Multiple sources: Hannity To Be Fired From Fox News

originally posted by: Konduit


This has nothing to do with Rich as much as it does about Fox's future. The network knows it needs to cultivate talent that attracts a younger demographic. Hannity and O'Reilly's shtick is simply boring, and their audiences aren't growing.

edit on 28-5-2017 by icanteven because: fixing formatting

originally posted by: Justoneman
Ok, which lies? Like, was Rich working for the DNC? Or did he have 44000 emails to wiki? Those are some of the key questions at this point.

It's fine to say "what if the DNC killed him", that's just speculation. Hannity was crossing that line lately, claiming they killed him. That's what got him in trouble.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Justoneman
Ok, which lies? Like, was Rich working for the DNC? Or did he have 44000 emails to wiki? Those are some of the key questions at this point.

It's fine to say "what if the DNC killed him", that's just speculation. Hannity was crossing that line lately, claiming they killed him. That's what got him in trouble.

That's just one instance. Hannity has been caught lying many times.


10 biggest lies spwed by Sean Hannity

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Konduit
If Hannity gets fired for asking questions about Seth Rich, that tells you a lot about what happened to Seth Rich.

Hmmm.

I think it tells you more that they're reporting baseless lies, and are in serious danger of a major libel/slander lawsuit.

is it a lie if they can not be proven to be so?

originally posted by: yuppa
is it a lie if they can not be proven to be so?

The burden of proof is on the accuser.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: yuppa
is it a lie if they can not be proven to be so?

The burden of proof is on the accuser.

Now normally you might have a point but with all the crap they seem to do to anybody running against the liberals these days, lies and innuendo's are treated as fact with no burden of proof. I merely have to look at the "Russians did It" story to see numerous examples.. In that example we see no one saying the voters were falsely tabulated but they keep pretending that the Russians made DJT win... Right is wrong and good is bad at this point for the media.

originally posted by: Justoneman
Now normally you might have a point but with all the crap they seem to do to anybody running against the liberals these days, lies and innuendo's are treated as fact with no burden of proof. I merely have to look at the "Russians did It" story to see numerous examples.. In that example we see no one saying the voters were falsely tabulated but they keep pretending that the Russians made DJT win... Right is wrong and good is bad at this point for the media.

Perhaps, but I don't pay any attention to the Republican/Democrat pissing match. I'm merely looking at this individual story. Or perhaps more generally, Hannity in general because I do listen to his radio show. In Hannity's case, it's not just this story... the guy has gone over the line. I actually didn't even notice it at first... I just thought ATS was beating him to the scoop. When I realized what was going on, was the day he did a 20 minute long piece defending Alex Jones and Infowars as legitimate journalists.

But back to this story, as I said before... I would bet good money that something is up. Seth Rich leaked to someone (maybe not necessarily Assange), and it probably got him killed. I don't think Clinton did it, and I would be surprised if there were a large inner circle that decided on it. My best guess (which has the same credibility as anyone elses best guess right now, given the lack of proof) is that someone who was really in the tank in the DNC took it on themselves to do this, and then once it was done, included others in a cover up since there was no going back at that point. I don't think it was a sanctioned action, but I do think heads are eventually going to roll. For Assange's part, I think he got Seths documents from a third party source, and I think KDC is full of #.

What's done is done though. Investigations will probably solve all of this (though it may take years). In the mean time, it doesn't do anyone any good to copy Hannity, air conspiracies, and declare the DNC guilty of a murder conspiracy.

Oh, and the Russian's didn't win anything for Trump. They may have had a connection to him, but they didn't meddle in our elections. Trump is President because Hillary was a bad candidate. It's as simple as that.

If so, it sounds like a business decision. Fox made it's mark being in opposition to the sitting government. If so, they will complete their wild swing to the left, purging all the conservatives and go after this administration for ratings and commercial revenue.

If so, Hannity will find a voice elsewhere.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Justoneman
Now normally you might have a point but with all the crap they seem to do to anybody running against the liberals these days, lies and innuendo's are treated as fact with no burden of proof. I merely have to look at the "Russians did It" story to see numerous examples.. In that example we see no one saying the voters were falsely tabulated but they keep pretending that the Russians made DJT win... Right is wrong and good is bad at this point for the media.

Perhaps, but I don't pay any attention to the Republican/Democrat pissing match.

