So Hannity is screaming privacy

[malaise]

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah hahahahahahhaha
https://deadline.com/2021/12/sean-hannity-text-to-mark-meadows-january-6th-liz-cheney-1234891301/
Sean Hannity And Laura Ingraham Address January 6th Texts To Mark Meadows, Attack Liz Cheney For Public Release Of Private Messages

Fox News hosts Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham addressed the release of text messages they sent to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows as the January 6th siege on the Capitol unfolded, in which they each urged him to get the president to speak out and get the rioters to stop.

Hannity insisted to viewers that he says “the same thing in private that I say to all of you,” after the release of the message. in which he wrote to Meadows, “Can he make a statement, ask people to leave the Capitol?”

On his show on Tuesday, Hannity said, “Surprise, surprise, surprise: I said to Mark Meadows the exact same thing I was saying live on the radio at that time and on TV that night on January 6th and well beyond January 6th. And by the way, where is the outrage in the media over my private text messages being released again publicly?Do we believe in privacy in this country? Apparently not.”

[underpants]

1. I've said it before, there goes Hannity's credibility

[malaise]

3. Nice Christmas present for the rest of us

[MarineCombatEngineer]

6. Did he ever have credibility?

[wnylib]

32. Only among the incredibly credulous.

[Kablooie]

39. Fox news doesn't need credibility. only anger.

They keep viewers by creating fury at everything.
Total hypocrisy is fine as long as viewers remain furious at everything happening in the country.

[mopinko]

2. you have to have an iq that matches your shoe size to think texts are private.

esp to a public official. but i guess none of them remember their own witch hunts.

[malaise]

4. THIS

[wnylib]

33. Yeah, really. These are the people

who cheered the release of Hillary's e-mails.

How conveniently they forget.

[lark]

5. So, he's invented a privacy right to support sedition?

Don't think so. He also doesn't believe in privacy either, being a big supporter of Texas actually controlling a woman's reproductive choices. He just thinks he's a white rich straight right winger so can do whatever he wants int he shadows - he thinks he's (and all straight white R males) above the law and wants us all to bow down to his expertise.

[malaise]

7. It is time to destroy these hypocrites

once and for all - do not let up on this grand exposure of these scumbags

[lark]

8. !00% with you.

The right wing cockroaches must be destroyed before they destroy our country.

[wnylib]

34. Amen!

[SCantiGOP]

28. It wasn't his email that was released

It was from Meadows.
Yes, I expect that anything sitting in my computer has some degree of privacy. But if I send YOU an email, I don’t have any way to protect that communication if YOU decide to release it.

[spanone]

9. hey sean, your buddy meadows handed over your texts...Bwahahahahahahaaa

fuck hannity

[malaise]

10. Too good

TUrn on him now Sean Hahahha

[PatSeg]

17. Exactly

Of course, if it had been a Democratic Chief-of-Staff and an MSNBC host, he would have no problem with reporting on the texts.

[Johonny]

12. They're always the victim

Conservative card play 101: when in doubt claim to be a victim.

[CaptainTruth]

22. Bingo.

[marble falls]

13. If it's what Hannity says all the time, what's the beef? What one writes to a public ...

... official is not private, it's part of the record. It's not like Meadows is a lawyer, therapist or doctor.

[LaMouffette]

14. There are FCC rules against distorting the news. But there are a couple of problems.

1. The FCC won't take action unless complaints are filed against the broadcaster.

2. Fox News has changed its designation from a news network to an entertainment channel to avoid such pesky rules as not being able to distort the news.

I think Dems in Congress need to do some kind of legislation to redefine "broadcast" to include cable networks and internet news sites, and to redefine "news" to include any program that has the hallmarks of a news program (information presented as factual in a serious manner). They also need to give the FCC more power to shut down programming that distorts the news.

Since this proposal would be yet another monumental long-drawn-out battle in Congress, in the short term, I would like to see a new TV show along the lines of "Talk Soup" (remember "Talk Soup"?) that would air clips from Fox News and then mock the shit out of them.

Okay, back to work for me!

The FCC receives a wide variety of comments and complaints about the accuracy or bias of news networks, stations, reporters or commentators in how they cover – or sometimes opt not to cover – events. Other complaints concern the conduct of journalists in the gathering and reporting of news.

The FCC's authority to respond to these complaints is narrow in scope, and the agency is prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press. Moreover, the FCC cannot interfere with a broadcaster's selection and presentation of news or commentary.

What responsibilities do broadcasters have?

Broadcasters may not intentionally distort the news. The FCC states that "rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest."

What if I have comments or concerns about a specific news broadcast or commentary?

All comments and/or concerns about a specific news broadcast or commentary should be directed to the local station and network involved, so that the people responsible for making the programming decisions can become better informed about audience opinion.

What can the FCC do?

The FCC may act only when it has received documented evidence, such as testimony from persons who have direct personal knowledge of an intentional falsification of the news. Without such documented evidence, the FCC generally cannot intervene.

[link:https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/complaints-about-broadcast-journalism|

[malaise]

16. Thanks for this

[LaMouffette]

37. You're welcome!

[AngryOldDem]

20. Chris Hayes does a pretty good job of debunking them.

But the people who need to see it the most don’t watch Chris Hayes. And really, at this point, I’m beginning to wonder if the truth will ever be accepted, and what possibly could come out that would change people’s minds.

[plimsoll]

26. So the next time someone says they get their news from Faux we say,

"I prefer Disney, they have a better super hero line up."

[wnylib]

35. So maybe we should just drop

the word "news" from their name and call them Fox Entertainment since that's what they say they are. They are like other Fox products, as fictitious as the Fox movies.

