Sean Hannity admits under oath he “didn’t believe” Trump election lies - but aired them anyway

I think your concern is reasonable but it has nothing to do with Hannity or Hannity occupation as in entertainment or as a pundit. That falls solely on the president and the government to ensure those lines of communication are secure. IMO Hannity is free to give his opinion and advice to the president.

If president Biden or president Trump was to call me up and ask to speak to me or my team about cyber security in the finance industry I would comply but it is their responsibility to ensure the conversation is secure.

 

Trump calling a pundit for advice 'introduces a serious question of national security' LOL. When I think of questions of our national security, I think of our electric grid. Right now, I fear if the European war explodes again. Things of that nature are vulnerable elements of our security right now.

 

Fair enough, but Hannity's so-called opinion is what required him to testify. The POTUS does not enforced compliance in regards to television, that is delegated. The fact that some communications were done over non secure lines is disturbing. While that is not required by Hannity, he should know better, and unless I miss my guess he does.

All that aside, Hannity and Fox News put themselves in this position and have no one to blame but themselves.

 

Any communications regarding policy with the POTUS should always be done on a secure line. Foreign intelligence will use such info for their purposes. I.e., generals, while engaged in war, will absolutely study the personal characteristics of their opponents to try and get an edge. Artificial Intelligence, when you or anyone else clicks a "like" on anything, that is recorded and used for marketing. Any iota of personal data is used.

 

Hannity is a pundit, not a journalist.

He has been Trump's spokesman and his most fervent supporter.

But he leads his listeners to believe that he has the credibility of a journalist, that his opinions are based on fact, when he lies to them daily.

And you defend that?

 

I have said that he was not a journalist numerous times. The reason I mentioned those journalist was to show EVEN REAL journalist do not always call out their guest during interviews. Why are you holding Hannity, who we both agree is not a journalist, to those high standards. He is there to offer opinion and entertain his audience. If he brings on people that his audience wants to see why do you have issues with that?

 

I wrote this for myself because reading what Hillary calls Trump's "DEPLORABLES" post caused me migraines.

Cheat sheet...

Can it be blamed on...

Black or brown people?
LGBTQ?
Drag queens?
Non-citizen?
Non English speaker?

If the answer is "no" for ALL the above questions...

Find anything under any rock that fit the above criteria to deflect.
Put out really crappy videos of alleged malfeasance to support your lies.
Commit more crimes to cover the first crime.
Include other liars to lend fake credibility.

If all else fails, minimize the most egregious behavior and declare them benign.

ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS pretend...

Crime is higher in Blue States and by people of color.
Conflate LGBTQ with pedophilia although most pedophiles are white, middle-aged, heterosexual, married "Christians.

RINSE & REPEAT, ad nauseum until the reader wants to stab their eyes with ice picks.

 

I don't hold Hannity to the same standards as a journalist; I require him not to lie to his listeners and make them believe he is telling the truth.

What would happen to his credibility if there was a disclaimer before his show stating that it is only entertainment and that the opinions he holds are not based on any facts?

 

Why? As much as I agree, I wish that all people in general did not lie, we all know that is not the case. We can't throw him in jail for it. The best course of action is to not watch and if his ratings decline his employers would take him off air. You can attempt to educate his viewers but I think you will find that most of them already know. It is like telling someone Trump lied a lot. Do you think there are people out there that don't know that. They just choose to ignore it for whatever reason they come up with.

 

Once more, the examples you give, do not match the subject of the thread. You are talking about entire programs, differing in their content: if ALL of Hannity's show was about conspiracy theories (including about aliens, & the Illuminati), then your example would fit; however, then there would also be no one here faulting him for disingenuously misleading people. He talks about current, general news events, particularly political ones, which are at least reality,-based. Therefore there is no comparison between his show and one in search of Noah's Ark. The analog would be, one of those History Channel "historic documentaries," which interposed theories of potential alien involvement, to explain some of the events. Or a show on the search for the Holy Grail, which includes interviews with members of Congress, about bills which aren't necessarily related to the Grail.

As I had already said, the problem is the lack of DEMARCATION, in BETWEEN nonsense, and things that are presented as real news-- within Hannity's program. If he merely dedicated one part of the show, to something labelled, for example, "Kookie News," or "Conspiracy Corner," or "Outlandish Interviews," or "Guests from way, Out There," (the way that late night hosts give names to different sections of their own shows), that would suffice as separating it from commentary on hard news. The difference between the History Channel shows you mention, are differences which apply to each whole program. And these slants are upfront, for the viewer to know, at the start. You still have offered no explanation as to why you do not find an INTERMIXING, within the same program, of "normal" news, with the absurd, to be a muddling of intrinsically different types of stories.

 

I think I totally address the title of the thread in my first post. Read the title and my response. My premise is Hannity is under no obligation to put on guests that he believes. I said he is free to pick guests that will get him the highest ratings and most viewers.

My analogy was just as History Channel PRODUCERS are under no obligation to air shows they believe.

