Ted Kopple tells Hannity that Hannity is bad for America

[atlings]

What's funny is the news has never been objective. The difference today is the dominance of the editorial parts of news agencies which Ted is right about, but he should know better than anyone, that there's no such thing as objective reporting. Not all the news gets reported. Someone decides what makes the papers/television and what doesn't.

I think you may be confusing the talking head panels on CNN with news. In hard news, there's supposed to be no editorializing. I'd like to know your definition of objective reporting -- is it some system that somehow allows the whole world/all of reality to pass through in an unfiltered state? Ofc they don't report all the news in the world, where the heck would the put it all? How would they have time for it? These kinds of decisions are what journalism is all about.

The quote below is what people believed a few hundred years ago. Is it any more nuts than what some people believe today? Not really...

"As part of the infamous “swimming test,” accused witches were dragged to the nearest body of water, stripped to their undergarments, bound and then tossed in to to see if they would sink or float. Since witches were believed to have spurned the sacrament of baptism, it was thought that the water would reject their body and prevent them from submerging. According to this logic, an innocent person would sink like a stone, but a witch would simply bob on the surface. The victim typically had a rope tied around their waist so they could be pulled from the water if they sank, but it wasn’t unusual for accidental drowning deaths to occur."

[Flutterguy]

I think you may be confusing the talking head panels on CNN with news. In hard news, there's supposed to be no editorializing. I'd like to know your definition of objective reporting -- is it some system that somehow allows the whole world/all of reality to pass through in an unfiltered state? Ofc they don't report all the news in the world, where the heck would the put it all? How would they have time for it? These kinds of decisions are what journalism is all about.

The quote below is what people believed a few hundred years ago. Is it any more nuts than what some people believe today? Not really...

"As part of the infamous “swimming test,” accused witches were dragged to the nearest body of water, stripped to their undergarments, bound and then tossed in to to see if they would sink or float. Since witches were believed to have spurned the sacrament of baptism, it was thought that the water would reject their body and prevent them from submerging. According to this logic, an innocent person would sink like a stone, but a witch would simply bob on the surface. The victim typically had a rope tied around their waist so they could be pulled from the water if they sank, but it wasn’t unusual for accidental drowning deaths to occur."

But those decisions are not unbiased. Someone decides what is most important to report. It's not about voicing an opinion. They're not reporting things that didn't happen. They're focusing on specific things though often to create an expectation. Remember how there was suddenly an increase in news regarding police shootings? It's not that police shootings have gone up or anything, but suddenly they're being reported more in the news cycle where as before they were largely a side thing and used as filler. That's not objective reporting. It's inherently biased. It's just important to read or pay attention to sources and what is actually being said in articles and on programs and such.

[atlings]

But those decisions are not unbiased. Someone decides what is most important to report. It's not about voicing an opinion. They're not reporting things that didn't happen. They're focusing on specific things though often to create an expectation. Remember how there was suddenly an increase in news regarding police shootings? It's not that police shootings have gone up or anything, but suddenly they're being reported more in the news cycle where as before they were largely a side thing and used as filler. That's not objective reporting. It's inherently biased. It's just important to read or pay attention to sources and what is actually being said in articles and on programs and such.

Those decisions are based on what is newsworthy and what isn't -- not for some secret political agenda. Sensationalism is also a big part of it these days, ofc. Please explain how you would do this objective and unbiased reporting..?

[Independent voter]

But those decisions are not unbiased. Someone decides what is most important to report. It's not about voicing an opinion. They're not reporting things that didn't happen. They're focusing on specific things though often to create an expectation. Remember how there was suddenly an increase in news regarding police shootings? It's not that police shootings have gone up or anything, but suddenly they're being reported more in the news cycle where as before they were largely a side thing and used as filler. That's not objective reporting. It's inherently biased. It's just important to read or pay attention to sources and what is actually being said in articles and on programs and such.

I'm sure that if you got Koppel to talk he'd tell you he's never voted for a Republican, only Democrats and that he's pro-choice and anti-gun believing in all the things that make someone left wing. But he at least tried to make serious news, removing bias where he could see it.

And a lot of TV news, heck news in general comes down to making money, how do we improve the ratings? Both Hannity and Koppel to a lesser extent tune what they say to grab a bigger audience share and this adds in more bias.

