Sean Hannity counters supposed liberal media bias with biased documentary
By Jeff MillsApril 25th, 2011, 12:30 pmComments (28)
On Friday, Sean Hannity and Fox News presented an hour-long special tracing the history of the putative liberal mainstream-media bias, and the attendant unflattering portrayal of conservatives. The program was titled "Behind the Bias: The History of Liberal Media," but could just as easily have been called "Poor Republicans Can't Get a Fair Shake" or "Preaching to the Converted."
The program began with a subtle sledgehammer to the head, citing the "Obamamania media's liberal bias," and making the case that the media apologizes for foreign enemies, beginning with New York Times reporter Walter Duranty claiming exaggerated levels of famine in Stalin's Soviet Union in the 1930s. Then William F. Buckley and Irving Kristol came along in the 1950s, provoking a backlash that led to a simplistic portrayal of conservatives. A line like "Sarah Palin makes Barack Obama look like John Adams" is used as an example to bolster the argument, as if you could even disagree with that quote.
The two main arguments being made were that the liberal media has a proclivity for painting conservatives as racists, and making them look stupid by blowing trivial mistakes out of proportion, like harping on Dan Quayle's misspelling of the word "potato." The Katie Couric interview with Sarah Palin is used as another example, as if Palin didn't bring that upon herself, being more mama grizzly than policy wonk. And Hannity whines about how much was made of Trent Lott voting for Strom Thurmond, while Joe Biden's "clean and articulate" comments were quickly brushed over. The difference is that a hypothetical Trent Lott - J.C. Watts ticket would have been impossible to fathom. Then he brings up Robert Byrd's checkered past and Al Gore Sr. opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for good measure.
Next, the plump, juicy target of RatherGate is explored, along with CBS Evening News' "collusion" with the Kerry campaign. Funny, there's no mention of the flip-flopping windsurfer or swift-boat ads. The Wall Street Journal's John Fund, who was arrested for assaulting an ex-girlfriend, gives good quote for the cause, as does Michelle Malkin, who should have a pull-string on her back that you pull for knee-jerk, right-wing platitudes.
The convoluted Valerie Plame affair is explained, as is former New York Times Executive Editor Howell Raines' resignation following the Jayson Blair plagiarism and fabrication scandal, with the inference being that New York Times reporters lack credibility. And the Times is taken to task in the Duke lacrosse scandal because they couldn't predict the future and know that the supposed victim would turn out to be a liar. The left is excoriated for opposing anti-immigration legislation in Arizona that leads to profiling, and using the Gabby Giffords shooting to further an ideological agenda. The charge is leveled that Obama receives more favorable coverage than Bush did, so I guess they're trying to redress the imbalance by characterizing Obama as a Kenyan Muslim socialist with an overrated jump shot.
The overall tone is smug and condescending, and, like often with the films of Michael Moore, you get a one-sided polemic. At the end of the program, Juan Williams complains about accusations of being a racist and a bigot by NPR, about having a "distorted mindset" imposed on a journalist by a left-wing organization. But Williams was fired by NPR, and he has an ax to grind. And Ira Glass already convincingly explained away the notion of bias at NPR. So it's all McCain - Palin bashing and nothing about Slick Willie and Monica Lewinsky. Thanks for the fair and balanced report, Mr. Hannity.
Commentarium (28 Comments)
I couldn't finish reading this article without fetching my well worn Goebbels plush toy to stroke and massage. He's starting to get threadbare in the crotch so I'll have to buy him some new breeches one of these days. Viva La Fox News!
One comment in and Godwin's Law rears its ugly head.
"A line like "Sarah Palin makes Barack Obama look like John Adams" is used as an example to bolster the argument, as if you could even disagree with that quote. "
A prime example of liberal bias - no, possibility for an alternate pov, why, you can't even disagree with this comment.
"The overall tone is smug and condescending, and, like often with the films of Michael Moore, you get a one-sided polemic."
Much like the polemic of the above, undeniable, quote.
Bias, thy name might be Sean Hannity but it is also hooksexup.com and Jeff Mills.
