About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Hannity reasserts control over Fox News' witch hunt of Obama appointees

September 22, 2009 8:59 am ET — 18 Comments

On his Fox News program, Sean Hannity aired a list of "10 people who President Obama has appointed or nominated to work on your behalf in your government," and asked, "Should any of them be fired?" Hannity's case for dismissing the advisers largely consisted of false attacks, distortions, and trivial guilt by association.

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

After going through "entire list," Hannity asks, "Should any of them be fired?"

From the September 18 edition of Fox News' Hannity:

HANNITY: And over the past few months we have sounded the alarm about the White House's green jobs czar, Van Jones, who was forced to step down just weeks ago.

JONES [video clip]: This moment is deeper than a solar panel. Deeper than a solar panel. Don't stop there. Don't stop there. No, we're going to change the whole system. We're going to change the whole thing. We're not going to put a new battery in a broken system. We want a new system.

HANNITY: But those men are just the tip of the iceberg. Now, tonight we bring you a special report about 10 people who President Obama has appointed or nominated to work on your behalf in your government. Now you judge for yourself: Are the president's 10 representative of your vision for America?

[...]

Now, you've heard the entire list. Folks, don't go anywhere, because coming up next, we have a very, very special edition of our great, "Great American Panel." They're going to react to the president's top 10. And you've got to ask yourself the question: Should any of them be fired?

Hannity's case against top 10 list is largely based on falsehoods, distortions, and trivial guilt by association

Hannity claims Carol Browner supports "redistribution of wealth" because of link to an international federation of progressive political parties. Referring to Obama administration energy official Carol Browner, Hannity said:

HANNITY: Now, The Washington Times reports that, as recently as December 2008, Browner's name appeared as one of the directors of the group Socialist International. Now, the group's own website proclaims that they support a, quote, "new world order to replace the current concentration of power in a few economic hands." Well, that sounds like redistribution of wealth, now, doesn't it?

As Media Matters for America has noted, Socialist International is an international federation of progressive parties that includes the British and Israeli Labor parties as constituent members.

Hannity distorts Rosa Brooks' statement on Al Qaeda. Hannity stated: "Now, during her previous career as a columnist for the L.A. Times, [Defense Department official Rosa Brooks] wrote a July 2007 column claiming that before 9-11 Al Qaeda was a little more than obscure group of extremist thugs and that U.S. policies have since turned them into a vast global threat. So I guess she's suggesting it was our fault." In fact, in her July 20, 2007, Los Angeles Times op-ed, Brooks attributed to "most experts" the conclusion that Al Qaeda "was little more than an obscure group of extremist thugs." She also wrote that the group was "well financed and intermittently lethal" in 2001.

Hannity alleges that Mark Lloyd's position on corporate and public broadcasting "sounds like something that may happen in Venezuela." Hannity asserted of Federal Communications Commission chief diversity officer Mark Lloyd: "Now, The Wall Street Journal reports that Lloyd has criticized corporate ownership of media and has advocated taxing station owners to subsidize public broadcasters. And if that sounds like something that may happen in Venezuela, well, you may be right."

Hannity links David Hamilton to recent ACORN videos based on one month of fundraising he did for ACORN in 1979. Hannity declared: "Now, besides once being a board member of the Indiana ACLU, [Obama's 7th Circuit Court of Appeals nominee David] Hamilton was also a one-time fundraiser for -- you guessed it -- the group ACORN. By the way, I wonder what he thinks of all the videotapes that have been released in the past week." However, Hamilton's work for ACORN reportedly consisted of "raising contributions door-to-door for the advocacy group ACORN for one month after college" in 1979, as Media Matters has noted.

Hannity advances dubious claim that Harold Koh may believe "we should also apply Sharia law here in the United States." Hannity stated that State Department legal adviser Harold Koh "advocates a, quote, 'transnational legal process,' meaning that judges should not follow American law when making decisions but also follow global, quote, 'norms.' " Hannity added: "Now, does he think we should also apply Sharia law here in the United States?" Hannity has previously asserted as fact that Koh "advocates the use of Sharia law in America." But that characterization -- originated by a lawyer who claimed that at a 2007 event, Koh said that Sharia law "could, in an appropriate instance ... govern a controversy in a federal or state court in the US" -- has been disputed by both the host of the event where Koh purportedly spoke about Sharia law and by Koh himself.

Notorious Clinton-basher Hannity puts Samantha Power on the list for calling Clinton a "monster." Hannity said that National Security Council adviser Samantha Power "had been a foreign policy adviser during the campaign until she referred to then-Senator Hillary Clinton as a, quote, 'monster' and was fired. But now she's back. And by the way, I wonder if she and Hillary made up and are having coffee together." Hannity -- who has previously said that "demoniz[ing]" Clinton is "my job" and repeatedly smeared her -- provided no other justification for including Power on the list.

