What's Sean Hannity Obsession With Derailing Obama's Democratic Nomination

[trueshotaura]

Sean Hannity signed a $5 million contract in 2006... What do you expect?

 

[schrutefarms]

i like to think people who watch hannity % colmes and fox news in general aren't going to vote democrat anyway. they can have their lies.

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by jvhoop22

It's important to be skeptical to an extent of ALL news outlets from Fox news to CNN to The New York Times. You have to remember that news is unfortunately a business like everything else in America and stories are often broadcast or skewed to create viewership. Stories are also sometimes rushed to press without proper fact checking.

With that said, Fox news is a complete joke. It's like watching unintentional satire. Sometimes Jon Stewart doesn't even have to make a joke, he can just air clips from them.

It's sad that there are a vast number of people in this country that probably don't realize this.

Or, Operation Mockingbird.

You know, most will disregard this as old news. The CIA doesn't do this anymore inside the US.

That's not even taking into account that the CIA's charter forbids them to conduct operations within the US.
Here's summary's from a piece Carl Bernstein did for Rolling Stone in 1977. Something tells me the CIA prob; runs the same operation nowadays.It's prob. even more imperative since anyone with an internet connection can post news nowadays.

The CIA and the Media

by Carl Bernstein

Rolling Stone, Oct. 20, 1977

In 1953, Joseph Alsop, then one of America's leading syndicated columnists, went to the Philippines to cover an election. He did not go because he was asked to do so by his syndicate. He did not go because he was asked to do so by the newspapers that printed his column. He went at the request of the CIA.

Alsop is one of more than 400 American journalists who in the past twenty-five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters.

Some of these journalists' relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. There was cooperation, accommodation and overlap. Journalists provided a full range of clandestine services -- from simple intelligence gathering to serving as go-betweens with spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors-without-portfolio for their country. Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested it the derring-do of the spy business as in filing articles, and, the smallest category, full-time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad. In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements America�s leading news organizations.

The history of the CIA's involvement with the American press continues to be shrouded by an official policy of obfuscation and deception . . . .

Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were William Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Time Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times, Barry Bingham Sr. of the Louisville Courier-Journal and James Copley of the Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, The Miami Herald, and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald-Tribune. By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with The New York Times, CBS, and Time Inc.

... From the Agency's perspective, there is nothing untoward in such relationships, and any ethical questions are a matter for the journalistic profession to resolve, not the intelligence community ... .

Many journalists were used by the CIA to assist in this process and they had the reputation of being among the best in the business. The peculiar nature of the job of the foreign correspondent is ideal for such work; he is accorded unusual access, by his host country, permitted to travel in areas often off-limits to other Americans, spends much of his time cultivating sources in governments, academic institutions, the military establishment and the scientific communities. He has the opportunity to form long-term personal relationships with sources and -- perhaps more than any other category of American operative -- is in a position to make correct judgments about the susceptibility and availability of foreign nationals for recruitment as spies.

The Agency's dealings with the press began during the earliest stages of the Cold War. Allen Dulles, who became director of the CIA in 1953, sought to establish a recruiting-and-cover capability within America's most prestigious journalistic institutions. By operating under the guise of accredited news correspondents, Dulles believed, CIA operatives abroad would be accorded a degree of access and freedom of movement unobtainable under almost any other type of cover.

American publishers, like so many other corporate and institutional leaders at the time, were willing us commit the resources of their companies to the struggle against "global Communism." Accordingly, the traditional line separating the American press corps and government was often indistinguishable: rarely was a news agency used to provide cover for CIA operatives abroad without the knowledge and consent of either its principal owner; publisher or senior editor. Thus, contrary to the notion that the CIA era and news executives allowed themselves and their organizations to become handmaidens to the intelligence services. "Let's not pick on some poor reporters, for God's sake," William Colby exclaimed at one point to the Church committee's investigators. "Let's go to the managements. They were witting" In all, about twenty-five news organizations (including those listed at the beginning of this article) provided cover for the Agency.

