Matters exist is proof enough of fear on the left. Why doesn't Media Matters ever mention CBS news or CNN. If it's all lies and you liberals are smart enough to know it, then why do they do an hour by hour break down of Rush and Hannity in order to contradict what they say. You guys like to use terms like "mindlessly", "morons" and "simpleminded" when you refer to conservatives because name calling is easier than having an real, honest debate.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Brabantio (July 09, 2009 9:27 pm ET)
                  3  
                  What are you babbling about? All the networks, CNN and MSNBC all get mentioned here. And why is the MRC or AIM not evidence of fear on the right?
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by Daryl McCullough (July 10, 2009 8:38 am ET)
                  2  
                  Rather than argue back and forth about whether the mainstream media is liberal or not, can you respond to the main point: Hannity edited Obama's words in order to distort his meaning. Do you agree that that's despicable, or do you think it is perfectly fine?

                  The point is not bias. Everyone is biased. The point is dishonesty. Surely both liberals and conservatives can agree that lying is wrong? Or is that just a liberal belief?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Brabantio (July 10, 2009 1:09 pm ET)
                    1  
                    Joe indicates below that he agrees that dishonesty is wrong, but that it's Hannity's job to correct himself. He doesn't seem to like the idea of anyone else pointing out the lie.
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by Handsome Pete (July 10, 2009 11:12 am ET)
                  1  
                  Why doesn't Media Matters ever mention CBS news or CNN.

                  Do a search on them, they are mentioned, frequently, on this site, which evaporates your point.

                  If it's all lies and you liberals are smart enough to know it, then why do they do an hour by hour break down of Rush and Hannity in order to contradict what they say.


                  Not only is it nice to have a resource where you can look up all the lies and misinformation in one place, but it's not just FOR us. Yes , we know it's lies. Not everybody does. They're not all idiots, by the way, they could be naive or ignorant of the facts.

                  You guys like to use terms like "mindlessly", "morons" and "simpleminded" when you refer to conservatives because name calling is easier than having an real, honest debate.


                  Some do, because they've had it with talking with conservatives, who called us America hating traitors for the last 8 years. Some people evaluate conservative posters on a case-by-case basis, and decide which ones are worth talking to, and which ones are trolls and/or brainwashed, talking-points-spewing drones. And by starting a post with
                  Prety typical from a liberal.


                  you place yourself closer to the latter camp than the former.
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by IRONY 101 (July 09, 2009 12:43 pm ET)
          3  
          - but no one crops them quite as egregiously as Hannity.

          That's because Hannity goes about it in such a crude fashion. It's like doctoring a photograph...someone with any brains would use Photoshop, whereas Hannity would cut and paste. Once again you have to ask how stupid are the folks who regularly watch Hannity and actually believe him.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by tman418 (July 10, 2009 10:28 am ET)
             
          You know, Eddie and Dexter, I would have disagreed with you until I perhaps thought about what you guys are saying. I used to think Savage and Limbaugh were the worst, but they are just those love 'em or hate 'em people who rarely talk about the issue at hand and just rant and rave. But Hannity can be considered the worst in that he is working hard to actually mislead his ignorant audience while passing himself off as a legitimate source of news. He is indeed the worst.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (July 09, 2009 11:33 am ET)
        6  
        Didn't Sean Hannity win an award last year for dishonesty?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by mattcable250650 (July 09, 2009 9:21 am ET)
      5  
      Obama "decided to give 9-11 sympathizers a voice on the world stage,"

      I'm still completely baffled as to what Hannity means by this. There are those who feel that 9-11 was an inside job and those who feel that 9-11 was a jihad against the West and that America was properly humiliated by it. It's not at all clear what a "sympathizer" feels.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by goesto11 (July 09, 2009 9:49 am ET)
        5  
        Exactly. What the heck is a "9-11 sympathizer"?

        I have a lot of sympathy for the families/friends of the victims of 9-11. I suppose that makes me a "9-11 sympathizer."

        Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 09, 2009 10:22 am ET)
          5  
          You traitor! Why do you hate your country?!

          [/sarcasm] (just in case)
          Report Abuse
          • Author by goesto11 (July 09, 2009 2:24 pm ET)
            3  
            Guilty as charged.

            And I also have sympathy for rape victims. Yep, I'm one of those rape sympathizers.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by John Paradox (July 09, 2009 9:42 am ET)
      6  
      From years of dealing with Neocons on the Internet and local BBSes, this is standard operating procedure. In fact, back in the early 1990's, I created "the Rules of (Neo)Conservative Correctness... and
      18) when quoting your opponent, edit his words to conform to "correctness"

      (dittobusters.com for full list and other comments [shameless self-promotion])

      J/P=?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (July 09, 2009 10:11 am ET)
        3  
        From what I've seen here, your pretty much spot on. I do think that lying is further towards the front of possible neocon action choices.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by John Paradox (July 09, 2009 5:15 pm ET)
          1  
          Thanks, and remember - these rules were 'created' (via observation, after all I tend to 'lurk' for a while before joining conversations online) during the Reagan/Bush 1 Administrations.

          Also, if you consider editing a quote to be 'lying', along with the other Rules that are similar, the final one is simply an expansion of the previous.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by smarshall1432997 (July 09, 2009 10:01 am ET)
      5  
      Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O. are FoxNews Channel's most popular personalities, and they all use that old media formula to get their big "ratings": smear + attack + lie + ego + showmanship = SALES.

      So what if the information is dishonest, made-up, or even worst cropped-out? Long as these guys at FoxNews Channel "ONLY" go after President Obama, Democrats, and Minorities it's a win win with big big ratings as these guys laugh happily to their local banks. Hmmm, what does this sounds like? Oh, FoxNews Channel has become a 'tabloid' cable news network. Now this makes $ense. LOL
      Report Abuse
      • Author by justjoe628 (July 09, 2009 12:53 pm ET)
          7
        What does that mean "go after minorities"? It's real easy to make a statement on a liberal website without backing it up witha ny facts. I'm curious how someone standing for us all being equal and treated the same regardless of our race is "going after minorities." It very emotional and sound great, but it is baseless.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (July 09, 2009 1:07 pm ET)
          10  
          Right, now get us some motherfu__ing iced tea!
          Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (July 09, 2009 1:39 pm ET)
          3  
          This might clear things up for you. I have to warn you in advance, it's not a pop up book. Deep thought and introspection is required...
          Report Abuse
          • Author by princeofwheels (July 09, 2009 1:53 pm ET)
            5  
            Snoop,

