bobbyw24
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2007
- Messages
- 14,097
A showdown of ideas between two opposing giants. But will Hannity fight fair?
by Jake Morphonios
(liberal)
Thursday, August 12, 2010
It has been more than two years since I last listened to the Sean Hannity radio show. The reason I stopped listening to Hannity wasn't merely because of my disagreement with most of his views; I am secure in my ability to listen to the opinions of other people while maintaining my own. It was not Hannity's high-pitched voice that made me stop listening; while his nasal-toned whine certainly grated my nerves, that wasn't sufficient cause for me to boycott his show. Nor was it his self-promoting megalomania that I found off-putting; Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are also narcissists, but I haven't stopped listening to them completely. No, there was but one reason that I stopped listening to his show and it really was quite simple. Sean Hannity is an idiot.
A political talk show host, especially one that regularly applauds his own wisdom to the extent that Hannity does, must back up his rhetoric on occasion with substance. The phrase "put up or shut up" comes to mind. I can respect someone with whom I have complete disagreement if that person is able to make a reasoned case for his position. For example, while I frequently disagree with Sam Donaldson on politics, I developed respect for him after watching him debate his liberal positions before a hostile crowd at a CPAC conference in Washington DC. He explained the rationale for his positions, gave supporting examples to back up his arguments, and then allowed his opponent the chance to challenge his ideas without interruption. Can the same be said of Sean Hannity? Absolutely not.
Hannity's positions are so devoid of substance - so utterly lacking in reason - that any attempt to glean rationality from his remarks is nearly impossible. But aside from this glaring ineptitude, what Hannity truly is missing from his repertoire as a political analyst is the ability to meet opposing ideas with intelligent rebuttal. His pattern is predictable. First he states his own position and then challenges his guest to respond. But the guest is not allowed to give a direct response to Hannity's position. He must frame his response inside of one of Hannity's baited questions. Because there can be no reasonable response to the unfair question posed by the host, the guest must either ignore the question or argue against the fairness of the question asked. Either of these responses immediately results in Hannity repeatedly shouting down the guest, insulting his intelligence, questioning his integrity, challenging his patriotism and/or cutting off his microphone. Sean Hannity is the quintessential coward. He will not debate fairly because his over-inflated ego cannot countenance being whipped by the rational arguments of a more reasoned opponent. In other words, Hannity is a chicken.
More
http://www.nolanchart.com/article7926.html
by Jake Morphonios
(liberal)
Thursday, August 12, 2010
It has been more than two years since I last listened to the Sean Hannity radio show. The reason I stopped listening to Hannity wasn't merely because of my disagreement with most of his views; I am secure in my ability to listen to the opinions of other people while maintaining my own. It was not Hannity's high-pitched voice that made me stop listening; while his nasal-toned whine certainly grated my nerves, that wasn't sufficient cause for me to boycott his show. Nor was it his self-promoting megalomania that I found off-putting; Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are also narcissists, but I haven't stopped listening to them completely. No, there was but one reason that I stopped listening to his show and it really was quite simple. Sean Hannity is an idiot.
A political talk show host, especially one that regularly applauds his own wisdom to the extent that Hannity does, must back up his rhetoric on occasion with substance. The phrase "put up or shut up" comes to mind. I can respect someone with whom I have complete disagreement if that person is able to make a reasoned case for his position. For example, while I frequently disagree with Sam Donaldson on politics, I developed respect for him after watching him debate his liberal positions before a hostile crowd at a CPAC conference in Washington DC. He explained the rationale for his positions, gave supporting examples to back up his arguments, and then allowed his opponent the chance to challenge his ideas without interruption. Can the same be said of Sean Hannity? Absolutely not.
Hannity's positions are so devoid of substance - so utterly lacking in reason - that any attempt to glean rationality from his remarks is nearly impossible. But aside from this glaring ineptitude, what Hannity truly is missing from his repertoire as a political analyst is the ability to meet opposing ideas with intelligent rebuttal. His pattern is predictable. First he states his own position and then challenges his guest to respond. But the guest is not allowed to give a direct response to Hannity's position. He must frame his response inside of one of Hannity's baited questions. Because there can be no reasonable response to the unfair question posed by the host, the guest must either ignore the question or argue against the fairness of the question asked. Either of these responses immediately results in Hannity repeatedly shouting down the guest, insulting his intelligence, questioning his integrity, challenging his patriotism and/or cutting off his microphone. Sean Hannity is the quintessential coward. He will not debate fairly because his over-inflated ego cannot countenance being whipped by the rational arguments of a more reasoned opponent. In other words, Hannity is a chicken.
More
http://www.nolanchart.com/article7926.html
