Hannity's Horn Has Only One Note.
Patrick Carlock
April 10, 2007
On the Hannity & Colmes show, Sean Hannity has a trick.
There is something that he does, and since he does it often enough, I can say with a measure of clarity that he must not care about getting at the truth with many of his guests.
How often have I seen Hannity do the following: He invites someone on his program, someone who is not in his camp, and he asks a question. He often frames a question in such a way, usually going for either a simple answer or a yes or no answer. Often, the person will start a discussion, without immediately giving him his simple answer or yes or no answer because the premise has to be dealt with first. He then interrupts, assuming that the answer can be answered with a quick answer or often just a yes or no, and then he immediately accuses the person of not answering the question.
The problem is that he has framed the question in such a way that either answer, yes, or no, will both serve his agenda. To compound the unfairness of the question, his question is often based on an assumed premise, which, in turn, forces the person answering to deal with the premise, at which point not providing the quick answer that Hannity seeks makes it seem like the person questioned is avoiding the question, which is rarely the truth.
It is unfair to ask question based on an assumed premise, which is to say, a highly debatable premise without establishing the veracity of the premise, or at least a premise which is mutually agreeable, first.
Life is full of shades of gray, and a simple answer or just a yes and no answer is often too black or white to get at the truth, when the truth is often of a different hue.
I've listened to many of the questions he asks, and much of the time, he asks the wrong question, or he doesn't frame it in away that allows the truth to surface, which reveals his bias in bright neocon colors.
Hannity is constantly complaining about "liberal media bias". Why doesn't Hannity complain about the blatantly obvious right wing bias of Fox News? How about the conservative bias of AM radio, in general? Bias is bias. Why is liberal bias bad, but conservative bias is acceptable? Can we honestly believe that that Fox News is "balanced" when Dick Cheney, the most ideologically driven Vice President in history, wherever he travels, makes sure the hotel tunes the room TV only to Fox news? Ideologically driven people don't care about opposing views, because they are right and that is that. Ideologically driven leaders (who shouldn't be leaders) surround themselves with yes men. Do you think Hannity, when they were about to give him a contract, and he had to pick an opposing counterpart, that he would have chosen someone like Phil Donahue? Though I admire Alan Colmes a lot, it is obvious why he was picked; his softer and more gentlemanly approach wouldn't upstage Hannity.
Here is an example of Hannity in his classic "asks-a-question-based-on-an-assumed-premise" in which Hannity tries hard to prevent Jerry Brown (Mayor of Oakland) from attacking the assumed premise on which the question is based:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjqxwvDt3JA
Mr. Hannity, allow me to do to you what you do to others; here is an imaginary conversation on my imaginary talk show, and you are my guest:
Thaddeus: Sean, which word would a reasonable person more closely associate with adventurous spirit and open-mindedness: liberal, or conservative?
Hannity: I see where you are going, but ...
Thaddeus: Sean, please answer the question.
Hannity: Well, I see what you are trying...
Thaddeus: Mr. Hannity, answer the question.
Hannity: Well, yeah, but...
Thaddeus: Sean, there is only one answer, either 'liberal or conservative', which is it?
Either answer to my question in the above imaginary scenario, fashioned after what Hannity typically does to others, would serve my (hypothetical) agenda because "liberal" would be the right answer, and "conservative" would make Hannity look like a fool, since most people wouldn't make the same choice. But since Hannity, in this hypothetical exchange, would probably sense the flawed premise, he is probably first going to challenge the premise (just like his own detractors might do). He might go on to explain that the word "liberal", in the purest sense of the word, is not the same as how modern liberalism has evolved, and so forth. The premise may or may not be false, which I don't believe it is, but that is not the point I'm trying to make; the point is that when Hannity frame questions, the answers of which are only one word which he is going to allow, i.e., yes or no, true or false, this or that, or a simple quick answer, and not allowing the person being questioned to debate the premise on which the question is based, (on those questions which have easily challengable premises, which is often) he is not allowing the process of truth surfacing as the result of dialogue and inquiry to take place, because that is not Hannity's intent, his intent is only to forward his agenda, which he assumes, high and mightily, is the only agenda worthy of presenting to his audience.
