It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hannity and Colmes

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2004 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Ok, Hannity and Colmes has got to be the worst example of a talk show that attempts to incorporate both sides of the political spectrum. I'm sorry, but Colmes is a fool and Fox knows it. Compared to Hannity, Colmes can't hold up any kind of argument, not because there is no argument that can be said, but because Colmes is moron. Hannity won't let Colmes say one word without breaking in. Its just a bit ridiculous that the show attempts to be one thing while obviously being another. Yes, Fox may be blatantly clear about their bias in some respects, but to have this type of show is just too damn easy. Come on Fox News, i'm sure you can do better than that.




posted on Mar, 18 2004 @ 11:03 AM
link   
I'm so happy I'm not the only one to be disturbed by Colmes' inability. The show has great potential, but only with a better liberal counterpart. I'm sure Alan is a nice guy, but still, he's got to go!



posted on Mar, 18 2004 @ 11:58 AM
link   
I tend to agree. Colmes takes a much softer perspective during interviews, while Hannity sometimes acts like a barely-restrained attack dog.

Its a shame, because Colmes has some very valid points to make, but they often get lost on the fur-fly.



posted on Mar, 18 2004 @ 11:59 AM
link   
I never like Colmes. Nor agreed with anything he had to say. I like Sean Hannity alot better. He seems to know what he's talking about.



posted on Mar, 18 2004 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmulder
I never like Colmes. Nor agreed with anything he had to say. I like Sean Hannity alot better. He seems to know what he's talking about.


I'm not saying I like Hannity either. Hannity is merely there as a conservative super hero of sorts who is constantly putting down the liberal perspective in a very unfair manner given the veracity of his co-host. Two intelligent, civil hosts discussing the matter would be the best way to go, and neither of them really fit that mold.



posted on Mar, 18 2004 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I was laughing my head off the other day when Hannity declared that Kerry was unfit to run the economy because he did not earn his own money!!! HA HA.....Doesn't that sound a bit like Bush Jr???

Hannity has alot more leeway and speaking time on the Fox show due to his radio popularity and the fact that he is a much more dominant personality than Colmes.

Colmes is not the right counter-part. They need someone like a James Carville to balance out the show. But Fox probably has a reason why Colmes is in there. It seems the majority of Fox's views seem to favor the current Administration. Yesterday, Malachy McCourt was on plugging his new book and was asked what he thought of the current situation. Everything was fine until he called the war in Iraq "A big, unmitigated Lie!" The interview was cut early. Fair and balanced??? My A**!

~Face

[Edited on 18-3-2004 by Facefirst]



posted on Mar, 18 2004 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Call in LaRouche.

He'll stomp some ass and have no problems with it. He is the sort of guy who can talk all day and all night with no notes or preparation.

That would make life more interesting.



posted on Mar, 18 2004 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmulder
I never like Colmes. Nor agreed with anything he had to say. I like Sean Hannity alot better. He seems to know what he's talking about.


The point is not whether either of them are right or wrong, or who you agree with, the point is that Colmes is too whimpy to sit across from Hannity. If you could take James Carville and give him some kind of meds to make him think lucidly, man, that would be a cage match!



posted on Mar, 18 2004 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Colmes is a nice guy, too nice. He's smart too. But the show definitely needs somebody that can balance out Hannity. Now Carville, I agree, would be more of a match. He thinks on his feet and is not easily shouted down.

Fact is, the liberal/left has no nationally syndicated voice that is big time. I can't think of one big name liberal in the TV/radio medium.

Carville and Hannity. Pitbull against doberman. There's the name for the new show....Pitbulls vs Pinschers.

john



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 02:35 AM
link   
Yeah, James Carville would be good. God, but Al Franken would be hilarious. And he is surpirsingly smart. If you have ever seen him on CNN or Fox News interviews or panels, he can hold his own. Like when he demolished Bernard Goldberg's Liberal Media theory. That was a lot of fun to watch.



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Yeah, Colmes is the weakest liberal I've ever seen. But since I'm not a liberal, I don't mind him looking like a jackass.



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 11:35 AM
link   
The reason for Alan is so the FNC can claim they are "fair and balanced". Colmes is probably not a real liberal, but plays one on tv. This channel is so far right, my tv kinda leans whenever it is on channel 51.



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 11:38 AM
link   
LOL! Al didn't bash anything as he is not bound at all to the truth. There is no theory that the mainstream media is liberal, it is a fact. Anyone who has been watching the news for a long time knows this, whether or not they are in line with the liberal beliefs.

John, there is no liberal nationally syndicated voice because the public determines what they will watch in the arena of free market shows. Clearly, the public doesn't buy into such stuff. The market share that Fox News took from the rest of the TV news outlets is evidence of this. The fact that even when Fox was demanded by viewers but many cable networks dragged their feet to provide it (some still dragging their feet) is evidence that the liberal agenda is trying to control the media. They do not want open and honest debate, or the accurate and unbiased reporting of the news. After all, that would make social reengineering alot more difficult than it already is. The success of Fox News indicates several decades of slant didn't totally reeducate us!



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by OXmanK
The reason for Alan is so the FNC can claim they are "fair and balanced". Colmes is probably not a real liberal, but plays one on tv. This channel is so far right, my tv kinda leans whenever it is on channel 51.



Like your TV wasn't leaning to the left from all of the other alphabet channels?

One thing I can't stand is when people complain about Fox coming from a conservative point of view, while ABC, NBC, MSNBC, NCC and CBS have blatantly displayed a liberal bias long before FNC was created.

