Discussion is locked
Not a sin in itself, but involving his show is not good journalistic ethics. Not that anyone seems ot practice ethically these days, certainly not CBS, NBC or ABC. However...
He intended to give the money to the Tea Party,essentially making his show and the Fox Network a fundraising arm of the Tea Party.
seems to be a bit of a stretch...
His plan would CLEARLY have made him a fundraiser for the Tea Party group. It would have made Fox News a fundraiser, at least indirectly, since the network provides the infrastructure for Hannity's broadcast.
I don't watch TV news programs or the talking heads who pose as 'analysts' and 'commentators' so I don't have any opinion about the general state of broadcast journalistic ethics but I cannot imagine how a legitimate news organization could fail to fire him for this.
from that other conspiracy once upon a time?
Follow the money. Look at who would have benefited and how they were getting the money.
Calling Hannity a fundraiser in this case is NOT a stretch. Including Fox News as a co-fundraiser is not much of a stretch at all. The ONLY question in my mind is whether it was Hannity that was turning into a useful idiot for the the Tea Party folks or whether it was Hannity AND also Fox. It is possible that, as in IranScam we will never be entirely sure how high the bad judgment went but that depends a lot on how loyal Fox's employees are.
FWIW: IMCO Reagan knew about Iran-Contra. That's one reason I think the conservative adulation for Reagan is badly misplaced but that's off topic. I suspect Fox News knew in this case. Hannity should be fired, but I suspect that he was not the only person foolish enough to think this sort of stunt could be passed off as 'journalism'. It's hard to imagine that he was stupid enough to think he could charge for admission while broadcasting a Fox show without getting clearance from the higher ups, and it is equally hard to imagine that the Fox hierarchy would be completely unaware of what he planned to do with the money. I can guarantee that MOST companies want to know what employees do with the money they earn while working on company time using company resources - most employers want to KEEP the money their employees earn on company time. So, if Fox was going to let Hannity run a fundraiser on the side it is not hard to see that as a proxy fundraiser for Fox News. And yes, 'idiot' is the right word in this case. And no, I don't think it's just Fox news or just conservatives, though this is easily the most egregious recent example.
transforms the network into a "fundraising arm"? ABC affiliates may run the Jerry Lewis marathon every year. Does that make the ABC network a fundraising arm of the MDA? I'm certain ABC executives don't think of their network that way.
Calling Hannity a fundraiser in this case is NOT a stretch True, but calling the Fox network a fundraising arm of the Tea Party movement IS. It makes Hannity an unauthorized fundraiser, that's all.
So, are you alleging a conspiracy? Did they authorize it then back out? Sorry, not buying it.
Did you look at the About Us portion of IrishCentral and see:
"The media world has quickly taken notice. IrishCentral's scoops and its day-to-day coverage can now be regularly found on Google News, Yahoo! News, ABCNews.com, The New York Times, The Huffington Post and many other top-tier media outlets."
Did you catch their classification of The Huffigton Post as a "top-tier media outlet"?
If Fox was demonstrably not aware of what was going on, then the characterization was inaccurate. But that is a big 'if'. I find it hard to believe that somebody so high in the Fox hierarchy would do something so OBVIOUSLY STUPID without first checking with his boss. OTOH I have no doubt at all that a group of people could make such a stupid decision, especially if they did not have a complete understanding of what they were agreeing to. Groupthink is an amazing process.
Personally I suspect that Hannity DID check with the network and that what he is doing now is giving them plausible deniability, but I admit that is speculation on my part.
In answer to your question: Yes, IMO, ABC does end up acting as a fundraiser for MDA, though I don't know how their executives look at the arrangement. I don't think that is a major issue connected to journalistic integrity since the effort is done independently of the news production process and the MDA is a mostly non-political charity. The situation is significantly different in this case, and Fox HAS to be especially sensitive to the subject because of the allegations that their coverage has been far less than 'fair and balanced'.
Sean didn't do anything but get invited to speak at a Tea Party gathering at JP relates that as, "So Sean Hannity was charging admission to his show at a Tea Party rally at the University of Cincinnati it now transpires." which didn't really happen at all. It's a complete fabrication that Sean Hannity was charging admission to that function but at least he wasn't fabricating fake news to report on like rather was when the left wanted to scream and holler that Rather hadn't done anything wrong. If I feel like pointing out the changing standards I will and if bothers you, oh well.
... but your original statement made no mention of the standards by which these men are being judged. All you said was "At least it's not about fake papers like Rathergate. "
Why should Hannity's actions even be compared to Rather's ? Hannity makes no claim to being a reporter while Dan Rather as a professional journalist had the higher standards to live up to, and by that criteria, his actions are that much more egregious... but then again, my original statement made no effort to defend Rather, in fact I didn't even mention Rather. Actually, this minor tempest of Hannity's has nothing to do with journalistic ethics (as did Rather-Gate), but instead concerns workplace insubordination. Hannity decided to use his show to promote someone else's' cause. This certainly goes against Rupert Murdoch's established policy of being "fair and balanced".
Comparing Hannity to Rather is nothing other than misdirection designed to evoke and exploit an emotional reaction and obscure attention and criticism of Hannity. A tactic that Hannity himself, has employed on his own show, for many years. The actions of Hannity and Rather are in no way similar and your comparison of the two is a fallacy.
That is my opinion and if it bothers you...