People getting upset about police shooting blacks? That's more of a social media thing. It was isolated in the past, maybe to a city, blacks would riot in Ft Lauder dale about police brutality. Now when there is police excess against blacks social media picks it up and blacks across the nation are made angry. It's outside of the establishment news.

[atlings]

I'm sure that if you got Koppel to talk he'd tell you he's never voted for a Republican, only Democrats and that he's pro-choice and anti-gun believing in all the things that make someone left wing. But he at least tried to make serious news, removing bias where he could see it.

And a lot of TV news, heck news in general comes down to making money, how do we improve the ratings? Both Hannity and Koppel to a lesser extent tune what they say to grab a bigger audience share and this adds in more bias.

People getting upset about police shooting blacks? That's more of a social media thing. It was isolated in the past, maybe to a city, blacks would riot in Ft Lauder dale about police brutality. Now when there is police excess against blacks social media picks it up and blacks across the nation are made angry. It's outside of the establishment news.

The social media thing is exactly right. Koppel's been gone from nightly news since 2005, so he's not really a part of it anymore He might like the Democrats, but there are rules against journalists belonging to or supporting political organizations. One difference, Koppel has a degree in political science, Hannity has no education beyond high school, which doesn't surprise me. Koppel was some kind of journalist, I guess, as a news anchor. Hannity is a professional propagandist and opinion shaper, what he does has nothing to do with journalism.

[GreenJesus]

Sean Hannity (as a conservative myself) is just cringeworthy. His "opening monologues" along with O'reilly's use of so many buzzwords is embarassing. Kopple is exactly right. We need to get rid of this monopoly of "opinion" shows on TV news networks and opinion pieces in online news sites as well. Why are "journalists" for the New York Times and LA times writing so many "opinion pieces"? Why is that Judge lady with the most irritating scratchy voice have her own show on Fox News? Why are the "political contributors that wrote some book no one cares about" used as a legit source?

However, I got to say it is pretty entertaining to watch Hannity. He is pretty outrageous, but the way he interrupts his guests and inserts what he believes is annoying as hell. All of these Hannity-like guys do this and it makes me wonder why they even invite guests in the first place.

My parents love him though. Watch him every night.

[Glorious Leader]

It is more harmful because one causes a population to be brainwashed and the other doesn't. When Koppel was on ABC, there were 3 and eventually 4 channels on TV that along with newspapers, were the sole sources of how people acquire information.

This obviously isn't the case anymore. A news show which appeals to partisans doesn't shift the Overton window because these people are already firmly ensconced in their bubble of information. If Hannity was a show that was watched by largely independent voters then maybe you would have a point but that isn't the case. You are letting your dislike for Hannity and your lack of knowledge of Koppel cloud the real influence they each have.

It absolutely shift the overton window. The problem with what your suggesting is that fox doesnt only just snare in hyper partisans, it takes sligtly right leaning people or even centrists and pushes them further right through manifest untruth.

You are correct that this isnt the case anymore but thats really a terrible argument because now you have even worse actors. Fragmented media does not necessarily imply that less brainwashinf occurs. To suggest that the current mediascape has less influence is well ignorant. Yes theirs more bandwith. Its not just hannity anymore. Its mark levine, michael savage, alex jones, and on and on. This really only butresses koppels argument. These folks do indeed shift the overton window because theyve made the selling of untruth that much more radical.

- - - Updated - - -

His supporters help him get elected but what pushed Trump over the edge to win a landslide electoral college victory was his support for populist policies in key swing states which are things that Hannity doesn't endorse over traditional conservative policies. If the coalition that got Trump elected was a solid conservative one in states that are usually conservative then maybe conservatives like Hannity might have played a larger role but Trump appealed to people beyond that and won because of it.

You are ignoring what I've been writing so I'll quote it from Manufacturing Consent itself.



Koppel ran a show for over 20 years that was guilty of this. Nightline and shows like it functioned to support the partisan consensus in the country and manipulated people into buying into it without thinking there might be something outside of it. Hannity doesn't brand himself as anything other than what he is, a conservative commentator.

You are ignoring other key factors. Hannity's numbers are much lower than what Koppel pulled as relative to the total population of the country. For the large reason that there are more than 3 news channels in 2017 compared to the 80s and people don't watch cable TV as much anymore. People aren't drooling buffoons who sit on the couch and believe whatever they see is attempting to be impartial and all inclusive unless they are told otherwise and can't get information in any other way so they assume it doesn't exist. Hannity's show appeals to people who already agree with him before they watch it. The "lies" (I put that in quotes because I don't watch Hannity so I don't know what he tells them) are not objectively more harmful simply because they are more extreme, the issue is more complicated than you are making it seem.

