Sean Hannity - More Harm Than Good?

[tedinpdx]

No one is more acutely aware of the threat to our future, posed by the Professional Left, the Democratic Party, and liberal fascism (aka: "politically correct thought and speech"). I have no doubt that Sean Hannity shares my concern. Unfortunately, his skills as a moderator/interviewer often fall short, and when they do, they undermine the hard-won credibility Fox News has gained over the last decade in particular.

I don't think I need to cite a great deal of evidence when I say that "Sean interrupts everyone". He even interrupts you Mr. Goldberg, and when he does, it really irritates me, because I am much more interested in what you have to say about any given subject, than Sean. However, this pattern reached it's comical (pathetic really) extreme last week when he was interviewing an avowed Islamic radical lawyer.

Sean was determined to get this fellow to admit (or deny) believing that "terrorists who die while engaging in Jihad get 72 virgins when they go to heaven". (Other similar topics: "Do you believe women should be required to wear berkas? and "Do you believe women should be stoned to death for adultery?") His method was what I would describe as "b$tch slapping and interrupting". When the interviewee repeatedly asked for time to complete an answer, Sean's reply was: "When you get your own interview show, you can decide how long your guests have to answer" (words to that effect).

Just to be fair, a much better question he might have asked:

"Do you believe Yasir Said, a Muslim man with an American wife, living in Irving, Texas (but originally from Egypt), was justified in killing his two teenage daughters (Amina and Sarah, on New Years Day, 2008), because he believed they were socializing with Hispanic boys at their high-school, against his wishes?"

Perhaps as a follow-on:

"If a Muslim is suspected of committing a crime here in America, do you believe the Muslim community living in our country has an obligation to come forward and help law-enforcement authorities bring the alleged perpetrator to justice?"

However, we never got to any issues of real substance in the interview. And, Sean's self-righteous bullying continued, even after the interview was over. After the segue to the "Great Great Great American Panel", Sean sort of asked the panel members if they agreed with his line of questioning, but not really. It was quite clear (to me at least) that none of them wanted to risk incurring his wrath by contradicting the content of the interview, or his methods.

This happens a lot on his show. The more clearly defined the lines of opposition, the more belligerent Mr. Hannity tends to become. It gives the impression that he's afraid the person he's interviewing might actually make a valid point. Several weeks ago, I noted the polar opposite technique demonstrated by Chris Wallace. He was interviewing a high-profile Democrat, asked a very clear question, and got an answer that had nothing whatsoever to do with what he had asked. (I believe the issue that day was the debt ceiling.) So Mr. Wallace allowed the man to finish, and then politely re-directed him to the question he had just asked, perhaps using slightly different language. Once again, he got campaign-style rhetoric, which contained absolutely nothing of substance relating to the question (even as re-phrased).

What did Chris Wallace do then? He moved on to his next question, without any comment of his own apropos the man's failure to answer. As a result, there was a subtle break in the thread of the discussion, and Chris Wallace "won that round" of the debate (so to speak), because the lack of any attempt to answer the question, stuck out like a sore-thumb.

I like Sean Hannity personally, particularly because I have a 15 year old Beagle, and when Sean mentioned that his dog "Snowball" died after 16 years, and "broke his heart", it really got to me. (And I say that in all seriousness, and with great empathy for what he said.) But interviews like the ones he conducts all too often, don't help "our cause" (speaking as a conservative, and one who believes our nation is in dire peril as a result of the Obama administration). In fact, they reinforce stereotypes which the Left relentlessly tries to hang on Fox News, and Conservatives generally, but which are (95% of the time) completely false. A big share of that 5% belongs to Sean Hannity. He is to the Left, what people like Kieth Olbermann and Chris Matthews are to conservatives: self-caricatures of everything we dislike about the opposition.

Mr. Goldberg, I think it might be worth having a heart-to-heart talk with Sean, or, just call him out on it the next time you're on his show, and he interrupts you. Conservatives and independents in this country must present a coherent, and rigorously objective opposition to the malignant populist dogma of the the Left, and the Democratic party. Everybody I know on Fox News appears to work very hard to achieve that end, except one: Sean Hannity. I hope someone can persuade him to clean up his act.

(And BTW, I have sent numerous e-mails to Mr. Hannity expressing this concern.)

[Jeffreydan]

Great post, dead on IMO.

I wonder if Hannity is aware of all of this, and simply keeps at it anyway as his success might be due in part to it.

I don't find it entertaining, and it certainly doesn't bolster our argument.

[flyphish56]

I've felt for some time that Hannity is to conservatives what Olberman was/is to liberals.
I really don't think either does much good for thier respective sides.
I'm pretty consevative but would not mind if Sean listened more and stirred the pot less.
Not much of a pro wrestling fan, but a cage match between Sean and Alan Colms(sp) might be entertaining.

[Jeffreydan]

I've felt for some time that Hannity is to conservatives what Olberman was/is to liberals.
I really don't think either does much good for thier respective sides.
I'm pretty consevative but would not mind if Sean listened more and stirred the pot less.
Not much of a pro wrestling fan, but a cage match between Sean and Alan Colms(sp) might be entertaining.

That's another thing. When Colmes left, I was really disappointed that he wasn't replaced. While I find him annoying and still largely see him as just another typical liberal, he wasn't bad at arguing his position. I always understood how he and Sean could be good friends.

T'would have been nice if the show came back with the same format, but say-la-vee.

[flyphish56]

When Colmes left, I was really disappointed that he wasn't replaced.

Yes! When there were the two of them it allowed for a point counterpoint that gave the program some depth.
As for the return of the old format I believe they have both radicalized to a point where they couldn't sit in the same room that long.

[tedinpdx]

I liked the old Hannity/Colmes format too, and I remember writing an e-mail once to Alan Colmes complimenting him on his intellectual honesty (I think it was in 1999 or 2000). Since then, I think both of them have gone downhill, and prefer "preaching to the choir" rather than trying to smoke out the truth through honest debate.

(Thanks for the posts. Glad I'm not the only one who thinks this matters.)

[Odin]

". . .they undermine the hard-won credibility Fox News has gained over the last decade in particular."

Fox has no credibility and now neither do you.