"The Wall Street Journal's John Fund, who was arrested for assaulting an ex-girlfriend, gives good quote for the cause, as does Michelle Malkin, who should have a pull-string on her back that you pull for knee-jerk, right-wing platitudes."
No consideration at all of Malkin's, just a meaningless dismissal. Fairly consistent with the misogynistic editorial tone on the site.
Hannity freely admits he's a conversative. Will Mills admit he's a liberal?
I don't think hooksexup.com ever claimed to be a serious news organization, much less a "fair and balanced" one, so I think holding them to the same standard is more than a bit facetious.
I don't think Sean Hannity ever claimed to be a serious news organization, he's a commentator giving his opinion while using clips to back it up.
@whoop - well done.
I think this might the first time I've actually heard Hooksexup be accused of misogyny. The comments section on occasion, sure, but the staff writers themselves? Never. Although, since you can't actually come up with a defense for Malkin and all of the vapid and attention getting things she's said over the years, I guess you might as well try to go on offense.
And seriously, the Palin makes Obama look like Adams line? Hell, Palin makes 7th grade social studies teachers look like Adams. At least they can talk about the concept of American government beyond empty sound bites.
How much of a defense do you need for the poorly constructed sentence: "The Wall Street Journal's John Fund, who was arrested for assaulting an ex-girlfriend, gives good quote for the cause, as does Michelle Malkin, who should have a pull-string on her back that you pull for knee-jerk, right-wing platitudes. "
Seriously, that would win one of those how-bad-can-the-writing-get contests in Key West. A close second would be yours: "And seriously, the Palin makes Obama look like Adams line? Hell, Palin makes 7th grade social studies teachers look like Adams. At least they can talk about the concept of American government beyond empty sound bites." Too stupid for a serious defense.
Palin probably also thinks there are 57 states when you include Idaho.
And a final question: will anyone ever take me seriously? I keep changing my name, and yet all the regulars instantly recognize me as Publius, the knee-jerk right-winger. I also try not to be as dull as the conservative axe I am perpetually grinding, but I don't appear to make much headway, do I?
I'm making enough headway for you to take seriously; it's a knee jerk response (without the knee), to be sure, but a response all the same. Thanks for caring. And my nick for this post is in your honor.
You should join the debate - it's easy to stand on the sidelines and throw bricks but, aside from feeding a tiny ego, it's not at all helpful.
I love having my own fan club, even if it's a hooksexup.com employee!
Your willingness to debate extends only until the moment at which you must concede a significant point, and by then, you've moved on to the next post. As many have pointed out before, you consistently attempt to engage with merely an affectation of good faith, and just as consistently you disappear when your spurious facts and fallacious arguments are illuminated. You seem to function as some sort of conservative leg-humping robot, thrusting away with a bottomless vigor at the politics articles day and night, and to be honest, it is not anyone's ego that feeds here in mocking you -- quite simply it's the most fun that can be had with a yammering plutocratic dolt such as yourself who plays at debate but instead only delivers an intellectual monotone.
I lol'd.
Although I really don't understand why people feel the need to come on Hooksexup every day and point out "LOOK AT THIS SITE, IT IS STILL A LIBERAL SITE! JUST LIKE IT WAS YESTERDAY! MY ANGRY COMMENTS HAVE DONE NOTHING! WHAT'S UP WITH THAT?"
lol. Nice try, Troll.
"An many have pointed out before..."
Not only not "many" but none. I frequently post the last entry in any thread but you knew that, didn't you? Point out a single thread where I've disappeared compared, I assume, to the diligent posters who toil to your satisfaction.
Get in the game or stfu. Your choice. All in good faith, of course.
On the (rare) occasion that I need to concede a point, I'll do so in good humor. Usually those with whom I discuss the weighty Hooksexup issues of the day will not be swayed by my arguments nor am I likely to be swayed. Nonetheless, it's interesting to entertain alternative points of view.
You find that I merely "play" at debate, yet you feel compelled to debate me. Who, then, it tilting at windmills? (That's a Don Quixote reference, just so you know. Don't try pronouncing "Quixote" in front of people until someone tells you the correct pronunciation; I'd hate for you to look as foolish in person as your prose does here. You're probably ok to try "Don" though).