It is utterly sickening to me that you would cite chomsky to defend in any fashion hannity. I suspect if you asked chomsky he would point out that hannity is grossly worse than someone like koppel.

- - - Updated - - -

Landslide, as in Trump carried every swing state he needed in order to win.

.

He carried them by less than a 1%. The most marginal "landslide" in history.

[Deletedaccount1]

It absolutely shift the overton window. The problem with what your suggesting is that fox doesnt only just snare in hyper partisans, it takes sligtly right leaning people or even centrists and pushes them further right through manifest untruth.

You are correct that this isnt the case anymore but thats really a terrible argument because now you have even worse actors. Fragmented media does not necessarily imply that less brainwashinf occurs. To suggest that the current mediascape has less influence is well ignorant. Yes theirs more bandwith. Its not just hannity anymore. Its mark levine, michael savage, alex jones, and on and on. This really only butresses koppels argument. These folks do indeed shift the overton window because theyve made the selling of untruth that much more radical.

- - - Updated - - -



It is utterly sickening to me that you would cite chomsky to defend in any fashion hannity. I suspect if you asked chomsky he would point out that hannity is grossly worse than someone like koppel.

- - - Updated - - -




He carried them by less than a 1%. The most marginal "landslide" in history.

Do you even know what the Overton window is? What does "selling the untruth" even mean? Why do you think this is something new? Was the media not selling "untruth" 15 years ago after 9/11 and during the Iraq War? What about Vietnam? You clearly haven't read or understood the point of Manufactured Consent because your entire post is ignorant of point of the authors of that book. They argue that fringe media isn't the problem, it is the environment created from the middle that alienates anything but the middle.

Of course he would because Hannity is bad. I never said he wasn't bad. You are just either so fucking horrible at reading or completely ignoring my point that you fail to see that I am simply arguing that Koppel was worse because he influenced more people and thus more policy than Hannity has. Koppel's seemingly moderate stances translated into actual bad policies. Hannity has never had this same influence with voters in the middle who swing elections. There isn't a poster on this site who deliberately misinterprets posts and offers up awful strawmen as much as you do so congratulations.

He won the total amount of electoral votes in a landslide. If you took the time to read, you would see I said he won them in single digit margins which further proves the point that Hannity didn't swing the election.

[Ghostpanther]

Just means Ted Koppel is a left wing liberal who represented a left wing media network. Of course he would think Hannity is bad for the country, as they both do not share the same vision for their country. Duh. :P

[Glorious Leader]

I am simply arguing that Koppel was worse because he influenced more people

At best this statement is unproven but realistically its more likely false. Hannity has both a radio program and a national tv program airing during prime time. Ted koppel was on nightline which aired after everyone went to bed. No matter how you square it hannity is far worse.

Chomsks critique of the media is systemic. That you would then abuse it to make some equivelancy between koppel and hannity is disgusting and misses the point.

[Ghostpanther]

At best this statement is unproven but realistically its more likely false. Hannity has both a radio program and a national tv program airing during prime time. Ted koppel was on nightline which aired after everyone went to bed. No matter how you square it hannity is far worse.

Chomsks critique of the media is systemic. That you would then abuse it to make some equivelancy between koppel and hannity is disgusting and misses the point.

Or far better. Depends on one's perspective.

[Bodakane]

Hit the nail on the head. But to be fair to Fox News there's been a significant part of the population that has never cared about facts. Fox News didn't create these people, they just found their target audience.

True.

Fox did weaponize them though.

[Aoyi]

Ted Kopple is right and I wish that wasn't the way "news" was presented these days. I stopped watching news shows years ago because of this. Now I read most of my news, but even then I find myself reading the same story on multiple sites just in case there's some spin put in the article. I wish I could just turn on the news and find out what's happening and nothing else.

[infinitemeridian]

He won the total amount of electoral votes in a landslide. If you took the time to read, you would see I said he won them in single digit margins which further proves the point that Hannity didn't swing the election.

Hardly.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ry-was-not-ma/

OT: Hannity is a joke. The guy is the spitting image of your average Trump supporter; angry, vicious, and rude.

[satimy]

What prime time news person is an ideologue? Charlie Rose, and he's not that big