... Many journalists who covered World War II were close to people in the Office of Strategic Services, the wartime predecessor of the CIA; more important, they were all on the same side. When the war ended and many OSS officials went into the CIA, it was only natural that these relationships would continue.

Meanwhile, the first postwar generation of journalists entered the profession; they shared the same political and professional values as their mentors. "You had a gang of people who worked together during World War II and never got over it," said one Agency official. "They were genuinely motivated and highly susceptible to intrigue and being on the inside. Then in the Fifties and Sixties there was a national consensus about a national threat. The Vietnam War tore everything to pieces -- shredded the consensus and threw it in the air." Another Agency official observed: "Many journalists didn't give a second thought to associating with the Agency. But there was a point when the ethical issues which most people had submerged finally surfaced. Today, a lot of these guys vehemently deny that they had any relationship with the Agency."

... The CIA even ran a formal training program in the 1950s to teach its agents to be journalists. Intelligence officers were "taught to make noises like reporters," explained a high CIA official, and were then placed in major news organizations with help from management. "These were the guys who went through the ranks and were told, "You're going to be a journalist," the CIA official said. Relatively few of the 400-some relationships described in Agency files followed that pattern, however; most involved persons who were already bona fide journalists when they began undertaking tasks for the Agency. The Agency's relationships with journalists, as described in CIA files, include the following general categories:

- Legitimate, accredited staff members of news organizations - usually reporters. Some were paid; some worked for the Agency on a purely voluntary basis.

- Stringers and freelancers. Most were payrolled by the Agency under standard contractual terms.

- Employees of so-called CIA "proprietaries." During the past twenty-five years, the Agency has secretly bankrolled numerous foreign press services, periodicals and newspapers -- both English and foreign language -- which provided excellent cover for CIA operatives.

- Columnists and commentators. There are perhaps a dozen well-known columnists and broadcast commentators whose relationships with the CIA go far beyond those normally maintained between reporters and their sources. They are referred to at the Agency as "known assets" and can be counted on to perform a variety of undercover tasks; they are considered receptive to the Agency"s point of view on various subjects.

Murky details of CIA relationships with individuals and news organizations began trickling out in 1973 when it was first disclosed that the CIA had, on occasion, employed journalists. Those reports, combined with new information, serve as casebook studies of the Agency's use of journalists for intelligence purposes.

The New York Times -- The Agency's relationship with the Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. [It was] general Times policy ... to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible.

... CIA officials cite two reasons why the Agency's working relationship with the Times was closer and more extensive than with any other paper: the fact that the Times maintained the largest foreign news operation in American daily journalism; and the close personal ties between the men who ran both institutions ... .

The Columbia Broadcasting System -- CBS was unquestionably the CIA's most valuable broadcasting asset. CBS president William Paley and Allen Dulles enjoyed an easy working and social relationship. Over the years, the network provided cover for CIA employees, including at least one well-known foreign correspondent and several stringers; it supplied outtakes of newsfilm to the CIA; established a formal channel of communication between the Washington bureau chief and the Agency; gave the Agency access to the CBS newsfilm library; and allowed reports by CBS correspondents to the Washington and New York newsrooms to be routinely monitored by the CIA. Once a year during the 1950s and early 1960s, CBS correspondents joined the CIA hierarchy for private dinners and briefings.

... At the headquarters of CBS News in New York, Paley's cooperation with the CIA is taken for granted by many news executives and reporters, despite the denials. Paley, 76, was not interviewed by Salant's investigators. "It wouldn't do any good," said one CBS executive. "It is the single subject about which his memory has failed."

Time and Newsweek magazines -- According to CIA and Senate sources, Agency files contain written agreements with former foreign correspondents and stringers for both the weekly news magazines. The same sources refused to say whether the CIA has ended all its associations with individuals who work for the two publications. Allen Dulles often interceded with his good friend, the late Henry Luce, founder of Time and Life magazines, who readily allowed certain members of his staff to work for the Agency and agreed to provide jobs and credentials for other CIA operatives who lacked journalistic experience.

