Talk:Hannity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

New article[edit]

I'm not sure we necessarily have to start a new article since it's presumably a continuation of the current show while they look for a replacement. I suppose we'll see in time. At any rate, let's not start off on the wrong foot with things like talking about how Al Franken rendered it Hannity & Colmes or adding unsourced criticism. :) Thompsontough (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look like they intend on replacing Colmes, just giving Hannity the entire gig. This appears to be a "new" show, but what do reliable sources say? --Tom 19:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Hannity will function as a moderator or some similar capacity, with liberal and conservative guests according to the information we have so far. So for now it is a completely separate show. As I said, we'll see. Thompsontough (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
They're not planning on replacing Alan Colmes. It is a purely Hannity-oriented show, with his opinions. Also, though I am a conservative, it's important that in this article, something be said about Hannity's bias. There's a "Great American Panel" on the show, and it is basically all people who agree with him. I think this is a major flaw in the show. Whittakerchambers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC).

Liberal hosts short list[edit]

On the Kirsten Powers page, it mentions that at some point, she was on a short list to replace Alan Colmes when he left. Clearly that was prior to the decision to let Sean fly solo. But still, if there ever really was a short list, who was on it might be some interesting information, either for this article or on the Hannity and Colmes page. Nolefan32 (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of sean hannity's education. I would like to learn more about his academic endevours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.25.43.166 (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Look on his biography article. This article is soley about the TV show. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Live to tape[edit]

I am curious if the program is recorded "Live to tape" a couple hours before the 9pm EST slot, or if it is actually produced live. The Oreilly Factor is another Fox News program and happens do be recorded "Live to tape"; I think it's worthwhile to clarify. 68.175.118.95 (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section[edit]

The material being added is cited to a non reliable source, Media Matters. --70.188.128.226 (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

  • You are correct. Media Matters is generally not a reliable source and they certainly are not neutral. They specifically, according to their own website, monitor only conservative broadcasts. In other words, they don't care if "misinformation" is presented in liberal broadcasts. However, the section here is titled "controversy". Where is the controversy. Hannity said something, the partisan group Media Matters says it's not true. End of story. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree. This is not notable or controversial and is also undue weight compared to the rest of the article. Maybe if this is covered widely by main stream sources then revisit. Thanks, --70.188.128.226 (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Without a wider "controversy" this turns into a potentially daily addition of a MM critique of the show. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Despite Niteshift36's very sensible and balanced edit of the Hannity page to include some controversy on Hannity, user 70.188.128.226 continues to repeatedly delete the entire Controversy section. Perhaps it is Hannity himself or a FOX employee, but come on, this is not a communist country, where censorship prevails, is it. Wikipedia strives for balance. The controversies that I added Saturday (yestereday) are all very sound and proven, and regardless of whether they are from Politifact or Media Matters, they are the facts. That point is not even debatable and if it is I would appreciate someone providing credible evidence to the contrary. Until then, I suggest that Niteshift36's previous edits stay as is, and suggest that 70.188.128.226 be banned from editing Wikipedia. (Myk60640 (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC))

One more thing, my comments fulfill the page editor's request for representing "Significant Viewpoints." Without controversy here (and no one can doubt that Hannity is controversial), this might as well be a FOX news ad instead of a Wikipedia page. (Myk60640 (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC))

  • Let me be clear... I don't think any of those items belong here. They weren't "controversies". One side said one thing, the other said the opposite. There HAVE been controversial things on Hannity's show that probably to belong here. These items are not them. No mainstream media coverage of them. Hannity didn't even bother to respond to MM et al. In other words, "controversy" is an overstatement in my opinion.
However, that being said, I'm willing to leave those alone while the matter is discussed and go with whatever the consensus is. This isn't something worth edit warring over. Myk60640, I'd make a couple of suggestions to you. First, dial back the rhetoric. The accusation that it is Hannity or a Fox employee is just ridiculous and the whole "communist county" and "censorship" thing is pretty over the top. My second suggestion would be to look for coverage about this from neutral sources. Media Matter has a particular axe to grind with Hannity, having at one point called him the "misinformer of the year". That is NOT neutral. That is pure opinion. So questioning the legitimacy of them as a source is a valid concern in my opinion. As Dennis Miller says, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.Niteshift36 (talk) 04:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I added an example from the Sept. 9 2009 episode of Hannity's show, and supported it with several sources. It was reverted as being not noteworthy and from an unreliable source. Being non-noteworthy seems like a legitimate concern, and granted, two of the sources given were from arguably liberal news groups. However my very first source showed the actual clip from his show, and was posted to YouTube from an ostensibly conservative user. I don't see how that is an unreliable source. If anything, it should be the most reliable source possible, since there's just what Hannity said on his show and no other commentary, and since it was posted by an account that should, if anything, be sympathetic to Hannity.--Witan (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the source I used: [1]--Witan (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure what adding the clip of the/a show really adds there without other citation. Are there copy right issues as well? I don't think we need a running critique of the show unless something is more widely covered. --Tom (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ps, can we change or improve that section title? How about "Liar, liar, pants on fire" :) --Tom (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Controversies Section[edit]

