On Fox News last week, Sean Hannity said he was tempted to ask Barack Obama: "Where did you buy your cocaine, how much cocaine? How much cocaine did you use? How often did you use it? When did you stop?"
On the same Monday night, Keith Olbermann said on MSNBC that John McCain had a responsibility "to say 'enough' to Republican smears without end" and not be "party to a campaign that devolves into hatred and prejudice and divisiveness."
Are these guys watching the same presidential race, or even living in the same country?
Right. Totally the same thing. No difference at all. From the left and the right
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Kurtz is a coward. I don't have anything more to add to that. He probably wonders why Ambinder runs circles around him.
Well, why didn't he ask him all those things? Is Hannity some kind of passive aggressive wimp?
No, Sean Hannity does not live in the same country as most people. He is insane. Anyone that ever tries to tell you that MSNBC is just as bias as Fox News only needs to watch a week of Hannity and Colmes.
Deborah, I don't think Hannity has ever had the chance to interview Obama, has he?
Maybe Sean has some daddy issues that he needs to work out. Chances are that he wouldn't ask G.W.B. those same questions, but excuse/dismiss them as a sordid past that he managed to clean up that has nothing to do with the office that he's running for.
If Obama gets his landslide, I'll be watching to see which state's results finally cause Hannity's head explode.
Howard Kurtz is a national tragedy. My only hope is that there is a special spot in hell for him and Mark Halperin. I can see it now:
"Satan claims he is going to roast our entrails and feed them to imps. On the other hand, God says he wants to make us listen to harps and sit on clouds. How can anyone possibly distinguish between the two?"
Was talking to a friend of mine this morning whose job requires him to drive around a lot. Houston's NPR station plays classical music most of the day, so he occasionally listens to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity just to get some talk radio. He claims that it helps him better appreciate Stephen Colbert.
I've never listened to either of them extensively, but his claim is that the difference between Rush and Hannity is that while they're both vile, Rush is incendiary as a practical matter, whereas Hannity actually believes his own crap.
Big Lake,
I can't wait. I'm pretty sure I'm going to be watching Fox News all night. And while you're obviously joking about Hannity's head exploding, I wouldn't be too shocked if he lost his mind, had a heart attack, or something to that extent. For a while, I thought that Hannity was just playing a part like I suspect Rush Limbaugh does. But the more I watch him, the more I'm convinced that he actually believes the bullshit that he spews. Its depressing and hilarious at the same time.
Wow, Keith, you beat me to it.
Kurtz is a hack and a coward. He and Steve "the dumber Rove" Schmidt are in bed together.
Meh.
I guess I didn't read it the same way. While it's true Kurtz ignores the validity of the content, I think his larger point is both men are ideological pundits. Olbermann excludes criticism of Obama, Hannity excludes criticism of McCain. Both men rarely invite guests with opposing viewpoints. And so on. His salient point: "They are so determined to play to their base that the broader reality can be hard to discern."
There is a measure of truth in that statement.
as others have noted, kurtz is a right-wing hack and a coward and he is totally dishonest.
he has various little ploys and tricks that he uses to be able to say certain things that are technically true, but do not reflect any sort of honest approach to controversial issues.
for instance, on his tv show, if there is something derogatory about republicans he will bring it up with about 30 seconds to go in a segment and address a question to a republican about that issue.
then, if ever questioned about why he doesn't spend time discussing derogatory matters about republicans, he will respond, well, i did address that last week on my television show.
what he doesn't say is that he spent about 30 seconds on it and that he tossed a republican a softball question about the issue.
again, he is technically correct, but totally dishonest in that he hardly ever spends more than those few seconds addressing those issues, while he dwells on stuff like rev. wright and bitter comments.
and his continued defense of fox news and hannity and o'reilly defies logic, as he repeatedly distorts - to their benefit - what they do, on the air.
i only wonder why the post and cnn continue to employ him.
anyone with eyes and ears can see how dishonest he is, as a supposed journalist.
Wow, one mention of Hannity and Kurtz and my usually measure commetariat goes bezerk. Hah.
Andrea, if that's the case, then it's the worse lede ever. Talk about stating the obvious.
Here's a devil's advocate: I'm not sure Kurtz is drawing an equivalence in rhetoric, but rather in purpose and effect. Each draws separate audiences who want to hear the red meat and that's what they're served. His point seems to be that, in the presentation, selection, and use of guests, both present near-echo chambers for the host's viewpoints.
hannity will flat out lie and simply repeat lies and false information, in the face of information that confronts him with the truth. he'll lie repeatedly and loudly.
the so-called "documentary" he proudly ran, based on the "research" of a wacko right-wing nut, which was designed solely to smear obama is the best example of hannity's methods.
say what you will about olbermann, he sticks with facts. he may present them in a way designed to move his agenda forward, but he does not put lies and false information on his show.
and if someone ever lets him know that he has put false info on the air, he will, on air, acknowledge that information.
any attempt to put them in the same category is simply dishonest.
