Sean Hannity and the art of the "fair and balanced" debate panel

[sknabt]

Run time: 09:04 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jwoq8HS0Xog   Posted on YouTube: March 21, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: March 22, 2009 By DU Member: sknabt Views on DU: 1361

 
There are many tricks in fringe news network Fox's arsenal to sandbag debates in favor of their right-wing ideology. This example is highly instructive in the art of propaganda.

You've got a panel with 1 conservative and 2 liberals. Then there's moderator Sean Vannity... errr... Hannity. Sure, he's going to asking nothing but liberal-bashing questions but, hey, who could ask for more balance? Wait for the punch line. Like the where's Wally game viewers search hard to see if there are really any liberals on the panel.

Sean's a heavy hitter right-wing mouth piece. The conservative on the panel is fellow heavy hitter right-wing shriek Ann Coulter.

The liberals? A former Miss America "activist" actress and "Democrat" Doug Shoen who is a paid Fox News plant. Don't expect more than the most tepid of liberal defenses from this pair of jokers.

The results speak for themselves.

As "fair and balanced" as an RNC press release. ;)

[Botany]

1. Kate Shindle

And she was the best of the panel?

[steelmania75]

2. Haven't the Republicans spent a lot of money over the last eight years?

8.5 trillion dollars of America's 10.5 trillion public debt was when Reagan, Bush One, and Bush Two were in power...but that's ok.

[WhoIsNumberNone]

3. Because they spent it all on bombs and "kept us safe"

So of course it's OK.

[quidam56]

4. HANNITY'S HOLIER THEN THOU PATRIOTIC AMERICA sure isn't MY AMERICA !

Bush kept U.S. safe from terrorism since 9/11 ? http://www.wisecountyissues.com Appalachia has been bombed, blasted and bulldozed right into 3rd world America ! This is TOXIC TERRORISM !!!

[JHB]

5. Another tactic that I observed long ago...

... in that case by Pat Robertson on his 700 Club (which uses a news & chat format like Today or Good Morning America):

The host shows a video segment that may or may not look strongly edited, is generally accusatory and includes an "expert" talking head to support whatever's being claimed, but is arguably balanced because the "target" does have a chance to make some rebuttals.
THEN, switch to an in-studio segment, where the host explores the issue further with the 'expert' talking head seen in the clip. The talking head then gets a second round and rebuts every defense the target used in his rebuttals on the clip, while the target can't argue back, making it look like the target's whole case was demolished, facts be damned.