Media Self-Immolation

[spuwho]

With Sean Hannity's recent rant in response of the oddly timed reports of sexual harassment (which isnt true apparently) and the obstruction to Ann Coulter on speaking at UC Berkeley,  the war of "news" seems to be taking place with the media.

This was Hannity's outburst last night.....(transcript from his monologue from his show)

We are at a huge turning point when it comes to freedom of speech in the United States of America, and it is time to take a stand against liberal fascists out to silence conservative voices.

Violent, radical snowflake liberals at University of California Berkeley have succeeded, at least for now, in shutting down another conservative speaker. Ann Coulter was supposed to give a speech on that campus tonight, but the threat of violence has scuttled those plans. Berkeley, which in the 1960s, fashioned itself as the home of free speech, is now the home of fascistic intellectual intolerance.

The idea that the alt-left is tolerant and inclusive is a big myth and lie. In fact, the First Amendment means nothing to these people. It's just a yellowed parchment they care nothing about. Their goal is simple: Shut down every conservative voice in America, by any means necessary.

Ann Coulter is only the latest target this week. Liberal fascists are carrying out a well-funded and carefully orchestrated smear campaign to try and take down President Trump and anybody and everybody that supports him and his policies. I've also become a target, as the alt-left media repeats lies about me even though the original liar has since recanted. Why fact check when it might get in the way of ruining my career? They want to destroy me and get me off the air, once and for all.

It's not just about me, but by fighting back, I am hoping to use my case to expose what's really happening. In case you don't know, here's what happened. Six days ago, just two days after Bill O'Reilly parted ways with the Fox News Channel, an individual with serious and glaring credibility issues fabricated completely untrue, ridiculous claims about me that go back more than a decade.

The alt-left press could easily have checked this person out and learned it wasn't the first groundless attack against me. But that could have gotten in the way of their agenda. They ran with it.

"Sean Hannity denies right-wing blogger's sex harassment claim," was NBC News' headline. "Is Hannity next to fall? Fox guest says the anchor tried to pressure her into hotel room sex," was the headline on a website called Raw Story, and by the way, the individual didn't even say that in the first place.

So far, none of these outlets have updated their headlines to correct the story and tell their viewers or their readers that this highly questionable individual has since recanted these completely false claims.

I have hired a killer team of lawyers and investigators, and we are laying out a war strategy that's going to hold accountable every media outlet that smears me with lies. I'm told that these media outlets have a basic, fundamental obligation to do rudimentary fact-checking instead of just taking the word of one individual. In my case, they went for the cheap headline without even doing a simple Google search which would have undermined the entire story.

I may end up suing some of these outlets because I have had enough. These attempts to destroy and silence conservative voices need to stop or Fox News Channel, as the only news network that gives President Trump a fair shake, goes away. Your favorite talk show hosts go away. Talk radio goes away.

I'm fighting back. And I hope by doing so, I show others that we don't have to rollover for the liberal fascists and dishonest media that are out to silence free speech in America.

[Lunican]

He's got a lot of air time to fill with outrage.

[Adam White]

There's a certain irony in lamenting the state of freedom of speech while at the same time openly threatening people who report stuff you don't like. And his language ("liberal fascists", "snowflakes", "alt-left press", etc) doesn't do anything but further lower the tone. Any reasonable point he has to make is undercut by this sort of thing.

[RattlerGator]

No, any reasonable point he has to make is most definitely *not* undercut by this sort of thing. It is just that sort of free-for-all that our freedom of speech rights protect.

What does lowering the tone have to do with anything associated with freedom of speech, Adam? Civil discussion -- yes. But freedom of speech? No. We keep making the mistake of conflating things that should not be conflated. Our freedoms concern primarily limitations on government action against us. This is, in part, the mistake made recently by some insisting there is an exception to our freedom of speech rights that exempt out so-called "hate speech" -- no, there isn't.

Us vs us action? Civil remedies are the route to go, not government-enforced suppression of speech. Hannity is a private citizen involved with a private  business enterprise. Slander or libel law may or may not be applicable but he probably should be threatening legal action against those who are -- in his opinion -- brazenly lying about him.

[Adam White]

No, any reasonable point he has to make is most definitely *not* undercut by this sort of thing. It is just that sort of free-for-all that our freedom of speech rights protect.

