Sean Hannity Apologizes to Jon Stewart Who….(Etc.)

It is sad that our primary media oversight comes from a comedy show.

Stewart is right though . Hannity should apologize to his viewers.

Caught red-handed and Hannity just smirks through his "apology". To Jon Stewart? Jon did well in pointing out that it was Hannity's way of denigrating his own audience to not apologize to them. Apparently he's got his chimps so well trained that they can see two completely different realities right before their eyes and superimpose them over each other at Faux's mere command. Apologizing to them would only confuse them...lol...

And we wonder why people are concerned about America. Sections of our population grifting for ultimate and unlimited power are so dumb and so armed to the teeth, so visceral and basic and animalistic. No wonder we have real and dedicated "enemies". Jesus Cristo!

Joe - you're slipping. You actually called it by its correct name, a 'tea party', rather than your usual 'tea-bagger' slur.

Careful - you don't want to be labeled a right-wing biased non-legitimate news blogger, do you?

Austin: Your comment above is NOT appreciated. This is so typical of how internet blogging works. When the first protests started in fact some general medias (not just msnbc) called them tea bag protests because bags being sent out in protest. If I used that phrase in other posts you COULD have simply sent me a polite email and I would have changed it. Most of my blog posts are done on days when I am in meetings, performing at venues or driving or flying huge distances. For instance, I am out the door in about two minutes. But rather than contact me you decide to put on the internet that I am 'slurring": the protesters, as if I'm sitting around rubbing my hands with glee. This couild have been corrected in other posts if I had gotten a simple email and I frankly can't tell you how i phrased it since I do these quickly. I generally won't respond to this kind of thing but you put this here as a comment and I can't let it stand. I think we should both move on but in the future kindly email me if you have concern before you write thing that are in fact inaccurate. I don't demonize YOU in your comments that you've left on other issues and I would be highly appreciative if you avoid doing it to me. The issue is Stewart's bit: was it good, lousy? Out of line? Could Hannity be correct and therefore could Stewart be taking a cheap shot? But as usual blog comments somehow have to evolve (or devolve) in going after the person who wrote something that someone doesn't like. We both should move on but I will say this again: had you contacted me by email when a given post ran it would take about a second to change it.

And, in FACT, it is stil being used and not just by the left. Check out Google News and Google Web. You'll see some on the left using "tea bag protest" and some that are not ideological sites using it. On this post above, I didn't use it because I was aware this WAS a controversy and the intent of some who use it is political. If you saw it other posts, I just did it on auto pilot and you COULD have sent me an email pointing it out -- an email not in attack mode.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&source=hp&q=t...
http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&ned=us&tab=nw...

I won't be commenting on this in the future.

Fine, don't comment, but I find it very difficult to believe that someone as well read as you are on current events is not aware of how the terms 'tea bag' and 'tea-baggers' have been turned into a derogatory term for the tea protests. And you quoted and then used that derogatory term yourself on your very last post preceding this one, which is why I thought it relevant.

And of course Stewart's bit was funny. He is our most consistent political and observational humorist, and I rank him up there the very best, on par with H.L Mencken and possibly even Twain.

The issue is Stewart's bit: was it good, lousey? Out of line?

Not out of line considering Stewart does comedy, but I didn't think it was very funny and it came across as hamhanded. Hannity did the right thing in this case by admitting the error and apologizing (and from that clip, I didn't think he was apologizing to Stewart- he just said that Stewart was right and then he apologized, presumably to his viewers.)

Anyway, I say hamhanded because it's a silly thing to make such a big deal of, and it seems a bit petty to keep milking the gag after the correction was made by Hannity. Stewart is talented and funny and capable of coming up with better material than this.

Way to go, Joe!



The question was: "The issue is Stewart's bit: was it good, lousey? Out of line? "



My answer/opinion: Stewart was magnificent!

Guys and gals, please express your opinion about Jon Stewart, but please don't kill the messenger...again

Calling someone out over lying & creative video editing is hamhanded? Seems more like honest to me. This was not a one time thing for Hannity or FAUX Snooze. They are patently dishonest.

According to a survey done by the Pew Research Center viewers of The Daily Show have the highest intelligence level... Fox News and the Morning Network Shows the lowest. Here's a link to a graphic of the ratings.

If you take the "What's you News IQ" test be forewarned... You'll get three questions wrong if you actually know the current news!.. The test was written last April.

...the subtle altering of network reality to sell a preconceived narrative ~ Jon Stewart

Too bad that wasn't comedy as well.


As for offense taken at benign lexicon, this is the second case I've seen at TMV lately. I rank that dynamic right down there with apologist behavior for indefensible actions - in this case what FOX did.

