Rep. Ellison Calls Hannity 'Worst Excuse For a Journalist I've Ever Seen'

[thereisnospoon]

I've never heard of a journalist storming out of his own interview. Hillarious!

You didn't 'hear' it ^^^ either.​

Fess up, you didn't read or watch the video.

his behavior was "deplorable"?

it isn't as if respectable citizens watch that show anyway. It's a step below the Jerry Springer show. If people are foolish enough to tune in, they can expect a circus. Who cares?

Oh.."Hannity" has the highest ratings of any cable news/talk show. In fact, if put together all the shows on CNN and MSNBC do not have the number of viewers Hannity does.

Let's cut to the chase. You people on the left are incensed over the mere existence of a non liberal point of view.

 

[Sallow]

Matthews is biased. He's a pundit.

But it's funny when he was hypercritical of Clinton, conservatives loved the guy.

In any case..Matthews gets it right most of the time. And his analysis is spot on..even if you don't like him.

Hannity? Makes shit up.

I've never seen anyone not on the far left praise Matthews. Matthews feeds your confirmation bias, so you praise him. It doesn't make him fair or balanced, it just reveals you as a mental midget.

Oh, and the only making shit up, is you.

And there's in lies the weakness of your argument..and your mind.

You can't even for once focus on the topic..without insults.

If you could..you would find the fault in the post..and point it out.

Here's the facts.

Matthews actually worked in Washington. He knows how it functions. He knows how deals are made.

Hannity hasn't. The people he talks to are generally either shills or ham and eggers.

Thus..he really doesn't have a clue how Washington functions..so he makes shit up.

Never..did I post Matthews was "Fair and Balanced".

So like Hannity YOU MAKE SHIT UP.

 

[Sallow]

The point is Mattews is just as biased a commentator as Hannity is.

Anyone appearing on the FOX or MSDNC shows should know going in what they're getting in to.

Matthews is biased. He's a pundit.

But it's funny when he was hypercritical of Clinton, conservatives loved the guy.

In any case..Matthews gets it right most of the time. And his analysis is spot on..even if you don't like him.

Hannity? Makes shit up.

Hannity can be an asshole. But to say that he makes shit up and to argue that Matthews gets stuff right is just so fucking delusional that all I can do is laugh at you.

Some more.

Laugh all you want.

You live outside of what the rest of the world calls "reality" in a place free from things like facts and evidence.

Just like Hannity.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Matthews is biased. He's a pundit.

But it's funny when he was hypercritical of Clinton, conservatives loved the guy.

In any case..Matthews gets it right most of the time. And his analysis is spot on..even if you don't like him.

Hannity? Makes shit up.

Hannity can be an asshole. But to say that he makes shit up and to argue that Matthews gets stuff right is just so fucking delusional that all I can do is laugh at you.

Some more.

Laugh all you want.

You live outside of what the rest of the world calls "reality" in a place free from things like facts and evidence.

Just like Hannity.

Rejecting the bullshit idiots like you falsely label "reality" is the sign of mental health.

Naturally, you wouldn't understand.

 

[Mustang]

Wrong. Commentators comment and that MAY certainly include advocacy.

You have the notion of "journalist" conflated with "political commentator."

No, journalists are engaged in disseminating the news. They follow the story where it leads. A commentator comments on the new. And a political commentator comments on political news. He doesn't advocate. See how that works?

Think about it in terms of a sports commentator. He does NOT take one team's side in the game. That would make him a fan. And once the sports commentator's objectivity (at least his outward objectivity) is gone regarding everything from whether penalties were committed by one team or another or whether the necessary yardage was gained to achieve a first down, his previous ability to perform his job is gone because his objectivity can no longer be assumed as a given.

I see that YOU refuse to contemplate what "commentary" entails.

If a reporter reports some facts of a story and says "the gas tank exploded" the commentator might add: "and the explosion was fiery and large and loud and hot." He might even say that it was really hot.

On the other hand, he MIGHT just say something like, "and the cause of the fire was found to be negligence and that kind of negligence is inexcusable." Holy shit. He stated and opinion, but guess what? It's STILL a comment.

See how THAT works?

Edward R. Murrow was a reporter. At some points he crossed over into commentary. For example, in one piece of his famed commentary on McCarthy he asked "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?"

That was political commentary, but if you think it wasn't also advocacy, then I would like to sell you a fine bridge in the Borough of Kings in the City of New York.