            After years of being led around by the brain, deep thought and introspection cannot even be considered.
            But thanx for the clip.
            It will be on its' way to my Connies shortly..as for the poster above...NO HOPE!!! Just wants to complain that he/she cannot be wrong about thier heroes. They would have to sell all of the O'Reilly, Morris, Hannity etc, books at a flea market. This poster probably believes they are collector items...
            Report Abuse
          • Author by skepticplease (July 09, 2009 1:55 pm ET)
            2  
            The Republican Noise Machine by David Brock is also a great place to begin to understand how we got where we are.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Conchobhar (July 09, 2009 5:04 pm ET)
              2  
              Follow it up with Thomas Franks' THE WRECKING CREW; How Conservatives Rule.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by smarshall1432997 (July 09, 2009 6:18 pm ET)
            1  
            Thanks Snoopy, "GREAT" video ;-)
            Report Abuse
        • Author by skepticplease (July 09, 2009 1:52 pm ET)
          3  
          And on those conservative websites, it's not "real easy to make a statement...without backing it up with any facts?" Did you read the article above, or do you just contribute here to see if you can rile up a few liberals? The article ought to make you hopping mad whether you are a liberal or a conservative. The airwaves belong to the American people, and the press is there to inform us, not entertain us. Much of the news we get right now has about as much decision-making value as the commercials it interrupts. That's the point.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by justjoe628 (July 09, 2009 4:39 pm ET)
              2
            Had you read that post, you would have seen I was referring to smarshall's post stating Rush and Hannity "go after minorities." Just because I have issues with immigration does not mean I "go after minorities." It doesn't make me a racist. I completely understand why someone would want to come to a country where they can get free healthcare, free education for their children and not have to pay any taxes. I don't blame them. Heck, I'd probably do the same thing if I were them. But to make a statement calling someone a racist is way off base.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (July 10, 2009 3:29 am ET)
              2  
              Racists use immigration controversies to express their racism under cover of legitimate concern. It looks like you probably are the same.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by LuvLuLu (July 11, 2009 3:27 pm ET)
                 
              The facts are that illegal immigrants put more into our economy than they take out, overall. They pay lots of taxes, but this imbecile thinks they pay none? And then he wonders why we call him an imbecile.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (July 09, 2009 5:03 pm ET)
          3  
          "It's real easy to make a statement on a liberal website without backing it up witha ny facts."

          Is it, joe? You mean like the following statement:

          "I don't think Media Matters is un-American. I think it's sad and a little funny that the liberals are so scared of what Rush, Hannity, Beck and Fox news have to say that "someone" is providing the funds to have a whole website dedicated to making a counterpoint to whatever they say. Liberals never said a think about the leftist mainstream media spouting their liberal propaganda. And now that there is an alternative....uh oh!"
          Report Abuse
        • Author by smarshall1432997 (July 09, 2009 5:59 pm ET)
          1  
          Are you serious that you don't know what the phrase "go after minorities" mean on FoxNews Channel with Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bill O. etc.? As the saying goes, if I tell you the answer than I will have to ... LOL

          Both Democrats and Republicans say how they believe in "equal" rights for everyone. But, the Republicans continue on with their saying: ...as long as it does "NOT" affect my religion, guns, security, liberty, money and way of life. Selfish, selfish, selfish wouldn't you say. LOL
          Report Abuse
    • Author by GSP (July 09, 2009 11:35 am ET)
      3  
      What I have find ironic that the I have 2 dental insurances one from my work and one from my wifes and I was still charged $600. This is a system that you can keep.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by princeofwheels (July 09, 2009 1:55 pm ET)
        2  
        They don't worry about that stuff in some areas of the RED states..all they need is TOOTH insurance...I didn't write that..the spirit of David Duke overtook me and hit send before I could erase it.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by anotheramerican (July 09, 2009 4:30 pm ET)
        1 2
        That bites!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by robyn20094113 (July 09, 2009 11:56 pm ET)
           
        Many have Medicaid and Medicare and are still charged $150.00 on top of that for a simple Dr. visit. Who can afford that on SS of disability?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by kydem09 (July 09, 2009 11:37 am ET)
        4
      I don't know why Media Matters even bothers with correcting or debunking Hannity. All he does is preach to the choir and has no effect on those who do not watch him. He is uber ideological, as I'm sure is the vast majority of his audience. The only positive I can find is that he at least offers opposing points of view. Unfortunately, his constant ideological rhetoric makes him unwatchable.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by skepticplease (July 09, 2009 1:17 pm ET)
        3  
        It must be very frustrating to note the sheer volume of the dishonesty by the entire right wing noise machine and wonder why the heck Americans don't laugh them off the stage. How can anyone lie and distort to this degree and be allowed an incredibly lucrative public forum? The airwaves belong to us!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by princeofwheels (July 09, 2009 1:43 pm ET)
        4  
        kydem,

        You are mistaken...I have been included on email list full of distortions made by Conservatives. When I get the correct information, I send it back to the entire list that received the nonsense and three different times got emails back thanking me for getting the REST OF THE STORY OUT.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by anotheramerican (July 09, 2009 4:44 pm ET)
          8
        kydem,

        I agree with you. The whole preoccupation with Fox makes me think that MMFA wouldn't have anything to write about if Fox suddenly disappeared.

        I do not watch his TV show but I sometimes listen to Hannity for my five minute ride home at night, six if catch the light, (but most of the time it is commercials,) and I listen knowing he is an ideologue but his guests and callers sometimes are interesting.

        I doubt that the vast majority of his audience is uber-ideological. He just keeps it entertaining.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (July 09, 2009 5:14 pm ET)
          6  
          Of course you do. Then again YOUR agenda is that the American people be lied to and misled.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by jwcoop715110 (July 10, 2009 12:22 pm ET)
             
          Nice try, ugg. Is it your coalition of the clueless cretin contention that fixed news is the only target of MMFA?

          Just punch "home" and refute your own rubbish.

          Ya know, given the fact that you gops are caseless and clueless and have to lie your sorry butts off in order to have something to say, you'd think you'd be a helluva lot better at it by now given all the practice ya get.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (July 09, 2009 5:13 pm ET)
        6  
        Its really not true. Because of my job I work with a lot of different people and I have heard conservative misinformation, lies really, come out of the mouths of liberals. When I tell them real facts they are shocked
        Report Abuse
    • Author by sheerinsanity (July 09, 2009 12:06 pm ET)
      5  
      Hannity is a racist and an anti-Semite who pals around with Andy Martin and Hal Turner, as well as Robert Allen Stanford.

      And for those who don't like my "guilt by association," I am just using Hannity's logic that Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright somehow shaped Obama's career.

