Talk:Sean Hannity

No section to reorganize into

As far as I know, this article does not have a "Criticism of..." subarticle. It would be pretty difficult to put the criticism section into a subarticle that doesn't exist. Treybien 15:26 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Page is run by fox news and hannity fan boys

Is this page locked? If so, why it doesn't have the lock icon or/and an explanation of why is locked for editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.136.200 (talk) 06:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Its sickening to think and outspoken controversial pundit like sean hannity has received NO criticism on his page, every time someone puts a critique up it is reverted instantly, this page needs to be moderated. its very sick what people will do to defend their savior Atheist1981 (talk) 05:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip mag. If you have properly sourced encyclopedic content, then by all means add it. Unsourced POV ranting will always be immediately removed from almost any article. Asher196 (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind the rules under WP:BLP are much more stringent than other types of articles. Relevance and weight are factors. It is a biography, not a debate or critique. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Children! This is no more a 'biography' than Spongebob is about oceanography. Why not put your 'cleansed and purfied' article on Conservapedia instead of trashing up Wikipedia? Oh, right, you already have.

When y'all are done sanitizing here, head on over to the White Aryan page… They'd love your revisionist treatment of the Holocaust.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Niteshift36, stop deleting comments and opinions you don't agree with. By doing so, you reveal authoritarian revisionist right-wing prejudices. Do not do this again.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 03:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Your comments are nothing more than a rant. Your diatribe amounts to personal attacks. But instead of just removing it, which is permissable, I'll let the rules deal with it. Niteshift36 (talk) 10:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There is some truth in what unicornTapestry says though he uses strong language. Otherwise these references 1 and 2 wouldnt have been washed out of the article outright. Docku^Hi 04:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Docku's right; I spoke intemperately. It's frustrating wanting to use Wikipedia as a source and finding Hal Turner info disappearing at a dismaying rate. People should never fear the truth.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 04:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If the Hal Turner info was credible, there would be better sources than left wing web sites. Asher196 (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You must be confused. The source is Hal Turner himself who is ultra right.

What I like to see is balance where neither left or right dominates and people are given all the evidence to make up their own minds, if that's possible. I don't approve of some of the tacky critical verbiage (that's been removed), but neither to I like the tendency to sanitize that seems de rigueur here. What's been accomplished is to make the article useless as a reference resource.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Calling people "children", "authoritarian" and suggesting that they belong on the Aryan nation page, denying the holocaust doesn't lead me to think that "fairness" and "usefulness" is your driving force. You've already made it clear that you have an axe to grind with Hannity and with anyone who you consider "right wing". So you have to excuse me if I am a little suspicious. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm compelled to point out I didn't call you right wing– you did. You brag about it on your user page. I said earlier I spoke intemperately because material that should be in the article has been stripped out or 'sanitized', as happens in authoritarian regimes, left and right. I said "children" (not referring to you or anyone specifically) because a glance at this page and the undo's, shows a lot of bickering. My intent was not to become embroiled in the petty arguments here, but to say it's hurting the legitimacy of the article. Shall we not personalize this?

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 03:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• You said "right-wing prejudices", naming me specifically. And yes, I have a tongue in cheek userbox about being part of the "vast right wing conspiracy". Since I don't even think it exists, I can't REALLY be a part of it, let alone "brag" about it. If you want to engage in legitimate debate, fine. But please, don't insult me by pretending you didn't attack me personally. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I would advise Niteshift36 to read up on assume good faith policy. Assuming bad faith is no substitute for answering his unbiased questions in his last posting. Docku^Hi 03:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your advice Docku, but it is not needed or desired. I was very specific in my reasoning for why I said what I said and having DOUBTS is not assuming bad faith. Maybe you just aren't used to people being that honest. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I know what is going to be the outcome of this discussion. Just thought I would voice my concern to the unfair dismissal of UT. Docku^Hi 04:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to add my voice that this article is unsuitable and unencyclopedic. I'm astonished that ANY critical source is dismissed as "left wing" out of hand, including former right-wing associates and even a former conservative maven. I also have to question if this article isn't being run not merely by "fan boys" as you put it, but by Hannity staffers as this sort of thing has happened before. I won't be surprised if my two cents gets deleted as I see that has happened here. What are you afraid of? I hope somebody shows gumption and get the article on the straight and level. --64.45.228.234 (talk) 12:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• No, stuff like you posted doesn't get deleted, just ignored. The very fact that there is information critical of Hannity in the article disproves your "theory". As for your Hannity staffer theory.......well, thanks for my laugh of the day. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

That's incredibly snarky and non-responsive. You delete the stuff you don't want aired and then trash anyone who dares speak up. This is nothing but revisionist fluff and I'm dismayed that no one has the guts to keep Hannity's history posted. --208.59.121.173 (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• So? As you can see in the following section, criticism is agreed on by both sides as long as it it relevent and written in a neutral manner. You spout catch phrases like "former conservative maven" (who cares what she USED to be. Now, she is a big liberal maven), "fan boys", "right wing" and make accusations of people being Hannity staffers, but still expect to get a straight answer? LOL. Try rationally participaring in the process instead of throwing brickbats and see if you get taken more seriously. I bet you will. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Only your revisionist POV seems important. No standard will satisfy you and your assertions about "left wing" are mere window dressing to get your own way. You simply want critical info kept out and you will do anything to get your own way. Period. --208.59.121.173 (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry you are having difficulty understanding this. I'll try to put this in a simpler form: Criticism here. You wrong. Get it? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

OMG, are you Sean Hannity himself? Low IQ 2-word sentences? Verbal bullying? Snide remarks instead of substance? Opposing truth? Ruining airwaves for everyone else?

We don't need your insults. I asked an earnest and honest question and I don't need crap from you. I've read the posts here and see that your most important contribution is the DELETE key.

Please, we're complaining reasonably that you and a couple of Hannity boys have taken over the topic and that NO STANDARD from ANY SOURCE will apparently satisfy you. It's time to stop browbeating the rest of us. Sources for the Turner and other issues have been cited and because you don't like them isn't sufficient reason to trash them. --208.59.121.173 (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Sarcasm because you can't see the obvious. There IS criticism in the article. You fail to realize that. Nobody is excluding ALL criticism. What does get challenged is poorly sourced or irrelevant items that are being placed solely for the purpose of trying to manufacture controversy. We discussed the Andy Martin incident. Agreed on neutral wording and it is in the article. The Turner thing is irrelevant. I'm done assuming good faith with you. You are here to try to push an agenda because you dislike Hannity. You have no interest in improving the article, only trying to make him look bad. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Gotta love that Hannity twist of making the opposite seem true. You push your pro-Hannity agenda and imply everyone else has bad faith when the least critical thing is mentioned. Looking at the now-archived material, you've gone out of your way to prevent anything critical being mentioned or letting anyone else include sourced critical material, then trash the viewpoints of others, and then blame the other person. Because Hannity quotes are on TV/radio and not printed media, you won't allow them. Because you claim all other critical sources are left wing, you won't accept them. What's really unwelcomed though are your personal attacks. --216.15.60.180 (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• I am well aware of what I have written. I have objected to material that has been given undue weight per wp:undue. I don't make up the standards for wp:rs, so complain to those who do. I also recognize that there is a higher standard for wp:BLP articles. And you have ZERO room to talk about personal attacks. If you make them, you get sarcasm in return. Stop making them yourself, discuss the issue rather then make baseless accusations and stop using your little buzz words and you'll be treated in kind. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems very odd that all criticisms of Hannity keep getting taken down, yet all criticisms by the people who run this page and others from the fox boards on notable left wing pundits cannot get taken off for good. Has wikipedia been taken over by fox? These people claim its not a gossip forum, then post gossip claims on other pages. Not very objective. - concernedwikster

• Perhaps you'd be interested in the article on conspiracy theory because you seem to subscribe to them. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• 'Strangely enough, I hear the same complaints from a different angle over at the Keith Olbermann page. Dayewalker (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no 'conspiracy theory'. Fox news has already made similar actions. Plus, this is not a government cover up, this is a bunch of guys limiting access to 'fair and balanced' information about individuals whom their employers, or they personally support the views/believes/mutual dislikings and prejudices of. This 'nightshade' individual, who, according to his own profile, is a right winger, should not be allowed to control this site. If the standard were that NO criticisms were allowed on any site, I would understand, but this individual (and a few others here) have a history of hopskipping to other articles and leaving criticism, or complaining about them. Nightshade, I ask you personally, what standard are you holding to critiques of Hannity on this public wiki that you oppose holding against other non-right-winger wiki pages? You dont see a double standard? I am sure you, as well as everyone else here, is very aware of the changes made to many fox news related wikis by fox staffers a while back. Though they are no longer doing the obvious and changing sans proxy or from work rather than home, the taint is in the air, and your policy on moderation seems to be reflecting similar mentalities. What say you do this?--consernedwikster

• Who is Nightshade? I haven't seen that editor on here at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

After dozens upon dozens of people make the same complaint about Hannity sanitization, you might think someone would pay attention. I wonder if the commenter above doesn't have a point that given Niteshift36's nasty edge, if he IS Hannity.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Going to go back to personal attacks Unicorn? That's ok, play your silly game. If you can't counter something with fact and policy, try inflating figures (dozens) and just use persnal attacks. LOL, what a farce. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is getting nowhere. Well, I guess you guys are talking about this reference. let us see what other users who are also watching this page say about this? Docku:“what up?” 21:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not my forté, Mr. "Niteshift", nor do I wash to be baited. There was absolutely no attack in my query at all. While it may not mean anything, I noticed when people asked, you don't deny you're a Hannity staffer or Hannity himself. It's a matter of curiosity, not a personal attack.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Gee, sorry, I dind't think that something so ridiculous actually needed a response. Considering that your crony wants to believe every word on my user page, it would seem obvious. Aside from the fact that Hannity is Irish and my page shows me as a Scot, do you really think that Hannity would be here editing articles about gangs? Ok, since you have difficulty with the logical, I'll be very direct: Not only am I not Hannity or a Hannity staffer, I've never even spoken to Hanity, a Hannity staffer or anyone even connected to Hannity. I've never called the show, don't listen to it that often and don't belong to his website. Is that clear enough to you? Any other totally baseless allegations you need to have addressed? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for answering that question.

