Hannity Busted by Jon Stewart

What a sad comment that a fake news show had to be the one to blow the whistle on another fake news program — that being Fox News’ Hannity, exposing its fraudulent manipulation of images in order to massively inflate the number of teabagging protesters attending Michele Bachman’s recent “house call” on Congress.

Hannity… what a complete douchebag. I wonder if he’ll apologize to his viewers for manipulating them? I wouldn’t hold my breath for that.

Update: Well, surprise, surprise… Hannity apologized tonight for his “inadvertent mistake.”

About these ads

59 Comments

Filed under Humour, Media Bias

59 responses to “Hannity Busted by Jon Stewart

  1. I fail to see how that could have possibly been inadvertent.

    Then, when Contessa Brewer’s show selectively edited some footage so she could pretend white people were plotting to assassinate the President she kind of upped the ante for journalistic dishonesty.

    It’s only natural that Fox News would want to match them. If this had happened the other way around, very little would have been different.

  2. Boy do we ever need a Jon Stewart and/or Rachel Maddow here in Canada.

  3. I second RuralSandi!!!

  4. Patrick — Two wrongs don’t make a right, but yes, that incident with MSNBC was inexcusable.

  5. Ti-Guy

    Boy do we ever need a Jon Stewart and/or Rachel Maddow here in Canada.

    No we don’t. Think about it. They’re reactions to really crappy news media. For us to *need* them, we’d have to have a FoxNews first.

  6. ..we have to have a Fox news first….CTV comes to mind.

  7. Two wrongs don’t make a right

    You couldn’t possibly be more right about that.

    The point I’m making here is that MSNBC has become everything Fox News was during the Bush years: cheerful sycophants for the President.

    The absolute last thing we need in Canada is a Rachel Maddow. We’d need our own Bill O’Reilly just to justify that.

  8. Ti-Guy

    It’s not the bias, Patrick/MariaS, it’s the accuracy.

  9. lenny

    “The point I’m making here is that MSNBC has become everything Fox News was during the Bush years: cheerful sycophants for the President.”

    I’m sure you’ll provide some evidence of that equivalency any time now, Dickmullet
    I think the Paris Business Review did a piece on it.

  10. Hmmmm.

    Interestingly, Lenny, Media Matters is the same media think tank that themselves omitted a portion of a Jon Stewart segment that dealt with MSNBC and the extent of their bias.

    So you can take anything originating from Media Matters and blow it out your ass.

    I mean, if you want to share in the embarrassing spanking that Sparky recently absorbed, I’m OK with that. Really, I am.

  11. lenny

    “So you can take anything originating from Media Matters and blow it out your ass.”

    Good thing none of it originated from Media Matters. Not that whatever you’re claiming about Media Matters would have any bearing on the issue anyway.
    But thanks for playing, Fatprick.

  12. lenny

    And interestingly, Fatprick is the dumb twat who thinks the Vimy Memorial is made out of concrete, can’t tell the difference between triangles and octagons, thinks that the McDonald-Cartier Highway was named for Jacques Cartier, and who wrote this:
    “First off, a fetish is inherently sexual in nature. It doesn’t merely have to do with the “emotional experience” of sexuality, it has to do with sexual gratification. Period.Secondly, a fetish is with an inanimate object. ”

    So I think you know what you can do with anything originating from Fatprick.

  13. LOL

    Seems to me that not only is lenny evidently losing track of the links he himself posted, not only is lenny evidently ignorant of matters related to psychology, but he’s just incredibly bitter that somebody’s calling MSNBC for being the new partisan suck-ups on the media block.

    And when it becomes evident that he doesn’t actually have an argument, he just resorts back to insulting people — evidently not understanding that ad hominem attacks are not themselves arguments.

    Thanks for playing, lenny. Now go take your meds.

  14. lenny

    The Mulleted Manatee says,

    “And when it becomes evident that he doesn’t actually have an argument, he just resorts back to insulting people ”

    Yup, no evidence here:

    http://redtory.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/hannity-busted-by-jon-stewart/#comment-34927

    ” … ad hominem attacks are not themselves arguments.”

    Precisely. Here’s a classic example:

    “So you can take anything originating from Media Matters and blow it out your ass.”