Hypocrisy at it's finest.

[Edited on 01/13/04 by kramtronix]



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Not complaining at all...just stating a fact. I personally love watching Fox. Bill O'Reilly is probably one of my favorite things because I love when people get red faced and mad.

But he has seemed a little less tenacious than usual since he apologized...



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
LOL! Al didn't bash anything as he is not bound at all to the truth. There is no theory that the mainstream media is liberal, it is a fact. Anyone who has been watching the news for a long time knows this, whether or not they are in line with the liberal beliefs.


Whatever you believe of the liberal media, you have to know that Al did in fact destroy Bernard Goldberg's credibility as a researcher. Goldberg had used a quote entirely out of context for the use of his own agenda. Look, I'm not saying I'm a gung ho liberal, and I'm not a gung ho conservative. I think i'm as centrist as I could be. But it pisses me off when people lie when they report, whether it be Bernard Goldberg or Michael Moore. I despise both of them. But just to prove my point here is a transcript of the Donahue show where Franken shot Goldberg down for lying:

The boys began by exchanging a bit of banter. About fifteen minutes into the show, Al Franken opined that "the difference between the mainstream media and the 15 percent of the media that is Fox, that is The Washington Times, that is The New York Post, that's Hannity, that's Rush. They cheat. The mainstream media at least tries to be fair." (The following comes directly from the transcript of the program provided by MSNBC.)

Donahue: "Tell me about cheating. You have to make your case here. What do you mean cheat?"

Franken: "You have chapter 12 'Liberal Hate Speech.' You cite 12 examples of liberal hate speech. One of them is a quote from John Chancellor on August 21, 1991, about the Soviet Union. Do you know what happened that day in the Soviet Union, Bernie?"

Clearly, Goldberg had no idea what transpired that day in the Soviet Union.

Goldberg: "Why don't you tell me?"

Franken: "No, why don't you tell me? I want to know if you even..."

Goldberg: "Read the quote, so the people will know what we're talking about."

Franken: "'It's short of soap, so there are lice in hospitals. It's short of pantyhose, so women's legs go bare. It's short snowsuits, so babies stay home in winter. Sometimes it's short of cigarettes, so millions of people stop smoking involuntarily. It drives everybody crazy. The problem isn't communism. No one even talked about communism this week. The problem is shortages.' This was John Chancellor.

"Now what happened in the Soviet Union that day?"

Goldberg: "Well, I don't know what happened that day. But you're"

Franken: "Do you want to know what happened? It was a huge day in the Soviet Union."

Donahue: "Well, go ahead. Let's go. It's an hour-show. What happened, Al?"

Franken: "That was the collapse of the coup, the hard-liner coup at the Parliament."

Goldberg: "And?"

Franken: "And that was a huge-well, and? Do you know that perestroika had been in effect for six years at that point? The point here is, Bernie, you regurgitated a quote that you got from some right-wing media watch group. And you did not care to look at the context of it. Listen to how Tom Brokaw opened that evening news. If you're talking about that there's a left-wing bias, this is how Tom Brokaw opened the news that day from this thing that you're quoting. 'Good evening. Wednesday, August 21, 1991. This is a day for bold print in history to be remembered and savored as the day when the power of the people in the Soviet Union proved to be greater than the power of the gray and cold-blooded men who thought they could return that country to the darkness of state oppression.' Boy, it sounds like a real pro-communist bias on NBC, doesn't it?

"But you know what, Bernie? You didn't even bother to find out what the context of John Chancellor-who, by the way, is dead, and couldn't defend himself. You had no interest in finding out the context of what he was saying. And what he was saying was that, after six years of perestroika, in which communism was gone, that the people were-that the reason for these shortages was the transition away from communism.

"Then you had the nerve to say about John Chancellor-you call his absurd observation that the problem in the old Soviet Union wasn't communism, but shortages. The only thing absurd about this is your accusing John Chancellor of saying that."

So there ya go.



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Originally posted by mrmulder
I never like Colmes. Nor agreed with anything he had to say. I like Sean Hannity alot better. He seems to know what he's talking about.


The point is not whether either of them are right or wrong, or who you agree with, the point is that Colmes is too whimpy to sit across from Hannity. If you could take James Carville and give him some kind of meds to make him think lucidly, man, that would be a cage match!


Oh I know TC. I'm just a big Colmes hater but you're right. Colmes is too whimpy to sit across from Hannity. They need someone with some guts to sit with Hannity. It would make the show more popular. Colmes is the reason I don't watch "Hannity and Colmes."



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 01:41 PM
link   
...much less viewership. It's sure to be a scientific study result some day: the ratio of ignorance is in direct correlation to the amount of FNC viewership; the more you watch, the dumber you get.

As for an show worthy of discussion: Crossfire.

What HAPPENED !?!?!

I went away on a big project & it was gone from it's 7 pm EST time slot. Much later I find out that it's still on....but had been cut to 30 minutes AND put on at 4:30.

WTF is that!?! You had excellent exchanges & variable dynamics with 4 hosts being rotated for different pairings.



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 01:43 PM
link   
....the public hasn't "spoken" that they want Conservative talk shows; Corporations have - such as Murdoch's Empire, Clear Channel Communications and GE.



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
...much less viewership. It's sure to be a scientific study result some day:


Actually Bout Time it already has if you count this article:

www.ajc.com...

Simply it states that more people are turning to the internet for news and the mainstream media like FOX, CNN and MSNBC are getting fewer viewers nowadays.



new topics




 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join