Stating that a fire was hot (DUH!) and that it was a result of negligence is a report based on (I would hope) reputable sources and constitutes news, IF true. Speculating on the causes or the source of the aforementioned negligence would constitute commentary as long as you're not taking sides for or against anyone. Stating that the negligence was inexcusable goes beyond merely commenting on events and enters the land of offering a definitive judgement which, if not supported by the facts, could lead to a defamation law suit against a person who says that. I suppose it qualifies as commentary, but it's both wreckless and constitutes advocacy.

But none of that changes the fact that Hannity makes no pretense to being objective. Commentary without at least the appearance of impartiality goes beyond being merely observational in nature. And once you continuously take one side in an argument, you are no longer merely commenting on events, you're taking sides.

The statement you reference ("Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?") as having been made by Edward R. Murrow was actually made by Joseph N. Welch who actually said the following:

"At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"​

 

[thereisnospoon]

Congressman Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) had an amazingly heated discussion with Fox News's Sean Hannity Tuesday evening.

At the beginning of the six-minute slugfest, Ellison called his host "the worst excuse for a journalist I've ever seen" leading to a truly ugly encounter that culminated in Hannity ending the interview by saying to his guest, "You are a total waste of time" (video follows with rough transcript and commentary):

Read more: Rep. Ellison Calls Hannity 'Worst Excuse For a Journalist I've Ever Seen'; Hannity Calls Him 'Waste of Time' | NewsBusters

It is amazing and depressing the absolute, stone-cold idiots and punks that somehow get elected to Congress. There are plenty of liars and cheats in the Senate, but there are some low-lifes in the House that you wouldn't trust to walk your dog, let alone write laws for our country. Wow. Some of these morons are as bad as the most extreme, mindless partisans posting here that just about everyone ignores because they are so dim-witted and predictable.

What do you expect. Ellison has a seat in the US House for as long as he wants it. He represents Minneapolis. Home of 75% of the liberal voters in the state of Minnesota.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
And there's in lies the weakness of your argument..and your mind.

That you suffer from confirmation bias?

You can't even for once focus on the topic..without insults.

LOL

Bias IS the topic, sparky.

If you could..you would find the fault in the post..and point it out.

The fault of the post is your confirmation bias. Because Matthews promotes the political views that you hold, you demand that he is 100% accurate and wise beyond all imagining.

Yours is a logical fallacy.

Here's the facts.

Matthews actually worked in Washington. He knows how it functions. He knows how deals are made.

Kewl, so I guess he must be wise beyond all imagining - besides, he confirms your adoration of Obama.

Hannity hasn't. The people he talks to are generally either shills or ham and eggers.

I'd be curious to see the cross over between the two. I'd bet they share at least 60% of the same guests.

But, Matthews confirms the adoration you hold for Obama, ergo he is wise and honest. Hannity criticizes Obama, ergo HE is a liar and a fraud.

Because you are simple minded, your reactions are simple.

Thus..he really doesn't have a clue how Washington functions..so he makes shit up.

Link?

Never..did I post Matthews was "Fair and Balanced".

"Matthews gets it right most of the time."

Lying douchebag.

So like Hannity YOU MAKE SHIT UP.

Lying douchebag.

Like Matthews..

{The next sentence quoted Matthews from a Monday phone interview: "No. 1 on The New York Times best-seller list for 10 weeks." The problem? Matthews lied. He has been on the best-seller list for 10 weeks with "Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero." But it's never been number one on the NYT's Hardcover Nonfiction list. It debuted at number three on the November 20 list and sat at number 14 on the January 22 list. }

 

[thereisnospoon]

He is as much a journalist as Chris Matthews, or anybody on the left. Fox and MSNBC are good for nothing more than entertainment.

^^^^^ Nails it.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Ellison planned on going off on Hannity.

Partisan media blabbers = Division Pimps, part of the problem

.

Except Matthews actually worked in Washington and knows what he talking about.

Hannity? He's a college drop out that's solely done radio and tv.

He didn't even "write" the books he authored.

And gets chills up his spine....
And accuses everyone who opposes Obama's agenda as racist.
THAT Chris Matthews?....

 

[Uncensored2008]

Stating that a fire was hot (DUH!) and that it was a result of negligence is a report based on (I would hope) reputable sources and constitutes news, IF true. Speculating on the causes or the source of the aforementioned negligence would constitute commentary as long as you're not taking sides for or against anyone. Stating that the negligence was inexcusable goes beyond merely commenting on events and enters the land of offering a definitive judgement which, if not supported by the facts, could lead to a defamation law suit against a person who says that. I suppose it qualifies as commentary, but it's both wreckless and constitutes advocacy.

But none of that changes the fact that Hannity makes no pretense to being objective. Commentary without at least the appearance of impartiality goes beyond being merely observational in nature. And once you continuously take one side in an argument, you are no longer merely commenting on events, you're taking sides.