And I sincerely apologize for "mov[ing] on" to other posts before you've excused me. Shall I request your permission prior to ending a discussion that I feel has reached a dead end? I must confess that the recent post in which you wished me an early death did provoke within me a desire to respond. Upon reflection, though, I elected to let sleeping dogs lie.
Imitation, it is said, is the sincerest form of flattery. And for that, I thank you.
I don't even understand the John Adams reference enough to agree or disagree with it. Adams was a great patriot and a moving force behind independence. He was a mediocre, one-term president who, though keep the U.S. out of war with both France and England, also signed the odious Alien and Sedition Acts. So far, Obama hasn't done much to get us out of Bush's wars, and he hasn't signed any laws prohibiting seditious libel, so I don't understand how Palin or anyone could make him look like John Adams.
I agree, profrobert. It's difficult to either agree or disagree with the quotation (let alone automatically agree) since it's incomprehensible.
FAIR put together a fact-filled story on the bias of Fox almost ten years ago. Not much has changed since. "The Most Biased Name in News" by Seth Ackerman. https://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067
FAIR, really?
Among the "fact-filled" details:
"Even Fox's "left-right" debate show, Hannity & Colmes--whose Crossfire-style format virtually imposes numerical equality between conservatives and "liberals"--can't shake the impression of resembling a Harlem Globetrotters game in which everyone knows which side is supposed to win. "
"Meanwhile, Barnes and Kondracke --the conservative Republican and conservative Democrat--make up the entire political spectrum on Fox's weekend political show, The Beltway Boys, where they are generally in agreement as they discuss the week's news."
Imagine, not being able to discern between commentary and news.
But then FAIR isn't without its issues, is it?
[From wikipedia]
"In May 2002, Jeff Cohen, a FAIR founder, left the organization to work as a producer on Phil Donahue's short-lived talk show on MSNBC.
In February 2004, a FAIR Action Alert led ABC World News Tonight and the New York Times to expand their coverage of the Federal Marriage Amendment to explain the legal ramifications of the issue.
In 2006, FAIR criticized U.S. media coverage of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, taking issue with the assertion that "... Hugo Chávez is an autocrat who has consolidated one-party rule".[4] FAIR has frequently criticized media coverage of the Chávez government.
In 2008, FAIR criticized American media for coverage that was too positive during Pope Benedict's visit to the United States, claiming that he got a "pass on Church abuse history."
A letter sent out by FAIR in 1993 included the erroneous claim that violence against women increased by 40% on Super Bowl Sundays. FAIR later told the Boston Globe "It should not have gone out in FAIR materials." "
Fairness, as usual, is in the eye of the beholder.
@PoopieHeadIcon
Actually, when I read that article, I saw plenty of intellectually honest distinctions between the news and commentary portions of Fox News programming:
"Some mainstream journalists have suggested that Fox's "straight news" is more or less balanced, however slanted its commentary might be. "A close monitoring of the channel over several weeks indicates that the news segments tend to be straightforward, with little hint of political subtext except for stories the news editors feel the 'mainstream' press has either downplayed or ignored," wrote Columbia Journalism Review's Neil Hickey (3-4/98). The fact that Fox's "chat consistently tilts to the conservative side," wrote the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz (2/5/01), "may cast an unwarranted cloud on the news reporting, which tends to be straightforward."
You may seek to discredit FAIR in the rest of your (re-)post, but I don't see you refuting a single hard fact from the original FAIR article I posted. With so many to choose from, one wonders why you ignored the opportunity.
That's what made the FAIR story even more muddled, imo. The passage you cite suggests that the news reporting on Fox News is "straightforward," (meaning, I suppose, "fair," but they couldn't bring themselves to say that) but the conclusion is that FNC is biased. How can you have both?