  15. LOL

    Which brings us back to that whole “Media Matters” thing. Which back here you were pretending you weren’t using as a source.

    So not only do we know that you’re an idiot, we now also know you’re a dishonest one to boot.

    Bravo.

    And, by the way, I’d suggest that you learn to get your logical fallacies straight. The proper argument for you would have been to complain that I was using a “genetic fallacy”.

    Of course then, we’d have to overlook the fact that my dismissal of Media Matters actually stems from a demonstration of their own obvious bias, and is thus extremely relevant to the topic at hand.

    Whereas the genetic fallacy you tried to peddle — which, by the way, also demonstrates your ignorance of matters relating to psychology and, once again, that you’re a moron — holds no relevance to this topic of discussion at all.

    But let’s face it, lenny. In the heart of every committed ideologue beats the heart of a petulant two-year-old. You never had any intention of arguing this like an adult from the very beginning.

    Play time’s over, lenny. I’m going to give you the opportunity to bow down and back out quietly before I absolutely destroy you on this.

  16. sapphireandsteel

    “Play time’s over, lenny. I’m going to give you the opportunity to bow down and back out quietly before I absolutely destroy you on this.”

    And you wonder why the girls kept away from you at school…

  17. Yawn. If you’re trying to insult me, you’ll have to do a lot better than that.

  18. Ti-Guy

    We have insulted you, Pats. That’s why you’re here over-reacting and being a obstreperous pest.

    You’re the easiest person in the World to insult. One just has to look at you cross-eyed and you go rampaging throughout cyberspace defending yourself on positions that are largely indefensible, an exercise in which you are, sadly, entirely unskilled.

  19. Yawn. So, I suppose Ti wants to share in the spanking. I’m extremely cool with that.

    No, Ti, the reason why you clowns toss insults is because it’s all you’re capable of. You don’t have an argument, and you know it.

    People can say what they will about Fox News — god knows they will, and I have no objection whatsoever to it.

    But let’s take a look at what’s on the table here thus far:

    We have MSNBC strategically editing footage of a black man with an AR-15 assault rifle so Contessa Brewer can imply that a racially-motivated assassination attempt on the President, by white people, is imminent.

    Then we have lenny stepping in here to object with a bunch of Media Matters links — from an organization that, by the way, has its own problems not only with its own bias, but also with the origins of the group itself — apparently proving that Fox News is just awful.

    But, then again, proving that Fox News is just awful doesn’t prove that MSNBC hasn’t settled into Fox News’ old role as useful sycophants for the President.

    Does it, Ti?

  20. Ti-Guy

    ou don’t have an argument, and you know it.

    We’ve tried that before with you. It goes nowhere.

    So, get any lately? I think a good shag would do you a world of good.

  21. No, Ti. What you’ve learned to date is that attempting to use ideology to force a weak argument doesn’t work.

    Back to the facts, Ti. Contessa Brewer and MSNBC concealed the race of a gun-toting man at a Presidential town hall so they could insist white people were going to assassinate the President.

    A bunch of Media Matters and Huffington Post links about how awful Fox News is (something, by the way, that I don’t dispute) proves that MSNBC isn’t awful?

    It doesn’t. You know it, I know it.

    You have no argument. You know it, I know it.

    I can paint your back porch red right alongside lenny’s, Ti. I have a lot of paint.

    Just say the word.

  22. Ti-Guy

    What you’ve learned to date is that attempting to use ideology to force a weak argument doesn’t work.

    What does this mean, he asked, sweetly?

    You might consider yourself to be the great non-ideologue of the cybersphere, Patsy, but unfortunately, you don’t have the intellectual honesty (let alone the intellectual vigour) to pull it off. You’re just flailing.

    Now, dance for me, sock-puppet.

  23. Interesting, Ti.

    You may consider yourself to be an ace debater and philosophical genius, but we both know I’ve trounced you far too often for you to justify that fantasy.

    After all, Ti, I’ve actually provided an argument here. All you’ve offered up are third-rate attempts at sophomoric insults.

    Which basically means that, as you’ve failed to hurt my feelings in any way, basically means that you’ve already lost.

    Hopefully lenny will pop back up again fairly soon here.

    At least his stupidity was entertaining.

