Sean Hannity's message to the press: You've been exposed as fake

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: bluesjr

There is something to be said for watching news that contains a bias.

If you go into it knowing that either stories being selected, or the content of the stories will show bias, you get to read between the lines, and protect yourself from the bias infection, while absorbing data. Canny observers can discern the intent behind a piece or a news day, the function, the unseen hand.

I recommend getting stuck in and actually utilizing your intellect as your shield.

I second this because this is how I discern. t can be rather difficult for me to put it into words, however; you took the words out of my mouth. Very useful advice

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, I'm being efficient not lazy. Why waste my time listening to things that I can't trust when I the answer can only be found through my own research, which apparently your reading comprehension failed to register. It's not lazy or ignorant to do your own research, go ahead and waste your time if you'd like. I'm guessing you are part of the MSM? What other reason to be such an AH to someone who has woken up to the MSM BS? Why do you want me to keep watching it so much? Does it bother you?

It's intellectually lazy to sit back and be indoctrinated, unless you are like TrueBrit who does it to read between the lines. I just have too many other fun things to do than spend that time watching half-truths.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: bluesjr

There is something to be said for watching news that contains a bias.

If you go into it knowing that either stories being selected, or the content of the stories will show bias, you get to read between the lines, and protect yourself from the bias infection, while absorbing data. Canny observers can discern the intent behind a piece or a news day, the function, the unseen hand.

I recommend getting stuck in and actually utilising your intellect as your shield.

I do agree that is what it takes. Its just not something I want to do with my free time when I can get to the truth much faster on the web. Fully understand how that can be somewhat entertaining though.

Your missing the point of Hannity. He does not hide tha fact his show Is news with his opinion, he is honest about being an advocate of conservatism.

That's more honest than all the liberal tilted media that allowed Hillary campaign access to the editing process. Hannity is more honest than mainstream media pushing their liberalism, their own opinions as centralized truth, and seek the power to call themselves legitimate and opposing views fake.

Is Hannity more missing leading than evil corporate ran mainstream media?

a reply to: Hefficide

You don't support Freedom of the Press?

When it's outright lying and poisoning the public...sorry Heff but....NO

In my utopistic society...we would strive with outmost dedication to stamp out public officials and the press...lying to the people they represent.

Exactly what part of "Congress shall make no law.... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" are you having trouble with?

Too bad it doesnt state anything about integrity and common decency.

Some question for you...what's with all the outrage then by the "free" MSM press over "fake news"...surely lies are protected by your precious freedom of speech ?

Why the outrage over AGW deniers ? Last time I heard you guys were making preparations to silence the AGW deniers with laws ?

Why do you then denigrate anti-vaccination movement ? Surely...free speech ?

Why do you call people Islamophobes ?...it's their right of free expression to reject Islam and its followers.

Why are you outraged when people exercise their right and call people pedophiles ?

Why does ATS prevent beforitsnews as source ? Is beforeitsnews deprived of its right to free speech ? right given to any cretin from 3rd world country that wants to burn a flag in front of the WH if he so desires ?


Those are the parts I'm having trouble with.

Nah Sean, we always knew the right wing media was fake hence the name faux news.

a reply to: bluesjr

No you aren't. You are just making up excuses for being intellectually lazy. "I do my own research" translates to "I only believe the things that confirm my preset biases". You basically just told me you don't want to read anything that makes you uncomfortable and challenges your thinking.

Also, me being critical of the OP's or your opinion isn't me being an asshole. I don't come to ATS to agree with everyone. I just speak my mind about reality and I don't mind being frank about it either. Sometimes the truth hurts. Deal with it.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

The answer to your anger is right there, in your own words and examples:

Why the outrage over AGW deniers ? Last time I heard you guys were making preparations to silence the AGW deniers with laws ?

I'm unaware of proposed laws to silence climate change denial, so I cannot comment. However "outrage" in response to climate change denial? Easy. People are free to passionately deny it. Others are free to passionately disagree. This is called discourse and there's nothing wrong with it.

Why do you then denigrate anti-vaccination movement ? Surely...free speech ?

Again, I denigrate anti-vaccers because I disagree with them - which does not inhibit in any way their freedom to speak their opinions.

Why do you call people Islamophobes ?...it's their right of free expression to reject Islam and its followers.

Same song, different verse. Again. Nobody is stopping anyone from rejecting Islam. They are merely commenting upon it.

As a personal aside, as it relates to me specifically. I won't straw man anyone with the term "Islamaphobe" and honestly don't *think* I've ever used the term myself. However I have seen a ton of opinions about Islam that I would categorically call out as uninformed or bigoted.

Why are you outraged when people exercise their right and call people pedophiles ?

I am not outraged by this at all. However there are legal exceptions to the First Amendment and slander / libel is on the list of things not covered by it.

Why does ATS prevent beforitsnews as source ? Is beforeitsnews deprived of its right to free speech ?