It seems Hannity, and others like Hannity (Limbaugh, Savage, etc), spend their days and nights doing primarily one thing: bashing the left. No matter who comes on Hannity's program from the left, whether they are extreme or moderate, he often ignores whatever specific issue the person has, corals them up and tries to steer the dialogue, not into a debate the issue for which the guest came on the show, but a right is good, liberal is bad, debate, and objective truth be damned.
Secretly, he yearns for a one party system; the Republican party. I feel right in drawing that particular inference from the time when he, on air, said (paraphrased) "I don't mind the Democrats, just as long as Republicans have power". So Hannity only wants token, not real, opposition.
Is that really good for America? In the last six years, we have had both houses, and the Presidency, controlled by Republicans, and now America is seen by the world as the pariah, our moral high ground is now quicksand, our deficit has careened out of control, and we are caught up in a quagmire in Iraq with no foreseeable positive outcome in the future.
Whenever there is evil in the world, Hannity is quick to shout that liberals are largely responsible. If a liberal doesn't support his position, then, in his twisted logic, the liberal supports terrorism. When the fall of communism in Russia is mentioned, he declares that Reagan was the reason, without ever mentioning Gorbachev and his policy of Glasnost, which was, in fact, largely responsible. He is quick to ask Democrats to distance themselves from Rosie O'Donnell's behavior, but is very servile to Ann Coulter when she is outrageous. In fact, Hannity can't even tell when she is outrageous.
Any day now, I'm expecting Hannity to blame his clogged up toilet on liberals, too, no doubt. If truth were music, the only tune Hannity can play is the "One Note Samba."
Hannity should climb down from his high horse which reeks of the stench of self-righteous indignation, and let people speak. Truth emerges best in a mutually cooperative, two-way dialogue over issues; it has to be arrived at, egos have to be chipped away in order to see it.
There is no question, in my mind, that Alan Colmes, regardless of his politics, is the better man.
There is something that he does, and since he does it often enough, I can say with a measure of clarity that he must not care about getting at the truth with many of his guests.
How often have I seen Hannity do the following: He invites someone on his program, someone who is not in his camp, and he asks a question. He often frames a question in such a way, usually going for either a simple answer or a yes or no answer. Often, the person will start a discussion, without immediately giving him his simple answer or yes or no answer because the premise has to be dealt with first. He then interrupts, assuming that the answer can be answered with a quick answer or often just a yes or no, and then he immediately accuses the person of not answering the question.
The problem is that he has framed the question in such a way that either answer, yes, or no, will both serve his agenda. To compound the unfairness of the question, his question is often based on an assumed premise, which, in turn, forces the person answering to deal with the premise, at which point not providing the quick answer that Hannity seeks makes it seem like the person questioned is avoiding the question, which is rarely the truth.
It is unfair to ask question based on an assumed premise, which is to say, a highly debatable premise without establishing the veracity of the premise, or at least a premise which is mutually agreeable, first.
Life is full of shades of gray, and a simple answer or just a yes and no answer is often too black or white to get at the truth, when the truth is often of a different hue.
I've listened to many of the questions he asks, and much of the time, he asks the wrong question, or he doesn't frame it in away that allows the truth to surface, which reveals his bias in bright neocon colors.
Hannity is constantly complaining about "liberal media bias". Why doesn't Hannity complain about the blatantly obvious right wing bias of Fox News? How about the conservative bias of AM radio, in general? Bias is bias. Why is liberal bias bad, but conservative bias is acceptable? Can we honestly believe that that Fox News is "balanced" when Dick Cheney, the most ideologically driven Vice President in history, wherever he travels, makes sure the hotel tunes the room TV only to Fox news? Ideologically driven people don't care about opposing views, because they are right and that is that. Ideologically driven leaders (who shouldn't be leaders) surround themselves with yes men. Do you think Hannity, when they were about to give him a contract, and he had to pick an opposing counterpart, that he would have chosen someone like Phil Donahue? Though I admire Alan Colmes a lot, it is obvious why he was picked; his softer and more gentlemanly approach wouldn't upstage Hannity.