  24. Ti-Guy

    but we both know I’ve trounced you far too often for you to justify that fantasy.

    Don’t try to make me laugh, Patsy. I’ve got real people who do that for me.

    I consider myself one of the few people you pester who’s refused to even begin to take your arguments seriously. And not because you may or may not have a point, but because you’re just a such a bad writer. Unfocused, hyperactive, incapable of summary and synthesis, humourless and dull.

  25. Right, Ti. Because lobbing more insults at me is totally going to prove that you’re capable of more than just insulting people.

  26. Ti-Guy

    I am, as any cursory examination of my prodigious output will easily demonstrate.

  27. Evidently, not this “prodigious output”. Or this one. Or this one. Or this one.

    Starting to see a pattern emerge yet, Ti?

    But then again, this would be your other tactic you tend to fall back on — when losing, make everything intensely personal, so everyone forgets about the fact that you’re losing an argument.

    So let’s go back to the argument, mostly because it’s so fun to watch you lose.

    MSNBC has settled nicely into Fox News’ old role as sycophants for the President. So much so that they’re willing to conceal the race of a gun-toting man so they can use it for the purpose of race-baiting.

    Organizations like Media Matters — which, in particular, received funding from the Hillary Clinton campaign — and the Huffington Post have proven to be convenient ideological enablers for MSNBC.

  28. Ti-Guy

    So let’s go back to the argument

    Let’s not and say we did.

  29. I’m not shocked you don’t want to. After all, it would be hard on your self-esteem if you couldn’t pretend you didn’t lose.

    But you already have.

    Of course, this is no reason why you can’t go on losing via capitulation.

    So here’s another fun little tidbit:

    Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann recently had a private meeting with President Obama. When called on it by Fox News, the two defended themselves by making the argument that “well, Fox did it, too!”

    Meanwhile, MSNBC also criticized Fox and Bush for their private meeting.

    Seems like turnabout is all kinds of fair play.

    The hilarious thing is that I don’t necessarily disagree, but there’s no reason in the world why MSNBC ought to be treated as any less biased and sycophantic a news network than Fox.

    I know this is hard for someone like yourself to admit, but your insistence on continuing to capitulate sends a pretty strong message that you know it’s true.

  30. Ti-Guy

    Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann recently had a private meeting with President Obama.

    Well, now that’s something substantive on which we might agree. I find the cosiness between American journalists and the administrations to be troubling. It’s the shameless of it that is particularly galling. At least in Canada, our journalistic class has the grace to at least pretend to be embarrassed when caught out. And they take the accusation of being too chummy with power quite seriously.

    Bottom line, though, Pats…I expect that these people would own up to their mistakes and issue corrections/apologies/retractions without dissembling sooner than I would anyone associated with FoxNews.

  31. lenny

    The Mulleted Manatee says,

    “Which brings us back to that whole “Media Matters” thing.”

    The memos all came from Fox News. The completely fictitious “Paris Business Review” and the fraudulent figures it was purported to support, came from Fox News. The altered photos came from Fox News. The apology for rallying teabaggers came from Fox News. The assertion the Obama hates white people comes from Fox News.
    You can find links to those things from any number of web pages, though there’s no need to.

    And they put the lie to your claim that :”…(MSNBC) upped the ante for journalistic dishonesty.”

    It’s only natural that Fox News would want to match them.”

    You can hurl ad hominems and move the goalposts all over the place, but its pretty simple, Fatprick.

  32. Not really.

    For example, when caught peddling a lie of omission in regards to the race of a man with an AR-15 assault rifle at a Presidential townhall, MSNBC attempted to defend themselves by claiming they were addressing a “broader issue”.

    This was despite the fact that the footage they used under the pretenses of being evidence that people showing up to the meeting with guns (and even Greg Gutfeld, far from one of the bright lights of the media world agrees that this act itself is actually extremely stupid) supported their insinuation that a racially-motivated assassination attempt was imminent.

    MSNBC’s crass exploitation of the very topic of racism has been a textbook case of how low a partisan media outlet can be willing to stoop in order to meet their own ideological ends.

    At this point no rational individual should be able to so much as hear the words “Janeane Garofalo” without having to repress a smirk.

  33. Ti-Guy

    On balance, Pats, on balance.