      And the only reason he's on TV is because he happens to be a handsome, all-American fellow. He is just as bad as Rush.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by justjoe628 (July 09, 2009 12:40 pm ET)
        11
      It's interesting to me how liberals can get all worked up over Hannity, whose show is obviously right leaning and an editorial, editing comments to fit his view and say nothing about the unbiased "news" on MSNBC, CNN and the big three. They've been taking giving us one side of the story and cutting up conservative comments and then feeding it to us as legitimate news for years. I think America may finally be sick of it. Which is why the big three evening news is in the ratings tank.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (July 09, 2009 12:49 pm ET)
        4  
        Baloney... No one in the so-called MSM has such a history of doctoring quotes and misquoting such as Hannity and FOX. Hannity is nothing but a slow-witted slug who would not tell the truth about a Democrat if you torured him.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by justjoe628 (July 09, 2009 1:03 pm ET)
            10
          Watch the the CBS evening news and see if you can find and "editied" quotes from republicans. Problem is you wouldn't see them through you liberal colored glasses. So instead you just come on Media Matters and call Hannity and Rush names because the typical liberal play book is to spread spread fear and call names, you know get everyone all fired up and emotional, because you can't win with a logical argument.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Blue Dog (July 09, 2009 1:32 pm ET)
            4  
            It would be great if you could provide us with some examples. Heck, you could probably watch the news yourself and give us several examples within, say, a week-or-so, right?

            Especially since we can't see the bias ourselves, you should show it to us.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by justjoe628 (July 09, 2009 3:55 pm ET)
                3
              I'll give you two example from the recent presidential election that show a left leaning media. A study done by the Pew Research Center, a non-partisan group, showed that 6 wks after the Republican convention McCain had 4 times more negative stories than positive ones. Obama had twice as many positive stories as McCain and half as many negative ones. I was reading as article in Politico about the study where the reporter was attempting to give some lame excuse for the difference. When one of Politico's researchers looked at their stories over the same time period he found 110 positive Obama stories and only 69 positive McCain stories. Now explain how that happens by accident. Obama was the media darling and they gave him the coverage he needed to win.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Brabantio (July 09, 2009 9:46 pm ET)
                5  
                Your example assumes that both campaigns were run with equal competence. Obviously if one candidate makes more errors than the other, that's a "negative" that will be reflected in the coverage. Would you want Obama to make any number of mistakes in 2012 and the media to make an effort to run the same amount of positive and negative coverage of both candidates? That would mean they would have to act dishonestly against the Republican candidate in order to achieve that supposed balance.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by robyn20094113 (July 10, 2009 12:10 am ET)
                  3  
                  Brabantio, you are beating your head against a stone wall. Nice try though. Great points.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by tman418 (July 10, 2009 10:40 am ET)
                2  
                Have you ever heard of the "horserace approach"? Merely saying that Obama is ahead in the polls counts as a positive story.

                The coverage on McCain was negative because he was a negative old man.

                Have you ever heard of the Ayers stories? That was 100% of McCain's campaign in the final weeks. Hell, he at one point ran a 100% negative campaign in the final weeks (no exaggeration, that's real).
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Blue Dog (July 11, 2009 12:40 am ET)
                   
                Whatever. You have failed. We're talking about "edited" quotes and deceptive news coverage.

                Waiting......
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Blue Dog (July 11, 2009 12:40 am ET)
                1  
                Whatever. You have failed. We're talking about "edited" quotes and deceptive news coverage.

                Waiting......
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Blue Dog (July 11, 2009 12:40 am ET)
                1  
                Whatever. You have failed. We're talking about "edited" quotes and deceptive news coverage.

                Waiting......
                Report Abuse
          • Author by IRONY 101 (July 09, 2009 1:33 pm ET)
            4  
            If CBC misquoted a prominent Republican or doctored a quote, right wing talkers on FOX and elsewhere would be all over it...but you never see that, do you? And to suggest that what Limbaugh, Hannity, et als do, with their stupendous gaps in logic and truth, constitutes "logical argument" is, quite frankly, laughable.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by BillJ-MN (July 09, 2009 2:03 pm ET)
              1  
              CBC - The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?

              Just teasing.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by LuvLuLu (July 09, 2009 1:34 pm ET)
            4  
            Ah, since it is you who makes the accusation that the MSM does this too, and it's overall to the detriment of those on the right, YOU are the one who needs to provide evidence of this so-called bias and mistreatment.

            Media Matters provided evidence of Hannity doing it on this occasion and on other occasions, with transcripts and video.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by LuvLuLu (July 09, 2009 1:38 pm ET)
            4  
            The Republican playbook is to try to instill fear. That's why they said everything had changed after 9/11. Everything didn't change. The threat had been there before 9/11. But they had to scare us. Bush continued to scare us and try to instill fear.

            PUT.DOWN.THE.MIRROR.

            Your projection on this issue is blinding you to reality.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by right ON (July 09, 2009 2:47 pm ET)
              8
            justjoe, You make good points. And the funny thing is many liberals around here use Hannity and O'Reilly as some backup proof of a conservative tilted media. It's ridiculous. They are commentators and their one-sided opinions mean nothing, they are not unbiased newscasters, they are partisan hacks with TV shows on a rightwing network. The media, the mainstream journalists and news reporters are decidedly liberal and have always had a leftist slant, for generations. Look at who they vote for and what party they belong too. Look at how they cover illegal immigration, taxes, global warming - always sympathetic to the liberal point of view. We are not talking about hack commentators on TV, Olbermann and Maddow included. We are talking about what is supposed to unbiased news reporting. Liberal.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Craig (July 09, 2009 3:08 pm ET)
              5  
              Interesting opinion. Supported with the amount of evidence we've come to expect from you.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by Brabantio (July 09, 2009 3:12 pm ET)
              6  
              So MMfA shouldn't point out Hannity's use of cropped quotes which obviously qualify as misinformation? That would seem to be Justjoe's underlying point.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by right ON (July 09, 2009 3:19 pm ET)
                  6
                I don't believe I said that, but if you could show me where I did it would be appreciated. Hannity's quote cropping is not any indication of a conservative tilted media anymore than any other partisan commentator on any network. Conservative or liberal media bias is judged based on news coverage by what is supposed to be nonpartisan reporters. And the way those issues are reported and covered. Monitoring hack commentators every word is fine to get a bead on why they are hacks, but as proof of any media bias it is irrelevant.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Brabantio (July 09, 2009 3:30 pm ET)
                  5  
                  I didn't say you said it. You said that he made good points.

                  It's interesting to me how liberals can get all worked up over Hannity, whose show is obviously right leaning and an editorial, editing comments to fit his view and say nothing about the unbiased "news" on MSNBC, CNN and the big three.


                  Problem is you wouldn't see them through you liberal colored glasses. So instead you just come on Media Matters and call Hannity and Rush names because the typical liberal play book is to spread spread fear and call names, you know get everyone all fired up and emotional, because you can't win with a logical argument.


