Talk:Sean Hannity

Recent removals from third paragraph

FMSky, you may not have consensus to remove the longstanding (some since 2018) content from the third paragraph that you have removed twice in three days.[1][2] Can you please self-revert and justify the removals here, per WP:CAUTIOUS, WP:EPTALK, and WP:CONSENSUS? Llll5032 (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Too much negative detail for the lead, see WP:UNDUE. what is your argument for keeping it? --FMSky (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

also irrelevant stuff like him "talking to trump almost every day". who cares, it already says he was his unofficial spokesman --FMSky (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

It appears neutral, not negative, and WP:UNDUE says that content follows its proportion in reliable sources. That he "reportedly spoke to Trump on the phone most weeknights" when Trump was president appears significant. Llll5032 (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

how about now? --FMSky (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I rearranged a sentence and added a short sentence about sharing lawyers with Trump, frequently mentioned in RS. Llll5032 (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

The lawyers thing seems out of place to me. I agree it is mentioned in RS but why is it a big deal? It seems like guilt by association whereas the other content in the paragraph is concrete evidence of his close connection to Trump. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how coverage of Hannity's association with Trump would be perceived as a negative unless the reader has a bias against the former president. In any case UNDUE concerns the prominence of viewpoints among reliable sources and has nothing to do with "positive" or "negative" coverage. If RS coverage is largely negative then our article rightfully will be as well. –dlthewave ☎ 16:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Birtherism?

Where is the evidence that Hannity ever promoted "birtherism," according to this article? There is no link or citation whatsoever to that assertion. Hannity said Obama was born in the US, "period." Other articles I have seen had him mentioning Kenya among a number of other countries like Canada, which is a wild stretch to match claims that he is a birther. The closest anyone seems to be able to come is to say that Trump once made birther claims to Hannity (with 0 quotes or transcripts attached) on his show. Where is the evidence? 2601:C2:680:31B0:71B5:6FF9:C0A3:719B (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Did you look at this section? The lead does not need citations if they are included in the body. It seems like Hannity did not act like a hardcore birther himself, but he made several equivocal statements on the subject, and gave a platform to stronger proponents. I'd say that qualifies as "promoted conspiracy theories such as 'birtherism'". –CWenger (^ • @) 02:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

So there is still no evidence he was a birther or "promoted" such. 2601:C2:680:31B0:71B5:6FF9:C0A3:719B (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

"Hannity said he believed President Obama was born in the U.S." which settles the matter. 2601:C2:680:31B0:71B5:6FF9:C0A3:719B (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Are you suggesting somebody can't promote a belief if they whisper to the side that they don't think it's true? Here's a good summary:

To be clear, Hannity was never a "birther" himself. He was more of a birther enabler – he’d adopt a "just asking questions" posture and call it "odd" that the White House refused to accede to the demands of loopy conspiracy theorists and release Obama’s long-form birth certificate. But he’d sympathize with the birthers and lament that they were being "crucified and beaten up and smeared and besmirched."

–CWenger (^ • @) 01:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Fox News was a major player in the birther conspiracies, and Hannity a major contributor. Flashback: How Fox News Promoted Trump's Birtherism. Zaathras (talk) 03:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

You're linking to Media Matters, a propaganda site known for making numerous false claims, speaking about Hannity's employer, not Hannity himself. This remains a wholly unsupported, unsourced claim that has no place in a balanced Wikipedia article. 2601:C2:680:31B0:71B5:6FF9:C0A3:719B (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Your ad hominems in regards to Media Matters are irrelevant. The citation I provided is simply repeating, unedited, what Hannity himself said. Zaathras (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Refer to something the first time before referring back to it again

The following sentence occurs before the article makes any mention of any decision by the university board:

"The university board that governed the station later reversed its decision after ...".

This is extremely bad writing.

Did you read the line before it? Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Did Sean Hannity Promote QAnon? I Don't Think So

I'm definitely not a fan of Hannity, but I was surprised to hear that he's "advocated QAnon conspiracy theories" considering how mainstream conservative he is. The only source is a Vox piece that mentions Hannity as one of the conservatives promoting the theory, without actually detailing what he said. Googling "Sean Hannity QAnon" doesn't get me any results except for when he pretended they don't really exist.[3]

Wikipedia RS consider Vox to be generally reliable, except "some editors say that Vox does not always delineate reporting and opinion content or that it is a partisan source in the field of politics." Without real verification or reports from a nonpartisan source, I don't think it's fair to say in Wikivoice that Hannity advocates QAnon conspiracy theories. His "deep state" rhetoric is pretty close and he gives a platform to real QAnon peddlers[4], but that's not the same as actually promoting QAnon.

So yeah, I propose we remove mention of QAnon from the "Political Positions" unless we can actually show his promotion of QAnon. Woozybydefault (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

His "deep state" rhetoric is pretty close and he gives a platform to real QAnon peddlers, but that's not the same as actually promoting QAnon. Um, yea, it actually is. When your rhetoric echoes theirs, and you put the Q proponents in front of 2 million+ viewers, then you become a proponent yourself. Zaathras (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd disagree. Wikipedia is not calling Trump a white nationalist, even though he echoes white nationalist rhetoric ("poisoning the blood of our country") and has frequently given platforms to white nationalists on Twitter. That's because there is a difference between being in the sphere of white nationalism and actually openly advocating it, and RS recognize that so they don't characterize him as such.

There is a difference between QAnon and what Sean Hannity is spewing, both in degree and kind. The core tenets of Q is that government is controlled by Satanic pedophiles, that a storm is coming to overthrow it, that Trump is working undercover to bring about said storm, etc.[5] Batshit crazy stuff, none of which is advocated by Sean Hannity so saying he advocates QAnon theories based only on an offhand namedrop from a single heavily partisan source isn't appropriate. Maybe with consensus and more sources we can say QAnon-adjacent, or simply stick with deep state which covers everything he says perfectly well. Woozybydefault (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

characterized as a propagandist?

should we include in paragraph 3 that Hannity has been characterized as a propagandist?

• "Hannity has entered the pantheon of a true propagandist" - Michael Hayden[6]

• "Hannity is a propagandist for profit, peddling lies every night" - Jim Acosta[7]

• "a President and his propagandist create an alternate reality" - Susan Glasser[8]

• "Sean Hannity, the GOP propagandist who has spent years using his powerful media perch to dishonestly attack Biden..." - Oliver Darcy, CNN[9]

• "propagandists like Hannity" - Brian Stelter[10]

• "the pro-Trump propagandist Sean Hannity" - Bobby Lewis, The Guardian[11]

soibangla (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you've got good RS and subject matter experts. Mention in the lead would be justified. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I find it funny to include the "characterized as a propagandist" spiel when the whole page in itself is obvious bipartisan propaganda lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.105.133 (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

We say what RS say, if you have an issue with this, take it up wit them. Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)