Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

Sean Hannity Proves He’s A Bigot: A Week In Review

Reported by Ellen - December 3, 2006 -

Sean Hannity's contrasting reactions to different racial issues proved his bigotry. When blacks were concerned about racial issues, he accused them of "playing racial politics," when whites spoke out, they got a sympathetic platform on Hannity & Colmes.

First, we had Hannity's belligerent reactions to the police slaying of a black, unarmed bridegroom in New York City and his irrational attacks on a civil rights attorney concerned about police brutality across the country. Of all the issues the NYC tragedy could have raised, Hannity focused on accusing a number of African-American leaders of racism and divisiveness in their outrage. Hannity followed that up by comparing African-American Keith Ellison’s desire to use the Koran in his ceremonial Congressional swearing-in to the use of Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Yet, in another discussion, when a white “anti-illegal immigration advocate” complained that migrants live in shantytowns to avoid paying rent and that San Diego police discriminate against whites, Hannity remained, warm, sympathetic and credulous.

In the case of the New York City shooting, Hannity used his African-American guests, Charles Barron and James Myart (11/27 and 11/28/06), as racist boogeymen trying to exploit the tragedy for their personal gain. Whether or not that’s true (and I saw no evidence of it), Hannity’s larger purpose seemed to be to denigrate and de-legitimize the African-American perspective. In fact, no African-American voice on this racially-tinged issue was offered that was not attacked by Hannity. It was left to half-Hispanic Geraldo Rivera, appearing as a guest, to remind Hannity that the real issue was a slain, unarmed bridegroom.

Not for Hannity, it wasn’t. He reiterated that his real concern was “a rush to judgment” against the police and the possibility that other (black) people were causing racial divisions in the city.

Hannity could have done his part to help calm the racial tensions he claimed to deplore by offering a real dialogue instead of a shouting match. Instead, he used his show as a bullyboy pulpit from which he fanned the flames of hostility – while always blaming blacks. Video of Hannity's discussion with Rivera can be found during my earlier post on this segment, here. Video of the Barron shouting match is on FOXNews.com and is called "Wedding Day Slay."

The pattern repeated itself the next night, 11/29/06, with civil rights attorney James Myart. Hannity erupted into a frenzy of bigoted anger at Myart’s suggestion that there be a congressional investigation into the use of police force across the country. Hannity never allowed Myart to discuss his ideas but, rather, Hannity used the interview for his own aggressive grandstanding. “You’re pretty ignorant about the facts in the case,” he accused, yet never identified which facts Myart got wrong. With hostile zeal, Hannity continued, “You know what you’re doing and I want all of America to listen very closely. You are inciting racial divisiveness.” As a further insult, the screen repeatedly identified Myart as the former attorney for Cynthia McKinney, another Hannity scapegoat, despite the fact that McKinney had nothing to do with the issue at hand. Unfortunately, Hannity’s baiting finally got the best of Mr. Myart and he struck back at the end, by calling Hannity a “rich, white boy.” Hannity must have felt he had “exposed” another uppity black. Video is in my earlier, lengthier post on this segment.

But Hannity wasn’t done with his high-tech lynchings for the week. On November 30, he was all ears as the top story on Hannity & Colmes “debated” the bigoted accusations of radio host Dennis Prager, that Congressman-elect Ellison would be “doing more damage to the unity of America by using the Koran (in his ceremonial swearing-in) and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9/11.” Hannity’s concerns about racial divisiveness were nowhere in sight as he compared Ellison’s use of the Koran to Hitler possibly using Mein Kampf. Hannity asked the inflammatory question, “Where does this stop?” You can read my previous post on this segment. Media Matters has a transcript and video.

Concerns about divisiveness also disappeared when white, “anti-illegal immigration advocate” John Monti came on the show (11/28/06). Monti had suffered what amounted to nothing more than some scrapes and abrasions as the result of some fisticuffs with migrants whom he tried to photograph without permission. Monti touted the scuffle as an assault that, he claimed, police would not investigate because of their anti-white bias. “The real hate crime here,” Monti told Alan Colmes who questioned Monti’s claim that the attack had been a hate crime against him, “is how the San Diego Police Department is, you know, responding to this crime. I mean, if it had been eight white guys attacking a migrant I think they would have already tried and convicted the people in the court of public opinion and you know we would have heard of all this sanctimonious rhetoric already about, you know, this can never happen again.” Monti went on to “dispel” the “popular belief” that migrants live in shantytowns because of poverty. “The thing is though, a number, many of them choose to live out here because, you know, they don’t want to pay rents or they have personal problems.” He later told Hannity “It seems that every child prostitution spot in the county seems to have a migrant camp associated with it.”

Hannity had no problem with those bigoted accusations about people of color. Not only did Hannity remain sympathetic to Monti throughout the interview, none of his dubious accusations were questioned. My previous post, with video, of that discussion can be found here.