Does Docku's additional reference meet the unacceptably high threshold?

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• The "unacceptably high threshold"? And you want me to pretend that you are NOT being sarcastic? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

What some people here don't seem to understand is that the Nation reference has been discussed to death here over the last several months, and has been found to be not a reliable source in this matter. Given the nature of the criticism, multiple quality reliable sources are needed for the criticism to be added to this WP:BLP Asher196 (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I remember. You, me, User:Kelly, User:Arzel and User:Gamaliel were there in the discussion. Do you think that prevents new discussion by new people? No one is going to dicate nothing to no one here, I believe. Docku:“what up?” 02:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that this was new discussion, as it seems old to me. Asher196 (talk) 02:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for misquoting your handle nightshift, but you did not answer the question, other than saying you are not Hannity or working for him. You are aware that this is the internet, and thus your claim cannot be verified. But even to take you at your word, why do you hold this site to a higher standard than that of left leaning pundits or topics? Put yourself in the opposite point of view, you would be very cautious about such 'strange conveinences' given Hannity's parent companies previous actions on wiki. -- concernedwikster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.139.55 (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• I guess I'll let "nightshift" answer that. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Reaction to 10/5 Airing of 'Obama & Friends: A History of Radicalism' on "Hannity's America"

Hannity was criticized recently for his documentary on Obama by Media Matters [1]. He basically found a known and vocal anti-semite to slander Obama for him, but made no mention of the man's outrageous history. He later compared it, during post debate coverage, to 'interviewing' people he doesn't agree with all the time. However, this man, Andy Martin was the focus of the documentary. It basically centered around him, and no mention was made of his past.

If someone doesn't think this is significant, could they provide another example of a journalist on a major news channel doing something similar.

At the very least there should be a 'Criticisms' section. This page has been severly whitewashed, considering how controversial and polarizing Hannity is.07:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.209.140 (talk)

Could you pls provide some sources. Docku:“what up?” 11:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Turns out I referenced it incorrectly. Is this better: [2]67.84.209.140 (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

And here it is again in the New York Times, which I believe is still the 'paper of record' among the 'main stream'. Their take on it is as follows-- "The program was the latest step in the evolution of opinion journalism on cable news. It comes as one of Fox News’s rivals, MSNBC, becomes increasingly liberal, with hosts like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann advocating against Senator John McCain. But Mr. Hannity’s program on Sunday was notable in presenting partisan accusations against Mr. Obama in a journalistic, documentary format in prime time." [3] It sounds like the NYT thinks this is groundbreaking stuff.67.84.209.140 (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Quoting from the article.

Sean Hannity, the conservative radio and television host, was the host of the hourlong program, which raised, among other things, unsubstantiated accusations that Mr. Obama’s work as a community organizer in Chicago was “training for a radical overthrow of the government.

I am not sure. Could you please propose a sentence (as you would want to include) and let us see what other users have to say about it. Docku:“what up?” 20:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Something like that quote above sounds good. Off the top of my head, how does something similar to this sound-

In what was considered by some as precedent setting action, the October 5th broadcast of 'Hannity's America' presented right wing partisan propaganda as an unbiased documentary, during prime time, on one of the three major Cable News Networks (Fox News).[4] The show centered around a known and vocal anti-Semite, Andy Martin. Martin was presented as an 'expert' and a 'journalist' without mention of his history of inflammatory rhetoric and exposed slandering of Obama. According to the NYT, "[Martin] is credited as being among the first -- if not the first -- to assert in a chain e-mail message that Mr. Obama was secretly a Muslim." [5]

During the fallout from that show, Liberal Pundit Robert Gibbs appeared on post-Presidential Debate coverage hosted by Hannity for Fox News on on 10/07/08, and immediately and repeatedly asked Hannity if he was an Anti-Semite. At one point Gibbs said the lack of journalistic integrity led him to believe that every one of Hannity's and 'his networks' viewers were Anti-Semitic. Seeming exasperated, Hannity denounced Martin's past statements as 'reprehensible', and pointed out that he interviews people he doesn't agree with 'all the time'. To this, Gibbs exclaimed "You centered your whole show around him, Sean!". At that point, Hannity's co-host and Liberal Foil,[Alan Colmes] , stepped in to quell the argument, and defend Hannity's record on Jewish Affairs. [6]

Obviously, it needs some cleaning up, as far as dates and references and use of english, but that's all I have to say on the subject. I think this is significant, because Fox News routinely attracts the largest viewership of any of the Cable News channels. I believe anyone who values impartial journalism should think it significant as well. This could be the beginning of something very ugly

FuriousJorge (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Can I make an observation? This whole discussion starts out with criticism by Media Matters. MM is hardly neutral. Hillary Clinton has claimed to have helped start MM and they do lean very left. MM was also founded due to a large donation by George Soros, who funds a number of Democratic organizations, such as moveon.org. While Salon magazine is also very supportive of Obama (and dislikes those who criticize him), their entry shown above is much more balanced and has less of a neutrality problem. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of MediaMatter's reputation, and I certainly don't want to be seen as advocating biased sources. As to what goes into the article, I have no problem not using MM, since they just link to the NYT article, and all the debunked claims by Martrin, anyway. Here is a blurb on the airing from the ultra conservative Drudge Report [7], which includes a quote from the ultra conservative Washington Times about the qualifications of Hannity's expert:

This is how Fox described him on-screen when he spoke: "Andy Martin, AUTHOR & JOURNALIST".

Here's some history on Martin from the Washington Times:

'"In a New York bankruptcy case, he referred to a judge as a "crooked, slimy Jew." During the bankruptcy dispute, he filed a civil-rights lawsuit claiming Jewish bankruptcy judges and lawyers were conspiring to steal his property. "'

Again, I think a major cable news network's journalist presenting partisan propaganda and conjecture as a 'documentary' in prime time is both precedent setting and very significant. I did say when this whole discussion started that if anyone thought it wasn't significant they should provide an example of similar action by another journalist.FuriousJorge (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Not to be obstinant, but Drudge isn't "ultra-conservative". I could make a good case that they aren't even conservative at all if this were a debate forum. I do think that one think is being overlooked here: Regardless of guests, Hannity is there to provide opinion. That is his job. He is not considered one of their news programs. His program is to provide commentary and discussion. So traditional "journalism standards" (I laugh everytime I say that), don't really apply. The other part of my concern here is that this is a bio of Hannity, not of his guests. Hannity didn't say "crooked, slimy Jew" or make any other anti-semetic comments. Hannity has guests on that are VERY opposite of his personal and political beliefs because they either stimulate debate or controversy (ie ratings) or because they are a current news topic (ie ratings). Now if this were an article about the show, this would be a whole different discussion. But this is a bio article of Hannity himself and I believe that is a factor. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a potential notable controversy as evidenced by its coverage in several MSM newspapers. As long as any addition is neutral and responsible there really is no basis to keep this out of the article. You are right that it should not center on Martin and his views since this is a bio of Hannity, but there should be some mention of notable controversies in the article. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, we agree that this article is about Hannity, not Martin. Why not go the safest, simplest, most neutral route? Instead of a whole lot of fighting about how much and what content, why not just a line or two about Hannity getting criticism for having the guy on and end it there? Then in the article about Martin, people can freely talk about what Martin has said (since he is the subject of THAT article) and where he said it. In other words, keep the details etc about Martin more in the article about Martin and not so much in the article about Hannity, who didn't say these things? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the responses. I think a separate article on Martin is a great idea, and I certainly didn't want to imply he should be quoted in this one. I respectfully disagree, however, that this is just a matter of 'having a guy on' who's controversial. I may have been wrong about Drudge, but I just wanted to illustrate that sources other than the HuffingtonPost and DailyKos have noticed. I didn't mean to imply that any of Martin's words should be in the blurb, I just wanted to illustrate, in 100 words or less, that this guy has long been regarded as less than credible and professional, as far as 'experts' go.