The statement you reference ("Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?") as having been made by Edward R. Murrow was actually made by Joseph N. Welch who actually said the following:

"At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"​

Edward Murrow, America's own Josef Goebbels.

Regardless, Hannity is no more biased than Matthews, Maddow, Stewart, or a host of other leftists commentators. It just outrages you that anyone is permitted to speak against the party. You want all opposition silenced.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Congressman Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) had an amazingly heated discussion with Fox News's Sean Hannity Tuesday evening.

At the beginning of the six-minute slugfest, Ellison called his host "the worst excuse for a journalist I've ever seen" leading to a truly ugly encounter that culminated in Hannity ending the interview by saying to his guest, "You are a total waste of time" (video follows with rough transcript and commentary):

Read more: Rep. Ellison Calls Hannity 'Worst Excuse For a Journalist I've Ever Seen'; Hannity Calls Him 'Waste of Time' | NewsBusters

Hasn't Hannity admitted before that he is NOT a journalist, he's a commentator?

Yes. but for the lefties to repeat this gives THEM a tingle up their collective leg.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

his behavior was "deplorable"?

it isn't as if respectable citizens watch that show anyway. It's a step below the Jerry Springer show. If people are foolish enough to tune in, they can expect a circus. Who cares?

Obviously you care or you wouldn't have commented.

What is the Jerry Springer show?

It is a daytime television show where primarily black women try to determine which guy is the father of any of their children. Oh no that's the Maury show. Jerry Springer is the show where primarily black men and women bring new lovers onstage to confront outgoing lovers.

Please!!

It's a White-Trash freak-show.....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWPJO-W2Vbw]Diemon Dave on Jerry Springer First Appearance - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlmedmovxA8]Jerry Springer Racist KKK Dad & Son - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9SEu9qEfik]JERRY SPRINGER - My Husband Is A Racist. Part 1 - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[IlarMeilyr]

No, journalists are engaged in disseminating the news. They follow the story where it leads. A commentator comments on the new. And a political commentator comments on political news. He doesn't advocate. See how that works?

Think about it in terms of a sports commentator. He does NOT take one team's side in the game. That would make him a fan. And once the sports commentator's objectivity (at least his outward objectivity) is gone regarding everything from whether penalties were committed by one team or another or whether the necessary yardage was gained to achieve a first down, his previous ability to perform his job is gone because his objectivity can no longer be assumed as a given.

I see that YOU refuse to contemplate what "commentary" entails.

If a reporter reports some facts of a story and says "the gas tank exploded" the commentator might add: "and the explosion was fiery and large and loud and hot." He might even say that it was really hot.

On the other hand, he MIGHT just say something like, "and the cause of the fire was found to be negligence and that kind of negligence is inexcusable." Holy shit. He stated and opinion, but guess what? It's STILL a comment.

See how THAT works?

Edward R. Murrow was a reporter. At some points he crossed over into commentary. For example, in one piece of his famed commentary on McCarthy he asked "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?"

That was political commentary, but if you think it wasn't also advocacy, then I would like to sell you a fine bridge in the Borough of Kings in the City of New York.

Stating that a fire was hot (DUH!) and that it was a result of negligence is a report based on (I would hope) reputable sources and constitutes news, IF true. Speculating on the causes or the source of the aforementioned negligence would constitute commentary as long as you're not taking sides for or against anyone. Stating that the negligence was inexcusable goes beyond merely commenting on events and enters the land of offering a definitive judgement which, if not supported by the facts, could lead to a defamation law suit against a person who says that. I suppose it qualifies as commentary, but it's both wreckless and constitutes advocacy.

But none of that changes the fact that Hannity makes no pretense to being objective. Commentary without at least the appearance of impartiality goes beyond being merely observational in nature. And once you continuously take one side in an argument, you are no longer merely commenting on events, you're taking sides.

The statement you reference ("Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?") as having been made by Edward R. Murrow was actually made by Joseph N. Welch who actually said the following:

"At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"​

I concede the point about Joseph Welch saying it. But that doesn't defeat my point. Here is something about McCarthy which Edward R. Murrow most definitely DID say:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anNEJJYLU8M]Edward R. Murrow - See It Now (March 9, 1954) - YouTube[/ame]

And when he said it, he was going beyond mere political commentary. He was advocating.

Commentary is not bound up in the silly made-up restrictions you seek to impose.

 

[MarcATL]

Hannity is a paid employee of Fox. He has a respoinsibility to his audience...his ratings....nothing more.
Ellison is an elected lawmaker. He has a responsibility to his constituants and our country overall.