Hannity distorts Cass Sunstein's position, falsely claims he supports "basically creating a nation of forced organ donors." Hannity falsely claimed that Cass Sunstein, Obama's nominee to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has said that "the state should own the organs of the deceased, basically creating a nation of forced organ donors." In fact, Sunstein recommended that states should consider either presumed consent or mandated choices, policies he said would save lives while "preserving freedom." Under "presumed consent" policy, citizens "would be presumed to be consenting donors" and could "easily" opt-out. Under a "mandated choice" policy, individuals could be required to make their preference known in order to renew their driver's license.

Hannity claimed John Holdren has "come close to advancing" theories that "kind of sound like forced sterilization." Hannity asserted that White House science and technology adviser John Holdren has "written about population control and has come close to advancing some very unusual theories, including the idea that sterilization capsules could be implanted in people when they reach puberty or by spiking drinking water with chemicals to prevent pregnancy. Now, doesn't it kind of sound like forced sterilization? It does to me." Hannity has previously claimed that Holdren "spoke out in defense of compulsory abortion and sterilization." But Holdren never advocated for any kind of involuntary birth control; he co-authored an environmental sciences book more than 30 years ago that discusses "compulsory control of family size" including sterilization as a possible consequence for countries whose expanding birth rates are not curbed by "milder methods."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by all your eyes (September 22, 2009 9:40 am ET)
      5 1
      I maintain that Fox News in general, and Hannity in particular, are actually helpful to Obama and the Democrats. Most Americans, when flipping through channels Hannity enters their lives, and any discerning individual with limited knowledge most likely would assume that whatever Hannity says, the opposite must be true. Such is the nature of his unwitting self-parody.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (September 22, 2009 10:36 am ET)
        6  
        I agree in theory, but I think you overestimate the intelligence of the average american.

        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Just my take on it
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Midnight Kevin (September 22, 2009 11:44 am ET)
        2  
        I m unsure of that assessment. I have talked to many people that cite various headlines from Fox News. Several people at my workplace have told me horror stories about Obama's "czars"... and some of these people are somewhat educated.

        I fear that given enough time with a story, Fox and make it seem legitimate to a point where one forgets the origin of such story.

        I watch Fox News and I laugh it off, then go online and research. The people I have talked to said they do the same thing, but they begin by following cues from Hannity and Glenn Beck... they visit their distorted sites first. When I cited factual information to some people, I was told once that the WHO is a liberal commie organization, and when I cited other information, I was told that the internet does not have the truth... these are Fox's viewers, and I am afraid that there are many Americans who share these opinions, either because they are ignorant or because they are told to believe so from Fox.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by blk-in-alabam (September 23, 2009 5:35 am ET)
          1  
          No matter how educated,what you want to believe overrules.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by MiddleLeft (September 23, 2009 3:01 pm ET)
            1 1
            No matter how educated,what you want to believe overrules.

            Except for one group of educated persons. Scientists and engineers are fairly strongly based in a reality world (except for a few crackpots). In the other areas though I have seen college educated professionals, politicians, airline pilots willing to use cell phones, GPS, heart transplant, antibiotics, etc. but they believe the world is 6000 years old, a talking snake convinced the first woman to eat forbidden fruit, and scientist are all wrong about CO2 and global warming.


            Report Abuse
    • Author by EducatedRants (September 22, 2009 9:49 am ET)
      1  
      Hannity is just upset because he made himself so irrelevant to the lunatic fringe ages ago. The only thing that kept his show afloat was Colmes, as sad as that is. He's not crazy enough to carry Beck's viewers and he's not high enough to cater to Limbaugh's crowd. All he can do now is try to ride their coattails and not get crushed in the process
      Report Abuse
    • Author by HumblePie (September 22, 2009 10:01 am ET)
      3  
      Fox is on the road to self-destruction, unless the reel it in. Hannity is trying to one-up himself over Beck. They're attracting fringers, who enjoy the rhetoric of hate.

      In the long run, that ship loses steam.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by shtguard (September 22, 2009 10:37 am ET)
        2  
        Man, he is REEAAACCCHHHIIIINNNNGGGGG, JESUS H!!!

        Let me offer another possibility...

        The Angels "BEAT" the Yankees last night...does that read like Violence through Dominance in SPORT?!

        It is UN-BELIEVEABLE how these folk do not even bother to hide their desire to affect opinion(s) being "newscasters"/"journalists"...WOW!!!

        Last year i had beef with CNN with the sometimes prodding nature of their news clips (trying to create discussion where there was none during the election)

        Compared to these clowns on FOX, that was not even close to opinionated. These guys are porud of having little to NO knowledge about ANYTHING and they continue to broadcast this fact like it was something to feel good about, man o man o man!!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by RKAllen (September 22, 2009 10:44 am ET)
      2  
      It is the height of journalistic hypocracy to make a list and go after citizens of this country with the intent of finding something... anything... that will discredit them from holding public office. The chances that they are going to find something objectionable is 100%. No man or woman is free from sin, poor judgement, or saying something they would eventually regret.