As to what actually should go in, see my original suggestion italicized above. Is anything wrong with something like that? I think this deserves more than a sentence or two, because I believe he has lowered the bar for 'objectivity when impersonating a journalist.' My position from the beginning has been that he's achieved a new low, and the LA Times seems to agree in an article entitled "Fox News' faux documentary sets new low". [8]. If we do agree that it deserves to be in there, can we frame the discussion in terms of what is wrong with a cleaned up version of what I suggested above, using the LAT and NYT as sources? I believe I can sound impartialFuriousJorge (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• There already is an article on Andy Martin. 100 words or less? Much less. Martin is one of hundreds of guests that Hannity has had on. Let's face it, he lives and dies by ratings. A controversial guy is good for ratings. I'm not going to fault him for that and I'm not going to imply that he somehow sympathizes with Martin because he had him on. As I see it, the italicized suggestion you have deals with Martin more than Hannity and with Gibbs implying that Hannity is anti-semetic. Hannity denies he is and Colmes supports that. But that only gets a mention, whereas what Gibbs said (which is little more than innuendo), gets much more attention. This becomes a weight issue to me, which is a factor in a BLP article. If you can make it impartial, fine. But the version I see above doesn't sound the least bit impartial, even if it was written by the LA Times. Words like ""right wing", "fallout" and "propaganda" don't sound impartial. They sound like an agenda, whether is is the NYT using them or not. Now I know this falls under the category of OR, but I have to say that I've always heard Hannity as a staunch supporter of Israel and he frequently has Joe Lieberman on his show and they consider each other friends. So I'd say there is reason to believe that the "anti-semetic" label is merely being thrown around by people who disargree with Hannity's politics. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• On October 5, 2008 during a post debate discusion with Obama spokesperson Robert Gibbs, Hannity was repeatedly asked by Gibbs, if he should be considered an anti-Semite by his association with and "centering his show" around Andy Martin. This was in response to Hannity attempting to ask Gibbs about Obama's relationship with William Ayers. Pressed repeatedly about some of Martin's previous controversial statements, Hannity denounced Martin's past statements as 'reprehensible'. He further pointed out that he interviews people he disagrees with all the time. Hannity's co-host Alan Colmes defended Hannity by saying that he was against the guilt by association argument and that Hannity was not an anti-semite. [9]

• The show referenced by Gibbs was the October 2nd broadcast of 'Hannity's America' called Obama & Friends: The History of Radicalism where Martin was presented as an expert about Barack Obama without noting the hosts political stances and controversies. [10]

The above is my proposal. I think it's more neutral than the previous entry, and I'm not sure if the Hannity's America date was right or if it was a re-broadcast of an earlier broadcasts. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fine. Docku:“what up?” 18:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• That sounds pretty neutral to me. Good job. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ramsquire, that sounds great to me. The only thing I would like to humbly suggest is that some mention be given to the precedent set by Hannity: It's not a matter of just 'having someone on for ratings' as someone else suggested. The problem is in fact that he hid the controversial history of his 'experts'. Granted, we all saw it for what it was, but there are a lot of people out there who 'saw it in a "documentary", so it must be true'. Nobody else does or has done this; not Olbermann, or O'Reilly, or Dobbs, or Van Sustren, because it is highly unethical. I just think Sean should get credit for his groundbreaking coverage.

Perhaps, something like:

• On October 5, 2008 during a post debate discussion with Obama Campaign Communications Director Robert Gibbs, Hannity was repeatedly asked by Gibbs, if he should be considered an anti-Semite for his association with, and "centering his show" around, Andy Martin. This was in response to Hannity's attempting to ask Gibbs about Obama's relationship with William Ayers. Pressed repeatedly about some of Martin's previous controversial statements, Hannity denounced Martin's past statements as 'despicable'. He further pointed out that he interviews people he disagrees with all the time. Hannity's co-host Alan Colmes defended Hannity by saying that he was against the guilt by association argument in all cases, and that Hannity was not an anti-semite. [11]

• The show referenced by Gibbs was the October 2nd broadcast of 'Hannity's America' where Martin was presented as an expert about Barack Obama without noting the hosts political stances and controversies. The broadcast was criticized as 'lowering the bar' for political pundits on the Cable News Networks, for presenting a one-sided and highly partisan perspective in documentary format, during Prime Time. [12][13]

I must emphasize that I think that second part is actually the important part here.

Niteshift36. Again, I must re-emphasize that I quoted Martin to describe his controversiality for the purposes of this discussion page, in '100 words or less', and not for the purposes of putting any amount of his words in the blurb. That would be silly.

Thanks for the responses.FuriousJorge (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

May i suggest-- The broadcast was harshly criticized for presenting a one-sided and highly partisan perspective in documentary format.[14][15]-- and putting the title of the hour back into the first sentence. I think that is a more neutral presentation. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.FuriousJorge (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've boldly added the section since there seemed to be support. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The subsection seems to be written in a neutral enough way. The problem with it is that it's classic WP:Recentism. Almost nobody is going to care about this spat four weeks from now. Mentioning the Obama and Friends episode as an example of Hannity's (entirely expected) partisanship during the 2008 presidential election campaign is fine. The alleged anti-Semitism of Andrew Martin (I know nothing about the man) might also be mentioned if credible evidence can be cited. But bringing up the heated exchange between Hannity and Robert Gibbs, as if it is some major episode in Hannity's life or career, is kind of silly in my opinion. It will probably be deleted within months, if not weeks, as something that is no longer especially important. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• You are right! After the election, who will really care. I don't expect him to be non-partisan anyway. He has an opinion show (not a newscast) and refers to his radio show as the "stop Obama express". Niteshift36 (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• I must emphasize that the important part of this controversy is not that Hannity and Gibbs had an On-Air 'spat', but rather that Hannity lowered the bar for Primetime Cable News 'Journalism' by presenting partisan and one-sided opinions in documentary format. The NYT and LAT described this as a 'new low', which is why it deserves specific mention. Mr. Hannity's Faux-Documentary should be duly noted for the precedent it set. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FuriousJorge (talk • contribs) 22:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• • You mean that in the opinion of 2 newspaper writers, he lowered the bar. You state it like it is a fact, carved in stone. I'm sure nobody, including Hannity, was surprised when 2 of the most liberal newspapers in the country criticized him. If you are going to include sheer opinion on the show, then I'd suggest you balance it with a positive opinion and, preferably, a neutral one too. That would be fair, don't you think? I added statement by the shows producer found in a NYT article about the show. If you have something better, let me know. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Though not politically slanted, the section on the Andrew Martin controversy was rather roundabout. I've attempted a rewrite to make it more straightforward. An acceptable source is still needed for the second half of the first paragraph. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The section in question attempts to soft-pedal Martin's lunatic anti-semetism and consists of mostly defenses of Hannity by everyone in sight. This is a bit ridiculous. Gamaliel (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Your protest contains the answer. You are worried about MARTIN'S anti-semetism. The article is about Hannity. What you are talking about belongs in the article about MARTIN. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, I really liked my rewrite, thinking it would be unobjectionable to all concerned, and now it's gone in a few hours. I'd better stay out of this one. However, I still don't like the "flashback" technique that the present version employs -- not in an encyclopedia article. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest the version I first added which everyone agreed was "neutral enough." Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • Yes! You wrote a couple of drafts. Everyone agreed you did a good job being neutral. I don't see anyone objecting to your version. Then along comes Gamaliel, trashing the consensus version. Among the things we agreed on was that this article is about Hannity, not Martin. Martin has his own article. Spending time focusing on something Martin said years before, not on Hannity's show, and with no direct connection to the documentary, doesn't belong here. It belongs in the article on Martin. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no problem with later additions or edits to the draft, but so that the article remains relatively stable while the discussion continues, I'm reverting back to that version until some consensus is reached on a final version. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I make a suggestion? The confrontation with Gibbs is given too much emphasis, and when I originally brought this up, I intended it only as context. As such, I simply switched the order of the paragraphs. I also changed the start of that paragraph to read "political stances and history of Antisemitism.", whereas before it said something like "political stances and controversies", otherwise it is ambiguous as the first line.

Also, I must re-re-re-emphasize that all this is still somewhat tangential, and, respectfully, no one has spoken to my original point: As the NYT and LAT point out, what's important here is not that 'Hannity had some 'controversial' guy on, and didn't mention his past.' It's not that he did it in Prime Time on one of the Three Major Cable News Networks, either. What's important here is that Hannity did all that AND presented it as a Documentary. He's set a new low, even for advocacy journalism. I think it should be written as such, using appropriate wording like 'lowered the bar' or 'set precedent' or 'in a first for advocacy journalism', however you want to put it. THAT is what's important here. Not to be flip about it, but if anyone disagrees with me, (respectfully) they should either provide a counter example, or explain why integrity in journalism is no longer important.FuriousJorge (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

How about something like "The broadcast and Fox News drew criticism for presenting a one-sided and partisan perspective in documentary format during Prime Time. Some described the show as precedent-setting for Cable News Networks and advocacy journalism." [17] [18]FuriousJorge (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Your main issue is that it was presented as a documentary? Are you for real? You live in a time where Farenheit 9/11 gets an oscar for best documentary, despite blatant POV pushing and actual, provable fabrication. I know you want to think that a documentary is supposed to be neutral, but the truth is that it doesn't. The author may or may not try to be neutral and, even when trying, he is giving us his version of neutral. Just because they called it "a first" doesn't make it so. Moore released f9/11 4 months before the election and blatantly stated that he hoped it would change the election. Does that sound neutral? And that was a "documentary" that won an oscar. It was even shown on TV the night before the election. So hearing these authors blather about it being a first is hollow. And don't get me started about media bias. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• This is not the first time you've misconstrued my statements, and generally been uncivil with me. In the future, kindly consider reading the sources before you add your one cent: This is not 'my issue.' The LAT called it a 'new low', because, as the NYT said, the show 'was notable in presenting partisan accusations against Mr. Obama in a journalistic, documentary format in prime time.' Notice the use of the word 'notable'? Furthermore, groundbreaking journalism should get the credit it deserves. As the NYT puts it, 'The program was the latest step in the evolution of opinion journalism on cable news.' You have a right to think it's 'no big deal', and I chose to hold people impersonating journalists to a higher standard. We don't have to agree, but that's been my point from the beginning, so please don't twist my words. Moving on...FuriousJorge (talk) 07:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Slanted "documentaries," sometimes very slanted ones, are actually pretty common, even if this one was a doozy. The other point, Jorge, is that you need a WP:RS to actually make the point that you are trying to make, it can't simply be the point of view of an editor. I included quotes from the Los Angeles Times' critic James Rainey in my earlier edit which comes fairly close to what want. That may be about as good as you can hope for. You would also have to include Hannity's producer's rebuttal. I agree with you that the exchange between Gibbs and Hannity is not especially important. Nor, in my opinion, is Colmes's defense of Hannity. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed your version. It's well written, and looks fine to me with the quotes you used. If I could make one suggestion, it would be to lose a quote from Rainey, in favor of something like:

• • • The NYT described the show as 'the latest step in the evolution of opinion journalism on cable news', and it went on to say the broadcast was 'notable in presenting partisan accusations against Mr. Obama in a journalistic, documentary format in prime time.' It may be wise to use a direct quote, since the topic seems to be a sensitive one for some.FuriousJorge (talk) 07:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I see what FJ means. Quoting what he just said ´was notable in presenting partisan accusations against Mr. Obama in a journalistic, documentary format in prime time`. The key words are journalistic, documentary and prime time. precedent setting? probably.... Fahrenheit 9/11 was not a journalistic prime time documentary. Docku:“what up?” 14:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• It was shown on ABC during primetime. It is a documentary. It was presented as fact. Man on the street interviews, expose' style, using news clips and headlines. Sounds like a journalistic format. But of course none of you see this. If Michael Moore did the same thing to Obama he did to Bush, I bet you'd be pretty peeved. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

But it was not an ABC production. Please dont make the arguments personal. I see you are trying hard to whitewash this article. I dont really care. Docku:“what up?” 23:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Nor was this a production of FNC or Hannity. They aired it, but they didn't produce it. Same as ABC and F9/11. I'm not whitewashing, I'm showing that this isn't the "groundbreaking first" others are painting it to be. And I'm not making the arguement personal. Saying that I bet he'd be upset is my opinion. And observation. I didn't name call, accuse him of anything or generally make him out to be a bad guy. I'm simply saying "think about if it the shoe was on the other foot." Niteshift36 (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Then who produced it? Where did the money come from? Did it debut anywhere else , but Fox NEWS?. It would be interesting if you could find out with sources. Fahrenheit 9/11 was a documentary that premiered in theaters, and got plenty of news coverage before it made it to any of the networks. Hannity's America: Obama and Friends debuted on Hannity's program, and tried to 'pull a fast one' by using Martin, by any standards. Maybe you could help us all out by either suggesting a controversy that SHOULD go in, or at least why Hannity has never done anything controversial.67.84.209.140 (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Look, we can't pick and chose how reliable sources are depending on what they say. The NYT says it's 'notable' and was very specific as to why. I find it VERY difficult to believe that ABC aired Fahrenheit 9/11 without making at least some mention of Moorer's politics. Can you provide a source where ABC was criticized for it? Maybe you should be on ABC's wikipedia page trying to get that in there? Even if they 'glossed it over' by saying something like 'Moorer is a Kerry supporter', everyone knows where Michael Moorer. Martin makes Moorer look moderate, and was presented as an 'Obama Expert' and 'Internet Journalist'. 67.84.209.140 (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Look, I'm not going to waste time researching anything about F9/11. We had a neutral version that everyone was ok with. That is consensus. Why is this battle even happening? Why is there such a push to make things Martin said a topic of Hannity's profile? All this "it was a first" talk is a smoke screen to try to cover an effort to just try to cast Hannity in a worse light. You know what I find interesting? Not a single one of the editors making such an issue of it here has made a single edit in the Andy Martin article. Not one. The entry in the Martin article about this broadcast is 2 sentences. It looks to me like the broadcast isn't as much the issue as just trying to be negative about Hannity. Doesn't that strike anyone as odd? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Good grief, Charlie Brown, I can't believe how long this section of the talk page is getting. To summarize, FuiousJorge wants the biased nature of the Obama "documentary" to be emphasized. Gamaliel wants Andy Martin's anti-Semitism to be stressed and made more specific. Niteshift doesn't want either to be overly-emphasized (in his view), probably thinks it's WP:UNDUE among other things. I want the events of October 5, to be mentioned before the events of Oct7, though it's no big deal to me. I suggest that we cool it for about 34 hours, in part because there will be another Hannity's America installment of the Obama saga on Sunday, Oct. 19. Actually, it would probably be better to draft a more lasting section summarizing Hannity's treatment of the Obama candidacy after the election to put it in perspective and avoid WP:RECENTISM, with a fairly cursory mention for now. Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be news blogs. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• You are correct Badmiton. I do think this is most definately wp:recentism. 4 months from now, nobody will give a tinkers damn about it. 4 months from now, most of you will have something else to complain about from his show and forget all about this. And yes, again you are correct, I believe this is wp:undue. As I said, this is supposed to be about Hannity. When Gamiel wants to make it about Martin, that is wrong to me. And worrying about what the LA Times (who have endorsed Obama) says about it in an opinion piece really doesn't seem like it matters much since most of their complaint is the actual info, which is Martin's responsibility, not Hannity's. This is kind of like taking the article about Johnny Bench and making a big deal about the fact that he was on the same team as Pete Rose, then talking about Rose's gambling. Not to sound like a fan, but why are we writing this much over a broadcast he made once (and was repeated), showing a film he did not make, while none of you want to write a single sentence about how he has won 2 Marconi's. How many other hosts have won 2 of them? Why do we need to devote 2 full paragraphs to something negative (the others have done) and a single line to something positive that nobody else I can think of has done? My guess is because of bias. And while some here have accused me of much more bias than I am guilty of, they deny their own. To be honest, I think that is becoming the more important issue here to everyone involved. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know that you can speak for everyone. No one wants to make it about martin. If you don't want to worry about the LAT, then you should worry about the NYT, and all the other Reliable Sources that noticed it. If Johnny Bench has presented Pete Rose as an expert on ethics in sports, it would absolutely make it in to the article. I don't understand how the people and opinions appearing on his show are 'Not Hannity's Responsibility, as you clearly said. Did Rather get a pass on 'memogate'? No he didn't. You can't distance Hannity from it now. The show was a "Hannity's America Special Report." That hardly sounds like a rebroadcast of an indie film.67.84.209.140 (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• On a personal level, I could care less about the NYT. They are as biased as they can be. No, that isn't just my opinion. There are books on the topic. The NYT has never even endorsed a Republican for president. Never. But that is beside that point. Yes, you can call the opinion of a NYT writer a reliable source and use it. And the fact that they've had writers proven to be liars (Jayson Blair anyone?) doesn't mean this writer wrong. However, I highly doubt that even this writer would say he actually researched that single line everyone is getting so excited over. Your Rather example is a strawman. Rather was personally involved in the production of his story, which was presented on a newscast, not an opinion show. And when I said everyone agreed....several versions were presented. One was chosen. Nobody objected. When nobody objects, people commonly say "everyone" agreed. Bottom line, this is an incident of wp:weight and wp:recentism and 4 months from now, it won't be a blip in Hannity's life, which is supposed to the be topic of this article. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Your assertion that the NYT has never endorsed a Republican is simply false. Secondly, I can't tell if you are making the point that the NYT should not be trusted on any political issues, or just the ones that you don't agree with. Also, I dont' see how you can make the argument that Rather was more personally involved in the memogate story than Hannity was in his 'Special Report documentary'. Most disturbing is that you think in four months no one will care. This is only true if we let the people impersonating journalists on both sides get away with it. We have two major newspapers denouncing hannity, and whole slew of other sources. You still haven't found another example (because there is none), and you haven't told us who did produce the Faux-u-mentary, if Hannity didn't.FuriousJorge (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Docku. For the record, if Fahrenheit 9/11 or any film written, directed, and produced by Michael Moorer were presented on 'AC360' without considering the source, I would call that equally egregious.FuriousJorge (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Documenting this incident in the article is entirely inappropriate WP:COATRACKing. This section was added into the very midst of Hannity's professional biography, giving it much more WP:WEIGHT than it deserves. A better approach might be to create, in a sandbox, a section documenting (with quality, reliable sources) various criticisms of Hannity. This latest incident can then be put into appropriate context. This section can then be introduced in a Criticism section of the article, and then gradually merged in with the rest of the content. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it is inappropriate coattracking and recentism (it just happens to be something inappropriate that Mr. Hannity did recently), however I completely agree with your sandbox idea. Also, now that we have a criticisms section, can I just do a quick sanity check here: When two of the most circulated newspapers write a story about you, using terms like 'new low', 'plumbing the depths', 'next step in the evolution of cable news', 'was notable'; if that does not merit a mention in a criticism section in Wikipedia, then I would like to know what does. Just to be clear, the only thing I want changed is the following:

• Currently reads: "The broadcast was criticized for presenting a one-sided and partisan perspective in documentary format."

• Should read: "The show was criticized by multiple media outlets. The [New York Times] described the it as 'the latest step in the evolution of opinion journalism on cable news', and it went on to say the broadcast was 'notable in presenting partisan accusations against Mr. Obama in a journalistic, documentary format in prime time [31][32].'"

This way, everyone can consider the source(s) for themselves. Can we begin to bring this to a close by agreeing that this is the heart of the matter? I thought the anecdote about Obama Campaign Comm Dir Gibbs provided interesting context, but we can take it all out for all i care.FuriousJorge (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Purging

I say we will just purge the whole article of all criticisms if there is any left. (Isnt he one of the least controversial, lesser so than Campbell Brown?) Docku:“what up?” 02:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Silly rabbit's points, I think the Hannity article needs a couple of things: A section that summarizes Hannity's basic political positions, as well as a section, per Silly rabbit's suggestion, that presents criticisms of his ideas and/or of the way he conducts his various programs. The problem with the Obama & Friends -- Andy Martin section was that it abruptly popped up in the article as if it were a singularly significant occasion in his career. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Sillyrabbit has somewhat of a point, but the wholesale removal of the section after a lengthy debate to get the section in place was wrong. Asher196 (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Badmintonhist makes a good observation about my reaction to this section. How about we move this section to a later section? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I see this has already been done. Nice work. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been saying Hannity needs his own criticism section for some time. Someone must have been working diligently to keep it criticism free until now. Docku, you made an excellent point vis a vis Campbell Brown, assuming I correctly perceived sarcasm.FuriousJorge (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You got it right. There has been persistent effort to purge the article of any criticism of Hannity including Hal Turner controversy, while the information is is still sitting in another page in wikipedia. Having said that, I will not be surprised if there will be a crusade to remove that information from that article. WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG are the weapons used by the purgers. Wise arguments by a gang of people using those two nuances of wikipedia policies can keep pretty much keep any criticism out. Docku:“what up?” 20:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• I find it odd that you call wp:undue and wp:redflag "weapons". I thought they were supposed to be policy. You forgot to mention wp:recentism too. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

