Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
Thread parent sort order:
Thread verbosity:
0 Nerd-Its
RE: Hannity is a Cobra spy
I agree with Brandon on this one. Whether or not a news anchor uses tact or not is up to him (depending on how much he likes his job or jail for that matter). However, news is supposed to be just that. Give us an event, and present who, what, why, where, and how. I don't care if the interviewer agrees with who he's interviewing or not, his job is to tell me the facts, get answers and allow me to make a decision. I think had Crook been allowed to continue with his own thought process it would have inevitably failed. Hannity tried to prove this, but did a rather inefficient job. I too am angered by what Crook wrote, but I find that all the more reason to allow him to use his own words to make him look like an idiot with failed logic.
This comment has 6 replies.
RSS
Hannity is a Cobra spy
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."
View Full Discussion