    Anyway, I see Lenny’s back to relieve me, so I’ll let him play with Baby Huey here.

  34. Sounds good, Ti. I’ll spank this moron for a little longer, then you can come pinch hit for him when he’s done getting his ass kicked.

    So, lenny, Fox did some dishonest things. No one disputes that.

    MSNBC concealed the race of a gun-toting African American — lie of omission.

    Much like Fox News promoted the Tea Party rallies, MSNBC promoted pro-health care rallies.

    MSNBC also reported fabricated comments attributed to Rush Limbaugh.

    So here’s the thing, lenny: You want to repeat over and over again that Fox did some dishonest things. Again, this isn’t being disputed.

    How does Fox being dishonest excuse the numerous examples of dishonesty on MSNBC?

    It doesn’t. Time for you to shuffle off, lenny. You’ve lost.

  35. Ti-Guy

    Lenny and I are going to talk about you in front of you while completely ignoring you. Since you obviously miss high school so much, that should awaken fond memories for you.

    So Lenny…don’t you think Baby Huey is the perfect image for Patsy? I like Manatees too much to insult them by associating them with the Mullet of Irritation.

  36. Well, Ti, I wouldn’t recognize you if you didn’t always make that one final act of capitulation.

  37. Well, Ti, I wouldn’t recognize you if you didn’t always make that one final act of capitulation.

    Seeing as how you know you’ve been beaten.

  38. Awwww. Looks like lenny doesn’t wanna play your game, Ti. What happened?

  39. Oops. Sorry for the double-post earlier. :)

  40. lenny

    The Mulleted Manatee writes,

    “How does Fox being dishonest excuse the numerous examples of dishonesty on MSNBC?”

    Nice goalposts moving, so I’ll repeat your bogus assertions I was responding to:

    ”…(MSNBC) upped the ante for journalistic dishonesty.”

    It’s only natural that Fox News would want to match them.”

    You can keep trying to move those posts, Fatprick, but I’m not interested in playing along.

    Ti-guy,
    I’ve seen an actual photo of Fatprick, and it demonstrates that Poe’s Law even applies to images of wingnuts.

  41. I’ve seen an actual photo of Fatprick,

    Isn’t he dreamy?

  42. Ti-Guy

    Oops. Forgot to slip of the sock.

  43. Ah ha, Lenny.

    So I see you’re dishonest as well as being a fuckwit.

    I’ll tell you what: why don’t you go dig up an example of Fox News making up a racially-charged story, then get back to me.

    Now on that note, Ti, isn’t it funny that you would accuse me of being MariaS when it turns out that you yourself are MariaS?

    I find that hilarious.

    And as to the picture, Ti, absolutely yes. I volunteer my time in support of an organization that helps feed the hungry and needy. That you seem to think I should be embarrassed about that speaks volumes about you, and says very little about me.

  44. Yup, Ti, I sure did.

    The difference being that, unlike you, I never really lied about it in the first place.

    Not to mention the fact that mine actually accomplished a goal. It must be pretty hard to swallow the fact that your cohorts in the Hateful Left are more than willing to accept the idea that one of their own would utter a racist epithet as easily as liberal supporter did.

    And after this little episode, Ti, how are we to know you yourself aren’t liberal supporter? Or Sparky?

    The viciousness-in-defiance-of-substance style that characterizes people like yourself has long run together in the minds of a lot of people. Moreover, you seem like the kind of loser who would pull a stunt like that.

    Not that this really changes much of anything for you. Not only does this little episode just remind everyone what an unrepentant little liar you are, but it just reminds us what a miserly little piece of scum you are.

    You are one of the few tiny individuals who would try to make somebody embarrassed at having supported a charity that that helps prevent people from starving. Moreover, you’re one of the few people who would try to do that to cover up the fact that he had just lost a debate, and lost it rather badly.

    Well, Ti, I actually rather enjoy disappointing you. No, I’m not embarrassed by my contributions to my community. And you still lost this debate, long before you ever capitulated.

  45. Ti-Guy

    *cue twilight zone music*

    Sigh….time to call his parents again.

  46. Ti. You’re scum. You lost. Live with it.

  47. Omar

    Two days of this? Ladies, please.