[KS Toronado]

40. That's what I've always thought

they shouldn't be allowed to use the word "news" below the FQX logo. Making them use the word
entertainment would be icing on the cake since that's how they're registered.

[wnylib]

46. Since we can call them what we want to,

I opt for the more accurate Fox Entertainment. It removes the false pretense of being news.

[LaMouffette]

41. Oops! Just checked on Snopes and the part about Fox changing its designation to "entertainment" is

false. I guess the FCC doesn't categorize them as news or entertainment. Shoulda checked!

Still. I think the FCC should be given power to regulate cable networks when it comes to networks disseminating false information.

A spokesperson for the FCC told us that, “We do not have any rules or licensing requirements in which a cable channel might categorize itself as news vs. entertainment.”

John Bergmayer, senior counsel at Public Knowledge, an intellectual property group based in Washington, D.C., talked to the New York Daily News in 2017 after the FCC received hundreds of complaints about another cable news channel, CNN. Bergmayer explained that because cable news channels are run by private providers, the FCC has no authority to control the programming:

The FCC regulates broadcast networks, since the airwaves are free and public. But cable channels, which rely on subscribers, viewers and advertisers, are beyond government control. Since cable runs through private providers, the FCC plays no role in issuing or revoking licenses, and it has no say on what the channels can air.

“The hook for (broadcast) content regulation … is the fact that broadcasters have government-issued licenses that allow them to use the airwaves, and that it’s freely available to anyone with a receiver,” said John Bergmayer, senior counsel at Public Knowledge, an intellectual property group based in Washington, D.C.

“This doesn’t apply to cable networks.”

[link:https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-news-entertainment-switch/|

[KS Toronado]

47. Airwaves vs cable, lot to unpack there.

Very few people get their nightly news via "rabbit ears", most smart phones use a combination of both.

[LaMouffette]

48. Good point. I think the scope of the FCC should be broadened to keep up with new technology.

including cable, the internet, and smartphones.

[KS Toronado]

49. 100% agree

[crickets]

52. 👆👆

[crickets]

51. Excellent post. nt

[JT45242]

15. All communications with WH staff is public record --- remember 'but her emails'

After spending years smearing someone with ALL RECORDS of WH staff should be on official devices and saved so that they can be checked, you would think this asshat would have remembered that as WH Chief of Staff that stuff applied to Meadows.

Where is his outrage over Meadows using his personal email, a burner phone (you know, like a gang member), and other personal devices.

He should have listened to Herm Edwards -- "DON'T HIT SEND!"

[malaise]

18. He's a hypocrite

You know that

[AngryOldDem]

19. The tape says otherwise, Sean.

Tired of the “who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes or ears” routine.

They are relying too heavily on their sheep to believe the bullshit they spew.

[malaise]

21. Dems needs ads to exposure Fux sheep to these tapes

Expose these fucking. Hypocrites

[Captain Zero]

23. Tell him he has no privacy for his next abortion,

Either.
Especially if he gets it in Texas.

[Wounded Bear]

24. Let me check with Hillary on that one, Sean-boy...

[bringthePaine]

25. Scammity's been on borrowed time, here's hoping he gets crushed under the weight of his BS

[patphil]

27. I think Sean is more than a little worried that he will get sucked up in this investigation.

He's been a facilitator for Trump for years.

[NCDem47]

29. Dude, you chose to be a public figure

NOTHING you do is "private."

Can't have it both ways. Expect everyone to watch you, then say you deserve privacy.

You had DIRECT communication with the President of the United States. It IS our business.

[multigraincracker]

30. I'm so old that I remember when he claimed

waterboarding is not torture and he would let them waterboard him on tv to prove it.
I'd bring that up every time he speaks about anything.

[NNadir]

31. Hey Sean, you know why we're able to read Elizabeth Holmes emails?

It's because it's a criminal matter.

You know what a crime is, don't you big boy?

An example of a crime would be treason. You should look into it. A conspiracy to commit treason is also a crime. Got it big boy? No?

You may learn a little more about it in the future.

[aggiesal]

36. You're not media, you're entertainment! ...

And once your text are introduced into a public process, they are no longer private,
unless it's deemed classified for National Security purposes.

Live with it, loser

[Takket]

38. You have no expectation of privacy when you are involved in criminal activity

[Caliman73]

42. They just needed a day to come up with their coordinated talking points.

That is all this is. Both Hannity and Ingraham made the same statement. "There is no discrepancy between my texts and what I said on air". Both of them. They are both attacking the "media" for releasing the texts and Liz Cheney for reading them into the record.

This is why they were silent for a whole day after the texts were revealed. They needed to meet with their consultants and lawyers to come up with their strategy on how to obfuscate and lie.

[KS Toronado]

43. Rs truly believe in privacy in this country

Look how they vote in congress to any issue related to Jan 6th. "Nothing to see here, none of your business."

[AllaN01Bear]

44. friend of mine who is strong union democrat watchted him the other day

,, said that "this guy is awful, hes worse than limburger "!!.

[ybbor]

45. Poor wittle Sean having a sad 😢

Call the wambulance.

Traitor!

[Hassler]

50. Newsflash to Manatee: Amy Coney Barrett and Co. don't believe in

The right to privacy.

[AZLD4Candidate]

53. Conservatives: When you do it, it's a scandal. When I do it, it's an invasion of privacy

I will quote every conservative I've ever met on privacy: Where does it say in the Bill of Rights that YOU have a right to privacy?

And as a public figure in the midst of a massive scandal, the CYA is intense.

Difference is they rally around each other. We eat our own.

[malaise]

54. I detest their self-righteous hypocrisy