... At Newsweek, Agency sources reported, the CIA engaged the services of several foreign correspondents and stringers under arrangements approved by senior editors at the magazine.

... "To the best of my knowledge:" said [Harry] Kern, [Newsweek's foreign editor from 1945 to 1956] "nobody at Newsweek worked for the CIA.... The informal relationship was there. Why have anybody sign anything? What we knew we told them [the CIA] and the State Department.... When I went to Washington, I would talk to Foster or Allen Dulles about what was going on .... We thought it was admirable at the time. We were all on the same side." CIA officials say that Kern's dealings with the Agency were extensive.

... When Newsweek was purchased by the Washington Post Company, publisher Philip L. Graham was informed by Agency officials that the CIA occasionally used the magazine for cover purposes, according to CIA sources. "It was widely known that Phil Graham was somebody you could get help from," said a former deputy director of the Agency. . . . But Graham, who committed suicide in 1963, apparently knew little of the specifics of any cover arrangements with Newsweek, CIA sources said.

... Information about Agency dealings with the Washington Post newspaper is extremely sketchy. According to CIA officials, some Post stringers have been CIA employees, but these officials say they do not know if anyone in the Post management was aware of the arrangements. ...

Other major news organizations -- According to Agency officials, CIA files document additional cover arrangements with the following news gathering organizations, among others: the New York Herald Tribune, Saturday Evening Post, Scripps-Howard Newspapers, Hearst Newspapers, Associated Press, United Press International, the Mutual Broadcasting System, Reuters and The Miami Herald. ...

"And that's just a small part of the list," in the words of one official who served in the CIA hierarchy. Like many sources, this official said that the only way to end the uncertainties about aid furnished the Agency by journalists is to disclose the contents of the CIA files -- a course opposed by almost all of the thirty-five present and former CIA officials interviewed over the course of a year.

The CIA's use of journalists continued virtually unabated until 1973 when, in response to public disclosure that the Agency had secretly employed American reporters, William Colby began scaling down the program. In his public statements, Colby conveyed the impression that the use of journalists had been minimal and of limited importance to the Agency.

He then initiated a series of moves intended to convince the press, Congress and the public that the CIA had gotten out of the news business. But according to Agency officials, Colby had in fact thrown a protective net around his most valuable intelligence assets in the journalistic community.

... After Colby left the Agency on January 28th, 1976, and was succeeded by George Bush, the CIA announced a new policy: "Effective immediately, the CIA will not enter into any paid or contract relationship with any full-time or part-time news correspondent accredited by any U.S. news service, newspaper, periodical, radio or television network or station." . . . The text of the announcement noted that the CIA would continue to "welcome" the voluntary, unpaid cooperation of journalists. Thus, many relationships were permitted to remain intact.

The Agency's unwillingness to end its use of journalists and its continued relationships with some news executives is largely the product of two basic facts of the intelligence game: journalistic cover is ideal because of the inquisitive nature of a reporter's job; and many other sources of institutional cover have been denied the CIA in recent years by businesses, foundations and educational institutions that once cooperated with the Agency.

<a href="http://www.unknownnews.net/hh030102.html">source link</a>

Published by Rolling Stone

 

[benfranklinave]

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

1. it's not a NEWS show...so obviously it's going to show bias
2. Obama DID get a free pass early on in the campaign..I think everyone can admit that...but he's not getting one now though.
3. Hannity is a conservative....what do you expect him to do?

Well Anderson 360 is one of the most fair non-news shows imo, why can't more non-news shows follow that format.

Obama having a pass is debatable, many in the media thought Hillary would have the nomination so Obama wasnt really a factor in the media's eyes thats whythey weren't overly critical of him, even many black american's didn't have faith in him unil his SC victory.

