Hannity's hilarious hypocrisy

The second sentence of Sean Hannity's 12-page letter of pettifoggery leaps at the reader like the Greek god of hypocrisy (if there were one): "We write concerning the New York Times’ blatant and outrageous disregard for the truth in mischaracterizing Mr. Hannity’s coverage of the coronavirus pandemic."

Such blatant disregard is libelous, says the letter from Hannity's attorney; therefore the aggrieved party demands a retraction and an apology. Thus begins a litigious comedy performed by the Baghdad Bob of the American airwaves.

To be sure, that Hannity himself has been an outrageous pandemic of right-wing disinformation for the past quarter century is a sordid reality he hasn't overlooked: To lie and deceive, one must first know the truth — then set out to maul and molest it. So there's something of a Goebbelesque quality to Hannity's threatening letter to the Times and three of its opinion writers, Kara Swisher, Ben Smith, and Ginia Bellafante. In his own little way, Hannity is accusing Poland of initiating hostilities by invading the sacred fatherland of Fox News.

Specifically, his legal action addresses "three [opinion pieces that] dealt in different ways with how Fox News at various points dismissed coronavirus as a political cudgel to whack Trump," observes the Washington Post's Eric Wemple. Reflects the media critic: "What we have here is a media loudmouth whose millions and millions of earnings each year as a radio and TV host come wrapped in the protective gauze of the First Amendment. The very lines that he accuses the Times of crossing are boundaries he fails to observe in his daily ramblings."

But since Sean is raising his righteous voice against three members of what he has elsewhere called the "Democratic extreme radical socialist party," no doubt he feels justified in crossing lines. And in doing so he earns free publicity and deepens his cred among millions and millions of morons.

The starkest line of hypocrisy crossed is etched in the legal action's counterfeit basis: "[The columnists'] false statements do not constitute protected opinion. A statement is not an opinion if 'a reasonable listener ... could have concluded that [the defendant] was conveying facts about the plaintiff.'" By this "reasoning" of the pompous boor's lawyer, not only Sean Hannity but virtually Fox News' entire crew of on-air talent would be liable for the slander of birtherism — and every other phony war cry belched over the years by the Murdoch family's cruel embarrassment to journalism.

Sean being Sean (unfortunately), at some near point he'll silently drop this action on the legitimate basis of having acted stupidly — and never again will he speak a word of it to his audience. Like most other right-wing outrages, Hannity's legal demands will simply flush themselves down the rabbit hole of past indignation.

Comments

[Robert Pierce]

"Please confirm in writing within twenty-four (24) hours of transmission of this letter that you will retract, correct and apologize for each of the foregoing statements. Failure to do so will leave Mr. Hannity with no alternative but to consider instituting immediate legal proceedings against you."

If you don't retract and apologize within 24 hours, Mr Hannity will be forced to think about suing you. LOLOL

[jsrtheta]

This is the very definition of a frivolous complaint. It should be dismissed with sanctions for abuse and an award of attorney's fees to the Times defendants.

[Peter G]

Not going to read that many pages of whining. But if someone else has the intestinal fortitude could you let me know if he also threatened to tell his mom.

[David & Son of Duff]

How very odd, Mr. Carpenter, that you would inundate these columns day after day if news - fake or otherwise - came to light that Donald had actually 'grabbed a lady by the pussy' and yet you manage to avoid any mention of, er, 'good ol' Joe's' groping!

[pm]

How do you do it? Wrong again. https://www.pmcarpenter.com/2020/04/there-is-something-rotten-in-tara-reades-tale.html

[Freesia]

This is an excellent point by point breakdown of the problem with Tara Reade by a former prosecutor.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/04/29/joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegation-tara-reade-column/3046962001/

[Max]

This is very good, as illuminating as anything written to date. Thank you.

I keep thinking of Al Franken . . . and in this other corner, Trump, with his 25 (so far) women whom Trump sexually assaulted. It includes a woman whom Trump raped at age 13.

[Freesia]

13?? That's sickening. Actually I remember reading something about that (or maybe it was discussed here?) in the past. It's hideous. He's hideous.

And yes I agree, the article was illuminating. The passage about Putin was damning all on it's own. Also noting that the 2 women who are her new backers weren't on the list from the past. Frankly I don't know if she's lying and knows it, or she's lying and doesn't. I suspect her belfry has big bats. One way or the other - she's lying. I also suspect that she's being encouraged behind the scenes by someone.

And I think of Al Franken frequently. We needed him.

[Max]

"Is it a lie, if you truly believe it?" - George Castanza

The genetic make-up of normal men are, when upon hearing of the rape of a 13 year-old girl, is, "I will kill that son-of-a-bitch with my bare hands." I know I feel that way about my own daughter, my nieces....

[Freesia]

Amen. I've been a 13 year old girl. I can't imagine a grotesque "man" like Trump coming at me at that age. (Heck even know in my 50s I gag at the thought.) And I know that my daddy, my uncles, just the men in my world would have reacted just like you. Ivanka and Melania and the women in his life must sense what he is (or have experienced it.) I don't know how they paint up and pose and smile at the freak and live with themselves.