The idea was they are FREE to air material they DO NOT BELIEVE. History channel picks programming, like everyone else, based on viewership.

YOU are the person that arbitrarily set boundaries that the entire show has to be consistent between serious information and "kookie" information. That, IMO, would simply be a programming STYLE that others do not need to follow. If you wish to produce a show that stays consistent to that outline you are free to do so, BUT it is wrong to think ALL shows must follow that formula.

BTW here are a listing of ONE show on History Channel. Review the episode titles and judge for yourself if they follow your rules.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History's_Mysteries

Tell me if some episodes don't air credible information and others do not. Tell me if some episodes will not air both information widely accepted by experts and at the same time present information that is "kookie"? AND tell me I am wrong that often the "KOOKIE" explanation part of the episodes is what attracts the viewers?

 

There are no criminal charges against Hannity, these are civil charges, with him being liable for his false accusations.

 

There is a civil suit against Hannity? I thought this was about having Sidney Powell on his show?

 

Well my correction, he is testifying for the Dominion lawsuit against Fox News Corp, where he is one of the main material witnesses on trial. I don't know where Powell got into this thread, I certainly don't remember posting anything about them.

 

It is in the OP. The reason he was giving a deposition is because he had Sidney Powell on his show and as you say Dominion is suing Fox News for damages. The main discussion in this thread was that Hannity admitted that he did not believe Powell's theories regarding the Dominion machines. People seem to be reading more into that than warranted.

 

No, here is the crux of our disagreement: what I am staring is, I believe, a common sense, and commonly accepted, concept, of consistency, when it comes to news broadcasting. I know, you will counter that Hannity's show is not "news," but all of the links on this site to Hannity as a news source, not to mention the countless number of arguments made by members who got their information from Hannity, belies that argument. His show is treated as news, by his viewers.


EDIT: No publication nor television program can present stories, suited to the Weekly World News, without it seriously detracting from the credibility of everything else presented, alongside those dubious parts.

 

Nothing wrong with advancing the conservative agenda in this country. We need more of that.

 

You are correct. My counter is Hannity is not news nor is he a journalist. You may want to gloss over that fact but that is the main point. He offers opinion and entertainment. Just because some people use him as a source of information does not change that fact. I remember statistics that many young people's primary source of news was the Daily Show and Colbert Report. That also does not make them news. If someone want to base their knowledge of space exploration or science based on Star Trek or Star Wars it is not the fault of the shows but the people doing it.

 

Well Mr Hannity has certainly testified the election fraud was a hoax, but his past behavior was anything but that. It is his show, but he certainly didn't provide a counter point.

 

Again, it is you, who is doing all the glossing. It seems either disingenuous, or clueless, to compare Hannity to a comedy program. I believe-- though I could be mistaken (yet you've offered nothing factual, to alter my opinion)-- that FOX promotes Hannity, to viewers, as an informative, news-based program, not as merely "entertainment." I remember that Jon Stewart was aghast at hearing that people trusted his show for their news, and said that they should not do that. Is Hannity, likewise, on the record, explaining to the general public that his show should be thought of, primarily, as just entertainment?

You are rejecting something which should be self-evident: when people begin reading the Washington Post, for example, they do not expect Weekly World News types of articles, intermixed with serious news, nor does one generally refer to the National Enquirer to get updated, on serious national & international issues. Nor would I say that those young people who became informed about some things, through the Daily Show, watched the show for that reason. They watched to be entertained, and picked up bits of real news, in the process, because they did not care enough to have any true news source. These young people did not think of themselves, as being well-informed, news junkies. I think, in contrast, people do watch Hannity, for the purpose of keeping informed, and often believe themselves to be well-informed, based on his program. This is another reason, why your analogy is a bogus one.

 

Please read my post closer. I enjoy discussions with you but this is getting frustrating. I am not comparing Hannity's show to the Daily Show or Colbert report. I am comparing the viewers using those programs as a source of information. Your contention was that Hannity's viewers gleamed information which shaped their worldview. I simply showed that just because a viewer gains information from a show that does NOT make that show a news show. Your argument was since people use Hannity as a source of news then Hannity must be held to a higher standard. I disagree.

I do not watch Hannity or Fox News but I have seen clips online with Hannity saying his is not a journalist and he is a political pundit. I have also seen people like Chris Wallace make the distinction between the news arm or Fox News and the opinion part. The division exist. How clear it is I cannot say for sure since I do not watch either.

I have never read the Washington Post nor have a read a physical newpaper in probably more than a decade BUT given my past readings of newspapers there are a lot of similarities.

A newspaper has its hard news section which would be equivalent to the news division or Fox News. I don't know who they have now but in the past it was people like Shep Smith, Chris Wallace and Brett Baier. I consider those people REAL journalist and would expect a level of professional level of conduct from them.

A newspaper has an editorial section. These are OPINION people written by staff or freelance writers. They offer their opinions are so called expert take on things. These are like the Hannity and Tucker shows. They are pundits but NOT journalist.

