It’s a good thing that every time the word “journalism” was used in this article, it was put in quotations, accurately signifying that the “journalism” of Hemingway, Bannon, et. al., is anything but. At least Hannity has admitted that he isn’t a journalist (although he could certainly be considered a “journalist”). Of course, Hannity u…
It’s a good thing that every time the word “journalism” was used in this article, it was put in quotations, accurately signifying that the “journalism” of Hemingway, Bannon, et. al., is anything but. At least Hannity has admitted that he isn’t a journalist (although he could certainly be considered a “journalist”). Of course, Hannity uses that “get-out-of-jail-free” card when he is caught violating some basic tenet of Journalism 101 such as not getting a second source for a story (the Seth Rich conspiracy comes to mind) and doesn’t want to be held accountable for his shoddy “reporting”.
There are certainly bad actors in the left-wing media. But equating them to the right-wing variety is false. First of all, there are so many more right-wing types out there. And, sure, both sides are biased in that they almost exclusively cover stories that make the other side look bad. But the right-wing media goes the extra mile in the way they cover the stories. Some make up the most fantastic lies you can imagine (Sandy Hook). But most don’t outright knowingly lie (although they seem to get a lot more wrong than the left-wing guys do). They are more subtle than that. They employ a technique that I call it the “I’m just sayin’” approach (I think JVL calls it “just asking questions”). They just say something like “isn’t it interesting that Nancy Pelosi was in charge of Capitol security and there was clearly not enough security on January 6”, clearly intending sympathetic ears to believe that Pelosi was somehow involved with the insurrection. It matters not that Pelosi only has a limited role in Capitol security; it only matters that she has some. Since something bad happened on January 6, and Pelosi can be tied to it, however tenuously, that’s good enough. Pelosi is obviously bad. No further thinking required.
Or Carlson can insinuate/speculate that the FBI encouraged people to riot on January 6 because there were undercover FBI agents in the mob.
What they are doing is providing a talking point that will allow those who have already made up their mind to take comfort in the fact that they were right all along (they knew Pelosi was bad; now they have “proof”).
My favorite example of this technique was when Trump went after Judge Curiel because "I heard that he's Mexican". Hannity's defense of Trump went like this:
1 ) He first noted that Curiel belongs to the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association
2) He said that he didn't know of any connection between the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association and the national group, La Raza
3) He then went on a rant about how bad the La Raza group is ("did you know that La Raza means race - that shows how racist they are")
4) He reiterated that he didn't know of any connection between the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association and La Raza.
So why would Hannity single out La Raza as being a group not affiliated with the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association? After all, there are literally thousands (and maybe millions) of groups having no connection to the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association (the Boy Scouts, the Catholic Church, Future Farmers of America, the list is endless.). Why did he choose La Raza for special mention? I'd be willing to bet that he believes that his listeners will hear "La Raza" in both names and believe there must be some connection. They won't hear Hannity's disavowal of any connection between the groups which was, at best, a qualified one ("I don't know of any connection"). Since Hannity has already claimed that La Raza is racist, it then follows that the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, and its members, must also be at least somewhat racist. It's then only a small leap to believing that Curiel is racist which is what Trump claimed all along.
When Hannity says that he doesn't know of any connection, the subliminal message is that there might be one; it's just that he doesn't know about it. And he takes advantage of the logical fact that you can’t prove a negative (there’s no way to “prove” the election wasn’t stolen). By repeating this numerous times, he can also go from "there might be a connection" to "there probably is a connection" since, if nothing else, his listeners have heard it so many times.
Right-wing politicians are also adept at this technique. So Steve Scalise can ask “did Nancy Pelosi delay deployment of troops to the Capitol”, and wonder why ”the January 6 Committee won’t investigate this question”. It matters not to Scalise that he already knows the answer. It only matters that the question is out there.
The same thing works on a variety of levels/contexts--like Trump wanting an investigation in UKR about Hunter Biden. It didn't matter whether there was actually anything there or not. The only thing that mattered was that there was an investigation (or at least the announcement of one).
You are 100% correct. And, of course, if the GOP retakes the House, there will be unending investigations of Hunter Biden and UKR. And if Benghazi is any guide, if they don't find anything, the right-wing media will just say they didn't interview EVERYONE who knows how to spell Ukraine (including those who just have an opinion about how to spell it) to claim that the investigation wasn't thorough. Then the GOP will use that to justify another investigation. If they still don't find anything, then they will go the "I'm just sayin'" route and point out that Joe Biden is related to someone WHO WAS INVESTIGATED BY CONGRESS.
