well, it's not like rupert's minions have any idea what professional journalism is anyway. he's got some problems brewing across the pond:

Rupert Murdoch's News Group News­papers has paid out more than £1m to settle legal cases that threatened to reveal evidence of his journalists' repeated involvement in the use of criminal methods to get stories.

The payments secured secrecy over out-of-court settlements in three cases that threatened to expose evidence of Murdoch journalists using private investigators who illegally hacked into the mobile phone messages of numerous public ­figures to gain unlawful access to confidential personal data, including tax records, social security files, bank statements and itemised phone bills. Cabinet ministers, MPs, actors and sports stars were all targets of the private investigators.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/08/murdoch-papers-phone-hacking

I suppose Hannity sees Obama's speeches as exercises in deception-- once you strip away the misleading 'facts' and the lying 'context' it all becomes clear.

if you dont watch the teevee you dont hafta eat that shit.

For one thing, it's bearing false witness. I would like to hear the religious right denounce this guy who ignores at least ONE of the Ten Commandments they so proudly wish to display on every courthouse lawn in America. It's a lie. With malice aforethought.

For another thing, for a journalist in any media to alter photos, quotes, or videos of public figures to distort the meaning of their words or deeds--in the digital age there needs to be a law against this. How is this free speech? It is a form of confidence game with the public the intended victim.

"A half truth is the blackest lie" - Tennyson

It's called lying.

Sean Hannity isn't just someone with whom I (and the majority of readers of this blog) disagree. Brooks we disagree with, George Will we disagree with. They're wrong. But at least they usually make the attempt to stay within the realm of truth. Not Hannity. He's just a plain goddamned liar.

Do you seriously think Hannity is sitting in an editing bay by himself chopping up tape of Obama et. al.?

Hannity is not some lone wingnut on a soapbox. He's part of a coordinated strategy and if you want to inform us do some legwork/reporting.

There are probably 5-10 people sitting over an editor's shoulder during editing or at the very least reviewing the tape/comments before they go to air. It wouldn't be surprising if the numbers were much higher. So, who are the editors, producers, executives, and more importantly advertisers behind their front man in Hannity.

grinning cat is right. They're all goddamned liars.

I've noticed this over the years about conservatives: they don't believe the lies, they embrace the lies. There's no point in exposing the dishonesty to them, they don't care. Its not the truth they care about, it's the message. If its a out and out lie, who cares? If the lie fits their beliefs then so be it, the lie it is. They know its not factual, but it supports their thinking.

Damn right grinning cat is right. This bloviating ass isn't doing the editing himself; he's hewing to the line set by a much more shadowy, therefore dangerous, bunch. He's a 'useful idiot'.

Chocolate Thunder wrote: "Brooks we disagree with, George Will we disagree with. They're wrong. But at least they usually make the attempt to stay within the realm of truth."

That's certainly NOT true of George Will.

The Washington Post has published column after column by George Will over a period of several years, in which he has written lie after lie after lie about the scientific reality of anthropogenic global warming.

Will knows that he is lying -- because he has repeated the same word-for-word lies that have previously been publicly, and repeatedly, exposed and debunked. And even though the Post's own reporters have noted Will's lies, the Post op-ed page continues to publish what the editors know to be Will's blatant lies.

George Will is every bit as much a deliberate, malicious, bought-and-paid-for liar as Hannity.

And the Washington Post is every bit as much a purveyor of deliberate, malicious lies as Fox News.

Sean Hannity and George Will lie -- for money.

It's really as simple as that.

Hannity is proof that Fox News is more akin to The Daily Show than it is to CNN, MSNBC or the networks. It may be entertainment and it may use news events, but it's presentation is not journalism.

This is just lying, it's propaganda. There's a huge difference.

Anyone know where I can get a list of advertisers for Hannity's show, I refuse to spend a dime with any of them.

It's the producers.

I've had for various reasons to watch a lot of Fox News over the years since it started, and my sense is that it's the producers, the folks we don't see, that are firmly in control of the broadcasts, not the on-air talent.

Not that he would necessarily disapprove anyway, but I doubt Hannity had much, if anything, to do with the editing of the video. He was presented with it and ginned up his own outrage from it without ever having listened to the whole speech, like the good boy the producers want him to be.

It's the producers who present the on-air people with the "research" they occasionally cite, carefully selected clips and news articles and opinion columns and screeds from right-wing think tanks and the like. Oftentimes, these folks know no more about a subject than they present to the public because their information flow is so dependent on the producers, who on any network actually do most of the reporting and writing and feed what they want to feed to the on-air reporters and anchors.