Trump is President because Hillary was a bad candidate. It's as simple as that.

Here are two things we can agree. All that in between I am sure is debatable.

Both pissing parties suck and Hillary is in fact an "unprosecuted" criminal if that is a word.

a reply to: Justoneman

Hillary was a good candidate, she's just a FAKE human.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Justoneman

Hillary was a good candidate, she's just a FAKE human.

now the way I think, both of those statements seem contradictory.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Justoneman

Hillary was a good candidate, she's just a FAKE human.

now the way I think, both of those statements seem contradictory.

The resume/candidacy was groomed for 8 years (2008 to 2016) for replacing Obama. But the entity that was installed as the face of that candidacy wasn't human. Is that making more sense, JustOneMan?

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: queenofswords
I disagree. He may have started out like that, but he became a spinner big league/bigly.

Facts have a liberal bias.

Spin is/was Colbert. Stewart was always commenting on the news process itself.

Both Colbert and Stewart were satirist. The pathetic part is most of the younger voters found it to be more genuine because normal news networks mirrored the satrical comedy.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Justoneman

Hillary was a good candidate, she's just a FAKE human.

now the way I think, both of those statements seem contradictory.

The resume/candidacy was groomed for 8 years (2008 to 2016) for replacing Obama. But the entity that was installed as the face of that candidacy wasn't human. Is that making more sense, JustOneMan?

Oh it does, it is just and Oxy moron and she is one getting away with it all for now!

originally posted by: Cypress

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: queenofswords
I disagree. He may have started out like that, but he became a spinner big league/bigly.

Facts have a liberal bias.

Spin is/was Colbert. Stewart was always commenting on the news process itself.

Both Colbert and Stewart were satirist. The pathetic part is most of the younger voters found it to be more genuine because normal news networks mirrored the satrical comedy.

I liked it for a while but like SNL, it gets old and stale so I quit watching. I DID like Colbert getting invite to the Bush WH and doing it to them! But his schtic on DJT sucks wankers. It is over the top and his funny factor has gone for me. I make sure Jimmy Fallon is on when I turn on the Tube to make sure Colbert gets not one sec of credit when the cable co who is digitizing my setup does their survey. Don't want them to credit CBS that I had him on.

No worries. There are tons of right wing nut job outlets out there probably lining up to snap him up as their new Master of Insanity, and plenty of nut cases eager to continue lapping it up.

He'll be fine.

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
No worries. There are tons of right wing nut job outlets out there probably lining up to snap him up as their new Master of Insanity, and plenty of nut cases eager to continue lapping it up.

He'll be fine.

Name those tons of "rightwing nut job outlets" that are TV/Radio News networks or you are just a brick shy of a load on that comment. Leftist like you are one big reason, Al Gore being another, why I gave up totally on the D's for good in the 90's and started voting anybody but D's.

ETA

I am not giving the R's a pass but the people in TN have every reason to not vote D here. We have been trying to get rid of the RINO's and have a huge push for Libertarian or Tea Party types because they are just not from that group of leaches and scumbags.

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Justoneman
Ok, which lies? Like, was Rich working for the DNC? Or did he have 44000 emails to wiki? Those are some of the key questions at this point.

It's fine to say "what if the DNC killed him", that's just speculation. Hannity was crossing that line lately, claiming they killed him. That's what got him in trouble.

That's just one instance. Hannity has been caught lying many times.


10 biggest lies spwed by Sean Hannity

And that article was 4 years ago, can you imagine what it's like now?

In this era of media, you cant silence people. All this hand wringing over nothing. He'll pop up on some other outlet spewing the same nonsense. People that actually wanna hear what he has to say will hear it, just not on Fox News.

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay
a reply to: DBCowboy

My point is there's no clear distinction between ideology driven and market driven. Maybe some car company makes the greatest cars and then you find out all the top execs are child murdering Satanists. Is there aproblem with their slumping sales even though it doesn't directly affect the quality of their cars?

If the number of complaints represents the majority of people who use the product or service, you have a point.

If the number of complaints comes from a minority of the population that doesn't actually use their product or service (as is the case with liberal boycotts) then it is a PR decision by beancounters with no actual context.

If you can prove that the liberals complaining to the advertisers actually use their products or service and represent a significant percentage of their actual customer base, I'll take back my statement. Since I am very confident they don't, my statement will stand.