Glad to see Jim Lehrer is up there too... which isn't so surprising.

...the subtle altering of network reality to sell a preconceived narrative
Too bad that wasn't comedy as well.~ J Spencer
*********

Yes. Unfortunately it is a reality that has brought much shame on our country throughout the world. "Beware of ignorance and want", wasn't that Dickens? All they have to do to the ignorant groping horde is to herd them; like reflexive border collies for a higher evil master.

Sean Hannity is like a border collie. Mr. Murdoch, his master, is an aussie. He understands EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Sean Hannity therefore is more properly a "queensland heeler", a bit soft-eyed but still effective when called on to bring them home. Glenn Beck is more like a McNab, all hectic, manic and obsessed with the job. He's got a hard eye and you wouldn't want him out in the yard when the kids are playing. He might even have rabies.

In herding we have the headers and the heelers. Dogs who are natural headers mesmerize the herd by their movements. I'm thinking Beck is a header. If a member strays too far out of the ball, the header will confront them directly and keep them moving in the right direction. Heelers are dogs that naturally come from behind, nip the heels [hence the name] of the herd driving fear from behind. Beck is also a good heeler. Dick Cheney is the ultimate heeler. He would win the blue in heeler trials at every dog show he went to.

The GOP base overwhelmingly used to be like sheep, totally uninformed and utterly easy to manipulate. Those were the good old days eh boys? Nowadays with the internet and its invisible but potent educating, they're more like a herd of goats, still workable somewhat but refusing to stay balled up like sheep. They see more options. The GOP dogs are having to work five times as hard to work the stragglers back in since goats are much smarter than sheep and have minds of their own. This explains Beck's histrionics and Hannity's footage-substitution. The dogs are showing signs of fatigue. Don't worry, Murdoch will replace them with fresh ones. I hear Dobbs might be coming on? Murdoch could name his new pup "Dobby Boy"..lol..

There's your ranch metaphor for the day. When I can't find any herding-dog trials on the tube I'll turn to Faux News. It's pretty much the same thing.

"it's a silly thing to make such a big deal of, and it seems a bit petty to keep milking the gag"

Obviously so, but not surprising in the least that it is happening, given the silliness and pettiness that is so pervasive and predictable "there"...

Hamhanded referred not to the original 'calling out' but the repeat segment which I referred to as 'milking' after the subject of the complaint did the right thing and apologized. Hannity's extremely biased, partisan, and I'm sure this isn't the first time his show has engaged in 'creative editing'. But when someone is called out for it and owns up to it, that should be duly noted and not ridiculed IMO- and I'd feel the same if Stewart had called out liberal pundit or journalist and then that person apologized. I realize in some alternate universes the liberals are never guilty of this, but here would be a good example of what could have been lampooned by Stewart (and I have no idea if he did in fact do so....but had he done so and then the anchor apologized for the way they edited the clip, I would also have considered it bad form if Stewart went on the air the next day and kept harping on it instead of acknowledging the apology.)

The odd part about the term "tea bag" associated with these protests, is that it was initally used by the protesters themselves, until its double meaning became apparent.

Indeed, they went so far as to put up a "Tea Bag Party". Their website, promoting the sending of tea bags to Washington as a tax protest, is still up at www.teabagparty.org . Just an interesting bit.

Humor is often the best way to shame the unprincipled. Stewart did a good job on Hannity.

Great post Sil! My favorite dog was an aussie I had for 14 years. My current dog is a young aussie (my vet thinks is part border collie) but she acts sort of like a heeler. Since there are no herding activities for her here (other than the cats) she is obsessed with her frisbee and tennis ball. She is a great dog though, smart as a whip, athletic as all get out, and of course thinks I'm god. ;-) - also she is distrustful of strangers - unlike my last aussie who loved everyone. Apologies for digressing from politics, blame it on Sil. ;-)

"The issue is Stewart's bit: was it good, lousey [sic]? Out of line?"

Actually, the real issue is if this was an accident or mistake by Hannity, or if it was deliberate (which is to say, dishonest). It's not a big deal any longer -- it was wrong and Hannity admitted it (and obviously will now be under more scrutiny, at least until the wariness subsides). But that was the real issue.

A few points:

Hannity's show is an opinion show, not a "news" show. If you want a news show on Fox, watch Shep Smith's.

Secondly, opinion shows are all about the narrative. Olbermann, Maddow have their narratives too, as do many others who host opinion and talk type of shows. And guess, what, Jon Stewart has a narrative. So I don't get too upset about it, but it seems there are a lot of people out there who lack enough self-awareness to understand that the "news" they like is just as narrative-driven as the "news" they don't like.

