Koppel tells Hannity "You're bad for America."

Mott the Hoople

Mott the Hoople

Sweet Jane
In a give and take interview with Shawn Hannity Hannity asked Koppel if he didn't think America was intelligent enough to determine an opinion piece from news! He then asked Koppel if he thought Hannity was bad for America and Koppel's answer was spot on right. Yeah...you have attracted people who are determined that ideology is more important than fact.

Now before someone goes 2nd grader on me...yes...the other side does it too. I have as little use for Rachel Maddow as for Hannity and Koppel's comment applies equally to her.

But are they really harmful to America? Don't we have a personal responsibility to educate ourselves against these ideologically driven propagandist ?
 
I can't listen to Hannity. He is just too painfully partisan that it's mind numbing. The man makes a mint however so from his perspective he's kicking *ss. I'll admit I bought either one or two of his books when I was younger. I have no regret in doing so but I would never do it again.
 
cawacko said:
I can't listen to Hannity. He is just too painfully partisan that it's mind numbing. The man makes a mint however so from his perspective he's kicking *ss. I'll admit I bought either one or two of his books when I was younger. I have no regret in doing so but I would never do it again.
Click to expand...
My reaction to Hannity has always been naked disgust. Not because of his naked partisanship but because of his obvious contempt for facts and the truth and that he's so obviously wrong on so many topics but mostly it's his snide and condescending attitude that disgusts me.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
In a give and take interview with Shawn Hannity Hannity asked Koppel if he didn't think America was intelligent enough to determine an opinion piece from news! He then asked Koppel if he thought Hannity was bad for America and Koppel's answer was spot on right. Yeah...you have attracted people who are determined that ideology is more important than fact.

Now before someone goes 2nd grader on me...yes...the other side does it too. I have as little use for Rachel Maddow as for Hannity and Koppel's comment applies equally to her.

But are they really harmful to America? Don't we have a personal responsibility to educate ourselves against these ideologically driven propagandist ?
Click to expand...

Rachel Maddow is a partisan.

Sean Hannity is a propagandist.

There is a world of difference.

To speak to the question of responsibility, it is obviously a complex question. Personally, the fairness doctrine should be brought back in some form. We could also learn from other countries about freedom of the press. I believe the United States is ranked relatively low in press freedom.
https://rsf.org/en/ranking
 
Cypress said:
Rachel Maddow is a partisan.

Sean Hannity is a propagandist.

There is a world of difference.

To speak to the question of responsibility, it is obviously a complex question. Personally, the fairness doctrine should be brought back in some form. We could also learn from other countries about freedom of the press. I believe the United States is ranked relatively low in press freedom.
https://rsf.org/en/ranking
Click to expand...
the law of unintended consequences. Eliminating the fairness doctrine had the opposite of its intended affect but considering how media technologies have changed I don't know if bringing it back would make a difference.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
the law of unintended consequences. Eliminating the fairness doctrine had the opposite of its intended affect but considering how media technologies have changed I don't know if bringing it back would make a difference.
Click to expand...

Yes, hence I said it was a complex question, and I don't have all the answers. Obviously, one must have clear and lucid understanding of the nature and scope of the problem before speculating on possible solutions.

"The only thing that we know is that we know nothing — and that is the highest flight of human wisdom." - Leo Tolstoy
Click to expand...

The most shocking manifestation of the problem was the run up to the Iraq War Disaster. Most of the world was against that dumb ass war, but the American press acted like cheerleaders for Dumbya's administration, egging us on to war.

If there had been room for more dissenting voices allowed, perhaps we could have saved three trillion dollars, five thousand American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and over a decade of carnage and destruction.
 
Mott, have you actually read up on the fairness doctrine? I haven't read up on it some years, but from what I recall, it was because there was limited channels available, iow, limited viewpoint channels that our citizens could get a "fair" understanding of what is happening. With the internet, there was no longer a need for the fairness doctrine. And with the explosion of cable channels, there again was no longer a need for the doctrine.

What do you propose now?
 
Martin McGuinness said:
Obviously the economy produces more if there's a larger labor pool, so it's fallacious to say that the only difference is that two parents are working, and otherwise men would be making twice the salary and getting twice the effective amount of produce from an economy with only half the labor pool.
Click to expand...

Mott the Hoople said:
the law of unintended consequences. Eliminating the fairness doctrine had the opposite of its intended affect but considering how media technologies have changed I don't know if bringing it back would make a difference.
Click to expand...
TV in the UK cannot be as biased as the US, even though the BBC pushes the envelope at times especially with its Brexit coverage. Even Sky News is fair and balanced unlike its US counterpart Fox News.

Sent from Lenovo K6 Note
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Koppel's answer was spot on right. Yeah...you have attracted people who are determined that ideology is more important than fact.
Click to expand...

Hannity is a conservative who supported non conservative candidate for the presidency.

When was the last time a liberal commentator supported a non liberal?
 
Yaya said:
Mott, have you actually read up on the fairness doctrine? I haven't read up on it some years, but from what I recall, it was because there was limited channels available, iow, limited viewpoint channels that our citizens could get a "fair" understanding of what is happening. With the internet, there was no longer a need for the fairness doctrine. And with the explosion of cable channels, there again was no longer a need for the doctrine.

What do you propose now?
Click to expand...
Did you even bother to read my post or do you have comprehension problems?
 
Milagro said:
TV in the UK cannot be as biased as the US, even though the BBC pushes the envelope at times especially with its Brexit coverage. Even Sky News is fair and balanced unlike its US counterpart Fox News.

Sent from Lenovo K6 Note
Click to expand...
You may want to choose a better term than "fair and balanced" Faux news has made a mockery of it.

My question is do we have a personal responsibility to differentiate between fact and propaganda or do we have a public responsibility to do so?
 
Yaya said:
Mott says Maddow is like Hannity, then thanks Cypress' post.

That is all I needed to know about this thread.

Both are blowhards.
Click to expand...
you moron. I thanked his post because I agree with his statement that there has been a decline in freedom of the press in our nation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top