FAIR has an editorial position that puts it at odds with some, perhaps even most of the FNC commentators but the article you cite certainly doesn't even attempt to position its critique in light of FNC's competitors. Particularly silly is the dismissal of liberal voices on FNC; Juan Williams isn't really a liberal and Alan Colmes is only playing one for the entertainment of the show's viewers. A serious analysis would have compared the lineup of differing political viewpoints found on other news/commentary outlets.
There are few facts from the article that need refutation and most are errors of omission vs commission.
Typical is this:
"Fox's managing editor is Brit Hume, a veteran TV journalist and contributor to the conservative American Spectator and Weekly Standard magazines. "
Is this evidence of bias? Why no analysis of if this is unusual? At the time the article was written, Tim Russert - who worked for D. P. Moynihan - was the moderator on Meet the Press. Similarly at ABC, MSNBC and CNN where advisors who had worked for Democrats. Yet no mention of that in the article, leaving the impression of unusual FNC bias.
"Fox has had trouble at times hiding the partisanship of its main news personalities. In 1996, while already a Fox anchor, Tony Snow endorsed Bob Dole for president in the Republican National Committee magazine Rising Tide (New York, 11/17/97). "
Tony Snow was not a "news" employee, he was a commentator.
"Even Fox's "left-right" debate show, Hannity & Colmes--whose Crossfire-style format virtually imposes numerical equality between conservatives and "liberals"--can't shake the impression of resembling a Harlem Globetrotters game in which everyone knows which side is supposed to win. "
Is this meant to be serious *factual* analysis?
"Williams, the only guest who could plausibly claim to be a liberal, was so outraged over attacks on his friend Clarence Thomas that he declared that "liberals have become monsters" (Washington Post, 10/10/91), denouncing the "so-called champions of fairness: liberal politicians, unions, civil rights groups and women's organizations."
To be considered a liberal, in FAIR's estimation, one apparently can not divert from the liberal orthodoxy.
"Five years ago, Fox News Channel was launched on the idea that something was wrong with news media--that somehow, somewhere bias found its way into reporting. . . . And it's not just the way you tell a story that can get in the way of the truth. It's the stories you choose to tell. . . . Fox News Channel is committed to being fair and balanced in the coverage of the stories everybody is reporting--and to reporting stories you won't hear anywhere else. Stories you will see only on Fox."
Was this incorrect? Incidentally, it seems to be a good business model, given the commercial success of FNC.
"When Rep. Patrick Kennedy tussled with airport security (3/21/01), Democrat Pete Stark used intemperate language (4/18/01) and California Gov. Gray Davis uttered a string of curse words (4/18/01), it made it onto the Grapevine. When the Sacramento Bee ran a series on the shortcomings of the big environmental groups, its findings earned a mention on the Grapevine (4/21/01). When it emerged that Al Gore booster Ben Affleck didn't bother to vote in last year's election, you heard about it on the Grapevine (4/25/01). "
Was reporting on these items "evidence" of bias? Interesting, in particular, is the Bee story. Did the author believe the Bee to be a conservative newspaper? It's not.
@PoopieHeadIcon
"That's what made the FAIR story even more muddled, imo. The passage you cite suggests that the news reporting on Fox News is "straightforward," (meaning, I suppose, "fair," but they couldn't bring themselves to say that) but the conclusion is that FNC is biased. How can you have both?"
You can have both easily: both straightforward news reporting and biased commentary. The two are not mutually exclusive, and this point is repeated several times throughout the article; I'm not sure how you missed it each and every time. Furthermore, the crux of the FAIR article is not that Fox News is evil because it's commentary shows a consistent conservative bias, but that marketing Fox News as unbiased is disingenuous and harmful to its public perception, and by extension, harmful to conservative causes. Fox News has gone to great pains to present itself as nominally unbiased, but this assertion falls flat when basic tabulations of conservative vs liberal interest stories on Fox News are examined, as the FAIR article does quite exhaustively within its 10-year-old context.
"FAIR has an editorial position that puts it at odds with some, perhaps even most of the FNC commentators but the article you cite certainly doesn't even attempt to position its critique in light of FNC's competitors."
Again, comparisons to and critiques of CNN (which is regularly derided in the conservative press for its "liberal" bias) are repeated over and over throughout the FAIR article. I don't know how you missed that.