Ah yes, more apologism. I have to wonder what percentage of americans these days have enough critical thinking ability to discern the difference between news and opinion?

tidbits wrote: "The odd part about the term "tea bag" associated with these protests, is that it was initally used by the protesters themselves, until its double meaning became apparent."

Exactly right tidbits, as pointed out in the Wikipedia post: Tea Party Protests

In February [2/27/09], David Weigel of The Washington Independent photographed a protester holding a sign that read "Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You." The verb "tea bag" is used by others including Fox News Reporter Griff Jenkins and <a href="http://www.reteaparty.com/2009/02/27/rick... where it is used self-referentially. Salon.com, however, pointed out that "teabagging" has long had another meaning.

April 15th Tax-day Events

An April 15, 2009 Tea Party protest outside the White House was moved after a box of tea bags was hurled over the White House fence. Police sealed off the area and evacuated some people. The United States Secret Service brought out a bomb-detecting robot, which determined the package was not a threat. Approximately a thousand people had demonstrated, several waved placards saying "Stop Big Government" and "Taxation is Piracy".

There were many, many "Tea Bags" brought to the "Tea Party's"... ergo "Tea Bag Party" if they'd had any sense they would have bought it in bulk, it's cheaper and it's better.

The bad link in my post above should have been to: April 1, 2009 | Tea Bag the Fools in D.C.

"it's a silly thing to make such a big deal of, and it seems a bit petty to keep milking the gag"

Obviously so, but not surprising in the least that it is happening, given the silliness and pettiness that is so pervasive and predictable "there".~DLS..
************
So if you watch the shows from "there" then you are "petty". [stay with the herd]. That was a nip from TMV's own heeling dog. Well that's one way of looking at it. Here's another way: without shows like The Daily Show to keep the rampant propaganda [on both sides] under check, we'd be living in Soviet Russia under the KGB. And depending on who still maintained power of the secret arm of government, in our case the CIA and it's PSYOPS crapola..I mean, really...if it was up to the GOP they would have that measure of control over the populace if we let them.

Like I said about Olbermann, if the need wasn't there, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report wouldn't exist.

So if you watch the shows from "there" then you are "petty". [stay with the herd]. That was a nip from TMV's own heeling dog.

Um, no, it wasn't a 'nip', nor did I say that people who watch The Daily Show are petty. I simply answered Joe's question with my own opinion of this particular clip from Stewart, and personal opinions were what Joe asked for. Funny how a few commenters here react as though there is only one correct answer to a question about opinions, and yet somehow simultaneously are trying to claim that we who might have a contrarian opinion are trying to nip at heels to herd people into agreeing with us.

Additionally, Sil, if I were you, I wouldn't even bring the word "nip" into the conversation. We already have our speculations........lol!

Austin, the term "tea bag" and "tea bagging" meant what they did long before the first such event was planned, and the definition was widely known-- not just to those who have some sort of deviant lifestyle. They could have stopped at "tea party" but many (some obviously aware of it's other use and some completely oblivious) did not.

Now you can't tell me that if a group of protesters decided to hold rallies to speak out against Mexican immigrants and call it a "Dirty Sanchez Party" that it wouldn't immediately hit the radar of every comedian out there. Chances are, you know what that term means, and if you don't, you at least have a good idea as to what type of act it might. To top it off, imagine if they continued calling it that and some proudly held signs that they were going to give the border patrol a Dirty Sanchez, all mixed in with little old ladies continued to use the term and have no idea what they were talking about. Now imagine that even after that they continued to refer to themselves as Dirty Sanchezers. At some point, with them insisting to be called that, it just becomes lodged in your brain that that's what they're supposed to be called. You might even start use the term without even thinking about it.

Better example... Let's say that a group of Buddhists use a symbol for centuries. Let's say that a fringe right-wing group starts to use that symbol and then commits genocide. Even though it's still a Buddhist symbol, it is now more commonly associated with the second group and considered social taboo.

There were many, many "Tea Bags" brought to the "Tea Party's"... ergo "Tea Bag Party" if they'd had any sense they would have bought it in bulk, it's cheaper and it's better.

Indeed. Not to mention that throwing around loose tea likely would not have required as much clean up. In fact, it might have been quite beneficial for the White House lawn. Though I do wonder how much sales tax was paid in this protest on taxation, and folks fail to see the irony in that.

If they'd stop and actually consider why the Boston Tea Party happened the way it did, they'd know that it wasn't merely a symbolic thing. Dumping all that tea meant that it would not be sold and therefore could not be used to collect taxes. It was also illegal, but then some of the more effective protests usually are. You could even compare it to the sit-ins of the 1960s and bus boycotts. They weren't just symbolic. They had an actual effect. Symbolism and lack of sacrifice just isn't that effective.