What makes me sick is that he is still being used as a credible source. A couple of weeks ago, on NPR's Morning Edition regarding some policy of the president, Hannity was used as a source of criticism. They actually put his words on the air, without apparent irony. He lies...he should be shunned. Period. There are too many sources of information to use that are more consistantly accurate, there is no time to use a liar's bullshit.
I know that NPR has been establishment for some time, but that made me so angry I was too tired to write to the station (which I normally do). I give to PRI, but will not contribute to NPR.

but is so desperate to mislead an audience,

This is something that FoxNews apparently takes great pride in doing. Be it working to crop a quote or tacking a "D" next to a Republican scandal - it has become routine. I guess Fox viewers can't handle the truth.

Misrepresenting quotes doesn't just take effort, it takes guts -- Hannity is gambling that his viewers won't take a moment to investigate the original source of the quotes. If they did, it would immediately debunk his red-faced, "Why didn't he say X?" when the explanation is that he omitted X from the video.

Gandalf, ask and you shall receive. Here is a list of advertisers on Hannity's Fox show from last week:

Accu-Chek
Acura
ADT
Advair
Aleve
Align
Apple iPhone
Atlantis Paradise Island
Bass Pro Shops
Beaches
Belltel Lofts
Bounty
Brinks Home Security
Brita
Capital One
Cascade
Centrum
Cialis
Cinergy Health
City National Bank
Clairol Nice 'n Easy
Crest
Days Inn
Dial 7 Car & Limousine Service
Dominican Republic Tourism
Edge New York
Farmers
Ford
Fox News Channel
FreeCreditReport.com
GE Aviation
GoToMeeting
Healthy Economy Now
Honey Bunches Of Oats
Hyundai
Infiniti G
Johnsonville
KingSPA Fitness
La-Z-Boy
Lake George Area Tourism
Lowe's
Maine Tourism
Microsoft Bing
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney
Mr. Clean
Olay
Pantene
PhRMA & Families USA - Healthcare
Post Shredded Wheat
PUR
Raymond James
Restasis
Road Runner High Speed Online
Rosetta Stone
Sandals
Scottrade
SportsNet New York
Sprint Nextel
Swiffer
The Wall Street Journal
Time Warner Cable
Tri-State Ford Dealers
TRILIPIX
Triscuit
TUMS
Verizon Wireless
Vlasic
Wachovia - Wells Fargo
Walden University
World Alliance Financial
Yellow Book

I've had for various reasons to watch a lot of Fox News over the years since it started, and my sense is that it's the producers, the folks we don't see, that are firmly in control of the broadcasts, not the on-air talent.

In many cases, you are correct, producers have great control over the content, but on-air personalities like Hannity dictate what goes on their programs. Producers will certainly make suggestions on topics, but you can be sure that Hannity has control over what content he discusses. The fault lies with him.

Wait, does boycotting La-Z-boy mean you won't buy their products, or you won't sit in a chair you already own???

This technique scares me to death. I am an old guy, I work with a bunch of old guys, mostly 'conservative republicans'. They get most of their news and most of their opinions from Fox. To them, Hannity,O;Reilly et al are the gospel. There is no convincing them that theseguys not only are biased, but lie. These guys are hardcore, and literally hate Obama and all Democratic leadership The work libersl is used as in poisonour, or treasonous, you know it a lie and wrong. I am afraid of wher it going.

It reflects someone who knows the truth, but is so desperate to mislead an audience, he'll use his editing powers to make viewers believe what he wants them to believe, reality be damned.

Sounds like a case of intentionally unethical behavior. Isn't there a way to hold people and/or organizations accountable for this?

Isn't there a way to hold people and/or organizations accountable for this?

The best place to start would be to hit them where it hurts - in the pocketbook. Contact as many advertisers as you can and tell them you will no longer buy their products if they continue to advertise on Hannity's program. It only works if you can get enough people to jion you, but it can be pretty effective.

Sean Hannity is a dick.

@ colleeniem. NPR has lost all creditabilty. I was watching Faux the other night was Juan Williams and Maura Liason blovating together ...talk about pallin around with terrorists. I mean just breathing the same air has to poison thier judgement.
And To Capt Kirk@ 11:15 The Daily Show of late doesn't have to make anything up or edit tapes - just show the actual footage-that shit writes itself . If anything they are MORE serious than Faux

President Obama should sic his Department of Law on 'em.

Hannity is proof that Fox News is more akin to The Daily Show than it is to CNN, MSNBC or the networks. It may be entertainment and it may use news events, but it's presentation is not journalism.

John R. beat me to the punch -- The Daily Show has more journalistic integrity than Faux News has ever possessed.

Hannity may not have complete editorial control, but I can almost guarantee he's sitting in on the pre-production meetings where editing of clips is discussed, so he knows damn good and well what he's doing.

It is, however, as others have pointed out: This is an institutional issue with Faux that creeps up over and over again. It's just part of Faux News' culture at this point, and will never change until their viewers start dying of old age.

As far as advertisers go, that's a tough one. Many just buy blocks of time, and while they can easily find out what shows are on when their spot is to be ran, they probably care more about the number of viewers than than the content.

