Sean Hannity linked to shell companies that spent $90M on property

[Moonbeam]

They already have Tucker for that.

Isn’t his specialty more along the lines of being a condescending smug sarcastic ass?

 

[glenn1]

the guideline of their position is ethics. It's fine for any of them to do it, if they consider themselves journalists, as long as they disclose these conflicts to the audience. This is extremely important.

Simply claiming that this doesn't bother you all that much is a naive assertion that you simply do not care that self-described journalists are actually lying to you. It is no other way. Deny deny, defend your stubborn belief, but your blaissez acceptance of the dissolution of these established standards means that you are part of the problem.

I don't watch his show nor would I, but does Hannity hold himself out as a "journalist" or more of a "news commentator" like Rush Limbaugh? He obviously should disclose either way but I doubt his audience cares and if anything they'd probably rally around him if he were called out on it.

 

[pauldun170]

Hannity may have a lot of influence over idiots throughout the nation and may in fact be board certified douche-nozzle who should be slapped with a pickled aardvark anus by anyone in striking distance but....
Dude is a private citizen.

They would have to make the case that Hannity's public ball caressing of elected Republican officials meets the definition of "Something of value".
Where there is a promise of favorable coverage in exchange for something. "I will craft my next segment to make you look good if you can help my little purchase move along faster. Preferably with a no questions asked loan"
If there is evidence that Hannity's coverage meets standards that would fall under "Bribery of a public official" then I'm getting t-shirts made.

 

[cytg111]

Clearly Hannity sees a problem with Stephanopoulos donating money to whoever he wants yet doesn't apply that same standard to himself. That seems incredibly dishonest, doesn't it?

This is the whole business model .. Rape the economy for one self and deepthroat pcgeek11 with "republican values", trickle down and rocket fuel for the economy.. Being the good "water"boy that pcgeek11 is he swallows and goes "thank you master" .. "can i has some more?" .. sad story.. sad sad sad.

 

[cytg111]

I don't watch his show nor would I, but does Hannity hold himself out as a "journalist" or more of a "news commentator" like Rush Limbaugh? He obviously should disclose either way but I doubt his audience cares and if anything they'd probably rally around him if he were called out on it.

Does it matter if 4/10 people use Fox as their ONLY source of news? As I understand it many places there IS no alternative. What are people gonna gobble up? - And that is not "peoples own fault" - at the end of the day we are all just apes, and this is what apes do under these circumstances given no choice.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't watch his show nor would I, but does Hannity hold himself out as a "journalist" or more of a "news commentator" like Rush Limbaugh? He obviously should disclose either way but I doubt his audience cares and if anything they'd probably rally around him if he were called out on it.

Sean Hannity has claimed both that he is a journalist and that he is a commentator, although he was claiming to be a journalist as recently as about five months ago before presumably switching back here. It seems his primary criterion for deciding that is how convenient it is for whatever he's doing currently.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/magazine/how-far-will-sean-hannity-go.html

As recently as last summer, Hannity told a writer for The Times that he “never claimed to be a journalist.” In one of our recent conversations, he offered a reappraisal: “I’m a journalist,” he told me. “But I’m an advocacy journalist, or an opinion journalist.”

Opinion journalists are also supposed to be bound by journalistic ethics but I 100% agree that his audience doesn't care.

 

[zerocool84]

Sean Hannity has claimed both that he is a journalist and that he is a commentator, although he was claiming to be a journalist as recently as about five months ago before presumably switching back here. It seems his primary criterion for deciding that is how convenient it is for whatever he's doing currently.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/magazine/how-far-will-sean-hannity-go.html



Opinion journalists are also supposed to be bound by journalistic ethics but I 100% agree that his audience doesn't care.

He's only a journalist when it suits him. Fox News does not know or even care what Journalistic Integrity is.

 

[zinfamous]

I don't watch his show nor would I, but does Hannity hold himself out as a "journalist" or more of a "news commentator" like Rush Limbaugh? He obviously should disclose either way but I doubt his audience cares and if anything they'd probably rally around him if he were called out on it.

I think that is his "get out of jail with a smirk" weasel's position, so you are technically correct. But there in lies the problem with Fox, which brands itself "the Most watched News channel." They want you to beleive they are news, but just smirk and wink when they defend their unethical stab at propaganda by just reminding people that, officially, "We are entertainers."

If the FCC would force Fox to digitally waterstamp a permanent warning across the entirety of Fox channel's broadcast: "Warning: This content is not news. It is speculative entertainment for Plebs," then it would be a more honest broadcast with little need for criticism.

 

[glenn1]

I think that is his "get out of jail with a smirk" weasel's position, so you are technically correct. But there in lies the problem with Fox, which brands itself "the Most watched News channel." They want you to beleive they are news, but just smirk and wink when they defend their unethical stab at propaganda by just reminding people that, officially, "We are entertainers."

If the FCC would force Fox to digitally waterstamp a permanent warning across the entirety of Fox channel's broadcast: "Warning: This content is not news. It is speculative entertainment for Plebs," then it would be a more honest broadcast with little need for criticism.

So the problem remains more with the viewers than the source material. People are going to watch whatever stupid pablum they want and/or supports their preconceived worldviews; I highly doubt this is simply an education thing where informing the Hannity audience will lead to some sort of "aha!" moment. For the most part the audience was already engaging in motivated reasoning to pick that particular TV option to begin with.

 

[soulcougher73]

Meh. As long as their isnt any illegal activity i dont really care what he does with his money. And since he is a member of the political party all about ethics and morals and family values. He is fulfilling his duty as a hypocrite.