Talk about stating the obvious.
Okay, so it was a stupid comment. Give me a break, I have a cold. But Kurtz is the one stating the obvious. There's no "there" there. So I came up with vapors.
If that is Kurtz's point Andrea or Trevor J, then he did a very poor job of making it. Olbermann annoys the hell out of me, but if one wants to make the point that he is one-sided, then I would think there would be plenty of examples illustrative of that. The quote that Kurtz chose doesn't even come close to making that argument.
Both men rarely invite guests with opposing viewpoints.
Right, except Olbermann's guest are mainstreamers like Howard Fineman (who once said George Bush, Jr. was like "Shane protecting his family") and Margaret Carlson (who admitted that she and other media villagers took joy in advancing the "Gore is a liar" narrative while actively ignoring George Bush, Jr.'s whoppers). Hannity has Dick Morris (he's Dick Morris) and some guy who loudly complains about jewy jew jew jew lawyers.
I see a clear cut difference, do you?
His salient point: "They are so determined to play to their base that the broader reality can be hard to discern."
Yeah, except Olbermann's broader reality is reality-based whereas Hannity's is in the basement of Fox News. Hannity has a book under his name which--in its title--calls liberalism "evil" and compares liberalism to terrorism. Has Olbermann ever come close to even scratching the surface of the tip of the iceberg of that level of bulljive? I didn't think so.
"But Kurtz is the one stating the obvious."
Yeah that's what I meant. Was accusing him, not you.
Olbermann often invites guests that agree with him nearly 100% and asks softball questions. He is shrill at times and often very angry at Bush. Virtually everything he says is supported by facts.
O'Reilly invites guests he disagrees with so he can yell at them, ridicule them, and cut their mic if they get a good point in. He is shrill and often very angry at everyone to the left of Reagan. He very often uses distortions, blatant mistruths and mischaracterizations.
Someone (maybe TNC) had the best quote I've heard on this kind of reporting. Obama says it's raining, McCain says it's not raining. CNN doesn't bother to look outside, they simply report and have pundits on to defend both views. If I hadn't stopped watching all pundit shows six months ago, I'd have run out of televisions to throw shoes at.
I don't care what anybody says. Olbermann's arguments are always based in reality. Period!
Going back years, I always viewed Howie Kurtz as a pompous fraud when he had that credulous program on CNN.
Thank heavens he is off CNN. Props to CNN for getting him off. Kurtz is a poster boy candidate for the media farce of this election campaign.
Rainy,
I understand where you're coming from, but, with due respect, and as someone who enjoys watching Olbermann, I would offer you this caveat:
The salient difference, I see, between Olbermann, and, say, Brit Hume, is that Olbermann is open and honest about his bias. He doesn't hide his views.
Kurtz is just being Kurtz. He uses his false equivalence, everybody-does-it-set-up to print a damaging meme about a democrat. Hannity's fevered rhetoric about coke-head Obama isn't getting enough play in the MSM, so Howard finds a way to plant that story in front of a wider audience.
It's dishonest and stupid, but that's my Howard!
unfortunately kurtz is still on cnn.
reliable sources. 7 am (pacific time) sunday mornings.
i only occasionally watch it. i always tune in to see if he will even touch on something that is particularly damaging to republicans.
he always uses the method i described above, to mitigate any damage a real discussion might have.
he really must think people are stupid, imagining that he can do what he does without people being aware of his inconsistency.
In effort to redeem myself:
I don't think it's useful to compare Hannity and Olbermann. Hannity is ignoramus and provides zero value to any discussion. He takes a relatively untrue talking point and drains any shred of truth from it while ferociously aggrandizing its falsities. He then takes said talking point and adds it to his mixed bag of deranged, vial sundries. This shit bag of nonsense and hysteria is often terrifying.
Olbermann sometimes overreaches to make his point, which diminishes his point. But he redeems himself by often being the only journalist on any major news or cable news network to run the story that needs to be run. If it weren't for Olbermann, I would have lost my mind in the early days of the Iraq war. His voice is essential, but he could boost his credibility by dropping some of the silly partisanship.
Kurtz could have written an article on the merits of the content of both shows, but instead chose to be lazy by skipping that and pointing out the obvious: both guys are ideological pundits. Well, that's a good place to start.