"At the time the article was written, Tim Russert - who worked for D. P. Moynihan - was the moderator on Meet the Press. Similarly at ABC, MSNBC and CNN where advisors who had worked for Democrats. Yet no mention of that in the article, leaving the impression of unusual FNC bias."
You're correct, there were and are liberal and Democrat-friendly staff on the other networks. There were also conservative and Republican-friendly staff on those same networks, which is where Fox News appears imbalanced: when you add up the numbers, Fox News tips the scales towards conservative commentators well beyond where any other comparable news organization does. This in and of itself is not deplorable, but the assertion that Fox News is "fair and balanced" in a way that other networks are not is again disingenuous.
""Five years ago, Fox News Channel was launched on the idea that something was wrong with news media--that somehow, somewhere bias found its way into reporting. . . . And it's not just the way you tell a story that can get in the way of the truth. It's the stories you choose to tell. . . . Fox News Channel is committed to being fair and balanced in the coverage of the stories everybody is reporting--and to reporting stories you won't hear anywhere else. Stories you will see only on Fox."
Was this incorrect? Incidentally, it seems to be a good business model, given the commercial success of FNC."
Trace Gallagher, author of the laudatory comment on the origin of Fox News, is incorrect in that he puts the cart before the horse: virtually all news organizations were unapologetically and openly biased since the days of Gutenberg on up until the very recent past. Only with the advent of operations such as Fox News was there a sudden claim to fairness and balance that defies logic and common sense. Fox News can go on presenting a predominantly conservative viewpoint without critique from me, but it can't claim to be "fair and balanced" at the same time without drawing the ire of those who know better.
"Was reporting on these items "evidence" of bias? Interesting, in particular, is the Bee story. Did the author believe the Bee to be a conservative newspaper? It's not."
These items were all part of the "Grapevine" feature. Find a similar list of stories about the follies and fumbles of conservatives on the segment and you'll have made your point. Except there isn't any, because it never happened.
Sometimes, the silence of Fox News is the most deafening self-indictment of all. The FAIR article concludes with a particularly telling episode:
"On Hannity & Colmes (3/26/01), the issue was: "Has David Horowitz's freedom of speech become a victim of political correctness?" On The O'Reilly Factor (3/6/01), it was Horowitz and host Bill O'Reilly interrogating a reparations activist from Mobile, Alabama. ("That's my tax money!" O'Reilly exclaimed.) The Edge with Paula Zahn brought Horowitz on three times within a month to discuss the same subject.
But there was one twist to the Horowitz story that Fox couldn't be bothered to report. When Horowitz's ad was offered to the Daily Princetonian in April, the paper ran it--along with an editorial (4/4/01) describing its ideas as racist and promising to donate the ad's proceeds to the local chapter of the Urban League. Horowitz, the free-speech crusader, refused to pay his bill unless the paper's editors publicly apologized for their hurtful words: "Its slanders contribute to the atmosphere of intolerance and hate towards conservatives," a statement from his office read.
Suddenly Fox lost interest in the Horowitz case. After a month of running twice-weekly updates about college papers that were refusing the ad, Special Report with Brit Hume ignored the Princeton episode. None of the network's major shows transcribed in the Nexis database reported Horowitz's tiff with the paper. No editor from the Princetonian was invited on The O'Reilly Factor to debate whether or not Horowitz was being a hypocrite. When their favorite free-speech martyr suddenly looked like a censor, it was a story Fox just didn't want to pursue."
There is no "supposed" liberal bias in the media, but there is however a very real and measurable one. That been said, I would never rely on someone like Sean Hannity to document it in any sirt of even vaguely objective way.
As Colbert said, "reality has a well-known liberal bias."
To Colbert, it undoubtedly does. I find it has a conservative bias.
The Illuminati run all the media anyway. They're all biased towards the whores (Big Brother/s) behind then scenes, that's all that matters.
"I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. "I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs." "I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking." "Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!" "Shut up! Go back to bed, America. Your government is in control. "
Stay with this guys, you're hpielng a lot of people.
Now you say something