                  The very clear suggestion there is that Hannity shouldn't be criticized by liberals because there's supposedly liberal bias somewhere else. Any complaint about Hannity is just "call(ing) names" out of a need for an "emotional" argument. That sentiment is what you seem to be agreeing with, since that's the post you responded to. Obviously if there's a genuine complaint, as there is here, then there's no basis for claiming such a thing about liberals. It's a valid complaint to make, therefore there's a "logical argument" behind it. I'm curious as to how you're not seeing this.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by right ON (July 09, 2009 3:45 pm ET)
                      7
                    If you'd care to discuss what I specifically posted instead of another person's words, fine. I am not defending or trashing what justjoe said, I simply said he made good points and then went on to make my own about media bias.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Brabantio (July 09, 2009 3:51 pm ET)
                      5  
                      So you can't defend what he said, but you agree with it. I see.

                      Your agreement is what you "specifically posted", by the way. I didn't infer it. My question was how you can agree with such a ludicrous argument.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by right ON (July 09, 2009 3:57 pm ET)
                          6
                        So you can't offer up an intelligent argument to what I specifically posted about media bias in my post, I see.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Brabantio (July 09, 2009 4:04 pm ET)
                          5  
                          How would that be relevant to my point? Whether or not there's bias elsewhere in the media, it's valid to point out Hannity's dishonesty here. It doesn't assert anything about needing to make "emotional arguments" or anything else that joe said. Do you think that a commentary show has the right to deceptively edit quotes to suit its own purposes? No? Then why should it be considered strange that liberals object to such behavior, regardless of whether what you're saying is true or not?

                          You might as well be citing baseball scores and then acting all indignant that I'm not addressing what you're saying.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by right ON (July 09, 2009 4:23 pm ET)
                              5
                            I am being indignant because I am asking you to discuss what I wrote? As I have repeated, if you'd care to discuss my points, be my guest. If you'd care to discuss justjoe's points, then ask him, doesn't that make more sense? In fact, you didn't take issue with his post at all until I said he made good points. Why is that?
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Brabantio (July 09, 2009 4:34 pm ET)
                              5  
                              You can't really be this dense. You agreed with him, so what you said after that has nothing to do with it. If you just skimmed his post and picked up on the "liberals are bad" theme, then just responded "huhhhYUP!", then whatever. I guess that's the level of dialogue we can expect from you.

                              Four people replied to him already, for one thing. For another, there's nothing that prevents him from addressing my posts here. Finally, I hadn't read this thread at all until after you had agreed with him, so why should I post the same thing twice?
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by right ON (July 09, 2009 5:00 pm ET)
                                  6
                                Testy? If you have an issue you'd like to discuss with his opinions, then address him directly instead of trying to incite a third party argument with me. The only reason for that is that you found nothing in my post you could intelligently take issue with, there is no other explanation, at least not one that you have offered to convince me otherwise. So take your insults elsewhere.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by Brabantio (July 09, 2009 5:25 pm ET)
                                  6  
                                  Yes, you're not accountable for what you say. This conversation is eerily familiar.

                                  I'm not sure what difference it makes whether you are convinced of anything or not. I would have to believe that you were arguing in good faith for that to have any bearing on anything.
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by right ON (July 09, 2009 5:40 pm ET)
                                      5
                                    For somebody who just accused me of being dense, you now are asking me to be accountable for somebody else's entire post when I simply said they made good points. What is eerie, familiar or not, is your pitiful desperation for attention. And yes, if you want me to discuss something with you, you will have to convince me of the relevance of what you'd like to discuss, and you have failed. I am sorry.
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (July 09, 2009 5:44 pm ET)
                                      4  
                                      Tommy's doing his usual back-pedaling and parsing. Don't let his density derail the topic, because he'll keep going until he clocks out for the day.
                                      Report Abuse
                                    • Author by Brabantio (July 09, 2009 6:37 pm ET)
                                      4  
                                      If you agree with someone, you're accountable for that expression, just like any other. If someone made a homophobic post, then someone else agreed with it, you wouldn't question the opinion of the person who thought the homophobe was making good points? You wouldn't want to know what precisely was supposed to be a good point within the bigoted post? I don't buy it.

                                      And relevance? Seriously? I'd love to see your argument that what you said isn't relevant to my questioning of what you said.
                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by right ON (July 09, 2009 6:43 pm ET)
                                          4
                                        Below is my post that has all you flustered, this is what followed my telling justjoe that he made good points. Please tell me what you'd like to discuss about what I wrote below? That would be relevant. justjoes post is not. As I said, argue with him. Why you insist on arguing with me what he originally wrote is beyond me. No matter how many times you try and word it, it makes no sense. Ask him, go ahead, don't be afraid. Ask him.

                                        "And the funny thing is many liberals around here use Hannity and O'Reilly as some backup proof of a conservative tilted media. It's ridiculous. They are commentators and their one-sided opinions mean nothing, they are not unbiased newscasters, they are partisan hacks with TV shows on a rightwing network. The media, the mainstream journalists and news reporters are decidedly liberal and have always had a leftist slant, for generations. Look at who they vote for and what party they belong too. Look at how they cover illegal immigration, taxes, global warming - always sympathetic to the liberal point of view. We are not talking about hack commentators on TV, Olbermann and Maddow included. We are talking about what is supposed to unbiased news reporting. Liberal"
                                        Report Abuse
                                        • Author by Brabantio (July 09, 2009 6:52 pm ET)
                                          3  
                                          You can't really be this dense. You agreed with him, so what you said after that has nothing to do with it.


                                          That's what I said earlier. So now you think it means something to repost everything you said after you agreed with him. Incredible.

                                          Meanwhile, you're not explaining why you're not supposed to be accountable for expressing agreement with his sentiments. That agreement is your opinion. That can't be too complex for you, if you know how to turn on your computer.
                                          Report Abuse
                                          • Author by robyn20094113 (July 10, 2009 12:31 am ET)
                                            2  
                                            That can't be too complex for you
                                            Yes, yes, yes it can be! He has proved that over and over again.

                                            I think he or she must be a Fox employee toying with you. No one is that stupid.
                                            Report Abuse
                • Author by IRONY 101 (July 09, 2009 3:38 pm ET)
                  4  
                  It is one thing to offer partisan commentary...giving opinion as to what certain facts mean. It is quite another to make up facts to suit an argument as people on FOX, news people and commentators alike, frequently do. I honestly don't see this method of fabrication in the so-called liberal media. You may disagree with their spin, but I find factual reporting in the MSM light years ahead of the right wing media.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by skepticplease (July 09, 2009 3:19 pm ET)
              1  
              Perhaps that tilt is more convincing if you consider all of the talking heads from right-wing think tanks allowed on panels as experts. As soon as you hear the words "senior fellow," put on your skeptic's cap. It is frightening how often "think-tanks" like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute and their "studies" are presented as unbiased sources of valuable information.