Because ATS is a privately owned service and the owners of the site feel that BIN, among other sites, are unreliable sources - sources that the owners of this site do not wish to drive traffic to. It's no different than you making rules about your own home.

I believe I said it earlier in this thread... but there seems to be a misconception going around that "Freedom of Speech" equals "Freedom from response or criticism" and that is simply not the case.

Anyone is free to say just about anything they want ( short of libel, slander, threats of violence or expressions of criminal intent, incitement to riot and fomenting insurrection - I believe that's the list of unprotected forms of speech ) - but others are free to respond as they see fit.

There are slippery slopes... and then there are Teflon coated sheer cliffs of diamond dusted ice... and seeking a situation where the Government controls the flow of information is definitely in the latter category. The First Amendment is the cornerstone of everything that precedes and follows it. It's the foundation of a free society. Without it? Well without it we're North Korea with more land and fancier cars.

Nothing like arguing one centralized power / ideology should get the power to regulate what is truth and fake news on a conspiracy site.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: bluesjr

No you aren't. You are just making up excuses for being intellectually lazy. "I do my own research" translates to "I only believe the things that confirm my preset biases". You basically just told me you don't want to read anything that makes you uncomfortable and challenges your thinking.

Also, me being critical of the OP's or your opinion isn't me being an asshole. I don't come to ATS to agree with everyone. I just speak my mind about reality and I don't mind being frank about it either. Sometimes the truth hurts. Deal with it.

Your translation is simply your own imagination. I triangulate from all sources. There is no truth coming from you, so it doesn't hurt at all.

And BTW, calling someone intellectually lazy when it is far from the truth does make you an AH in my opinion. Everything you made up in that first paragraph is a fairy tale from your mind, not mine.

a reply to: bluesjr

You triangulate from all sources, except for the sources you literally just got done telling me that you don't read. Right? Or are you just lying to me now?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: bluesjr

You triangulate from all sources, except for the sources you literally just got done telling me that you don't read. Right? Or are you just lying to me now?

Says you. You are way off base here in your little fantasy. Totally projecting your own thoughts and saying they are mine.

Maybe there is a misunderstanding here. I was talking about network news broadcasts (remember - "I won't WATCH"). I do pop into their websites to see what they are saying, it only takes a few seconds vs. watching a broadcast. What I've found doing this is that CNN and NBC tend to lie/spin the most.

originally posted by: bluesjr

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: bluesjr

You triangulate from all sources, except for the sources you literally just got done telling me that you don't read. Right? Or are you just lying to me now?

Says you. You are way off base here in your little fantasy. Totally projecting your own thoughts and saying they are mine.

Says me? I'm just repeating YOUR words back at you.

Maybe there is a misunderstanding here. I was talking about network news broadcasts (remember - "I won't WATCH"). I do pop into their websites to see what they are saying, it only takes a few seconds vs. watching a broadcast. What I've found doing this is that CNN and NBC tend to lie/spin the most.

So you WERE lying. You don't triangulate from all sources. You triangulate from certain sources only.

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Well, that is a mature way to look at it. But it will take years for me to ever trust him and get over what I saw him do in the Bush era.

I remember those days very clearly myself, and used to listen to the conservative talk radio, mostly for entertainment because of the partisan bashing. I also remember noticing very easily when these talk radio hosts would support something Bush was doing that I thought was outrageous and against liberty sometimes. So I never have given blanket approval to just anyone because they were basically conservative. A time of turning came when Bush junior was president and he kind of brainwashed the conservative movement with propagandizing his agendas, especially after 911.

Since then some of these guys have returned to somewhat more realistic thinking, and it appears Hannity has woken up quite a bit to it.

The one guy who has completely left the ball park though is none other than Glen Beck. Not even sure what he represents anymore.

The worst offenders of all in this country though aren't media hosts, but our own congress and senate who have gone against practically every single thing the wishes of the people have wanted in the last 16 years.

a reply to: SoulSurfer


Sure he exposed them but this is coming from Sean Hannity. LOL One of the biggest fake news guys there is. There's a reason he's not a news anchor. It would be like me quoting Casey Anthony on Child care and safety. Sure she might have a point but...well there's going to be some trust issues there. LOL

a reply to: bluesjr

It's not just entertainment. If you want to know how your enemy thinks, you have to read and hear and see the way and the ease with which they lie, the particular method of imparting spin to information, the artistic touches which give life to an outright fabrication. The better you know the enemy, the better you know their intent and the more astute you become.

It's not an amusement. I take this as seriously as I take sharpening my knife, or keeping my awareness level high when out and about at night. It's a survival tool.

a reply to: Hefficide

That is perfect.

This post precisely defines an exemplifies a proper understanding of matters pertaining to freedom of speech. A star is not enough of a marker to indicate it, but you can have one none the less.