Here is an example of Hannity in his classic "asks-a-question-based-on-an-assumed-premise" in which Hannity tries hard to prevent Jerry Brown (Mayor of Oakland) from attacking the assumed premise on which the question is based:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjqxwvDt3JA
Mr. Hannity, allow me to do to you what you do to others; here is an imaginary conversation on my imaginary talk show, and you are my guest:
Thaddeus: Sean, which word would a reasonable person more closely associate with adventurous spirit and open-mindedness: liberal, or conservative?
Hannity: I see where you are going, but ...
Thaddeus: Sean, please answer the question.
Hannity: Well, I see what you are trying...
Thaddeus: Mr. Hannity, answer the question.
Hannity: Well, yeah, but...
Thaddeus: Sean, there is only one answer, either 'liberal or conservative', which is it?
Either answer to my question in the above imaginary scenario, fashioned after what Hannity typically does to others, would serve my (hypothetical) agenda because "liberal" would be the right answer, and "conservative" would make Hannity look like a fool, since most people wouldn't make the same choice. But since Hannity, in this hypothetical exchange, would probably sense the flawed premise, he is probably first going to challenge the premise (just like his own detractors might do). He might go on to explain that the word "liberal", in the purest sense of the word, is not the same as how modern liberalism has evolved, and so forth. The premise may or may not be false, which I don't believe it is, but that is not the point I'm trying to make; the point is that when Hannity frame questions, the answers of which are only one word which he is going to allow, i.e., yes or no, true or false, this or that, or a simple quick answer, and not allowing the person being questioned to debate the premise on which the question is based, (on those questions which have easily challengable premises, which is often) he is not allowing the process of truth surfacing as the result of dialogue and inquiry to take place, because that is not Hannity's intent, his intent is only to forward his agenda, which he assumes, high and mightily, is the only agenda worthy of presenting to his audience.
It seems Hannity, and others like Hannity (Limbaugh, Savage, etc), spend their days and nights doing primarily one thing: bashing the left. No matter who comes on Hannity's program from the left, whether they are extreme or moderate, he often ignores whatever specific issue the person has, corals them up and tries to steer the dialogue, not into a debate the issue for which the guest came on the show, but a right is good, liberal is bad, debate, and objective truth be damned.
Secretly, he yearns for a one party system; the Republican party. I feel right in drawing that particular inference from the time when he, on air, said (paraphrased) "I don't mind the Democrats, just as long as Republicans have power". So Hannity only wants token, not real, opposition.
Is that really good for America? In the last six years, we have had both houses, and the Presidency, controlled by Republicans, and now America is seen by the world as the pariah, our moral high ground is now quicksand, our deficit has careened out of control, and we are caught up in a quagmire in Iraq with no foreseeable positive outcome in the future.
Whenever there is evil in the world, Hannity is quick to shout that liberals are largely responsible. If a liberal doesn't support his position, then, in his twisted logic, the liberal supports terrorism. When the fall of communism in Russia is mentioned, he declares that Reagan was the reason, without ever mentioning Gorbachev and his policy of Glasnost, which was, in fact, largely responsible. He is quick to ask Democrats to distance themselves from Rosie O'Donnell's behavior, but is very servile to Ann Coulter when she is outrageous. In fact, Hannity can't even tell when she is outrageous.
Any day now, I'm expecting Hannity to blame his clogged up toilet on liberals, too, no doubt. If truth were music, the only tune Hannity can play is the "One Note Samba."
Hannity should climb down from his high horse which reeks of the stench of self-righteous indignation, and let people speak. Truth emerges best in a mutually cooperative, two-way dialogue over issues; it has to be arrived at, egos have to be chipped away in order to see it.
There is no question, in my mind, that Alan Colmes, regardless of his politics, is the better man.
Print
Email