              It's true that O'Reilly, Hannity, Rush, and their ilk are merely silly entertainers, but it's frightening to, for example, listen to their talking points on the radio on the way to the golf course and hear them being parroted righteously only moments later at the clubhouse.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by robyn20094113 (July 10, 2009 12:40 am ET)
                2  
                hear them being parroted righteously only moments later at the clubhouse
                and everywhere else. The schools, post office, grocery store, hairdresser, dentist, doctors, neighbors and they do influence votes for important government offices. That is scary and more than just entertainment.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by harley (July 09, 2009 3:21 pm ET)
              2  
              Look at how they cover illegal immigration, taxes, global warming - always sympathetic to the liberal point of view.

              Prove it.

              Thanks

              We'll wait....as usual....
              Report Abuse
              • Author by right ON (July 09, 2009 3:27 pm ET)
                  7
                I will do what liberals around here do when they are asked to prove one of their assertions, oh wait, they are never asked. Never mind. You will just have to take my word for it, if not, too bad.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by IRONY 101 (July 09, 2009 3:46 pm ET)
                  5  
                  You mean we should have just taken the word of the right wing spin machine when they said that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11? That Saddam had WMD? That Barack Obama doesn't have a valid birth certificate? That Barack Obama was best friends with Bill Ayers? That Obama and Ayers conspired to bring down the USA? That the stimulus bill provided for a frisbee park in Austin, Texas? You want me to go one...?
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by Craig (July 09, 2009 5:19 pm ET)
                  4  
                  Asking for proof is a bit much. Asking for evidence isn't.

                  This website is loaded with examples and analysis showing the mainstream, so-called liberal, media is anything but when it comes to the issues you mentioned.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by right ON (July 09, 2009 5:58 pm ET)
                      4
                    If this website included examples from more than just one side of the spectrum I would agree with you. But they only show one side, so to use them as any backup for an argument on media bias is like Hannity supporters using him as their source for liberal policies.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Craig (July 09, 2009 6:09 pm ET)
                      4  
                      MediaMatters features not just examples, but analysis that shows conservative media bias. Also, unlike Hannity, they don't lie.

                      But if you want something else, how about a study from Eric Pooley on climate reporting in the wake of the debate on the Lieberman-Warner bill:
                      ...for most reporters covering this story, the default role was that of stenographer-presenting a nominally balanced view of the debate without questioning the validity of the arguments, sometimes even ignoring evidence that one side was twisting truth.


                      Guess which side. More:

                      The media's collective decision to play the stenographer role actually helped opponents of climate action stifle progress.

                      Doesn't sound liberal to me.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by justjoe628 (July 09, 2009 7:22 pm ET)
                          2
                        That's again, not proof of anything. Those are not statements of fact, but are meerly statments of opinion by Eric Pooley. He can call it a "study", but it's still his opinion. How does he know one side had twisted the truth? Is he a global warming expert and therefore knows they twisted the truth and the media just let em' do it. How does he know that "for most reporters" they were just stenographers? Did he interview the reporters and they said, "Oh, well I'm just a stenographer and even if I know it's wrong I'm still gonna put it in my piece." How does he know that their role as "stenographer", helped opponents? He knows it because he was told someones elses opinion as fact and he believed it. And conservatives are the mindless followers???
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Craig (July 09, 2009 9:35 pm ET)
                          2  
                          I never said it was proof. I said it was evidence. Compelling evidence that the mainstream media does not have a liberal bias in reporting on climate change.

                          The full report is here (pdf). It's not opinion. It's expert analysis. I know you wingnuts don't care too much for that.
                          Report Abuse
                • Author by solon (July 09, 2009 5:33 pm ET)
                  4  
                  I have been asked for evidence MANY TIMES often of things we have already shown evidence of MANY TIMES. I give it and usually the cons slip quietly away then come back and make the same claims I have already refuted.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (July 09, 2009 5:46 pm ET)
                  3  
                  I will do what liberals around here do when they are asked to prove one of their assertions, oh wait, they are never asked.
                  What the hell are you talking about, Tommy? Every article here provides proof with facts and citations. Where is the con equivalent? It doesn't exist.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by right ON (July 09, 2009 5:49 pm ET)
                      4
                    So your backup for a conservative media bias is what you read on this website? Bravo, best post of the day award to you for that. LOL!
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Craig (July 09, 2009 5:58 pm ET)
                      5  
                      Yeah, his citing a website that archives tons of examples of conservative media bias is so much less impressive than your feeling that the media has a liberal bias.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by right ON (July 09, 2009 6:12 pm ET)
                        1 4
                        So you want to go toe to toe on media monitoring websites that only offer one biased side of the story as proof of anything? As I said, Hannity's tons of archival lies are not examples of conservative media bias. I know the left is fixated on these people, but their opinions are just that, no media bias.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Craig (July 09, 2009 6:19 pm ET)
                          4  
                          A Brookings Institution report on media coverage of the immigration debate:

                          The U.S. media have hindered effective policy making on immigration for decades, and their impact has been increasing in recent years as a result of an ongoing evolution in the media industry. Deeply ingrained practices in American journalism have produced a narrative that conditions the public to associate immigration with illegality, crisis, controversy and government failure. Meanwhile, new voices of advocacy on the media landscape have succeeded in mobilizing segments of the public in opposition to policy initiatives, sometimes by exaggerating the narrative of immigration told by traditional news organizations. The combined effect is to promote stalemate on an issue that is inherently difficult to resolve.


                          Again, not liberal. Still waiting your evidence of liberal media bias.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by justjoe628 (July 09, 2009 7:08 pm ET)
                              3
                            But those are all opinion statements. That is the opinion of the Brookings Institution. There was not one statement of fact in that whole piece. How does that prove anything. Facts say, out of X number of stories Y number said this and Z number said that. Its not fact just because Brookings said it or because Media Matters gave you half of a quote that disagrees with what Hannity said, no more than I simply take everything Hannity says and believe it. Opinion is opinion and fact is fact and you have to learn the differnce, because thats not it.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Craig (July 09, 2009 9:46 pm ET)
                              3  
                              Again, the full study is here (pdf). Not just opinion, expert analysis showing how bad media behavior makes the difficult problem of immigration reform even more intractable.

                              I'm still waiting on evidence of liberal media bias on these issues.
                              Report Abuse
            • Author by Old_Benjamin (July 09, 2009 3:24 pm ET)
              3 1
              Look at who they vote for and what party they belong too. WRONGOFF

              While you are at it, why not look at those for whom these "liberal" reporters work. Monied elites looking to protect their interests. I wonder who the reporter may skew a story in favour of? The political party they are aligned with, or theose folks in the excutive suites that sign the pay cheques?
              Report Abuse
            • Author by jmille426471 (July 09, 2009 4:36 pm ET)
              2  
              Right-wingers who charge libera media bias always examine the political views of those reporting the news, rather than what they actually report. And never mind the fact that editors, you know, the people who really control the news, are for the most part conservative. Furthermore, these editors serve under chief editors, who serve CEOs of vast conglomerate corporations, with countless corporate sponsors. Have you ever thought these corporate instutions might not have a deep desire to provide a liberal slant to the news? As Eric Alterman says, your only as liberal as the man who owns you.