I expect a conservative to question policy not personality... yeah Obama doesn't have that much of a record but i think its unfair to linger on sillytopics such a Rev. Wright, Bitterness and etc... i would have no problems with Hannity disagreeing in terms of policy.. McCain when he criticizes Obama mostlydoes it in a matter pertaining to policy.

 

[tbone95860]

Originally Posted by BenFranklinAve

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

1. it's not a NEWS show...so obviously it's going to show bias
2. Obama DID get a free pass early on in the campaign..I think everyone can admit that...but he's not getting one now though.
3. Hannity is a conservative....what do you expect him to do?

Well Anderson 360 is one of the most fair non-news shows imo, why can't more non-news shows follow that format.

Obama having a pass is debatable, many in the media thought Hillary would have the nomination so Obama wasnt really a factor in the media's eyes thats why they weren't overly critical of him, even many black american's didn't have faith in him unil his SC victory.

I expect a conservative to question policy not personality... yeah Obama doesn't have that much of a record but i think its unfair to linger on silly topics such a Rev. Wright, Bitterness and etc... i would have no problems with Hannity disagreeing in terms of policy.. McCain when he criticizes Obama mostly does it in a matter pertaining to policy.

Dirtylicious is DEAD ON with what he said.
And sorry but Rev. Wright & the bitterness issures are not"silly" topics by ANY means & please believe that come the general election, the Republicans will be going way harder on Obama then Hillary is,so he better get used to it.



Oh and to everyone.... considering how BAD you make Fox News & people like Hannity out to be... you'd think there would be NO WAY us Republicans won in2000 & 2004, but we all know what happened both years

 

[bluedawg24]

Hrmm some people in this thread apparently know nothing about the show or Hannity himself. He doesn't want to be known as the "one who put McCain inoffice". If you actually listen to him, he detests McCain. He frequently talks about how he disagrees with McCain. As for the "why is he picking onObama" stuff, Hannity is a conservative, and Obama is the most liberal Senator in Washington. What do you expect? I'm not a Hannity fan and he'snormally a parrot for the GOP, but he, like many other people, realize how negative an Obama presidency would be.

If you think the attacks on Obama are bad now, wait until the General. Obama buckles to pressure, whereas Hillary has been through this mess constantly and shecan fight the good fight. We've still got time to be competitive in November, but as Obama wins more states, the possibility of a Democratic Presidentdwindles.

 

[soleaddict34]

Originally Posted by BlueDawg24

Hrmm some people in this thread apparently know nothing about the show or Hannity himself. He doesn't want to be known as the "one who put McCain in office". If you actually listen to him, he detests McCain. He frequently talks about how he disagrees with McCain. As for the "why is he picking on Obama" stuff, Hannity is a conservative, and Obama is the most liberal Senator in Washington. What do you expect? I'm not a Hannity fan and he's normally a parrot for the GOP, but he, like many other people, realize how negative an Obama presidency would be.

If you think the attacks on Obama are bad now, wait until the General. Obama buckles to pressure, whereas Hillary has been through this mess constantly an[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]d she can fight the good fight[/color]. We've still got time to be competitive in November, but as Obama wins more states, the possibility of a Democratic President dwindles.

it you mean "good fight" by playing politricks just like the GOP then you are correct.

 

[bluedawg24]

You're right, so what if they play dirty, let's just take the high road and pretend nothing ever happened. Do I like the dirty political games that theparties play? Not at all, but it's not changing anytime soon.

I do think Hillary can better handle a GOP assault in the General than Obama. They're tearing him to shreds already in the primary and he's not eventhe nominee yet. Hillary might be more divisive and hated by many, but I'd venture that 99.9% of voters already have an opinion about her and it'sunlikely to change. People are still learning about Obama, and the more that comes out, the more damaging it is, at least in a media sense.

The fact that Obama has made many people who had no interest in politics, interested now because of his candidacy is great. The only problem is many of thesesupporters do not realize how rough the world of politics can be. It's not all "hope, change, repeat" like Obama wants you to believe.