We all are smart people and we all know policies can be misunderstood and misinterpreted inadvertently and sometimes purposely. Isnt that why they removed DO NO HARM caluse from WP:BLP. Docku:“what up?” 21:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sure they can be interpreted differently. The problem is, some aren't even being addressed. At least 2 of us have brought up wp:recentism and I don't recall anyone even attempting to dispute that. Again, the man has won numeerous awards that are being ignored but we want paragraphs on the showing of a documentary he didn't have any hand in producing. That smells like wp:undue to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to criticism, but I do rather object to having a huge swatch of criticism dumped into the middle of the professional bio. Maybe I'm the only one who actually bothered to read the article when there was this giant screed on the Andrew Martin controversy right between "Television" and "Radio". It obviously didn't belong there, and having a lengthy criticism in the midst of a discussion of the banal details of his professional career is a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT, regardless of whatever paranoid fantasies you have about "gangs of people" attempting to censor articles by wielding two Wikipedia policies. (I think you left out WP:BLP as well.) siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that it does not to be dumped in the middle of the section, as you put it, and I don't think it was any of the people currently having this discussion that put it there. I don't think anyone objects to the move, either. I'm a little confused about who said there were 'gangs of people' attempting to censor.FuriousJorge (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Docku said "Wise arguments by a gang of people using those two nuances of wikipedia policies can keep pretty much keep any criticism out." Niteshift36 (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Nobody has opposed criticism. What has been opposed is making a huge deal over minor things. I had no issue with the inclusion of the consensus version about the Martin piece. It was well-written and neutral. It managed to stay up there a while until some editors decided they wanted to make is less balanced. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• • I continue to take issue with you saying this was a 'minor thing'. As I've already said: When two of the most circulated newspapers write stories about your program, using terms like 'new low', 'plumbing the depths', 'next step in the evolution of cable news', and, of course, 'was notable'; if that does not merit a mention in a criticism section in Wikipedia, ```then I would like to know what does.```FuriousJorge (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• However, when I look at Google, the LAT and NYT were really the only ones that made an issue of it. 2 papers that have endorsed the subject of the documentary come out against it and most of the rest of the media is mute. Why didn't other large papers like the Wall Street Journal or USA today (both of whom have larger circulations) make it an issue? NY Daily News? Chicago Tribune? Washington Post? Boston Globe? Why aren't we seeing it from them? If we heard those same arguements, it might carry a lot more weight. But this is really limited to the opinions of 2 individuals, both of which work for papers with a documented history of bias. If this were truly an issue with as much weight as you are claiming it should have, there should be a number of people claiming it. After all, you said it's groundbreaking. Did they all just miss it? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Since you brought it up, Hannity's use of Martin is also criticized in the CBC . In a story called "Obama 'Muslim' rumour: Ugly, false and out in the open". And here it is again referenced by a Canadian group called 'Media With Conscience'. And in the Miami Herald it says: "He provided the gravitas for Sean Hannity's hour-long substance-free pseudo-documentary exposing how Obama has long been bent on the 'radical overthrow of the government.'" in an article entitled 'For Fox News, local nut case a good source'. Finally, we have Divbision Street, which is NBC's chicago weblog outlet. The author says that upon finding out who Martin was 'you’re reaction cannot be anything other than, What?!' Mind you, there are many other sources which I would not consider impartial that also 'made an issue of it', and for all you know there are a dozen others like these that you weren't able to find in Google. So now we have a total of 7 sources criticizing Hannity and Fox, three of which called it precedent setting. Respectfully, ou seem to be helping my case more than your own. As such I know contend the change should be made as follows:

• Currently reads: "The broadcast was criticized for presenting a one-sided and partisan perspective in documentary format."

• Should read: "Fox News and the show drew criticism from multiple media outlets. The [New York Times] described the it as 'the latest step in the evolution of opinion journalism on cable news', and it went on to say the broadcast was 'notable in presenting partisan accusations against Mr. Obama in a journalistic, documentary format in prime time [31][32].' The Miami Herald wrote an article entitled For Fox News, local nut case a good source'[33]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.209.140 (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • Apparently you missed what I said. I never said nobody else criticized it. Nobody else made this claim that is was "a first" or "the next step" or anything so dramatic. They simply reported on it and criticised it. None of those sources made it some industry altering step of unusual note. And that is the point. Of the thousands of newspapers in the US, it seems only 2 found it to be such an earth shattering event. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oh I see. We may have 8 sources now, but since only three describe it as a 'first' of some type, it cannot be considered a first, and therefore should not be included at all (not that you will provide a counterexample). Well, I answered your questions, so would you please address mine: If this doesn't constitute noteable criticism, and shouldn't make it into wikipedia, then what does? Your assertion is that the NYT and LAT are biassed, and as such shouldn't be referenced. Can you prvide just one example of the New York Times being rejected as a Wikipedia source? Of course not. This is now bordering on the absurd. The Huffington Post is cited in Wikipedia, and I haven't even tried to go there. What's wrong with citing the information and let the people judge the source for themselvs. Unlike Mr. Hannity, I don't try to hide my sources.FuriousJorge (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Also, its just false that no other outlet called it a first, since scores of them cited the New York Times and LAT articles, specifically the parts about 'new low' and 'next step'.FuriousJorge (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Will you be realisitic. Quoting or citing those 2 articles is not calling it "new low" or "next step" themselves. If they wanted to call it that, they could have said so instead of citing other people. It still comes back to two writers giving an opinion. So it's not "false" as you accuse, it's common sense. There is a huge difference in saying it and reporting that someone else said it. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm the one being unrealistic? I'm not the one contending criticism from the LAT and NYT should not be included in the man's criticism section. Much to your chagrin, there is now a section about criticism in this article. Two major media outlets, which are ALWAYS considered reliable sources for wikipedia called it a 'new low' and the 'next step' etc. That is a criticism, and as such it bears mentioning. Sorry to disappoint you. You, apparently, want to set your own precedent by only including the NYT and LAT in the category of 'reliable sources' when they say something you like. Your position is clear. Let's see if anyone agrees. Until then, I say we stick with the existing precedent, which invloves noting criticisms in the Criticism Section, and citing our source. Let's let people decide for themselves if the LAT and NYT can be trusted as sources in wikipedia. I say "You don't get to decide for them." What a crazy concept.FuriousJorge (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Also, you complain that this is just the 'opinion' of a couiple of preople, and all the people that cited them. Since when is 99% of criticism not opinion?FuriousJorge (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the incident as it is may be a case of WP:Recentism. But, the precedent-setting nature of this incident is not. Docku:“what up?” 21:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Just for laughs, I found another source for criticism of the Hannity documentary. An article in Variety.com cites an a poem written by John Cleese, of Monty Python fame, inspired by the documentary: Ode to Sean Hannity: Aping urbanity / oozing with vanity / plump as a manatee / faking humanity / Journalistic calamity / intellectual inanity / Fox Noise insanity / You're a profanity, Hannity. FuriousJorge (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I reverted this back to a version that describes the precedent set by Hannity as per two MSM sources, otherwise it misses the point and makes it sound like Hannity merely had someone controversial on his show. The next step is someone coming along and saying it is not notable. Then this entire article will go back to having no criticism of hannity at all, like when I found it. The NYT explains the significance quite cogently by saying the show was: 'the latest step in the evolution of opinion journalism on cable news [and] was notable in presenting partisan accusations against Mr. Obama in a journalistic, documentary format in prime time.' That's the point here, and merely mentioning that Martin was on misses it. Everyone agreed to the version that went in, and it shouldn't have been whitewashed. I did leave the 'mea culpa' by the fox vp in however, since there was no defense of Hannity in the original version. FuriousJorge (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Honorary Titles should not be listed as "Education"

Thank you Niteshift36 for your comment regarding the honorary degree on my user page. I agree with you that an honorary title is significant and should be listed in the article. The problem is that is incorrectly listed in the "education" section. The education section allows the reader to get an idea of how much schooling a person had. An honorary doctorate degree is not "education" but is an honorary "title" (it is a custumary award for commencement speakers). For this reason, I am reverting your edit. However, Mr Hannity has won several awards over the years; perhaps you could start an new section- and include his honorary title in that section. Richprentice (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Richprentice

Hal Turner....again

Lest you think I'm a Hannity staffer, please note that I put the Andrew Martin section back in the article in a new criticism section after it was removed. The Hal Turner information has to stay out unless a new source is found. The The Nation reference discussion has been talked to death. Being a BLP, we need multiple quality reliable sources for such contentious material. If it's that hard to find a better source, then the information doesn't belong in a BLP. Asher196 (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I put the Hal Turner info back. Docku reminded me that I need to step back. Have fun! Asher196 (talk) 02:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't put that stuff in there. I'm waiting for some sort of conclusion on the matters above. However, I've nothing better to do, here's something from an official NewsVine contributor. http://coryperry.newsvine.com/_news/2008/03/29/1398872-hal-turner-offers-to-release-sean-hannity-tapes-for-100000 In it, the author says, "Hal Turner is a known (and self-admitted) neo-nazi racist who used to frequently call into the Sean Hannity show. Sean and Hal supposedly became pretty good friends over that period of time and spoke a lot off air, where Hal Turner says that Sean agreed with many of his same views." Also, in The Record of North Jersey, dated 02/23/2003, by staff writer Brian Kladko, in an article entitled 'A voice filled with hatred, intolerance', Turner describes the fallout with Hannity: 'Turner, however, says Limbaugh and Hannity became too timid'. Finally, we have a story about a lawsuit by Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, entitled 'Experts: McKinney libel claims face a tough road', there's a line that reads "Comments urging McKinney's lynching [were] attributed to Hal Turner, described as an associate of radio and television commentator Sean Hannity."