              And of course you right-wingers can retreat to your own crappy "news" sources wherever you are, be it fox, talk radio or your imbecilic mags and newspapers. Liberals just don't have that kind of noise machine. But you'll never be satisfied; everyone must live in the twisted right-wing universe.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by John Paradox (July 09, 2009 5:08 pm ET)
                1  
                There was - I believe it was a few years ago - a look at 'liberal bias' by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting at fair.org) that looked at the claims of bias. Now, some wingnuts will point out that FAIR is the 'liberal' equivalent of AIM (Accuracy In Media, a right wing site), but until I let my subscription to their magazine expire ($), I would see in each issue a look at now many 'conservatives' and 'progressives' appeared on various shows (e.g. Meet The Press, etc. - non wingnut sources), and the balance was mostly to the Right.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by jmille426471 (July 09, 2009 8:47 pm ET)
                  2  
                  Yeah, liberal bias in the media is kind of a self-sustaining myth. Anyone who points out what a fraud it is immediately becomes part of the liberal media conspiracy. God help these people, they are impervious to evidence.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (July 09, 2009 5:22 pm ET)
              5  
              Baloney. First of all can you tell the difference between having a bias and being dishonest? MMFA isnt taking Hannity to task for having a bias but for cutting a comment and then dishonestly criticising it. He cut something then attacked Obama for not saying what he cut out. That isnt bias that is LYING. That is dishonest. Its sad you are so brainwashed that to you those two things are the same. Then you regurgitate the old Liberal media BS. I am a liberal and the media has NEVER pushed my point of view. Where was the liberal media when the entire media was pushing the runup to the Iraq war like cheerleaders? That wasnt very liberal. When they refused to call Bush on his frequent lies? When they tried to burry the Downing Street memo. We KNOW you have been programmed like the propaganda parrot you are...SSKKKKWWWWWAAAAAAAKKKK liberal media. SKKKWWWAAAAAAAKKKKKKK the media is liberal. SSSSKKKKKWWWWAAAAAAAAKKKKKKKK Fox is fair liberal media. Its ludicrous on the face of it
              Report Abuse
          • Author by skepticplease (July 09, 2009 3:05 pm ET)
            2  
            Here's some logic for you. Find some examples of Republicans refuting assertions or challenges made by Media Matters by showing that that Media Matters was wrong. Prepare to be discouraged as you wade through reams of name-calling and fear-mongering by your republican victims.

            And here's some more. If name-calling and fear-spreading are from "the typical liberal play book," the real story here is that liberals have stolen and co-opted Hannity's and Rush's magnum opus!

            You are projecting, justjoe.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by mikehuck1976 (July 09, 2009 5:07 pm ET)
            4 1
            Is it possible joe that your anger at Media Matters is that they are always able to back up their statements with actual evidence? Clearly you are unable to find any evidence to support your suppositions or we would have seen them by now. However, they seem to back theirs up with facts each time. Is that what is making you so sad, mad, etc., etc.?
            Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (July 09, 2009 1:36 pm ET)
          3  
          Speaking of torture, when is cowardly sean gonna take keith up on the torture bet?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by princeofwheels (July 09, 2009 2:02 pm ET)
            2  
            By next week, he'll have a clip stating he never said it.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by John Paradox (July 09, 2009 5:09 pm ET)
              1  
              By next week, he'll have a<B>n edited</B> clip stating he never said it.

              Just making the point a little more obvious.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by skepticplease (July 09, 2009 1:12 pm ET)
        4  
        A good place to start for proponents of the existence of a "liberal media" is The Republican Noise Machine by David Brock. Despite forty years of attempting to prove liberal bias, no proof has been put forward. None. Check it out for yourself. We are not getting the information we need to make well-informed decisions (no matter what your political bent). It's time to end this cute little liberal versus conservative crap. Doesn't it bother you that these guys NEVER question the truth of Media Matters challenges? They just attack them as Nazis and Communists.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by puttforever4682 (July 09, 2009 1:20 pm ET)
        1  
        There is mo legitimacy to Hannity, since his dishonest mangling of video and audio clips only serves his own warped view.

        The so called liberal media is a myth that the right wing has been promulgating for decades. Try reading (if only the introduction) "What Liberal Media" by Eric Alterman.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by smarshall1432997 (July 09, 2009 1:26 pm ET)
        2  
        Liberals, Progressives, and Independents are "NOT" fooled by Hannity's and FoxNews Channel's nasty manipulations anymore, just look at the ratings for the past two weeks.

        FoxNews Channel lost out to CNN and MSNBC over these past two weeks. Now, they (Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O.) have become desperate and their nasty tactics are out of the bag as they try to re-gain the #1 spot in the cable world. When people become desperate they make lots of mistakes and FoxNews Channel is becoming more like a 'tabloid' news channel just for high ratings. LOL

        Report Abuse
      • Author by harley (July 09, 2009 1:49 pm ET)
        3  
        They've been taking giving us one side of the story and cutting up conservative comments and then feeding it to us as legitimate news for years.
        Please provide proof. Thanks
        Report Abuse
      • Author by skepticplease (July 09, 2009 2:02 pm ET)
        3  
        Not a single study confirms what you claim. This is a red herring repeated so often over the last forty years that it is considered a fact and accepted even by many liberals. The reason to get worked up is not because he gives opinions. It's because he presents misleading, dishonest, illogical, and false statements as fact over and over and over. The American people should stand up and say that this disqualifies him from his privileged place on OUR airwaves. Or rather than labeling as thugs people who correct him, he might give us the proof that they are wrong and he is right.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by kydem09 (July 09, 2009 4:16 pm ET)
          2
        I am not a liberal. I am a moderate and have seen Hannity's show for myself. Can't stomach it. Just as I believe Hannity is too right-wing ideological, I also think Keith Olbermann is too left-wing ideological. They are cut of the same cloth; Hannity from the right side of the cloth and Olbermann from the left side of the cloth. At least, as I said above, Hannity presents opposing points of view, which is a heck of a lot more than I can say for Olbermann. I'm not sure Olbermann would recognize an opposing point of view if it jumped up and bit him in the . . .
        Report Abuse
        • Author by robyn20094113 (July 10, 2009 1:09 am ET)
          1  
          Hannity presents opposing points of view..
          They are not the same type of show. Please inform us of Olbermann's lies. Hannity's list of lies is public and endless. Olbermann would challenge Hannity to and IQ test any day, and he would win hands down. There is simply no question who is the most intelligent and educated of the two. Also there is no comparison of the integrity between the two. Hannity has no integrity or honor period. He proved that with the waterboarding challenge. That is just one example of how shameless he is.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by jwcoop715110 (July 10, 2009 12:34 pm ET)
          2  
          Ah, the ol' false equivalency song and dance. Nice try. No sale.