A newspaper also have many other sections that are NOT news. From celebrities and entertainment to sports and advice columns. Like Fox News probably only a very small part of a new paper is reporting "NEWS".

 

If you are going to continue offering faulty analogies, you leave me little choice, but to point out their flaws. Op/Ed pieces, by editors or experts, in any serious paper (which includes the online version), are going to be seriously written. *You will not find any Washington Post editorials, espousing the Dominion voting machine conspiracy-- hence your saying that this is the equivalent of Hannity & Tucker, is demonstrably false. There is a difference between being a "pundit" on a comedic, entertainment show, like the Colbert Report, and being a serious political columnist (a.k.a., a pundit).

It will be in letters to the editor, written by local (non expert) residents, in smaller circulation, local newspapers, that you would find people advocating those election fraud ideas; so that is what you would be, more accurately, equating Hannity's segment(s) with: local letters.


**In your second paragraph, above, you reiterate an idea that I have already put forth: if a show is going to only be partly about serious, current news, then sections that differ from that, should be clearly separated. That is exactly what you note, newspapers do-- by having different sections. Hannity does not do this. As I'd said, if he did have a section of his show, which was titled "conspiracy corner," or some such, none of us would have grounds for the complaint we lodge, which you continue to try to excuse with your examples that actually disprove your argument-- as does your pointing out that newspapers have well-marked sections, to keep separated, different types of material.

 

You are right newspapers have sections but they are NOT required by any higher power. The newspaper do it not because they are commanded to but to make it easier for their reader. They can easily jump to the sections they want to read. Broadcast television does not have that feature. Do you think newspapers have sections because they are worried the readers will think the comic strip section or food section is real news?

Think about what you are asking. If your proposal becomes a requirement who mandates which shows have to have it? Who reviews it? Who polices it?

Also when I was making the comparison to a newspaper and Fox News I was assuming Hannity was the section. Like Wallace and others have said Hannity is not news. Thus his show is sectioned to the not news section. Do you want to classify parts of his show as news and other parts as opinion and entertainment?

 

I don't really understand why they don't understand the severity of Trump stealing classified documents and leaving them haphazardly thrown around in a storage unit or unlocked room in a building that is not his actual home or office.

That, alone, but compounded with these unsecure communications leaves us very vulnerable. We literally do NOT know who he gave/sold those documents to and could be in an enemy missile sites right now. Sure, our military will respond if a threat enters our airspace but it's worrisome they can't see that he's not pro-USA.

 

No, I brought up a newspaper because it was an analogy for Fox News. Fox News is the newspaper. They have a section on real hard news and then they have all of the other entertainment and opinion stuff. (I feel deja vu because it feels like I said this before).

Hannity is a section. IMO no part of his show is journalism. He presents biased, opinionated information all the time. I think you are giving him too much credit by calling him a journalist part time. IMO his entire show should not be considered a good source of information. I would not say that at all about Chris Wallance or Sheppard Smith. The sections are the different shows. Laura Ingraham, Fox and Friends, Jeanine Piro... All of those are sectioned into the opinion and entertainment. None are journalist and none deserve to have sections of their show classified as journalism. These shows ARE the newspaper section NOT segments within their shows. Others have agreed including Hannity himself. He has said he is not a journalist. The news people will tell you he is not a journalist. We do not have to section his show for journalism to opinion because it is ALL opinion and entertainment.

Where I agree with you is some of his audience may think what they are seeing is journalism but I only blame the audience for that because everyone at Fox News, including Hannity, will tell you different.

There is no doubt it is misleading. I will never deny that. He put on a guest that spewed crazy theories about Dominion voting machines. He admits that he does not believe the theories himself. My point is he has every right to do so. His goal is to put on shows his viewers are interested in watching. Sidney Powell was saying the things that his viewers agreed with so they wanted to see more. He gave her a platform and the opportunity for his audience to watched what she had to say and judge for themselves. I am sure you may have seen the clips. You saw what she said and you judged it to be crazy. I watched a huge part of the pillow guys rally that was suppose to provide proof that there was election fraud. After watching for hours I was convinced the guy was crazy. I really don't think you have an issue with these people getting airtime. I think you have problems with the people that watch them and agree.

IMO I think the everyone including his loyal viewers knows the things that Hannity presents on his shows are greatly exaggerated. They watch anyways because the things he say makes them feel good. It is like a release or endorphins because someone like Hannity is saying the things that want to believe in. It is similar to religion. Many in the audience might not believe the scriptures but the idea appeals to them and gives them comfort.

Tucker Carlson has on guest that are anti vax. He refuses to say whether he is vaccinated. If he was under deposition and admitted to being vaccinated would you think the same with Tucker. That he presented guests he did not believe in.

Again because he knows that will not get him viewers. He is not going for journalistic integrity. He is out to maximize viewers and revenue. Attacking a democratic guest would please his audience just as attacking an election denier would cause viewers to stop watching.