      For Fox news, if you are a liberal or a Democratic politician, there is no attonement, no forgiveness, and they will never relent in their pursuit to take you down. They will expose what ever trivialities that they can, regardless of the truth, so that they can create the country that THEY want.

      Their network flourished under the Bush administration, and they want that back.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ScienceBuff (September 22, 2009 10:51 am ET)
        1  
        One of the problems is that Hannity isn't just digging up past "sins" of these people. He's willing to fabricate viewpoints for them and misrepresent what they've said and done. So, while it's true that they are unforgiving of past views and statements, they're also being unforgiving of things that have never actually been said or done.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by SLRTX (September 22, 2009 10:46 am ET)
      1  
      Like a bad sci-fi movie, Fox has become a portal to an alternate universe. They certainly aren't existing in any reality we know of.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (September 22, 2009 10:49 am ET)
      3  
      Let's see...

      Rosa Brooks: ("I guess she's suggesting it was our fault.") Why is it that the "party of personaly responsiblity" never seems to want to take responsibility for anything?

      Mark Lloyd: (advocated taxing station owners to subsidize public broadcasters) Sounds good to me. Especially if they don't want to air presidential press conferences.

      David Hamilton: (raising contributions for ACORN for one month in 1979) I'm almost inclined to allow Hamilton's inclusion for not doing MORE to help Acorn or the poor!

      Harold Koh: ([Sharia law] "could, in an appropriate instance ... govern a controversy in a federal or state court in the US") Perhaps it's disputed, but I have trouble with ANY judge using ANY religious teachings to judicate ANY decison in the US. (So ONE POINT FOR INSHANITY!)

      Samantha Power: (for calling Clinton a "monster.") Is he just worried about ANYONE cutting in of his action?! This is just silly. He should be pulling for her! Just shows the absolute lack of any principles on the part of this man!

      Cass Sunstein: (the state should consider either presumed consent or mandated choices, policies he said would save lives while preserving freedom.) This is the only common sense solution to a major health care problem. It SHOULD be LAW, EVERYWHERE and I see no legitimate reason not to support it. Hannity, and all those following him on this point, are idiots.

      John Holdren: Some of the stuff does sound a bit creepy, but Hannity is being absurd here. This is the typical con-thug reaction to all things academic that are beyond their comprehension.


      OK. So I'll MAYBE give him 1 out of 7. That's batting .143! Not bad for InsHannity! Who were the other three? I can't play the video at the office. Did MMFA leave them out, or can Sean just not count?

      ----------------------------------------------------------------
      My Blog
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Sks1 (September 22, 2009 10:56 am ET)
         
      Sean Hannity on 9/21 suggested or rather stated that the predident didnt have the courage to come on fox news and give a interview ..well hannity should know a little something about lack of courage since his claim that he would undergo waterboarding to benefit the military families went so well,,he is a coward and a liar to say the least
      Report Abuse
    • Author by annagranfors (September 22, 2009 11:04 am ET)
         
      I wouldn't credit Hannity with any ability to do anything except read the words that magically appear in a hand-delivered envelope marked "Talking Points" every day. There is not a single Fox "anchor" or "personality" that has any autonomy. Murdoch and his corporate pals sing; O'Reilly/Beck/Hannity dance.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (September 22, 2009 11:11 am ET)
      2  
      How about Dick Cheney? He was chairman of Haliburton after all, and they have played fast and loose with our money when they were war profiteering in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although, I'm sure Hannity wouldn't have considered asking VP Cheney to step aside.

      Also, remember, Hannity and his bunch were the people whining the most when Bush didn't get every single one of his judicial nominees passed through confirmation (although, Bush still had the highest percentage of judicial nominees confirmed by any President in our history), and now, he's complaining about people Obama wants to hire or have in place, or has in place (most of which were confirmed by Congress)?

      Here's the thing Sean. When someone wins, as the democrats did in November 2008, guess what happens? More often than not, you get the people you want. We won, get over it.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by rkcomments (September 22, 2009 1:29 pm ET)
      2  

      Wasn't Hannity the pitchman for the con artist 'Sir" Allen Standord? And this idiot is lecturing about guilt by association?

      I guess his listeners/viewers really ARE morons.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wzwriter (September 22, 2009 2:00 pm ET)
      1 1
      I think it's time for Sean Hannity to be fired from both his radio AND his TV gigs and be forced to go back to doing manual labor, which is all he's qualified to do.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by nativeofsf (September 22, 2009 6:49 pm ET)
      1  
      That Schmucktard Hannity is a real freaking Nazi! He delights, as Glen-boy does, in stepping-on & over others who dwarf his intellectual capacity. He is a figment of anything resembling anything American.
      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.