FuriousJorge (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• So a guy you think is a scumbag (Turner), makes the claim that they are friends and you want to go with it? Do I have this correct? He has offered no evidence besides his say so, right? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I had forgotten that I was threatened with blocking a few months ago by an admin if I continued this fight. I'm not stepping back because I think I'm wrong. Asher196 (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Niteshift36: You're right. I'm gonna go with the line from the 'The Record of North Jersey' Which criticizes Hal from North Bergen and the hosts that put him on the air. It's a non-biased source, the event is more significant now that we all agree the Andy Martin controversy is fit to print, Silly Rabbit recommended a criticism sandbox, DockU has no problem with it if it's properly cited (right, Doc?); it seems like I am the only one not involved in the previous discussion, and as such I am the one settling this matter. Personally, I don't think you should be the final word on determining what gets into the article, and what doesn't.

• You know what Jorge, you need to calm down. I actually have no objection to the way you have proposed phrasing it. I do object to your snotty attitude telling me that I think I am the final word. I think it is uncalled for and pretty presumptious of you. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Sincere apologies, if my interpretation of events offended you. It sounded to me like you were continuing to argue its general inclusion in light of the new source.No hard feelings.FuriousJorge (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• No, my opposition was based on making the source solely the word of a guy who you essentially have labelled as a kook in the first place. Did you witness the big blow-up about the John Edwards affair? An actual publication (the Enquirer) was making the claim, but was deemed unreliable, despite their claim of evidence. Admins and noticeboards were involved. The info was excluded. It turned out later to be true. But since WP:BLP holds a higher standard to contentious material, it wasn't allowed until multiple sources confirmed it. Simply going on the word of Turner that it was true probably wouldn't meet the reliability standard. See what I'm talking about? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• • As such I'm gonna put it in another criticism section as follows: "In 2003, Hannity was criticized for providing a forum on his radio program to self-described neo-nazi Hal Tuerner.

FuriousJorge (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, my contraints revolve around the Nation source. If you are going to use a different source, then I'll jump back in. What exactly is that source you are citing? Asher196 (talk) 03:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The Record of North Jersey criticized Hannity for giving Hal from North Bergen a forum. See my comment above. FuriousJorge (talk) 03:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Did The Record of North Jersey actually criticize Hannity for allowing Turner to sound-off on Hannity's program or did it merely objectively note that Hannity had let Turner use his frequency frequently? There's a difference, even if this sounds like nit-picking. If it was an actual criticism it would normally be expressed in an editorial not a news story. Assuming it was a clear cut criticism of Hannity, the source should be credited right in the text of the Wikipedia article; something like "In 2003 The Record of North Jersey castigated Hannity for providing a forum for neo-Nazi Hal Turner" (per WP:Weasel ). Also, your mention that Hannity has since repudiated Turner is sourced by what appears to me to be an opinion blog. You might need a more reliable source per WP:RS. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I need to correct myself. It was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Record_(Bergen_County). I just realized and had an editing conflict with you.FuriousJorge (talk) 05:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think we need to keep in mind that 'Hal from North Bergen' incidents took place well before Hannity was nationally syndicated, so I think we are holding it to an almost impossibly high standard (Few other papers would have been speaking to Hannity's media market at the time). That doesn't make it less controversial, however. Hannity has been confronted on the show about Turner, and renounced him. This will continue to be an issue, and people will continue to visit this page wanting to put it in. Also, I need to correct myself. Its the The Record that has the article I cited. FuriousJorge (talk) 05:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it's a little ironic that with all the the time people have spent here and on other sites documenting this, that there is a question as to whether there is a controversy. This discussion page may be the answer to that question, in and of itself.FuriousJorge (talk) 07:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Badmintonhist, while the article is a criticism of Turner and his racist views, technically it only implicitly criticizes Limbaugh and Hannity for having him on on. It's not nit-picking; you're right. As such, I'll edit the section accordingly.FuriousJorge (talk) 07:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Just as a point of clarity, I believe you are misreading the article. Turner may criticize Limbaugh but he has never been a guest on Limbaugh's show. You can count the times Limbaugh has had a guest on his show on your fingers. He doesn't do the guest thing. It is very rare and when he does, they are usually very heavy hitters, not some low end guy like Turner. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I continue to advocate that edit warriors on this *extremely* stale topic should be blocked without further warning, but I don't work on Wikipedia often enough these days that I feel I could enforce this measure equitably. I'd encourage you all to seek out other methods of dispute resolution, up to and including asking for input from other uninvolved administrators. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm good with this proposed entry as Jorge wrote it. But I suspect it will end up like the Andy Martin entry. Someone writes something that everyone agrees on, it stays up for a few days and then someone comes along, changes it around and it makes it look like an edit war again. All the "warring" can be avoided if we simply talk it out FIRST, then put it up. Both times, a neutral version that was acceptable to most everyone was found. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I support inclusion as proposed by Jorge. Esp in light of the Andy Martin incident. The Turner material is noteworthy, well-sourced and adds historical context. Jimintheatl (talk) 12:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks again, for all the input. I took it upon myself to make a small changes that I think both sides will accept. I changed the word Relationship to Association, because I feel the former carries a connotation of 'friendship', which is a matter of dispute in this case. The word 'Association' on the other hand sounds more neutral, is not disputed by any party, and seems fitting in 'historical context' (as the note requests). I also prettied up the language and syntax a bit, and put the two events in chronological order.FuriousJorge (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Citizenship question

What is the basis of Hannity's Irish citizenship? The usual rules are

1. born in this country, parents any nationality
2. born in another country, parents American citizens
3. married in another country to a foreign citizen

According to the article, he's 2nd generation, born in NYC, which doesn't appear to support non-US citizenship. What's missing from our information?

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 03:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the specifics in this case, but the Irish citizenship article says that it is fairly easy to acquire if at least one grandparent was born there. (The grandparent would be a natural-born citizen, the parent would be a citizen for being the child of a natural-born citizen, and the grandchild could claim it as being the child of an Irish citizen.) It would appear that Irish citizenship can be, in theory, passed on generation through generation, so long as the next generation takes the time to claim it, whereas American citizenship can't be. AlexiusHoratius 04:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting! Thanks for taking the time to determine an answer.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• I was kind of wondering that myself and was going to ask about a source of it for the article. I do know that since the US doesn't prohibit dual citizenship, it's not an issue, I just wondered where that factoid was found. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The article does not reference a source for the statement that Hannity has dual citizenship. Does anyone know where this comes from? Newguy34 (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it's a matter of public record obtainable through FoA. What I questioned was the how and why. Obtaining multiple citizenship is not illegal nor improper, but it must have an established basis. To be clear, there's no implication of impropriety.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• So without a source, should we keep it? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

First, I am not sure how it would be in the public domain unless someone put it there through an interview or biography. Really, only he knows if he is a dual citizen. Dual citizenship is not diffucult to obtain. I know this because I have dual citizenship with the US (by birth in the US to an American father) and Canada (by birth to a Canadian mother). Most countries do not prohibit it. As to the text in the BLP, I say, no source, no text on this point. Newguy34 (talk) 04:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's relevant, it's part of his background, and let's not go through The Purge again. I mean, how could it not be relevant?

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 05:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Do I think it is relevant to a biography? Absolutely. The question, again, is should it be included without a source? I ask this because we have an editor who keeps deleting that Hannity dropped out of college for finincial reasons. He said this in interviews, but it's not in a written source I can find. That would also be relevant (as would Hannity's characterization of himself as an "indifferent student" in college), but without a source...... Niteshift36 (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If something is not properly sourced, it can not be included in a BLP, especially if it involves a bit of controversy. Wiki's thoughts on this matter are clear. Newguy34 (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(dryly) Can we prove Hannity is an American? Do we have a source for it?

As far as I know, it's not controversial, merely interesting.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(with a look of dismay) If we don't have a source for something, be it citizenship, favorite color, or religious preference, we ought not include it in the BLP. I don't know if it is controversial or not, but we sure have spent a lot of band-width talking about this "non-controversial" point... Newguy34 (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, it's interesting. No, I don't see it as particularly controversial. Yes, we can prove Hannity is an American. I hear you Newguy34, it's more of a debate to me of whether we should just fact tag it or delete it. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Tag it. Move on. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 02:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with the tag, since I think I am the one that added it. Let's move on. Newguy34 (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Absurd

this section....

Hannity is frequently criticized by media outlets, and by a one-time guest on his show, for providing a forum on his late 1990s WABC radio program to self-described neo-nazi Hal Turner. Phil Boyce, program director at WABC-AM, told The Record of Bergen County, New Jersey that Turner's views were "inappropriate," and that they stopped taking his calls when "basically, the shows didn't feel he was of value anymore." For his part, Turner said that Hannity had become too "timid" and "politically correct".