Hannity acted in a way that his audience likely applauded. Whether you like him or not is irrelevant. You have the right to turn him off if you prefer.

We are all subject to Ellison. He has a responsibility to act maturely and professionally. He has a repsonsibility to represent his elected position with integrity.

He did not.

And anyone on the left who supports his actions are not concerned about their country. They simply want to "win".

Boy you are quick to excuse the Bush apologist Hannity...aren't you?

.

The division pimps all do essentially the same thing, albeit in very different ways: They take any given news story, interpret it from their hardcore winger political perspective, then provide their opinion. They minimize/avoid/ignore all information within that story that is contrary to their opinion, and maximize all information that supports their opinion. Then they present what remains as "the truth".

In doing so, they're being intellectually dishonest.

Their agenda is ratings. You keep your ratings up by keeping people MAD. The division pimps are nothing more than the political equivalent of professional wrestling stars, and somehow their fans don't see it, just as in professional wrestling. They really do think that they're getting "the truth" from these people. Wake the fuck up.

Part of the problem, and we have enough problems.

.

Would you classify Hannity as a "Division Pimp?"

Why don't we just ask Hannity himself?

...and the answer is:

"Mr. Gibbs, I'm a journalist who interviews people who I disagree with all the time, that give their opinion. Fox has all points of view."

Now you 'nuts can call Hannity an idiot for calling Hannity a journalist.

lol

Obama Campaign Defends William Ayers Relationship | Fox News

PWN3D!!!

What is your opinion of those that met behind closed doors on inauguration of President Obama's firs election?
Their soul job was to make President Obama a one term president?

Hannity is a paid employee of Fox. He has a respoinsibility to his audience...his ratings....nothing more.
Ellison is an elected lawmaker. He has a responsibility to his constituants and our country overall.

Hannity acted in a way that his audience likely applauded. Whether you like him or not is irrelevant. You have the right to turn him off if you prefer.

We are all subject to Ellison. He has a responsibility to act maturely and professionally. He has a repsonsibility to represent his elected position with integrity.

He did not.

And anyone on the left who supports his actions are not concerned about their country. They simply want to "win".

Really now....? Tell me more!

What is your opinion of those that met behind closed doors on inauguration of President Obama's firs election?
Their soul job was to make President Obama a one term president?

Hannity is a paid employee of Fox. He has a respoinsibility to his audience...his ratings....nothing more.
Ellison is an elected lawmaker. He has a responsibility to his constituants and our country overall.

Hannity acted in a way that his audience likely applauded. Whether you like him or not is irrelevant. You have the right to turn him off if you prefer.

We are all subject to Ellison. He has a responsibility to act maturely and professionally. He has a repsonsibility to represent his elected position with integrity.

He did not.

And anyone on the left who supports his actions are not concerned about their country. They simply want to "win".

That's called politics. I'm sure there were secret meetings who's purpose was to make George W Bush, bill clinton George H W Bush and Ronald W Reagan 1 term Presidents as well

It's called uber-partisanship, and you can't find ONE. SINGLE. SHRED. of proof to support your supposition that the Dems did that too. Why not just admit that the Republicans have gone a bridge too far? Get yourself some credibility man.

*SMH*

For the 100th time. Hannity is not a journalist. He is an entertainer. There haven't been any real 'journalists' for about 20 years.

Let's clear something up if at all possible. It's true that Hannity is not a journalist. Having no education past HS would make it unlikely that Hannity could even GET a job in journalism if he even had such a desire, which I seriously doubt he's ever entertained.

That brings up the notion of Hannity being an entertainer. Alas, Hannity is NOT an entertainer either since entertainers operate in a wholly different venue. Now, IF Hannity's show ever moved from FOX News to Comedy Central, then you might have a valid argument.

No, Hannity is what's known as a propagandist, pure and simple.

Not to mention a World Klass Klown.

I don't know Ellison from shinola, but take a look at this:

ELLISON: I've got an answer for you. You want to do something about the 16 trillion, let’s do something. Let's close loopholes on large corporations, and let’s say that yachts and jets should not be something you can write off. Let’s say that Exxon-Mobil and Chevron should not get a tax rebate and a subsidy. Let's start there. Let's say that people who earn, who get to pay less on carried interest should…

HANNITY: All right, Congressman, you're ranting really well.

After all the bluster, Ellison actually put a proposal on the table, and in true UnConservative fashion, Hannity blew it off.

What did Hannity put on the table? "The sequester was Obama's idea." Who gives a flying fuck? You want to avoid the sequester, then talk about the proposals Ellison just offered!

