0 Votes
Broadcast Etiquitte?
Fox News offers a debate-oriented program known as "Hannity & Colmes" in which Sean Hannity leans to the right on current issues and Alan Colmes tends to argue more to the left. On a recent segment, they interviewed Michael Crook, the author of the infamous web site "Forsake The Troops!". During the interview, both Hannity and Colmes seemed to join sides against Mr. Crook and his outlandish assumptions and extreme conclusions that cover his web site.
But the subject of the debate is not what jumped out at me about this segment. Clearly, Mr. Crook’s opinions are outliers on the scale of American thought. Regardless of their absurdity, Sean Hannity was relentless in his use of derogatory terms to attack Mr. Crook in an interview that the Fox News network certainly initiated, planned and executed. One must wonder what level of etiquette should be considered before berating a person on a world-wide broadcast. Is it ok for a network to say anything and everything they feel, or should program hosts use restraint? Sean Hannity’s words were far less degrading than those found on Michael Crook’s site, but should he bring himself down to that low level of discussion?
Similarly tagged OmniNerd content:
- Utility of Web Comments, by VnutZ about 1 year ago
- Google+ Less Active than MySpace, by VnutZ over 1 year ago
- Obtaining Freedom of Communication, by VnutZ over 1 year ago
- Vendor Installed "Rootkit" on Android, by VnutZ over 1 year ago
Print Friendly
Write an Article
Hannity is a Cobra spy by Brandon
First reaction:
After watching the video, I have to say that Hannity was much more annoying than Crook. Some people have dumb opinions and make dumb websites, but having them on your show just to insult them is just as annoying, if not more so. Plus, Crook had a sweet haircut.
Deeper analysis:
One must wonder what level of etiquette should be considered before berating a person on a world-wide broadcast. Is it ok for a network to say anything and everything they feel, or should program hosts use restraint? Sean Hannity’s words were far less degrading than those found on Michael Crook’s site, but should he bring himself down to that low level of discussion?
I don’t think Hannity & Colmes are obligated to do anything on their show other than observe the law – including maintaining a certain level of etiquette or restraint. However, I think journalism like that portrayed by Hannity in the interview with Crook is low quality because it forgoes an opportunity to educate its audience in order to get hyped up calling someone they didn’t agree with names. This leads those watching to think they have an educated opinion on something when they actually know nothing about it at all. In this case, I can picture a conversation between someone who had just seen this interview and a friend as going something like this:
"I saw the biggest idiot on TV the other day. He actually started a website called ‘forsakethetroops.’ Can you believe that?"
"People like that shouldn’t be allowed to live in this country. He should be deported to Cuba to see how he likes it without those troops protecting him."
"No doubt. I’m going to go buy five more ‘support the troops’ magnets for my car because I’m a real American."
The issues aren’t debated or even brought up and neither of the two imaginary people in the dialogue have any idea as to the content of the website or the validity of its arguments. If Hannity had presented information instead of cut-downs, the conversation might have gone something like this:
"I saw the biggest idiot on TV the other day. He started a website called ‘forsakethetroops’ and is arguing that blah blah blah… which doesn’t make any sense because blah blah blah…"
"I may or may not agree with those ‘blahs’, but at least now I know what I’m judging."
"And knowing is half the battle."
I wish I was headed to Fort Drum to personally deliver Crook a tampon by milhous
I particularly like his ramblings under the salary of his website where he states:
As the solider progresses, and when/if they meet qualifications, such as rank, and time in, the military will supply him/her with a housing allowance, provided that the soldier lives off base (sometimes due to the fact that no on-base housing is available, due to overenlistment, and poor planning on the part of the military), depending on the branch of service.
Overenlistment? Is that even a word? I’m sorry I wasn’t even aware that we had an "Overenlistment problem". Maybe this douche bag needs to read Will’s article on the military’s enlistment woes.
crashed by milhous
The "Forsake the Troops!" site is down…..WOO HOO!!!