What does lowering the tone have to do with anything associated with freedom of speech, Adam? Civil discussion -- yes. But freedom of speech? No. We keep making the mistake of conflating things that should not be conflated. Our freedoms concern primarily limitations on government action against us. This is, in part, the mistake made recently by some insisting there is an exception to our freedom of speech rights that exempt out so-called "hate speech" -- no, there isn't.

Well, to answer your query, I'd like to direct you to my original post. My first sentence addressed the freedom of speech argument. My second and third sentences dealt with him losing credibility by lying and acting like an asshole.

[spuwho]

I dont think free speech would be impaired if the woman is sued for making an allegation already disproved. Some call that libel, meaning speech made to undermine someone in a criminal fashion.

This isnt the same as calling someone a snowflake fascist.

Hannity today said the NYTimes attempted to corroborate the story by the woman and dropped it immediately since they couldnt valdiate it.

[Adam White]

I dont think free speech would be impaired if the woman is sued for making an allegation already disproved. Some call that libel, meaning speech made to undermine someone in a criminal fashion.

This isnt the same as calling someone a snowflake fascist.

I don't recall making either of those claims.

[spuwho]

I dont think free speech would be impaired if the woman is sued for making an allegation already disproved. Some call that libel, meaning speech made to undermine someone in a criminal fashion.

This isnt the same as calling someone a snowflake fascist.

I don't recall making either of those claims.

Then it seemed implied.

[Adam White]

I dont think free speech would be impaired if the woman is sued for making an allegation already disproved. Some call that libel, meaning speech made to undermine someone in a criminal fashion.

This isnt the same as calling someone a snowflake fascist.

I don't recall making either of those claims.

Then it seemed implied.

Hannity has every right to sue someone for libel, if he has been libeled. My point is that he has basically threatened open war on the media for printing stories - the news- if he doesn't like it. Because let's be fair - he was being accused of committing a crime and that was news. No reason not to report it. I honestly think he is coming across as someone who has something to hide and he is trying to a) discredit anyone in advance and b) scare people from reporting it. That doesn't mean I think he DOES have something to hide - he's just acting like it. Which brings me to my second point - he does nothing for his own credibility by acting like an ass. Be professional and avoid mud-slinging and name calling. That way it looks more legit and less partisan.

But that's just my opinion.

Oh - and just a point to make. Libel is rarely, if ever, criminal. Sounds like Hannity would have more luck in civil court.

[peestandingup]

I dont think free speech would be impaired if the woman is sued for making an allegation already disproved. Some call that libel, meaning speech made to undermine someone in a criminal fashion.

This isnt the same as calling someone a snowflake fascist.

I don't recall making either of those claims.

Then it seemed implied.

Hannity has every right to sue someone for libel, if he has been libeled. My point is that he has basically threatened open war on the media for printing stories - the news- if he doesn't like it. Because let's be fair - he was being accused of committing a crime and that was news. No reason not to report it. I honestly think he is coming across as someone who has something to hide and he is trying to a) discredit anyone in advance and b) scare people from reporting it. That doesn't mean I think he DOES have something to hide - he's just acting like it. Which brings me to my second point - he does nothing for his own credibility by acting like an ass. Be professional and avoid mud-slinging and name calling. That way it looks more legit and less partisan.

But that's just my opinion.

Oh - and just a point to make. Libel is rarely, if ever, criminal. Sounds like Hannity would have more luck in civil court.

That's sorta been what's going on with media lately though. Not just w Hannity, but in general. They get "stories" & "sources" that can't be verified, that they know is likely false, but use this as an excuse to report on it anyway, run it into the ground to push a narrative.

They use their freedom of the press card to sling manufactured bullshit.

[spuwho]

" have hired a killer team of lawyers and investigators, and we are laying out a war strategy that's going to hold accountable every media outlet that smears me with lies. I'm told that these media outlets have a basic, fundamental obligation to do rudimentary fact-checking instead of just taking the word of one individual."

1. Anyone who uses war imagery and terms like that is a completely tool and a wus.
2.  I'm told media have to fact-check... ARE YOU KIDDING ME??  You didnt already know this as a supposed journalist?? You have to be told that journalists have a duty to fact check.
3. This coming from someone who consistently challenged Obama's birth place and legitimacy?!?!? (i.e something easily Google-able as well).