Hannity asked:

Listen, I invited you on, I gave you three minutes to rant, now let me ask you a question, we’ll have a discussion, in the spirit of bipartisanship, let's find a dialogue.

Hannity wasn't the slightest bit interested in a dialogue. As soon as Ellison offered something concrete, Hannity blew it off.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I find this absolutely astonishing. We have a US House member act with a total lack of statesmanship, decorum and professionalism and the discussion is turned to the guy who invited the House member on his show.
I don't give a shit which party a person represents. Ellison's behavior as US House member was deplorable.
And I don't care what anyone thinks. Our elected officials, their staff and other government appointees MUST be held to a higher standard.
Ellison soiled that idea.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Hannity compared BO's 'apocalyptic' speech of this week with BO's 'apocalyptic' speech last August.....they were eerily similar almost word-for-word....Keithy E didn't like the comparison along with the funny 'apocalyptic' music so he attacked Hannity right off the bat in order to defend his dear leader...

i believe Hannity was going to point out how BO ignores real leadership but instead just jumps from 'crisis' to 'crisis' in order to push his agenda via the bully pulpit.....so of course Keithy E spewed his hatred non-stop to prevent Hannity from actually getting his question out....

the "worst excuse for a journalist" and "yellow journalism" and "immoral" accusations by Ellison were nothing more than intimidation to avoid the subject that Hannity presented...

 

[bodecea]

Stating that a fire was hot (DUH!) and that it was a result of negligence is a report based on (I would hope) reputable sources and constitutes news, IF true. Speculating on the causes or the source of the aforementioned negligence would constitute commentary as long as you're not taking sides for or against anyone. Stating that the negligence was inexcusable goes beyond merely commenting on events and enters the land of offering a definitive judgement which, if not supported by the facts, could lead to a defamation law suit against a person who says that. I suppose it qualifies as commentary, but it's both wreckless and constitutes advocacy.

But none of that changes the fact that Hannity makes no pretense to being objective. Commentary without at least the appearance of impartiality goes beyond being merely observational in nature. And once you continuously take one side in an argument, you are no longer merely commenting on events, you're taking sides.

The statement you reference ("Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?") as having been made by Edward R. Murrow was actually made by Joseph N. Welch who actually said the following:

"At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"​

Edward Murrow, America's own Josef Goebbels.

Regardless, Hannity is no more biased than Matthews, Maddow, Stewart, or a host of other leftists commentators. It just outrages you that anyone is permitted to speak against the party. You want all opposition silenced.

Wait....what?

 

[AsheedMidrarwz]

Keith Ellison is a willing slave and Obama is his massa. They're both big city liberals and know how the game is played.

 

[OriginalShroom]

For the 100th time. Hannity is not a journalist. He is an entertainer. There haven't been any real 'journalists' for about 20 years.

A friend of mine who is in network television news in Phila said that Fox Noise would have the FCC all over them for continual violations but since they are cable they do not fall under the same guidelines. That's why you have bombastic pontificating on these "news" shows and that goes for all of them, not just Fox. But Fox totally sucks.

Your friend is dreaming.. Or he has no clue about what powers the FCC actually has.

But they can not touch News or Commentary. If you disagree then answer this.. What actions did the FCC take with CBS and Dan Rather over the faked President Bush paperwork their news division made up?

 

[AsheedMidrarwz]

Stating that a fire was hot (DUH!) and that it was a result of negligence is a report based on (I would hope) reputable sources and constitutes news, IF true. Speculating on the causes or the source of the aforementioned negligence would constitute commentary as long as you're not taking sides for or against anyone. Stating that the negligence was inexcusable goes beyond merely commenting on events and enters the land of offering a definitive judgement which, if not supported by the facts, could lead to a defamation law suit against a person who says that. I suppose it qualifies as commentary, but it's both wreckless and constitutes advocacy.

But none of that changes the fact that Hannity makes no pretense to being objective. Commentary without at least the appearance of impartiality goes beyond being merely observational in nature. And once you continuously take one side in an argument, you are no longer merely commenting on events, you're taking sides.

The statement you reference ("Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?") as having been made by Edward R. Murrow was actually made by Joseph N. Welch who actually said the following:

"At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"​

Edward Murrow, America's own Josef Goebbels.

Regardless, Hannity is no more biased than Matthews, Maddow, Stewart, or a host of other leftists commentators. It just outrages you that anyone is permitted to speak against the party. You want all opposition silenced.

Wait....what?

Is this the part where you go into "who, what, where, when, why" Syndrome?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wait....what?

Cut down to 3 pints of Thunderbird before noon, and you might be able to follow along, shortbus.