          Again, as has been demonstrated here time and time again, hannity just makes stuff up. If you've got specific, factual gripes against KO, feel free to fail to cough them up like you clueless cons are apt to do.

          There's no comparison between the two.

          As shrub's eight-year reign of error proved over and over again, the media doesn't have a liberal bias, the facts do.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (July 09, 2009 5:16 pm ET)
        5  
        You just spewed out flat out lies there. The networks still dwarf Fox ratings. You are simply brainwashed and uninformed
        Report Abuse
    • Author by historygeek001 (July 09, 2009 12:50 pm ET)
      1  
      Where are the normal apologists and dittoheads? I'm curious to hear their justification of this.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (July 09, 2009 12:56 pm ET)
        1  
        There is no justification to be asserted. The best they dish out is "Oh, yea...well so's your old man." But, in terms of partisan dishonesty is there anyone in the MSM comparable to Hannity? I think not.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by justjoe628 (July 09, 2009 1:17 pm ET)
            6
          I ceratinly don't justify it. If Hannity is being dishonest he should correct the issue. Conservatives should have to lie to point out the flaws in liberalism. But it reminds me of how President Obama justified the criticism of his record breaking deficit by pointing out President Bush's $955B deficit. Two wrongs must make a right?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by foghornleghorn (July 09, 2009 1:31 pm ET)
            4 1
            Yet another false equivalency. Bush's deficits were due to an unjust war and tax cuts for the rich. Obama's deficits are an attempt to avert a depression.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by LuvLuLu (July 09, 2009 1:44 pm ET)
            7  
            Voluntarily choosing tax breaks when he should have chosen to try to pay down the debt, just in case we had to go to war, or had an economic crisis? Bush

            Continuing and expanding those tax cuts after we had an economic slowdown due to 9/11? Bush

            Continuing tax cuts after we were in a deficit position and beginning to wage a war? Bush

            Trying to keep our nation's economy out of a depression? Obama

            The Stimulus bill was a necessary bill. If Bush hadn't waged a voluntary war, and hadn't handed out tax cuts to the richest of the rich, his Stimulus bill wouldn't be very painful at all.

            It's not his "fault" that he had to react to the economic circumstances we find ourselves in.

            It IS Bush's fault that he chose to give tax cuts instead of paying down the national debt (being shortsighted in helping out rich taxpayers in the present and screwing taxpayers of the future), waging a war or dealing with a recession. It is Bush's fault. How can you have missed this factual info.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by harley (July 09, 2009 1:51 pm ET)
            4  
            Conservatives should have to lie to point out the flaws in liberalism

            Only a reich-winger could possibly believe this makes sense.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by princeofwheels (July 09, 2009 2:02 pm ET)
              4  
              Did I really read the same thing? I didn't think my eyes were working. Actuaaly, you can remove the words 'SHOULD HAVE TO' and then it would make better sense.
              CONSERVATIVES LIE TO POINT OUT THE FLAWS IN LIBERALISM.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Conchobhar (July 09, 2009 5:22 pm ET)
                4  
                Even better, "Conservatives HAVE to lie, etc." Although, let's not get to far ahead of ourselves. Liberalism, like every human creation, has actual flaws. However, I'll take liberalism, with all its flaws, over conservatism any day. As Emerson wrote, toward the end of his life, conservatism is imbued at the core with a certain meanness, and an unwarranted feeling of superiority.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by justjoe628 (July 09, 2009 3:20 pm ET)
                3
              Reich-winger, wingnuts etc. etc. Exactly what i'm referring to. The problem with the liberal they can't engage in a good debate without name calling. I guess it's part of being lead by your emotions rather than by logic and fact.
              Here's a fact pointed out to Charlie Gibson (which really suprises me). He asked President Obama in a pre-election interview about capital gains tax. He wanted to know if in light of the fact that 3 of the last 4 president (Reagan, Clinton and 43) lowed the tax with a subsequent INCREASE in revenue from that tax, if he would be willing to also cut that tax. He wouldn't really answer, and now he's talking of raising taxes on the rich. Is it really about cutting deficits or is it about class warfare, because the little guy is alway for raising taxes on the rich and since there are way more little guys who vote than rich who vote....well, you get the idea. It's doesn't matter that per the IRS web site (there's a fact you can look up), that the top 5% pay 68% of the taxes.
              Same way with issues of race, gays and immigration, because my views aren't the same as yours I'm a racist and intolerant. So I'm only tolerant if I believe what you believe. Just because I believe marriage should be between and man and a woman, I'm intolerant. I have a few friends who are gay, they don't mind my point of view. I don't think they should be discriminated because they are gay. I don't think that someone should recieve special consideration because of their race. I am not naive enough to think that racism does not exist, but just because someone says something you don't like doesn't make them a racist. If we are going to end racism, then end it. Stop racial preference. My brother-in-law and my 5 nieces and nephew who are black think uncle Joey is an alright guy. One neice is in college and the other will be soon. They got good grades and an excellent SAT score so they got into good schools with scholarships. Not because they were black but because they tried. I'm not a racist just because I thinks that immigration in this county needs to be done legally and responsibly. If you are in this county you need to be paying taxes like I am. My partner on the ambulance in Houston who is from Mexico agrees with me. I'm not a racist and I'm not intolerant, I just stand up for what I believe in . Class warfare, I seem remember some guy named Hitler and Marx who did the same thing.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by historygeek001 (July 10, 2009 1:32 pm ET)
                3  
                First, look up how much of the wealth in this country is actually owned by the top 5%. Taxing the wealthy makes sense, and they're paying less now than they did under Reagan.

                If you're against gay marriage, you ARE intolerant. You don't want them to have literally hundreds of legal rights that are included in marriage just because they are gay. This is not a religious issue, it will have no effect at all on anybody else's marriage, and it is not in any way leading to any of the false equivalencies people on the right typically spout. It is a civil rights issue. The same arguments are being used today against gay marriage that used to be used to justify "racial purity" laws forbidding inter-racial marriage. They were wrong then and they're wrong now.

                Until there is no institutionalized racism, we need affirmative action. Anecdotes about family members who are black have nothing to do with this. I don't know anybody who is claiming that non-whites should get promotions without working for them; that's a claim made by people who either don't understand affirmative action or just don't like the idea that non-whites can get promotions.

                You're absolutely right when you say that wanting responsible immigration doesn't make you racist, but don't simply say it's because of taxes; many illegal immigrants get false SSN's and do pay taxes. I don't support illegal immigration, but I think that the primary blame does not lie with the immigrants, it lies with those who hire them. If they weren't hiring, the immigrants would stop coming; they're here for jobs.