This is baffling. This article has sources such as The Huffington Post to describe a conservative. This is a violation of WP:BLP and I'm removing this section lest someone comes up with a much more neutral way to describing this controversy, say it even exists (which mainstream sources say Hannity outright denies. You can't use this rubbish as sources for BLP articles which must use only the best, most main stream, and unbiased sources avaliable. Digital^Ninja 17:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

What about 39th ref? Docku:“what up?” 17:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean what about 39th ref? That question doesn't really have context. The article has been improved by adding information from an unecessary section into the main body as per WP:STYLE. "Criticism sections should be avoided". Additionally, I removed blatantly BLP violating sources and removed redundant POV information. This is much better... Digital^Ninja 17:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I noted the critics of Hannity vis-a-vis Hal Turner were liberal, which should bring it back into compliance with WP:BLP. This is how it read before, and it shouldn't have been changed. Also, if we are going to say the show drew criticism from 'multiple' liberal media outlets we should have more than one citation, right?FuriousJorge (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I think that's much more neutral and in line with BLP, not to mention informative. Cheers, Digital^Ninja 16:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

References

Why do some of the references in the article include the tag <nowiki> in them? I was just replacing some of the dead links with forms from the Internet Archive, and came accross them. It looks sort of odd to have a really long URL as the only thing listed for them. Refs numbered 9 and 29 for example, seems out of place. Just my opinion, and wondering why this was there. Killiondude (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that as well, and I thought perhaps they had something to do with the reftag or layout? I'm not real sure, and I'm glad you removed them because I wanted to as well. Additionally, the refs need to be tagged properly because there is a lot of just bare links. I'll work on it some this evening. Digital^Ninja 18:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz

Malik Shabazz shouldn't link to Malcolm X's page. Although Malcolm X was known as Malik Shabazz, the Malik Shabazz who was on Hannity's show was not Malcolm X but was instead named after him. It was not Malcolm X himself, as Malcolm X was murdered in 1965, when Hannity was only 4 years old. I doubt he was hosting a radio show, much less one that interviewed radical civil rights activists at that age.

• It shouldn't be there anyway. That reference wasn't from a NPOV source and why ae we including him anyway? The article already contains sufficient criticism about the topic. I deleted it. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• • I have to interject here. There is nothing requiring sources to be of NPOV. Opinion, even strong opinion is perfectly acceptable so long as it's properly attributed to the person who holds that opinion. --69.176.60.175 (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• You misunderstand. The opinion doesn't have to be neutral, but the source does. Alternet isn't neutral. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think the correct version was as I left it, citing the outlets as either left-leaning or 'Liberal' and linking back to the American Liberalism article. That said, I will leave it as is until someone comes along and removes it for being biased. At which point I will put it back, with the correct reference to the political stances of the media outlets, and all 5-8 sources.FuriousJorge (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Why is the opinion of a single person so important to put in this article? The article contains criticism. Why does it have to contain something from Shabazz in particular? Niteshift36 (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Negativity

This section is extremely negative:

"The October 5, 2008 broadcast of Hannity's America entitled Obama & Friends: The History of Radicalism presented Andy Martin as an expert on Barack Obama, without noting Martin's political stances and history of anti-Semitism. Fox News and the show drew criticism from multiple media outlets. The LA Times media columnist James Rainey described the piece as a "faux documentary" and a "new low".[18] The New York Times said the broadcast was "the latest step in the evolution of opinion journalism on cable news" and went on to say that the broadcast "was notable in presenting partisan accusations against Mr. Obama in a journalistic, documentary format in prime time."[19]. Fox Senior Vice President Bill Shine later stated that having Martin on was a mistake and added that it was a result of inadequate research."

Some parts of this are unnecessary. I'm editing it down.PokeHomsar (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The statement about Martin becomes virtually meaningless unless the reference to his anti-Semitism or, at the very least his alleged anti-Semitism, is included. Pretty good evidence has been presented that Martin has engaged in grossly anti-Semitic propaganda. Unless you can defend him convincingly the reference should be included. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Badminstohnist, except that I would call Martin's anti-Semitism a matter of public record, and not just 'good evidence'. He wrote it into his frivolous lawsuits.FuriousJorge (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

reference

removed a reference because it linked to Huffington Post and did not present an article.Mbr1983 (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

MediaMatters "award"

Several editors keep trying to add this faux award into the article. This "award" is given by a writer who rights a blog for a partisan organization, Media Matters. It's not like there is some vote by the organization or something, this is strictly this writers opinion. The organization is partisan and has an on-going feud with Hannity. I strongly suspect that the same editors would find neutrality and relevence problems if a blog writer at someplace like the Swift Boat vets site gave a fake "award" to Hannity, calling it "media hero of the year" and that got included in the article. Yesterday, just after the "award", Hannity "awarded" Media Matter the "Left-Wing Obamamania Media Propaganda Sleaze Award". Will those same editors make the same effort to include that "award" in the article on Media Matters? To sum it up: This is the opinion of a blog writer for a partisan site. It's not real and doesn't bleong in a biography article. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Please deal in facts. It's not a blog; it's clearly identified as a progressive organization, so neutrality is not an issue. Inclusion is warranted.Jimintheatl (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• It is an opinion column from an individual working for a partisan organization. Neutrality is an issue, as is relevance. Please do not add it back in until the matter has been discussed. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

This is an award given by the organization not just one blogger. Yes, Hannity has an on-going feud with this organization, so notability and inclusion is warranted. --Jmundo (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's not an organization award. It is that columnist who decided and puts it in his column. It is as "legitimate" as the one Hannity made to them. Will you support the inclusion of the Hannity award in the Media Matter article? If you would, then I might re-consider my opposition. In any case, I'd like to see more discussion before it gets put back in. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, you're not dealing in facts. Media Matters issues this award annually (Chris Matthews, ABC and Bill O'Reilly are past winners).Jimintheatl (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have never said this was a first. The fact that you are missing is that it is the sole determination of the columnist (ie just his opinion) and it "awarded" in the form of just expressing his opinion in his column. This is no more an "award" than Hannity expressing his opinion with his so-called "award" on his show. Unlike the other awards mentioned in the bio, this "award" isn't really covered my the mainstream media. It is "covered" by partisan sites like MM and Huffington Post. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The important policy here is WP:BLP, which says that we can't put negative information into a biography of a living person unless it's solidly sourced. If the only source is the site that's presenting the award, I'd say that that's not enough to warrant inclusion. If other mainstream sources start talking about it though, then maybe. --Elonka 15:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

seems like a regular every year award. Chris Matthews' 2005 award is mentioned in his page. Docku: What up? 15:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it needs to come out of that article, too. I think you all are missing a point here. This fake "award" is strictly one guy's opinion of Hannity, and as such adds no value to the article. What would make more sense is to list reliably-sourced information that would support why this so-called "award" was given. Without that, it's nothing but a pot-shot and doesn't belong. And in case you're wondering, I personally cannot stand Sean Hannity. But that fact doesn't belong in the article either. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed from Matthews' page as well. But, it is interesting that Media matters, a supposedly liberal media has awarded this award to Matthews, a supposedly liberal commentator. BTW, it is little intriguing when people get themselves involved in article discussion and claim they personally "dislike" the subject. is not necessary. Docku: What up? 16:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I only bring that up to fend off any possible accusations that I'm a Hannity kiss-up. Actually he's OK as long as he's not talking politics. I don't know if I would classify Matthews as a liberal, as such. He's more of a moderate, and more of a devil's advocate. Of course, he looks moderate anyway, when he's followed up by Olbermann and Maddows. I would make the same argument about the Matthews article as about this one. The "award", by itself, is meaningless - it just says "we don't like this guy". If it were backed up with some substance, from a source other than just Media Matters, then it might be fair to bring it up as an oh-by-the-way. "This organization 'awarded' so-and-so this 'award' because of the following issues..." But then it gets to be a question whether it's about the guy, or about the TV show. That's where the BLP concerns come into play. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'd still like to hear someone who supports the inclusion tell me if the "Left-Wing Obamamania Media Propaganda Sleaze Award" that Hannity awarded them (which is mentioned on their own website BTW) should be included in the MM article. If not, what makes his award any less legitimate, particularly since they recognized it on their own website? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Ironically, the policies would suggest it's more fitting to mention that fake award on the MediaMatters page, because that's an organization rather than a person. Or is it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• This award is mention by third party sources like The New Mexico Independent and The Examiner, etc. We judge this article on its merits alone, not how well it compares to whatever other subject you might choose to compare it to. Being Hannity such a controversial person, it's interesting that we lack a section on criticism.--Jmundo (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• • • Have you even read the article? There is criticism under both the Radio and Television sections. Just because there isn't a section labelled "criticism" doesn't mean the article is devoid of criticism. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• • It doesn't matter who else "mentions" this so-called "award". To place it in the article with no context is inappropriate. If you want to propose a criticisms section, as with Bill O'Reilly for example, then that's another story. But even at that, there is no place for this "award" without some kind of elaboration on why. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Describing Media Matters as a "liberal" organization, provides no context? This is a short and concise description of criticism abiding by WP:LIVE, WP:NPOV and WP:V. --Jmundo (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• MM states, as part of its own description, that their mission is "monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.". They have no intention of doing the same to non-conservative sources. They describe themselves as "progressive", which is simply a prettied up version of liberal. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Leave it out for now. If "this" becomes some kind of big deal and is widely covered, then maybe include it. --Tom 18:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Ironically, describing it as a liberal organization automatically negates any point in putting it in the article - because any semi-extremist person or organization might make such an "award" to any opposite-semi-extremist person or organization. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• How notable is the honorary degree given to Hannity by Jerry Falwell, when the source is the University's website? I argue that we should apply the same standard to all "awards". I'm deleting this award until we can find a reliable third-party source.--Jmundo (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Honorary degrees are frequently mentioned in WP:BLP articles. I can list you a lot of non-controversial bio's that routinely list these, ranging from Billy Graham to Maya Angelou to Stephen Colbert. The mention was originally in his personal info section, until another editor objected to it being there, arguing that it should be listed under awards and honors. See the talk page entry above. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is about Hannity: WP:OSE--Jmundo (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm quite aware of the topic. I am pointing out what is a commonly accepted practice in WP:BLP articles. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Be wary of making pointy edits. Make sure you're deletion is in good faith and isn't retaliation for the resistance you are getting on the edit you want. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I assure you that my edits are in good faith. Per the discussion, please provide third-party references to verify notability of the "honorary" degree. --Jmundo (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• No need for a third party reference. The reference of the MM award isn't the issue, it is the so-called award itself, which is the opinion of the blogger, not an actual award. A university website is considered a NPOV source in this case. It is not promoting its viewpoint or pushing an agenda. It is simply imparting information about an event.Niteshift36 (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