I have removed the "forced abortions" item from the controversies section. While I understand the desire to cover controversies relating to the program, both sides need to be presented and the information needs to be sourced using reliable third-party publications. The only source that had been provided was Media Matters, which is not a news organization or an academic outlet, but rather a self-described progressive organization that is representing a particular point of view. This does not qualify as a reliable third-party source under Wikipedia guidelines.

Also, I am somewhat concerned about the choice of content for this section as a whole. While it is certainly worthwhile to have a controversies section, surely there must be some standard of notability established for items to be included here. Hannity is, by definition, a program that covers controversial issues and presents the opinions of a controversial commentator. And organizations like Media Matters publish daily rebuttals to items presented on programs such as these. So by those standards, virtually every item covered on the program could be a "controversy." It seems to me that a more reasonable standard for a program of this sort would be that only items which receive widespread coverage in mainstream third party publications would qualify as notable enough for inclusion. What does everyone else think? Ithizar (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


Really, this is all the controversies this show has had...RIGHT!!! Someone is editing this page to make him look good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.100.185 (talk) 04:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Criticism of Hannity by Russell Brand[edit]

I recently added to the "Criticism" section of this article to include a prominent news story of last year- media commentator Russell Brand criticizing Hannity for his interview with Yousef Munayyer. However, my content was quickly removed by another user.

Russell Brand has established a reputation as a fairly significant media commentator and his video criticizing Hannity's Hamas coverage has been viewed more than 3.3 million times.

Brand is 4th on the World's Most Influential Thinkers List which I think also makes his comments justified for inclusion on the page.

Besides, the other issue in the criticism section on "Hannity" from 2009 is a minor criticism which received little media coverage, which was the reason you wrongly gave for removing my contribution to the article regarding Brand's criticism. If anything, the 2009 paragraph should be removed and the Russell Brand one should be re-added.

Why should the 2009 criticism be on the article but not the 2015 criticism?

--Djakadam (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Why would you copy and paste your question and not the answer I've already given you? A whole 3.3 million? Compare that to a video with actual big numbers, like Jimmy Fallon lip-sync battling Emma Stone (70 million). Fallon has over 100 videos with more than 3.3 million views. Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus has 31 million views (and a Wikipedia article). The Screen Junkies Honest Trailer for Deadpool has over 8 million in 3 days. So 3.3 million views in 2 years isn't exactly amazing or even that successful by Youtube standards. 4th on the World's Most Influential Thinkers List? Um, yeah..... 3,000 people voted via the internet on a poll from a small magazine (30k circulation) in the UK.[2] Not exactly convincing or notable. Where is the continuing coverage of this that would keep it from being mere WP:RECENTISM? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what Jimmy Fallon has to do with Russell Brand's prominent criticism of Hannity. Why has the 2009 criticism not been removed from this page then? How is that not recentism if the Brand criticism is classed as that? Are you allowing your pro-Republican bias to impede your impartiality regarding the editing of this article? Criticism of Hannity should be reported and not censured.

Djakadam (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

  • What Fallon has to do with it is to show how 3 million views just isn't that important compared to actual big numbers. Brand is a moderately notable comedian who fancies himself as a social commentator, non-notable "award" from an internet poll not withstanding. If you want to remove the 2009 criticism, feel free. But having criticism that was more widely covered included isn't license to include this. Have you ever read WP:NOTNEWS? One part that you might find useful is "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." As RECENTISM suggests, if we apply the 10 year test to this, I doubt anyone will really care that Brand criticized Hannity over an interview since 2 years later, nobody is covering it. You've engaged in almost no discussion, but you're already starting with personal attacks about "pro-Republican bias". And by the way, you mean "censored", not "censured".