That's not to say a boycott isn't worthy, but ain't no way The Mrs is giving up her Oil of Olay products ... :-)

hannity signed a new contract last years worth (for him) a record 200-million dollars...

polishing turds pays very well...

I can appreciate why this seems routine.

Here's another reason: that's the same thing Rush has been doing on his radio show for years, long before FoxNews was launched.

[First I want to say that if 'exlibra' disagrees with me on this comment in any way, listen to her, not to me. I have some knowledge of the subject, she has much more and more personally obtained.]

The irony to me is that Hannity's doctored quote -- without the 'political nod to past Presidents of both parties' -- was in fact more accurate.

The true heroes of the 'fall of Communism' were the people, the Walesas and Havels, but also the millions of others who remained nameless. The second hero was Mikhail Gorbachev, who created the conditions which made the fall possible, and refused to reverse them. And certainly in Poland, major credit goes to Pope John Paul II.

But what credit does Reagan deserve for a series of events that happened 'lightning fast' (So fast that THE ECONOMIST, which always takes a one-week break at the end of the year, missed almost all of them -- and were on the stands with an article stating unequivocally that 'the only Eastern European country that will remain under Soviet control was Romania' about two days after Ceacescu was dead -- because of printer's deadlines.) and which occurred after he had been out of office for over a year.

Yes, he gave arms to the Mujaheddin -- for which a generation of Afghani women exposed to the Taliban thank him, as do relatives of 9/11 victims. But it did help weaken the Soviet Union. And of course he made a speech -- as had many American politicians.

Meanwhile, no one ever points to what was, to me, the greatest crime and blunder of Bush 41, his philosophically driven conclusion that the revolt was in the name of Adam Smith rather than Thomas Jefferson.

We had a chance -- there more than in any other place since the Aftermath of WWII -- to show how important democracy was, to give any help possible to those people whose main drive was towards the process. Instead, our help went only to reforming their economies -- adding a layer of 'paleo-Capitalism' and its frequent accompanied thuggery and corruption to a system already plagued with the inefficiency, corruption (and environment-wrecking) of Soviet 'psuedo-Communism.'

(I don't imply that 'real Communism' could have worked. It is so totally flawed that even Lenin abandoned it, and the death of Mao created, in "Communist" China, precisely the sort of Capitalism that inspired Marx to write -- not my comment, Mark Kleiman's. But Stalinism wasn't communism but 'neo-Tsarism' with all the faults of both systems.)

As for helping believers in Democracy, that was so tertiary to Bush 41 that 'stability' and 'market reform' caused us to support some prime dictators.

Brooks we disagree with, George Will we disagree with. They're wrong. But at least they usually make the attempt to stay within the realm of truth.

No, not really. The differnce between them and Hannity is they make an attempt to sound plausible, is all. They're just as dishonest, only in different ways.

linda has this right. Hannity is a tool, but the name of the cancer is Murdoch.

The true heroes of the 'fall of Communism' were the people, the Walesas and Havels, but also the millions of others who remained nameless. -- Prup, @ 14:22

Well, you did call on me, by name :)

Don't know about Havel but do know about Walesa and he was no hero. Just a puppet, with a lot of charisma. Polish Palin, you might say. I actually -- long story -- happened to know, personally, most of the people (located in Warsaw, not Gdansk), who fed him his talking points and spent hours teaching him how to present them to the populace. You have never heard him go off script; I have. He was more fit for a remedial Polish course than for a political office. But, my God, could he ever pull them in and get them all fired up and ready to go. Incredible. None of the "elitists" -- the philosophy and sociology and history department "wonks", everyone with a PhD - who taught him his ABC could have ever put the face on the Solidarity movement the way he did. Good times... :)

J F Norman, @ 12:08,
Ask your buddies to give you some Repub lit -- personally, I like candidates' fliers, but anything will do. Then "doctor" those the same way Hannity "doctors" his "quotes". Underline a few words, taken from different bits of the flier, put them together into a sentence (sometimes, even a whole paragraph is possible) and, voila! you suddenly have Cheney saying that, in his secret heart of hearts he's a socialist, committed to destroy all American principles.

I'm a "rude mechanical" by inclination; I learn better (and assume many others do, too), when I can see how things work or can be worked. "Give e a for example" as they say. "Monkey see, monkey do", as they say. It works, where a torrent of strictly intellectual arguments might not.

Yes, grinning cat is right, but it's worse because it goes all the way up to Murdoch. Or even comes down from Murdoch.

And. George Will used to fairly credible, but like others of his ilk he's moved farther right to stay in the good graces of his minders.

Carefully editing quotes to remove context and misrepresent reality is altogether different.

It's called "Dowdification".

Never been a fan of Hannity but the rants on this site cause me to reconsider. Anyone who can cause this many liberal dims get their panties in a wad is A-ok.