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCKKKKKKKKKK this guy just really makes me so insanely angry and feel so hopeless for humanity's future.

Sean Hannity isnt a journalist. He is a radio and TV personality. He admits as such on his show.

What he is saying is he is going to hold people or organizations that are journalistic by their business accountable for not following up on their scoops.

In the UK there is a commission that governs peoples appeals to the press for unfactual reporting.

The US is a little more wild west.

In this particular case, he is inflamed because a 13 year old false accusation was recycled as current news with no fact checking by several journalistic entities and a few non press sites.

The NY Times actually fact checked it and refused to run the story because it couldnt be validated. The others simply ran with it.

The week prior the NY Times ran a story about a conversation Trump had been having with a 3rd party and took some journalistic license and heavily implied it was Hannity.

Then flipping the coin, tried to be all journalistic and used a media dirty trick to try to get him to confirm or deny it was him on the phone with Trump.

He instead sends a tweet saying that his conversations with anyone are private and if he was survieled and unmasked then please let him know since that is breaking the law.

People call his show all the time making all sorts of paranoid accusations about Obama and the government, of which much is just rants. But the ones he thinks are credible, he puts his producers on it and check it out. He doesnt have to, but he does.

No doubt because of the turmoil at Fox, he is in the cross hairs now. He has good moments interspersed with periods of annoying rants that makes you say "move on".

But the world is changing. Bill Maher's show last night was defending Ann Coulter. It also had a former CIA director and Rick Santorum on the show. If Bill Maher can now tolerate rank conservatives in his discussion panel on a regular basis, then there is room for tolerance elsewhere.

[Adam White]

" have hired a killer team of lawyers and investigators, and we are laying out a war strategy that's going to hold accountable every media outlet that smears me with lies. I'm told that these media outlets have a basic, fundamental obligation to do rudimentary fact-checking instead of just taking the word of one individual."

1. Anyone who uses war imagery and terms like that is a completely tool and a wus.
2.  I'm told media have to fact-check... ARE YOU KIDDING ME??  You didnt already know this as a supposed journalist?? You have to be told that journalists have a duty to fact check.
3. This coming from someone who consistently challenged Obama's birth place and legitimacy?!?!? (i.e something easily Google-able as well).

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCKKKKKKKKKK this guy just really makes me so insanely angry and feel so hopeless for humanity's future.

Sean Hannity isnt a journalist. He is a radio and TV personality. He admits as such on his show.

What he is saying is he is going to hold people or organizations that are journalistic by their business accountable for not following up on their scoops.

In the UK there is a commission that governs peoples appeals to the press for unfactual reporting.

The US is a little more wild west.

In this particular case, he is inflamed because a 13 year old false accusation was recycled as current news with no fact checking by several journalistic entities and a few non press sites.

The NY Times actually fact checked it and refused to run the story because it couldnt be validated. The others simply ran with it.

The week prior the NY Times ran a story about a conversation Trump had been having with a 3rd party and took some journalistic license and heavily implied it was Hannity.

Then flipping the coin, tried to be all journalistic and used a media dirty trick to try to get him to confirm or deny it was him on the phone with Trump.

He instead sends a tweet saying that his conversations with anyone are private and if he was survieled and unmasked then please let him know since that is breaking the law.

People call his show all the time making all sorts of paranoid accusations about Obama and the government, of which much is just rants. But the ones he thinks are credible, he puts his producers on it and check it out. He doesnt have to, but he does.

No doubt because of the turmoil at Fox, he is in the cross hairs now. He has good moments interspersed with periods of annoying rants that makes you say "move on".

But the world is changing. Bill Maher's show last night was defending Ann Coulter. It also had a former CIA director and Rick Santorum on the show. If Bill Maher can now tolerate rank conservatives in his discussion panel on a regular basis, then there is room for tolerance elsewhere.

I think we're speaking at cross purposes, but I can't see any way to resolve it.

Anyway, I don't think OFCOM or IPSO would take action against a television show broadcasting or newspaper printing a story that was simply reporting the news (e.g. Hannity being accused of inviting a woman back to his hotel room). They would possibly take action if it was said that Hannity did it (assuming he didn't actually do it - which hasn't been established).

Of course, England and Wales have more favorable libel laws and Hannity might find himself luckier if he pursued a claim against his accuser in an English court.