                Class warfare has been going on here for decades, but from the top down. Throwing out Hitler and Marx is, again, a false equivalency. Taxing the rich is not class warfare; putting the primary burden on the non-wealthy, who cannot afford it the way the wealthy can, IS. According to Congress, 2/3 of American corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 to 2005. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080812/ap_on_bi_ge/corporations_income_tax Corporations are getting rights individuals don't have and they're not paying their taxes. If you're truly against class warfare you should be upset by this.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by justjoe628 (July 10, 2009 5:03 pm ET)
                    1
                  Why does taxing the rich make sense? Is the government Robin Hood and America has become Sherwood forest? Why can't we balance the budget by cutting spending, then we wouldn't have to raise taxes on anyone. When the top 5% are already paying almost 70% that means the bottom 95% are paying 30%. 70 v. 30! Who's bearing the primary burden? You don't think thats a bit disproportionate? And I'm certainly not getting rich working for Houston Fire Department, but I think fair is fair. And I'm MUCH closer to the 30%. Corporations not paying taxes is a whole other issue. It's not the same as raising taxes on someone JUST because they are rich. Corporations should meet their responsibilities.

                  Liberal definition of tolerance - believe exactly what I tell you to believe. Have no opinion of your own because if it doesn't match ours we'll call you a racist, a bigot and intolerant. Well, I guess I'll just have to be intolerant.

                  The way to end racism and racial preferences is to....eliminate them. Once again, I'm not naive enough to think that racism does not exist, but giving someone preference based on race is wrong, either way it goes. How was it going to be fair to those New Haven firefighters, who took months out of their lives to study for promotion, to be denied advancement JUST because no blacks and few lationos passed the exam. I see blacks and latinos in Houston pass them and get promoted all the time. In fact a black woman just came out #1 on the captains exam. Let's admit people to college based on grades, not race. Let's hire and promote people based on merit, not race. And just because I believe that, does not make me a racist.

                  Finally, illegal immigration is a HUGE burden on our tax system. Historygeek, I don't know where you live, but in Houston and Harris county it costs tax payers millions to provide healthcare and to educate illegal immigrants. Sure they pay sales tax when they buy things, but very few pay income taxes. Look at any ER in Houston and you'll see a lobby full of illegal immigrants. That's a cost the the local hospitals and hospital disctrict just have to absorb. How much more money could be redirected to other worthwhile projects in out school districts if we didn't have to spend the money to spend illegal immigrants english or have bilingual education. And then there is the criminal element. 3 of the last 4 Houston police officers killed in the line of duty were by illegal immigrants. It does not make me a racist to think that immigration needs to be done in a responsible manner and the only way to do that is to start from scatch. I do agree that the first place to start is with the companies who employ them.

                  My point is just because I'm a conservative and believe in less goernemtn involvement in my life does not make me intolerant or racist or a bigot. I just makes me...wel....right.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by LuvLuLu (July 11, 2009 3:42 pm ET)
                    1  
                    The people who can best afford to pay taxes should pay them. Rich people could afford to pay a lot higher percentage than they do now. Poor and many middle class people can't really afford to pay any more in taxes, so stop with this whining about how much rich people pay in taxes. They still have more than enough money.

                    You won't be right in your lifetime with the way you're going. Illegal immigrants pay more in taxes than they get back in benefits. That's been proven. Yes, in some ways, in individual communities, it costs them more than those communities get back, but how much MORE would it cost the people who live in those communities if employers had to pay American citizens living wages to do work that they currently pay minimal wages to illegal immigrants now? Don't you realize how much better off our economy is because we have those low wage earner jobs here in the US instead of those same jobs being filled with Americans who would make even more money and therefore have the price of goods go up significantly?
                    Report Abuse
          • Author by friedbergboy1422 (July 09, 2009 2:38 pm ET)
            2  
            Love the Freudian slip or word omission in your quote, joe:

            "Conservatives should have to lie to point out the flaws in liberalism."

            I am guessing you forgot the word "not," but its a hilarious slip.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by MikeW67 (July 09, 2009 1:37 pm ET)
      2  
      More Americans are on to the lies of Fox News, thanks to Media Matters and the Progressive WWW!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by MrBrown (July 09, 2009 2:37 pm ET)
      2  
      Luv how Sean gets up on his imaginary high horse when he thinks Liberals are blaming America first. In his world (similar to Billo's) America has NEVER done any wrong in its years of existence. Some may think it unpatriotic to call out your own country, but its no different than holding your government officials accountable for their failings as well.

      But the black eyes on our nation, are usually the fault of the very same people who wind up and punch America in the face to begin with, with things like wars of CHOICE!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by micost51 (July 09, 2009 3:48 pm ET)
      1  
      Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter et al have probably done more to cripple the ability of the body politic to make important decisions than Joseph Goebbles did for the Nazis. Time and again, they call upon us to view all government actions as suspicious or evil, and those not of our social circles as enemies. They do so not because they love and trust, but because they dislike and fear most mainstream Americans.

      I once had to cover O'Reilly's fundraising appearance before an adoring audience in Rochester NY. He began fairly quietly, then built up to an angry diatribe about liberals and others who might not pray at his alter, while avoiding even the pretense of logical argumentation. When he ended, he strutted off the dais like a thug looking for a fistfight--accompanied by his bodyguard, of course. The thunderous applause from the well-fed men and big-haired women in the audience made me nauseous.

      Challenge any of these "commentators"--most admit they aren't journalists--on any point, no matter how valid, and their thin skins pull back to reveal fear and rage. These folks have radio or TV audiences only because Ronald Reagan did away with the Fairness Doctrine. Had he not done so, they'd be shown for what they are whenever they opened their mouiths.

      Are these the kinds of people who should have the ear of the public? Are they the kinds of folks who should guide our country with their mouths?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by loislap (July 09, 2009 4:46 pm ET)
      4  
      Hannity then said: "And the liberal tradition of blame America first, well, that's still alive."

      As is the Hannity tradition of making it seem as if a "Liberal tradition of Blaming America first" actually exists,rather than say,the healthy introspective and truly patriotic belief in a just and benevolent America Liberals actually deeply yearn for in the face of an avalanche of radical right wing bigotry and misinformation.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Conchobhar (July 09, 2009 5:25 pm ET)
        2  
        Right. To openly work to have your country actually live up to its ideals is to "Blame America First."
        Report Abuse
    • Author by jayhammers (July 10, 2009 7:36 am ET)
         
      Why isn't intentional misrepresentation of someone's speech in order to defame them considered libel? I believe cropping speech to intentionally misrepresent it should be against the law. Conservatives lie constantly in an attempt to swing ignorant voters their way. It's not good for democracy.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by rnnyhoff (July 10, 2009 9:25 am ET)
      1  
      Having just witnessed the utter and shameless edit of the answers provided by President Barack Obama by a presumed journalist and demagogue, Sean Hannity, it is apparent that what Mr. Hannity claims about our President -- his insidious hatred for the United States -- is practiced by him in a country that allows this incendiary expression through its 1st constitutional amendment.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.