http://web.mit.edu/cms/reconstructions/interpretations/tvnews.html
Here's a link to the article on your syllabus. Hannity? Colmes? Can anyone tell me why people listen to these two bozos? Does anybody listen to these guys? Hannity is a totally biased, pompous, narrow-thinking ideologue. Colmes might be dead and nobody's noticed yet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
After watching Hannity and Colmes for the first time, I really enjoyed it. I’m not usually interested in these shows, but I think I mostly enjoyed it because it was an interview with Mitt Romney. Hannity interviewed Romney and his wife and it was a very successful interview and very information-filled. I really don't think that either Hannity nor Colmes are 'bozos'. I really like that they're on both ends of the political spectrum and you can hear opinons of each, and it's not all biased.
I just watched Hannity and Colmes that featured a segment on Dog the Bounty Hunter. Dog used the "N" word in an audio clip, and this was turned into the Enquirer. The show had Reverend Tim Storey, and the director of the Decency Initiative at the National Action Network, Tamika Mallory on to talk about the issue. These two people provided completely different standpoints to the issue. I agree with Courtney that they do a good job of providing the viewer with both ends of the spectrum. Storey was defending him, while Mallory was attacking him, and any used of that word. This segment had more formality, but was then followed up with two other guests, Marc Lamont Hill and Curtis Sliwa. They gave little insight to the issue, and compared this incident to other times when celebrities used inappropriate words. This later led to a ten minute ramble about Kanye West and 50 cent. I wouldn't say that this show was the worst, but it is just not worth our time.
This is my first time watching Hannity and Colmes. I watched the episode when they interview a priest. The priest had mentioned that Sean wasn't a good catholic because he ate meat when he wasn't supposed to (during lent).
I think that they asked deep questions on the issue. Sometimes the priest didn't know what to say or how to answer.
They are very direct and to the point. Nothing gets past them. If they hear anything that is not right, they ask straight to the point.
Overall, I think that they do a great job in interviewing others because they are direct and frank. They need to be like that so the people wont walk all over them. They are perfect for the job that they have.
Maria A.
Hannity and Comes is a show that critisizes both sides of the spectrum. While Hannity is mainly conservative he is also basically more in control of the show and comes across as arrogant. Colmes is on the more liberal side, so viewers can watch while getting two view points. For example if they are criticizing Britney Spears, Hannity would say how much of a bad example to everyone and Colmes would defend her saying she is a 24 year old single mom who is overwhelmed and heartbroken. While doing this they attack the opposite views, which causes viewers to pick a side and helps them better define their political standpoint by listening to their arguments. Mainly there are pros and cons to watching this show. For one pro you have a person on your side even if you don’t agree on everything they say. Also, it helps better define your political opinions. On the other hand some people think that their show is not for them because they hate listening to either.
I just watched Hannity and Colmes for the first time and I must agree that they are “bozos”. The episode that I watched was interviewing Christopher Hitchens on Reverend Falwell’s death. I have only seen one episode but I felt that it was full of arguing and it was hard to get any solid facts out of this news because Hannity and Colmes are more interested in making their opinion seem like the only legitimate one. The one interesting aspect to the show is that Hannity and Colmes have extremely different views and can represent both sides to an issue. Hannity represents the more conservative view and Colmes represents a more liberal view. While it is nice to see two different angles of a story I did not find the set up of the show successful in representing general attitudes of Americans because I think they are arrogant and more interested in arguing. Overall I was very unimpressed with this news show.
I was left with mixed emotions towards Hannity and Colmes after watching the show for the first time. I watched an episode where they interviewed congressman, Tom Tancredo. The topic of the show discussed a protest against some immigration policy that Tancredo wanted to pass. As I watched the interview though, the issue of the immigration policy did not seem to be the area of concern; rather the behavior of the protestors was the primary concern. The fact that they kept reiterating the actions of the Michigan State student protestors and tried to make a sob story for the congressman made the show seem uneducated and more like a Jerry Spring of politics. While the acts of the students are shocking, is it really what we should be getting out of the program?
On the other hand, I agree with Megan, in that the two have very different views which make for an interesting view on topics. Hannity was completely agreeing with everything the congressman said, and almost seemed like he was sucking up to him. Yet, Colmes comes to the table questioning the congressmen and giving him a hard time. He even managed to throw in a joke about how Tancredo has had problems with other congressmen and the President in the past. I can’t really make a defined judgment on this show after watching it once. I think it has the potential to be an interesting and good show, but I don’t know if this potential is utilized and watching more would help me find this out.
Both Hannity and Colmes are clowns. I think that Colmes is there for comic releaf because his comments are just crazy. How do these guys keep their show going. It is just a bunch of yelling. If a crazy liberal lune is on the show Colmes will team up with the guyes on Hannity. Hannity can hold his own but man it is so stupid. I understand that they try to give both ends of the political spectrum but really it is so outlandish.
Wow, I don't think I've ever heard more interrupting on any show in my life. I remember saying argument may be good because it almost forces someone to take a side; that possibly the more powerful voice will get the support. But I almost have sympathy for the guests on this show because they don't have a chance! If they say anything that those either Hannity or Colmes doesn't want to hear, then WOAH back off and let them talk. I was almost wanting to side with the guest not because what they were saying was logical (because truthfully it wasn't...) but just because I didn't want to agree with either of the hosts. Hannity is totally biased and narrow minded, no doubt. Colmes-I don't know, he seemed pretty narrow minded as well. He definitely wasn't as loud as Hannity, but when he spoke, he wasn't going to sway from his point.
Since I am more of a conservative than a liberal, Sean Hannity upsets me. I think he only cares about promoting where he will appear next and what will be on his television show. When he interviews someone who disagrees with him, he does not let the person to finish his or her point. I think he is very superficial and often redundant when speaking. Alan Colmes, who counteracts Hannity by voicing liberal viewpoints, is no better than Hannity. He is a “conservative attacking machine” with cynical and biased opinions. No matter what or who he is talking about, he adopts a negative and belligerent attitude. Arguing is not necessarily a bad thing, but arguing without any respect for another person’s opinion does not offer the audience any meaningful lessons. How can viewers believe what Hannity and Colmes say when they are only trying to defend themselves? It seems that they things they discuss are exaggerated and influenced by their emotions.
This was my first time watching Hannity and Colmes, and I found the show to be outspoken and upfront. This is due to the behavior of the hosts, and their extremely biased views. In the episode I saw there was so much arguing and yelling that it almost made the show unenjoyable to watch. The guests could not even get a word in because Hannity and Colmes were attacking whatever they had to say. Although both of these men differ in many ways, they almost seem to balance each other out on the show. While Hannity is more outspoken than Colmes, don't underestimate Colme's ability. He definitely has no quams about speaking up when he feels the need. Colmes also represents the more liberal side while Hannity is narrow-minded and bias in his thoughts. Overall, I was not a big fan of the show and would definitely not watch it again.
I watched this show and did not enjoy it. I found that Hannity was somewhat obnoxious and didn’t let Colmes say much. Fox has been criticized for this show because it is known as putting a conservative bias to its programs. Although this show is supposed to have views from both conservatives and liberals the show still seems to have a conservative bias. Hannity has a much stronger presence on the show and is also more attractive. I think one of the reasons that Fox broadcasts this show is to seem like they are not bias and air more then one opinion but even this show has a bias.
Post a Comment