 

[Zorba]

So the problem remains more with the viewers than the source material. People are going to watch whatever stupid pablum they want and/or supports their preconceived worldviews; I highly doubt this is simply an education thing where informing the Hannity audience will lead to some sort of "aha!" moment. For the most part the audience was already engaging in motivated reasoning to pick that particular TV option to begin with.

The problem is Fox tries to pretend to be news. If they came right out and said "We are the propagandist for extreme wing of the GOP." I doubt nearly as many people would care and I doubt they'd get near the viewership.

They then brainwash their viewers into thinking they are the one and only source of legitimate news.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Isn’t his specialty more along the lines of being a condescending smug sarcastic ass?

Yep...kind of like Maddow...except the polar opposite ideologically.

 

[zinfamous]

So the problem remains more with the viewers than the source material. People are going to watch whatever stupid pablum they want and/or supports their preconceived worldviews; I highly doubt this is simply an education thing where informing the Hannity audience will lead to some sort of "aha!" moment. For the most part the audience was already engaging in motivated reasoning to pick that particular TV option to begin with.

Exactly this. Fox News really could not have existed in a world without a party like the GOP, more or less created in modern form by Reagan, and a few previous decades of brain-draining agitprop.

 

[trenchfoot]

They already have Tucker for that.

Damn, thanks for the reminder guys. I've heard of this Tucker character and my first thought about him was that he's a piss-poor half-ass version of O'Reilly and a failing Hannity wanna-be. I guess he must be earnestly practicing his "angry hate the muslim/brownie/LGBT face" that O'Reilly and Hannity wore/wear so well.

 

[GoPackGo]

Gives real perspective with Hannity in regards to his real estate dealings with Michael Cohen.

**Wouldn't it be funny if Hannity was involved with Russian money laundering?**

 

[hal2kilo]

Yep...kind of like Maddow...except the polar opposite ideologically.

That's some reality filter you have there. Maddow condescending? I get it you don't like the information she provides.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That's some reality filter you have there. Maddow condescending? I get it you don't like the information she provides.

Surely you can't be that blind.

 

[fskimospy]

The problem is Fox tries to pretend to be news. If they came right out and said "We are the propagandist for extreme wing of the GOP." I doubt nearly as many people would care and I doubt they'd get near the viewership.

They then brainwash their viewers into thinking they are the one and only source of legitimate news.

I agree with Glenn. It’s very similar to how people blame politicians for our dysfunctional politics. It’s not the politicians, it’s the voters. Maybe Fox serves to make a bad situation worse but the primary driver of Fox and right wing media in general is not media desperate to lie to its viewers, it’s viewers desperate to be lied to.

So sure, right wing media is more than happy to lie to its consumers. After all, it’s hard to think of a business that has more contempt for its customers than right wing media; it’s just that the consumers aren’t just okay with it, they are actively seeking to be lied to.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yep...kind of like Maddow...except the polar opposite ideologically.

The Great Rushbo predates them all.

 

[Jaskalas]

They would have to make the case that Hannity's public ball caressing of elected Republican officials meets the definition of "Something of value".
Where there is a promise of favorable coverage in exchange for something. "I will craft my next segment to make you look good if you can help my little purchase move along faster. Preferably with a no questions asked loan"
If there is evidence that the Hannity's coverage meets standards that would fall under "Bribery of a public official" then I'm getting t-shirts made.

An argument predicated on some notion that Hannity would not blindly support the <insert Republican here>?
Not to mention that support predates any investments made. From the very money Fox paid him for his deep devotion.
One might as well accuse Fox of paying Republicans to be... Republican. Makes as much sense as anything else here.

Given the size and scope of our government, anyone worth millions is going to come into contact with it. Next up... let's investigate everyone's tax returns... maybe someone received a break from a pal somewhere. We don't know it, but dangit, if they came into contact then it must be a crime somewhere. Let's go fishing. On our enemies, not our friends of course.

 

[boomerang]

Hannity says that the "shell companies" are in fact real companies. Anyone have any evidence that they are not?

 

[soundforbjt]

Damn, thanks for the reminder guys. I've heard of this Tucker character and my first thought about him was that he's a piss-poor half-ass version of O'Reilly and a failing Hannity wanna-be. I guess he must be earnestly practicing his "angry hate the muslim/brownie/LGBT face" that O'Reilly and Hannity wore/wear so well.

He always looks that way, I think it’s a case of constant constipation.

 

[soundforbjt]

Hannity says that the "shell companies" are in fact real companies. Anyone have any evidence that they are not?

From the article in the OP:

Hannity is the hidden owner behind some of these shell companies, a fact his attorney did not dispute in a statement to the newspaper. Each company uses a variation of the same name mixed with the initials of Hannity’s children.

 

[Zorba]

I agree with Glenn. It’s very similar to how people blame politicians for our dysfunctional politics. It’s not the politicians, it’s the voters. Maybe Fox serves to make a bad situation worse but the primary driver of Fox and right wing media in general is not media desperate to lie to its viewers, it’s viewers desperate to be lied to.

So sure, right wing media is more than happy to lie to its consumers. After all, it’s hard to think of a business that has more contempt for its customers than right wing media; it’s just that the consumers aren’t just okay with it, they are actively seeking to be lied to.

In other industries this would be called fraud and we have laws protecting people against fraud. Wishing people were smart enough to see the BS, doesn't change the fact that aren't. Fox pretends to be the most trustworthy source of news, why is it always on the consumer to protect themselves?

 

[Commodus]

Hannity says that the "shell companies" are in fact real companies. Anyone have any evidence that they are not?

Well, Hannity's tendency to hide conflicts of interest, peddle conspiracies and otherwise lie generally don't work in his favor.