Politics, like magic, often relies on the art of misdirection. "Look! Over there!" at migrants on the border or Hunter's laptop, they cry, as they busily work to dismantle democracy.
It’s a good thing that every time the word “journalism” was used in this article, it was put in quotations, accurately signifying that the “journalism” of Hemingway, Bannon, et. al., is anything but. At least Hannity has admitted that he isn’t a journalist (although he could certainly be considered a “journalist”). Of course, Hannity uses that “get-out-of-jail-free” card when he is caught violating some basic tenet of Journalism 101 such as not getting a second source for a story (the Seth Rich conspiracy comes to mind) and doesn’t want to be held accountable for his shoddy “reporting”.
There are certainly bad actors in the left-wing media. But equating them to the right-wing variety is false. First of all, there are so many more right-wing types out there. And, sure, both sides are biased in that they almost exclusively cover stories that make the other side look bad. But the right-wing media goes the extra mile in the way they cover the stories. Some make up the most fantastic lies you can imagine (Sandy Hook). But most don’t outright knowingly lie (although they seem to get a lot more wrong than the left-wing guys do). They are more subtle than that. They employ a technique that I call it the “I’m just sayin’” approach (I think JVL calls it “just asking questions”). They just say something like “isn’t it interesting that Nancy Pelosi was in charge of Capitol security and there was clearly not enough security on January 6”, clearly intending sympathetic ears to believe that Pelosi was somehow involved with the insurrection. It matters not that Pelosi only has a limited role in Capitol security; it only matters that she has some. Since something bad happened on January 6, and Pelosi can be tied to it, however tenuously, that’s good enough. Pelosi is obviously bad. No further thinking required.
Or Carlson can insinuate/speculate that the FBI encouraged people to riot on January 6 because there were undercover FBI agents in the mob.
What they are doing is providing a talking point that will allow those who have already made up their mind to take comfort in the fact that they were right all along (they knew Pelosi was bad; now they have “proof”).
My favorite example of this technique was when Trump went after Judge Curiel because "I heard that he's Mexican". Hannity's defense of Trump went like this:
1 ) He first noted that Curiel belongs to the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association
2) He said that he didn't know of any connection between the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association and the national group, La Raza
3) He then went on a rant about how bad the La Raza group is ("did you know that La Raza means race - that shows how racist they are")
4) He reiterated that he didn't know of any connection between the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association and La Raza.
So why would Hannity single out La Raza as being a group not affiliated with the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association? After all, there are literally thousands (and maybe millions) of groups having no connection to the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association (the Boy Scouts, the Catholic Church, Future Farmers of America, the list is endless.). Why did he choose La Raza for special mention? I'd be willing to bet that he believes that his listeners will hear "La Raza" in both names and believe there must be some connection. They won't hear Hannity's disavowal of any connection between the groups which was, at best, a qualified one ("I don't know of any connection"). Since Hannity has already claimed that La Raza is racist, it then follows that the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, and its members, must also be at least somewhat racist. It's then only a small leap to believing that Curiel is racist which is what Trump claimed all along.
When Hannity says that he doesn't know of any connection, the subliminal message is that there might be one; it's just that he doesn't know about it. And he takes advantage of the logical fact that you can’t prove a negative (there’s no way to “prove” the election wasn’t stolen). By repeating this numerous times, he can also go from "there might be a connection" to "there probably is a connection" since, if nothing else, his listeners have heard it so many times.
Right-wing politicians are also adept at this technique. So Steve Scalise can ask “did Nancy Pelosi delay deployment of troops to the Capitol”, and wonder why ”the January 6 Committee won’t investigate this question”. It matters not to Scalise that he already knows the answer. It only matters that the question is out there.
The same thing works on a variety of levels/contexts--like Trump wanting an investigation in UKR about Hunter Biden. It didn't matter whether there was actually anything there or not. The only thing that mattered was that there was an investigation (or at least the announcement of one).
You are 100% correct. And, of course, if the GOP retakes the House, there will be unending investigations of Hunter Biden and UKR. And if Benghazi is any guide, if they don't find anything, the right-wing media will just say they didn't interview EVERYONE who knows how to spell Ukraine (including those who just have an opinion about how to spell it) to claim that the investigation wasn't thorough. Then the GOP will use that to justify another investigation. If they still don't find anything, then they will go the "I'm just sayin'" route and point out that Joe Biden is related to someone WHO WAS INVESTIGATED BY CONGRESS.
Politics, like magic, often relies on the art of misdirection. "Look! Over there!" at migrants on the border or Hunter's laptop, they cry, as they busily work to dismantle democracy.
Is it true that Hannity fornicates with barn animals? Just asking.
Many people are saying that.
touche