|
The Octillion |
|
A blog of our times |
|
For examples, see here, here, here here, here, and here, The Dean
of Hartford Seminary College convincingly
argues More on the clever For examples on the sister show preceding the Hannity and Colmes debacle, the "O'Reilly Factor," and its "fair and balanced" right wing conservative host, see: Here, here, here, here, here here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here here here, here, here, and here.
|
LANGUAGE OF DISTORTION AND RHETORIC: THE UNWITTING FOX'S APPROACH
One of the most popular talk
and radio show hosts in America apparently thinks that al-Qaeda
Terrorism leader Usama Bin Laden, by voicing opinions, ought to be
able to stifle debate in America -- the land of the free and home of
the brave.
HANNITY: It's more than that. I think it's also
the leaders in the Democratic Party that, from the very beginning,
have undermined this war. If I were to give you a quiz, Mr.
Speaker, and if I would say to you, "You know, was it [Sen.] Ted
Kennedy [D-MA], [House Democratic Leader] Nancy Pelosi [D-CA],
[Rep.] John Murtha [D-PA] who said, 'George Bush gives continuous,
deliberate misinformation. Polls reveal that we want to withdraw
from Iraq.' " You would have guessed either of -- any of those.
Well, it was bin Laden who said that. Mr. Hannity: if Bin laden said that polls reveal that we wanted to stay in Iraq, should we then leave Iraq because of what Bin Laden says? What if Bin Laden asked us to stay? What if he asked us to leave? Why are you even listening to him? Hannity is arguing that by disagreeing with policy, democrats undermine it (does this apply when democrats are in office as well, or just when far right wing republicans are?). The host of the show preceding Hannity and Colmes, Fox's Bill O'Reilly, has often made the same point. But O'Reilly adds that "dissent is okay, undermining is not okay," without realizing that the distinction between "dissent" and "undermining" is wholly dependent on the point of view of the one making this contention. A new standard of doublespeak occurs on this channel, where Hannity, O'Reilly, and others on the channel, continue to say "dissent is okay," and then almost each time an example of dissent is discussed, say that it "undermines" the war, or something else. Hannity even wrote a book that by its very title labels Despots, Terrorists, and Liberals as similarly evil. (Intriguingly, a despot is a regime leader that tightly controls information, and usurps power, often even beginning with good intentions or motives. Under the laws and Constitution of our democracy, it is difficult to do this. But the current administration, which Hannity is such a big fan of, has pushed the bounds of both the law and the Constitution to move us in this direction). This is America, one has a right to a view, no matter how illogical. It's ironic that that same someone, whose logic is often flat out backward, labels most of those who disagree with him as traitors. Yet Hannity does not even seem to understand the views that he condemns, or the views of those that he condemns, as not a show goes by where he does not grossly distort those views or engage in some paradigm of logic, often repeatedly. Why would he need to do this? If it is purposeful, he is manipulating and lying to his audience. If not it means he does not even understand the views that he is condemning. That's not journalism. That's zealotry. Those who recognize this about the show, nevertheless not only allow it and allow it to mischaracterize them, but legitimize it as well by constantly referring to or appearing on it as a source of news. Then, when making these points, marginalizing the station's importance as if "everybody knows this." (If they did, it wouldn't be watched, and it would not constantly be referenced as a mainstream source of news, let alone among the most watched if not most watched "news" related stations on cable television.) Where are the democrats, the moderates, the independents, even that dying breed of moderate republicans, out in the mainstream making this case? And where are those dastardly traitors, the "liberals" themselves (although Hannity, and most of the representatives of Fox's 'balanced' hosts label almost anybody who makes a reasonable point that disagrees with their position as a "liberal"), who incorrectly marginalize Fox's importance while at the same time getting ripped apart in the public arena by Fox???? (aka, for the search engines only, the 'Fox news channel') The hypocrisy over saying that one respects democracy on the one hand, then lashing out at one of its essential elements, on the other, are bad enough. Yet the implications of what Hannity says are worse: Does this mean that if Bin Laden said that if the Red Sox won the World Series, anybody in America who also said that the Red Sox won the World Series (or should win the world series, or any other point of view for that matter), is also a "traitor?" (As Hannity has said he thinks anybody who "undermines" the war in Iraq is). Or is it just on matters of national policy that we are stifled from debate, under the perverted ("let us be ruled by what some terrorist says") logic of this joke of a show that somehow not only passes for news, but is a popular program on just about the most watched so called "news" cable station in America. Here's another suggestion for Hannity, or for any American who thinks we are doing a great job on terrorism just because of all the rhetoric we are hearing: How about we catch the guy responsible for the brutal murder of 3000 American civilians, and for destroying a small portion of our largest city, then we don't need to worry about what he says.
|
|