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

I completely disagree with your premise, and I can show that your examples, are false analogues. Your first comparison is on the topic of religion (and therefore on the nature of "God," as well as on afterlife/reincarnation), which would be understood, by any viewer, to be something on which NONE CAN CLAIM TO HAVE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE; these things are, by their nature, and ours, unknowable to us, on any evidential basis; what any person may accept as "proof," is utterly SUBJECTIVE; any assertions can only be considered SPECULATIVE (except by believers).

In your second example, you cite scientific topics, which is something, once more, which would be understood to not fall within Sean Hannity's personal sphere of knowledge, therefore it is illogical to expect that any viewer would give such concepts greater credibility, because of Hannity's perceived endorsement of them.


He is, however, a POLITICAL PUNDIT. Accordingly, it is not farfetched to think that many in his audience may believe that he does have a certain degree of understanding & expertise, on political matters, such as knowing what conspiracies are just beyond the pale of credulity, and which might be worthy of air time. If FOX NEWS were to spin off all those who indulge in "entertaining" conspiracy theories, on their own channel, that would be one thing. But not only does Hannity's show give the illusion of being a news program, but I'm sure he does also talk about real news stories. So, how is it you expect all his viewers to know, when he is covering a story based on FACTUAL information, versus when he is trafficking in pure, imagined, nonsense? Are you saying that, when he is covering our trade deficit or national debt, our GDP or unemployment numbers, the prime interest rate or rate of inflation, housing starts or new home sales, people should take none of it to be accurate, or anything but narratives, which Hannity's creative team believes the viewers will find entertaining? IOW, it is this mixing of the real with the outrageous, without clearly demarcating the line between them, wherein lies the serious problem.

 

Like totally..... Those tax returns she "exposed" was nothing but egg on her face. And CNN is a joke. Worse than the left wing equivalent of fox caught in fake news often

 

I actually watched that episode and she was very well aware that it was possibly a scam - that did not stop the right from trying (and failing) to “own her” roll: this owning thing is sooo pathetic!)

Meantime Rachel Maddow seems to have won a couple of awards

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Maddow#Awards

 

How can they fit responsibility into their lives with all the victimization they are burdened with?

LOL, poor Republicans.

 

Lol... I was here at the time and I remember all of us laughing at you liberals because all of you guys were just so convinced that this was the big one that was going to get Trump and how many years ago was that? Probably a little bit more than two solid years. You must think my memory is incredibly bad.

I have news for you it is not.

 

I would not disagree with your assessment only your conclusion. Their style is what gets them the audience and ratings they are looking for. Where we differ is I do not believe they have any responsibility beyond offering opinion and entertaining their audience.

 

Are you talking about Hannity lying to his audience or his guest lying to the audience? Your op was about Sidney Powell telling her lies.

 

Bingo! Trying to “Own” the libs Very few outlets reported it and most were sceptical but that did not stop the right from figuratively stripping naked and partying. You were so convinced that you had somehow “won” a “victory” that few stopped to see how hollow it all was.

Meanwhile of course reality fact-check and it seems that the truth is Trump WAS a cheating on his taxes

 

While I see what you are saying my only premise with religion was to setup a host can have a guest on talk about a subject or theory that they do not believe in. It was to illustrate a host putting aside personal belief and opinion to interview someone their audience may be interested in hearing from.

The ops post was about Sidney Powell and her allegations about the Dominion voting machines. As you mentioned next, Hannity is a political pundit. He probably knows no more about how voting machines work than who built the pyramids. I, with my programming background, would understand far more about how to hack or tamper with a voting machine, than Hannity and I would not consider myself knowledgeable enough to discuss the topic with her.

This is where I fundamentally disagree with you and many on this thread. I don't think that all programming on Fox News has to meet the same standards they may have for their journalist. IMO the news portion should meet some form of professional journalistic standards BUT other programming does not. It is like the History Channel having some wonderful historic documentaries and then they have shows about Aliens, Noah's Ark or the Illuminati. I am sure if you were to speak with a History channel producer they would tell you many of those shows are bunk but they are not presented that way. The shows are on because that is what the audience wants to see. I have said this many times about Tucker Carlson. He has on anti vax guests. He definitely supports the right of people to choose but he refuses to tell anyone if he is vaccinated. I am willing to bet he is but the reason he does not say is because he knows his audience. So is Tucker lying? I don't think so but then I have not watched his show.

Hannity does not pretend to be a journalist. He has on many occasion come out and said that. Fox News presents his shows as opinion and entertainment. While I agree many in his audience will take what he says as factual that is more the fault of the viewer than the show or the network. That is like blaming it on the History channel for me thinking Aliens built the pyramids because I saw it on one of their shows.

 

Oh please don't even sit here and try to tell me that CNN didn't hype it up like they had some big bombshell ahead at 7:00 and it was a total flop

 

Ok, you realise what a "journalist" is right? That it is someone who does not necessarily agree with what their guest is saying? I mean obviously if you watch CNN or MSNBC etc you may not have seen it before.

 

What lies have they actually told? Specifically, what? Can you name me one?

 

I believe they should take more responsibility for their statements and of course that is the reason why Hannity testified. If that program is used for political platform policies, then it no longer becomes entertainment.

 

I'm guessing FOX found no evidence of election fraud during the discovery process. Lots of people wrongly guessed FOX would blow the lid open with this lawsuit.

 

He has given exposure to Trump and his lies, without ever publicly contradicting him.

Trump who became a direct threat to democracy the day after the election.

If that's not hypocrisy on Hannity's part, I wonder what is.

 

Jesus....

 

Vaccines

 

Ultimately - was Trump cheating on his taxes?

 

Who knows? Not you and not I. And who really cares they're all a bunch of crooks.

 

The incentive to provide news is profit. And business is always trying to maximize profit. It is what it is. And btw, it isn't any different in the "other" partys outlets.

 

It does not have to be the job of the host or the interviewer to contradict or call out their guest. Even journalist like Amanpour, Barbara Walters interviewed dictators and politicians and did not call out their lies. Their goal was to ask questions and let the guest answer. Others are free to fact check later. Amanpour even said if she was to call out their lies she would not be able to land these types of interviews in the future.

 

I think it would be great if people took more responsibility for their statements and actions but we do live in a free society and he is under no obligation to do so. What can be done is we can stop watching them and call them out for their actions. The problem is a lot of people just don't care. Look at all the people on this forum that choose to watch Hannity but and they are quite well informed regarding his actions.

I again disagree with this. The Daily Show, Colbert Report and Full Frontal are just some quick examples that come to mind.

 

Jon Stewart nor Colbert are inside the Democratic party. Trump himself used Hannity for advice.

https://www.newsweek.com/sean-hanni...-line-and-they-talk-multiple-times-day-924659
Hannity usually calls Trump after 10 p.m., after his show Hannity airs, and the two sometimes talk multiple times a day about developments as they come up.

That is not entertainment.

 

Again you are nickpicking here. You originally you said a show was used for political purposes cannot be entertainment and now you are talking about Hannity giving Trump advice. I don't see how those things are related.

Trump is free to ask him for advice and Hannity can legally do so.

Hannity's show caters almost exclusively to the Trump base or voters. Asking him for advice may have been one of the smarter things Trump did.

 

Not sure of your point, but I will make mine as basic as I can. While Hannity is registered as opinion and entertainment, his links to the politicians, as with asking for advice brings up a number of concerns. 1st and foremost, a sitting Pres calling a pundit for advice, unless it is done over a secure line, introduces a serious question of national security.