I agree that Olbermann isn't as bad as Hannity, and that that quote doesn't compare to Hannity's at all - very weak equivalence there - but it's a little odd to me that he opened with that quote, since he had others in his article that were a lot more partisan. And many others even more partisan that he didn't use at all. Take that crazy Special Comment he gave on Hillary's RFK remark. Now, whatever you think Hillary was trying to say, you have to admit that this was insane:
**This** is **un**-forgivable, because this nation's deepest shame, its most enduring horror, its most terrifying legacy, is political assassination.
Lincoln.
Garfield.
McKinley.
Kennedy...
I could think of about fifty deeper shames, starting with slavery, segregation, and what we did to the Indians. Even something like failing to let in the Jews who were trying to escape from Nazi Germany is a far bigger shame than our history of political assassination. I mean, come on. Garfield? Right, the death of Garfield is our nation's most terrifying legacy. Slavery doesn't hold a candle to James Garfield getting shot. It's about the nuttiest comment I've ever heard on cable news, but the thing about it is that he jumped off this rhetorical cliff for the sole purpose of demonizing Hillary (look, the bitch invoked our nation's deepest shame, our most terrifying legacy!) just because, for reasons that remain a little mysterious to me, he and the network had decided that Obama was their man.
I'm with Andrea's first posting, even if Andrea no longer is. Olbermann and Hannity are structurally similar more than they're different. Kurtz is pointing that out, but his quotes let everyone see that one is completely scurrilous and deranged while the other is anchored in stuff that actually happens. I don't have a big problem with the snippet.
coming from a moderate perspective (not to liberal not to conservative), I can recogize that both Hannity & Olbermann have bias. With Olbermann, yeah sometimes it can get a little old, especially when he lobbies softballs (ditto on Rachel Madden... I actually like Chris Matthews a lot). I think Olbermann and Maddow are unapologetically liberal and their shows are touted as "left-leaning" or "liberal" shows.
CNN isn't too bad but I feel like they don't really DO anything except spit out talking points from both sides and rely on pudits. I have a friend who works in cable news media and he said the change happened way back in the day when "reporters" stopped writing their stories... and just started reading the reports of hired writers.
I cannot watch Hannity & Colmes. The show is offensive. When they brought Andy Martin on, I was shocked. The article you cite underplays how vile a person Andy Martin is... he's so crazy that he had to legally change his name so people wouldn't recognize him as the same insane person. And to hear Hannity defend that? Ugh, gross. I was extremely disturbed by his "investigative report" on Obama. He relied on information that's been debunked and laughable evidence by Jerome Corsi (another nut). Maybe if Hannity marketed himself as the Fox News Rush Limbaugh I could take him seriously. But when he starts spouting that "fair and balanced" crap... womp womp.
I will say - Colbert has made it much easier for me to tolerate people like Rush, Hannity, and O'Reilly (and I think O'Reilly and Rush are self-aware... I think Hannity is insane). They're caricatures. I just worry about the people and fanatics who take every word they say as gospel.
As an aside - what's all this talk about reinstating the fairness doctrine? I may despise Hannity & Rush, but that seems like a bit much. It'd also affect liberal media outlets... would just seem like censorship across the board, no?
(Pelosi and Kerry said they supported bringing back the doctrine, Obama & McCain oppose it).
Olbermann isn't quite the beacon of honesty as he is being portrayed by some here. See Glenn Greenwald's review of Olby's performance on FISA. Before Obama was for immunity, Olbermann made Nazi references in regard to the legislation. After Obama voted for it, the bill was a savior of the 4th Amendment.
Also, if you read Olbermann's critics, you will see he can be sloppy with the facts.
The mainstreamers on Countdown aren't invited to dissent, but to echo Olbermann. The importance of having opposing views on a show is so someone can call the host on his bullshit from time to time. It is apparant that neither Olbermann nor his viewers are interested in being open minded.
Also, if you read Olbermann's critics, you will see he can be sloppy with the facts.
Examples? Links? Anything of substance?
After Obama voted for it, the bill was a savior of the 4th Amendment.
Not true. Olbermann backed off his fascism references (not Nazi references, it's an important distinction) but was still opposed to Obama's vote. After receiving a ton of criticism about not speaking up, Olbermann did comment, unfavorably, on Obama's FISA vote.
Please pay attention.
This is exactly the kind of thing that drives me out of my fucking mind.
No, ed, the FISA flap was a profile in wimpiness. He started floating this fantasy scenario where Obama runs around prosecuting the telecoms after he gets elected. Nevermind that the statute of limitations expires in a few months and it's next to impossible because to be criminally liable they'd have to have mens rea, that is, they'd have to know they're breaking the law, and since the White House told them that they weren't they'd basically have a full defense to any criminal prosecution an Obama DOJ might try to bring against them.