Without beating this issue to death, there actually was a rationale behind using teabags as opposed to loose tea. In planning to send tea to various Washington pols as part of the protest, the organizers determined that loose tea might leak from the envelopes and create "security" concerns, ala the anthrax scare. Thus, the decision to use teabags as their symbol of protest. Just a little more useless information.

Joe,

In Austin's defense, I attended all of the Tea Parties in my area. Not ONCE did any of us refer to ourselves as "Tea Baggers" or to our event as "Tea Bag Parties". Not once.

Just because ANY media outlet calls it that, does not make it right. And contrary to your probable believe, the make up of the crowd at the Tea Parties was approximately 1/3 democrat. SHOCKING!! The media, and no doubt you, presumed it was a massive neocon/GOP effort. That may have been the case for many of the participants, but for me (A social-conservative moderate Democrat) it was not. It was a frustration with Congress, the Bush/Obama bailouts, multi-Trillion dollar heathcare, and impending debt that we cannot afford to pass to the children.

I know this has all been said before. But as long as conservatives and liberals alike continue to miscategorize the impetus behind the Tea Parties, or belittle their meaning, here I'll be on the soapbox.

*Hurrah* for the daily show and Jon Stewart and I agree with the post that likens him to Twain. I thought it was effective and funny. The reaction to Hannity's apology also right on the mark. While it is a minor miracle that Fox would apologize for anything, Hannity's apolgy imo falls into the strategic type, tongue in cheek, jabbing back even as you acknowledge that there had been a "mistake." Now, I've never worked at a major news station, but I know that if I backed my truck up and filled another's swimming pool with coal, it was likely not a mistake, notwithstanding I would not be telling the arresting officer just that. This whole issue speaks to, as Jon pointed out, the manipulation of the news.

Actually, neither I nor anyone in my social circle had ever heard the term used as sexual entendre before this came up. I find it odd that we're supposed to feel embarrassed to not know this lexicon. Sorry if you think that people are rubes for not being in on the joke, but perhaps you should realize that not everyone is as well versed in crassness as others apparently are.

Good morning CS

I find it odd how you don't see the irony of Hannity's use of erroneous film clips to push a political meme. I distinctly remember how outraged you were that Oberman edited a Palin daughter clip. At least in his case, he actually used her words about abstinence.

As to Stewart "milking" the apology, get over it. Stewart is a comedienne who lives on the milk of other people's hypocrisy. Hannity and fox in general slice and dice raw footge to produce their meme on a regular basis. Stewart caught him and called him out by using humor to make his point. Any time Hannity wants to guarantee that this episode is his last attempt to shape the news through purposeful editing, I'm sure Stewart will leave him alone.

Also, as to the teabagger "controversy", I suggest you watch Robert Wuhl's "Assume the Position."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgddY5OO4fY This jumps into themiddle of his talk, and I suggest you watch all four parts. You will find yourself laughing at the lies we've told ourselves.

Yankee Doodle was a homophobic slur first used by the British. It took Americans to make it a battle cry. My point is simple, instead of taking umbrage with a an opposition's intended slur, use it, ignore it, or make it mean something you want it to. Being offended is a waste of everybody's time.

Good gosh, nothing like a huge overreaction to my comments, Hemm. I don't need to 'get over' anything, as I was never in the least upset about this. Joe Gandleman posted his observations about Stewart's second jibe at Hannity and then in the comment section he asked for opinions about it. I gave mine, end of story. I wasn't in any way commenting on the initial Stewart piece about Hannity's faux video reel, and never in any way condoned the use of fake footage (nor do I think there was anything whatsoever wrong with his initial criticism.) I also already said I didn't think Stewart crossed any lines of impropriety, but simply expressed my personal opinion that the second clip wasn't very funny to me and was a bit tacky (again my opinion) to keep beating the drum after the apology.

I also didn't comment about 'teabagger' with outrage- I was responding to those who were puzzled at how the tea party participants could possibly not have known about the urban dictionary definition of teabag, and letting them know that at least among people that I know, no one understood what the juvenile joking was all about and I'm not ashamed to admit that because I have no shame in not being well versed in crass terms for sex acts.

CS

The "also" was a break in point. The first paragraph was directed toward your comments about Stewart going back to the subject after Hannity's apology. That is a comics tactic, nothing more.

The tawdry connotation of teabagger not withstanding, this faux insult has been kicked around way too much here. My comments were directed toward those who are constantly offended. If you are not one of those, feel free to read it as not directed toward you. My mistake was to put both comments in the same response.

I'll be happy to stop using this term if the right side refrains from the list of pejoratives used to describe the left. In this thread, I believe a separate comment to AR would have made the implied distinction overt.