An honorary degree is an actual award, not just an editorial comment. If I may make a trivial comparison, consider an MLB award for MVP. That's a notable honor, and would typically have some context, such as statistical superiority, and it may also come with some controversy. On the other hand, some editorial writer might invent an "award" that so-and-so was the "Least Valuable Player". If that player's article carried that so-called "award", but with no context, it should be stricken as being POV-pushing and meaningless. If it's backed up with some stats, such as a low level of performance vs. a high salary, then it's got some context. Ya follow? 20:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Excellent analogy.I wish I'd thought of it. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Specific to this question, I don't necessarily have a problem with mentioning this so-called "award" as such. It needs a proper context, such as "MediaMatters gave this 'award' to Hannity based on the following issues.... Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Even more specific, I'd find it less controversial if it was included, in context, with other criticisms about his radio or tv show. It most definately doesn't belong under awards and honors. To balance the entry, mention might be made than Hannity responded to the so-called "award" with his own award of the "Left-Wing Obamamania Media Propaganda Sleaze Award" to MM. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. It's not an "award or honor" except in a satirical way... such as the "least valuable player". Its proper place, if any, is in a criticism section with appropriate detail as to what the complaints are, beyond "we don't like this guy." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• • I'm glad that we can find consensus. I'm including the Media Matter criticism in the TV section providing a proper context. I leave to another editor the task of including Hannity's response. --Jmundo (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

See, everyone is happy. All I asked for was discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Done....?Jimintheatl (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this. Non notable award from smear site isn't needed. --Tom 15:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a controversial topic and any change should be discussed.--Jmundo (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It has, it looks like most NPOV editor don't think it belongs. Now for the agenda pushing editors, that is a different matter. Why is it SO important to incluide this "material" in the bio? No need to answer, its pretty clear. --Tom 16:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• We are discussing the merits of this edit. Refrain from personal attacks. --Jmundo (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I am just commenting about agenda pushing editors, nothing wrong with that. Again, WHY is it SO important to include this non notable material? Even Baseball Bugs seemed to be scratching his head on this one and we know what a fan of Hannity he is :) --Tom 17:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

What's that saying about glass houses....I don't know what "agendas" may or may not exist, but the very idea of pure objectivity is silly. The MM award is notable because MM is probably the premiere progressive media watchdog org in the US (they are a regular source in the media whenever issues of "conservative bias/misinformation" is an issue. This award is not a random "blogger comment" as was suggested earlier, but an annual award which does receive media attention, and attention from the subject himself. I have no problem including Hannity's response.Jimintheatl (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'd like to take issue with what you just blamed on me. He writes a regular blog for MM. But it is still a blog (which is clearly stated right at the top of his page) and one who writes a blog is called a blogger, aren't they? I never called it random. I never said it wasn't something that he never awarded before or doesn't do each of the past couple years. What I have said is that it is solely based on his opinion. Do you have evidence that it is based on more than that, like a vote or poll or something? To recap: Is it improper to call someone who writes a blog a blogger? Do you have evidence that this "award" is based on anything other than the bloggers opinion? If the answer to either of these is yes, please explain. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the unfortunate placement of an "ad banner(?)" for "County Fair" created the confusion. The award is clearly designated as coming from the organization, not a person. County Fair is written by two people, neither of whom wrote the award column. If you click on the ad banner or go to County Fair, the award is not mentioned.Jimintheatl (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• That may be. Can either of you tell me this: How is the award actually determined? Is this an editorial board decision? O board of Directors? Member vote? Did they even consider anyone else this year? I really like Bugs' example of someone calling a player the "least valuable player". I think it's spot on. The other thing is the partisan battle between MM and Hannity. They focus solely on "conservatives", which excludes other facets. Yet they call the award "Misinformer of the Year", without disclosing in talking about the award that it is limited only to conservatives. While you feel it adds to relevence, I feel it takes away from it. Let's just look at this as a common sense issue. An "award" in common usage is something you want, earn or even seek, like an Academy Award or Grammy. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Media Matters focus is not solely on conservatives. The website has a piece about Blitzer (CNN), Wash. Times and NBC. The 2006 award when to ABC for the "Path to 9/11" miniseries.--Jmundo (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• You say they don't, but they say that is their focus. From their website: "Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time." Do you have some inside information that refutes what they claim in their own website? And again, I will ask, does anyone know how the "award" is picked? BTW, the 2006 award to ABC was because they felt they were advancing a conservative viewpoint. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

MM focuses on conservative misinformation, not conservative personalities. While they do much of their reporting on false or misleading claims by conservative outlets, they also monitor the "liberal" mainstream media for what is known as the "echo chamber" effect, i.e., when a conservative-developed meme gains foothold in the "liberal" media. As for the award, my understanding is that it is akin to Time's Man of the Year---staff/editorial decision.Jimintheatl (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Can you tell me where you got the understanding that it was a staff decision? I find it difficult to hold an old, mainstream print publication like Time in the same esteem as a partisan, internet based activist group. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

One clarification: I was not "blaming" you. At least one other editor mentioned, inaccurately, that this was just one guy's opinion. Apologies if it seemed that way. MM has given this "award" for about 5 years, so it isn't a "one blogger" thing, even if the "award" status is ironic. Further, like it or not, and I'm not sure I do, the net is soon to supersede old-time print media.Jimintheatl (talk) 03:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

As for whether they considered others, a companion article details other notable misinformation.Jimintheatl (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• This debate reminds me of the annual "Idiotarian of the Year" award given out by Little Green Footballs (you can probably guess at its purpose). As I recall, the eventual decision there was to not mention it in the biographies of recipients. "Awards" that are in reality little more than editorial insults toward the recipient are generally non-notable, and I'd say that one from some guy at Media Matters would fall into that category. --Hiddekel (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, unless it recieves a ton of coverage and becomes noteworthy which is not the case here. --Tom 19:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I want to further add, after reading the disputed edits, that this is obviously an attempt by some to reintroduce criticism into a biography article which by apparent consensus lacks a criticism section. I find that improper. If you want to include criticism, don't try sneaking it in through the back door, add it in an appropriate section or create a criticism fork and defend it from the inevitable deletion attempts. --Hiddekel (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule

Greetings everyone. In the past 24 hours I've noticed this article has become somewhat of a reverting hot-spot. Some editors have made three reverts. I urge all to cease reverting for the time being; and, please come here to the talk page before making any further reverts. Note: the Three Revert Rule is taken seriously. Any further violations will result in a block.

I further urge participants to continue their discussion here, and perhaps engage in the dispute resolution process. At this point, I can recommend Third Opinion or a Request for Comment. Kindest regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have protected this page until disputes can be solved on the talk page. It has been the result of at least TWO unrelated edit wars in less than 24 hours; please solve the disputes on the talk page from now on! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll on Media Matters award mention

Just a quick tally of where folks stand. Thanks,

Straw polling is not a means of achieving consensus. The current edit, which includes both the MM award and Hannity's response, seemed to have achieved consensus until some latecomers to the discussion started deleting the agreed upon edit.Jimintheatl (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

achieved consensus? By 3-4 editors and even then it seemed like there wasn't total agreement on how to treat this new material. The poll is just trying to see where folks currently stand and a start to reach a true and current consensus. Anyways, it doesn't look like too many folks are interested right now. Maybe after the Holidays :) Cheers! --Tom 22:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• It is worth noting that in the original discussion about it, I never actually supported it being there, but at least got it to be reasonably balanced. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • • Actually, in the original discussion, you said you were "happy" with the current edit.

        *
         o I'm glad that we can find consensus. I'm including the Media Matter criticism in the TV section providing a proper context. I leave to another editor the task of including Hannity's response. --Jmundo (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

See, everyone is happy. All I asked for was discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC) Jimintheatl (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• That is taken out of context. You forget where I said "I'd find it less controversial if it was included, in context, with other criticisms about his radio or tv show.". "Less controversialisn't a ringing endorsement. And now you want to take my attempt at being civil and conciliatory and use it as an endorsement? Sheesh, so much for trying to be a nice guy. Next time, I'll just stay adversarial if you plan to use attempts at civility as "proof" of something it wasn't intended to be. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Include mention

• looks fair and balanced to me, as is.
• Mentioning the award is not, in my opinion, a matter of any great importance, but I do feel that mentioning it in the "Professional life" section in addition to the comments already made about criticism and Media Matters would be justified. TennysonXII (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Do not include mention

1. --Tom 14:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
2. I say do not include, but if it must be included, should be balanced with Hannity's response (his "award" to them), like the compromise we worked out before. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
3. No need to include.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 23:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
4. I think not, for reasons stated above. --Hiddekel (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Pass, for the reasons discussed above. Newguy34 (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

New show

Would someone with editing rights mind adding a link to his new show Hannity and possibly a disambiguation link if you think it's necessary? I wrote a very, very bare bones article when I found that Hannity simply redirected here - hopefully wikilinking to the new article will encourage others to elaborate. Thanks. Narco (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• This might sound dumb, but is it a new show? Or simply the same old show, without Colmes? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't sound dumb at all. I expressed a similar concern at Talk:Hannity. Like I said on that page, time will tell. Thompsontough (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

To answer the questions, yes and yes. Its a new show, and its the old show without Colmes. Hope that clears things up. Seriously, what do reliable sources say? Not sure if this is a good analogy, but a little like Meet the Press? Actually, bad analogy. Anyways, --Tom 19:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• To use an example, look at the article on CBS evening news. There aren't seperate articles for the evening news with Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather etc. Just one because it is the same program, same time, same network. Just who was sitting in the chair changed. That's how I see this. Hannity is on the same network, in the same time slot, just with one of the 2 hosts gone. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)