  48. Glad I stayed out of it. :)

    Media Matters is a useful reference corrective to Fox and right-wing talk radio. Which isn’t to say that it doesn’t have a blind spot when it comes to biased missteps by so-called “liberal” media. For that, there are outfits like the Media Research Center.

    Comparing the two is probably a mug’s game as they’re both quite selective in their approach, but I tend to find MRC’s work more predisposed to injecting their own ideological prejudice into their work than is the case with MM.

    To dismiss the work of one (or both) in its entirety as PR did however, is a pretty obtuse approach.

  49. Ti-Guy

    Which isn’t to say that it doesn’t have a blind spot when it comes to biased missteps by so-called “liberal” media.

    Media Matters is explicit in its mandate:

    “Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.”

    A bit redundant, I’d say. What other kind of misinformation is there?

  50. Heh. Quite a bit actually, but good call nonetheless pointing out MM’s stated mandate.

  51. Wouldn’t speak even nearly so soon. After all, the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton have been central to the formation and funding of Media Matters.

    Sadly, they can’t bring themselves to admit to it:

  52. Ugh, are you forcing me to sit through John Gibson… (Kind of the equivalent to saying: “Here, smell my farts!”)

    Good luck allying yourself with him, Patrick. Enjoy his War on Christmas… A fine tome!

    But to your “point” — it’s hardly given from that execrable bit of audio that the Dems or Hillary Clinton were “central” to the founding of Media Matters. Or did I miss something? I believe she claimed (and you know how reliable HRC’s “claims” are…) that she “helped” in setting up groups such as MM.

    Or are you twisting and distorting the facts?

  53. Who said I was allying myself with John Gibson?

    I’ll summarize the video for you if you don’t want to watch it: John Gibson noted on one of his radio shows that Hillary Clinton had helped to create, and that she also funded, Media Matters. Media Matters David Brock denounced that claim as “knowingly false”.

    But what Brock apparently didn’t contend with was recordings of Hillary Clinton’s comments at a Daily Kos convention in which she talked about her role in founding and funding Media Matters. Gibson plays this recording in this segment.

    Now I’m not sure what you think The War on Christmas has to do with any of that. As Gibson’s book is irrelevant to the subject matter of this video, I’d say we have to chalk that one up as a genetic fallacy.

    If you want to accuse me of twisting or distorting facts, I’d strongly suggest you ante up and try to prove it.

  54. I watched/listened to the video. Hence, I was able to point out the dissimilarity between what you claimed and what was actually purported in it.

    Whatever… It’s neither here nor there. You hate Media Matters for various reasons and dismiss it as all a load of bull-puckey.

    Goody for you. I really couldn’t care less.

    I know how you simply love to flog specious horses to death, so as far as I’m concerned this discussion is done. If you want to get your last digs in, knock yourself out.

    p.s. I only alluded to Gibson’s War on Christmas to indicate what an assclown you’re relying on for your information. And here’s another priceless instance of Gibby’s acuity:

    Reminds me of another fuckwit that not long ago claimed absolutely there was not and would be no deficit in Canada… Hmmm. Now who could that have been?

  55. Once again, genetic fallacy. Twice over.

    As it pertains to what is and isn’t said in the video, I’m not sure how you could possibly be so bloody confused about all of this.

    Just because the facts don’t line up behind your argument doesn’t mean they’re twisted or distorted.

    I’m not sure what it is about progressives that they basically argue that reality isn’t fair when it doesn’t conform to their demands, but it’s far from a credit to that particular school of thought.

    I don’t know. Maybe you’re bitter because your friends got spanked so hard. But, hey. I warned both of them.

  56. Not bitter… I don’t care.

  57. sapphireandsteel

    Jeebus is Patrick’s mental masturbation still going on?

  58. Ti-Guy

    It can go on forever, as we all know. I’m so tempted to take on the glaring weakness in this latest accusation of “liberal conspiracy” addressed in that clip with the execrable John Gibson, but I know it will be pointless. Patrick will just move the goal-posts.

    It’s never so much the issue itself, with me. Hillary Clinton could very well have started Media Matters for all I care. It’s how the wingnuts make formulate their arguments and defend their positions. It’s all so morally and intellectually bankrupt.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s