I am not at my work computer, but here is the link to Greenwald; it isn't quite portrayed as you stated, including the reference to the Third Reich. Last I checked, that was a Nazi reference.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/26/olbermann/
So please don't tell me to pay attention, especially when you aren't.
There are quite a few inaccuracies on Olbermannwatch and Daily Howler. I can pass them on later if you are interest.
Colbert is the best pundit on mainstream television, bar none. His refusal to let Frum off the hook during his appearance last week was a good example of why I like him so much.
Respectable people need to refuse to interview with Hannity or O'Reilly.
Kieth's problem is that his show has become a bit too rant filled and personal. Though I largely agree with his rants, it can get old because there are literally no dissenting opinions on his show. Not that dissenting opinions are in and of themselves necessary (especially when the dissenting opinion is really really dumb), but it would be a more enjoyable hour if we could see Keith debate/take down people on the Right, instead of simply making comments and asking questions to Wolfe/Alter/Feinman ect. when we already know what their responses will be.
But yea, no doubt Howie's eqivalency is absurd.
In terms of partisan hackery:
Hannitty > O'Reilly > Limbaugh > Beck > Olbermann
They're all in the business of finding facts to back up their opinions - however, the worst of the lot is so bad compared to the rest as to make it a difference of kind, rather than degree.
Also, Hannitty's tight-lipped frown is the spitting image of Jeff Dunham's Crotchety Old Man puppet.
"It is apparant that neither Olbermann nor his viewers are interested in being open minded."
That's far too harsh and a bit silly actually.
Yes Olbermann is slanted to the left by a noticeable degree. But you have absolutely no idea what all of his viewers are interested in.
I fancy myself a centrist Democrat, liberal on most issues but conservative on a few. I vote for Democrats about 95% of the time but my Republican votes have been for positions as prominent as a U.S. Senate race. I watch more "Hardball" than I do "Countdown", particularly in non-election years. But once the truly partisan atmosphere kicked off in the late spring, (once the primaries were all but over), Mr. Olberman presents a forceful and articulate case for the left's positions. I couldn't take him every day, year in and year out...but every two-to-four years there is a place for someone like him. The echo chamber is only intellectually destructive if you stay in it 24/7, 365. But a month before election day??? You've had your BBC or NPR dinner, now have your MSNBC desert.
Now maybe I'm not the typical "Countdown" viewer. But I'm all for being opened-minded and carefully making political decisions. I'd never let a talking head of any orientation influence me enough to make my choice for me. I come to my own conclusions. But once you've made your decision and your candidate's opponents tosses around charges of "being a socialist" and "paling around with terrorists".....there's no point in trying to listen to both sides of the story. Intelligent discourse has broken down, the only thing left to do is have your opinion and make that choice.
My favorite Hannity trick: While spewing forth some bullshit about liberalism or Obama or whatever else he wants to eradicate, he'll hold up a handful of papers as though the papers are evidence that what he's saying must be coming from some reputable source that he's just printed out and read. Meanwhile, the guy is a college drop-out...
Hannity's questions are valid I suppose, presuming he asked Bush the same ones eight years ago...
That was my thought exactly, SpottieOttie ... heck, at least Obama has publicly acknowledged these things in print. I don't think I've ever seen such a statement from GWB.
Kurtz intellectually dishonest. He's hiding behind his presumably "objective" piece. I would say Hannity is intellectually dishonest, but he doesn't have a brain. What's the word for him? Presstitute - reporting talking points as news for gain.
There's still giant-sized Sarah Palin hanging down from a noose in West Hollywood, and liberals (if they mention it at all) are comparing it to calling Obama a "redistributor."
False equivalency?
Howard Kurtz is a fake, fraud, phony, and a weasel. His column and his tv show are an atrocity and an abomination.
Coates is dead wrong. There is no equivalence at all between Olbermann and Hannity.
Olberman may occassionally get a bit carried away with his commentaries, but he deals in the world of facts. Hannity deals in the world of lies. Hannity and Colmes is a putrid cesspool of a program.
To be fair, and balanced, I assume Hannity also wanted to ask Bush the same set of questions.
Kurtz was the guy who thought Michelle 'counter peeker' Malkin was worthy of a softball profile in the WaPo. He's not just a walking conflict-of-interest, but a rotten journalist. Real Liars, Bull Sources.
Do I think that 'Countdown' was better before the seemingly-never-ending election season? Yeppy. And I'll be interested to see how Olbermann handles the next year. I'll be more interested to see what Murdoch dictates for Fox News, though, given the way his newspapers adapted to Tony Blair as PM. Shep Smith is an interesting windvane, in that respect.