Rep. Keith Ellison had an epic confrontation with Sean Hannity tonight over one of Hannity’s mashup videos that purported to smear President Obama over the sequester. Or, as Hannity called it, "a Hannity highlight reel of President Panic in action." Ellison didn’t mince his words, telling Hannity, “Quite frankly, you are the worst excuse for a journalist I’ve ever seen.” Things went downhill from there until Hannity finally ended the interview.
Quite frankly, you are the worst excuse for a journalist I’ve ever seen. …What you just displayed was not journalism. It was yellow journalism. It wasn’t anything close to try to tell the American people what’s really going on. I mean it’s just shocking.
…Every journalistic ethic I have ever heard of was just violated by you.
…You are a shill for the Republican party. …You alibi them 100% of the time.
Hannity was surprisingly restrained, probably because he had a Congressman on the show. But finally, he said, “Congressman, you are a total waste of time.” And he ended the interview.
You’ve probably not even deigned to look at AAP’s post but do try to keep up with the others. They’re way ahead of you, dear.
Go ahead and lie and say you did, but its not on here. Theres links to bios and thats it.
Even though he answered that better than I ever could when he refused to acknowledge that Maddow did indeed call ABC out on their edited clip, and Newsbusters even admitted it in their article.
But, just because I feel like seeing how much dumber he can make himself, let’s see him try to defend Fox News’ allowance of hate speech from their viewers.
For just a small sample- Fox News allows this talk from their viewers on a daily basis. In fact, Jesse Watters probably encourages both racism and violent sentiment, considering that he went on O’Reilly’s show and said that only black people commit crime in Chicago- twice.
BTW, since you’re being picky about what constitutes an insult, does the literally hundreds of times they called union workers “thugs” count? Their constantly slanderous portrayal of occupiers? How about when they said Rush Limbaugh was right to call Sandra Fluke a slut? Uppity black people? Beck, Hannity and Megyn Kelly called Obama a racist repeatedly, does that count? How about when Bush was president, and Fox News equated his critics to traitors?
Oh, wait- Of course it doesn’t… Just like it doesn’t count when someone points out that sites like Newsbusters and Town Hall lie constantly about MSNBC, providing examples of how they lied.
All media has slant, genius- But Fox News not only has no objectivity, there’s a case that gets stronger by the day that they just want their viewers to kill people they don’t agree with. And Fox Nation is a good gague for how close they are to getting that. I daresay an even better gague than the crimes already committed that can be tied to their hosts.
Not sure where you’re getting the idea of anger from me. You may be confusing me with someone else. I don’t recall holding MSNBC’s hosts any less accountable. But you continue to avoid the central question I posed to you. Are you saying that the name calling by Hannity et al is okay in your book or just as you putti “over the top”?
And i was responding to a poster that said that the liberals at MSNBC rarely ever call conservatives names. Thats a lie. He also said he could give me 100 examples of FOX conservatives calling liberals names for every time an MSNBC liberal called a conservative a name. He clearly cant, I just like rubbing in the fact that he’s wrong. Always.
You’re not seriously trying to say that Fox News hosts and featured guests like Hannity (and Malkin, Levin, etc) don’t call President Obama names, are you? I thought you had acknowledged this before. Your issue was that you were trying to turn the discussion into a comparison with MSNBC before we were able to have you get back to the point of the discussion.
While we’re on that discussion to finish this up, you do acknowledge that the name-calling by Hannity (and Levin and Malkin) as well as by Limbaugh in comments regularly embraced by Fox News are reprehensible, right?
Also, I give you links. You just refuse to acknowledge them because they prove me right and you wrong.
Douchebag convention: http://thehill.com/conventions-2012/gop-convention-tampa/247011-chris-matthews-gets-into-confrontation-with-gop-delegates
Comparing them to HAMAS: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2013/02/20/chris-matthews-who-previously-whined-about-too-much-hate-politics-co
Calling them Nazis: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2012/10/22/unhinged-chris-matthews-assails-conservative-birth-control-nazis
Nazis again: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2012/11/26/chris-matthews-outrageously-links-unhappy-conservatives-hitler
That’ll get you started. By my count you owe me 700 examples with links. Get to posting.
@come on: have spent the better part of the morning chasing down your supposed cases and haven’t yet found anything. Am tempted to conclude that you may have invented them.
Matthews has called conservatives: racists, liars, douchebag convention, morons, idiots, nazis, dogs, pigs, nuts, compared the GOP to HAMAS, primitive, evil, compared conservatives to Hitler and Stalin, segregationists, bigots, ignorant.
This is just from ONE MSNBC host. So dont come with this “few times” lie.
In fact, none of you seem to want to tackle ANY of those quotes I posted from MSNBC hosts. Whats the problem?
Of course your response will be something NOT addressing any of that.
Come to think of it, I have yet to see him or any of his other names post on a thread where we gave Fox News credit. But to be fair… that kinda does undermine his lie that we won’t do that.
Nope: had you actually read the purpose of the site, you’d have realised we’re sharing our outrage at only one target, namely Fox News.
The fact that they’re a shill for the GOP is mere coincidence.
I’d say that was smack dab in the middle of the bullseye.
I think I did that when I said that the one I addressed was the closest you could come to factual, and they were clearly hoping you couldn’t read past the headline.
Thanks for proving you can’t read comments, either.
But the question isn’t whether Hannity is over the top. It’s whether you can acknowledge that Hannity has said some reprehensible things about the President, and has done so repeatedly on his program, including during the introduction to this segment. Can you see that there’s a reason that people are less than pleased with his consistent behavior in this regard? Again, not to defend anyone else behaving badly. Just to note that Hannity’s conduct here hasn’t just been over the top but way out of line. You can get carried away or excited and not refer to the President as “President Crybaby” night after night. Hannity’s behavior has regularly been beyond the pale, as if he were in a competition with Rush Limbaugh in that regard.
So you’re acknowledging that Sean Hannity’s conduct, including in his introduction to this interview when he repeatedly insulted the President (and thus provoked Ellison’s angry reaction, whatever opinions any of us may hold about that reaction), has been in fact reprehensible? Again, this is not a comparison with MSNBC – just a statement regarding Sean Hannity without trying to get into a comparative discussion of which network’s anchors insulted who when.