Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Norton
climber
The Wastelands
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2018 - 09:54am PT
|
pick a target and attack them personally
call em out by name and tell them how stupid they are
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2018 - 11:42am PT
|
|
|
brotherbbock
climber
So-Cal
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2018 - 11:57am PT
|
No sign of Hannity headlines on Faux News still...
They refuse to even acknowledge it as news.
|
|
Happiegrrrl2
Trad climber
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2018 - 12:08pm PT
|
Saw someone quote a Fox Statement that, despite being unaware of the conflict of interess....I mean informal relationship, they $till support $$ean Hannity.
|
|
Tom
Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 17, 2018 - 12:28pm PT
|
The only Faux News about Hannity I've seen is Laura Ingraham saying,
Hannity, I'm just glad that the heat is off of me, and now it's on you.
At least they're consistent in their dysfunctional dog-eat-dog economic philosophy.
Mirroring how they view Trump, this is what a typical Hannity viewer might say:
"I don't listen to Hannity because he is an honest upstanding, moral person. I listen to him because I like what he says."
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2018 - 12:42pm PT
|
No sign of Hannity headlines on Faux News still...
They refuse to even acknowledge it as news.
Well, what's the significance of this so-called news?
Seems like it's hard to say without knowing what the advice was about, and so far I haven't heard anything.
About the only thing I've even heard that is sort of a good point is that perhaps Hannity should have disclosed the relationship when commenting on Cohen, but that doesn't seem like too big of a deal.
And some of the people blasting Hannity are simply ignorant. E.g., this was Kimmel's big dig on Hannity:
According to Hannity, he never dealt with Cohen on matters between him and a "third-party."
"I don't know what kind of legal advice doesn't involve a third party?" Kimmel asked. "Unless maybe Sean Hannity was thinking of suing himself?"
Kimmel may not know what types of legal advice don't involve third parties, but take it from me, as someone who has sat in an office giving legal advice for over 20 years. The answer is: lots. I suppose all legal advice does in some hypothetical sense involve a relationship with the outside world, but that doesn't mean it involves a "third party" in the way that any lawyer would use that term. Another way to say it is a lot of legal advice does not involve an adverse party or even a specific interested third party. Consider things like intellectual property advice (what I do) or general business law advice. Some of it involves third parties, much of it does not.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2018 - 12:54pm PT
|
blahblah, you dare to question Kimmel’s legal knowledge? What he is deathly afraid of is
that said third party is not a Russian oligarch or Saudi princeling. Then he would have to
come up with something substantive to smirk about. Surely you remember when comedy
was funny, don’t you?
|
|
Happiegrrrl2
Trad climber
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2018 - 01:02pm PT
|
blahblah - It's considered an ethical standard to disclose relationships when reporting on them. You may have heard a news anchor say something like "So and So is an advertiser on this channel" when doing a news story about So and So. Or, "It should be noted that I previously worked at Such and Such, when reporting on Such and Such.
It's about ethics, and avoiding a conflict of interest.
But, don't assume I know what I'm talking about - because, sometimes I don't, and that doesn't stop me from posting.... You may want to double check, and I'll make that easy for you. Here's a link from the American Press Institute
https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/publications/reports/strategy-studies/disclosures-values/
In that link, included is the following:
Looking across the landscape, we conclude there are typically five situations when a disclosure needs to be added to a piece of content:
Personal connections to sources, organizations or events mentioned in reporting.
Organizational links to sources, organizations or events mentioned in reporting.
Limitations of any data or material used. (Meaning: Here’s what we don’t know, or some mitigating factors.)
When unusual methods are used to gather information (such as in the above example).
When there is an unusual arrangement with sources (such as enabling them to remain anonymous or use a pseudonym).
For most people, it would be clear that Hannity should have disclosed his relationship, when reporting on Cohen. Or, he should have let Fox News know of the relationship and why his reporting on Cohen could come back as egg on his face.
But why let ethics get in the way of things, when it's just more comfortable to ignore them?
|
|
StahlBro
Trad climber
San Diego, CA
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2018 - 01:08pm PT
|
Faux News has never cared about ethics...ever.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2018 - 01:19pm PT
|
For most people, it would be clear that Hannity should have disclosed his relationship, when reporting on Cohen. Or, he should have let Fox News know of the relationship and why his reporting on Cohen could come back as egg on his face.
But why let ethics get in the way of things, when it's just more comfortable to ignore them?
I did say Hannity not disclosing seemed like maybe a problem. Just not that big a deal.
A few things to remember:
First, Hannity is not journalist. He is a commentator. There is a difference, even though sometimes the lines get a bit blurred.
Second, even if he were a journalist, that is not a licensed profession with strict rules of ethics that can be enforced. As a lawyer, you are bound by actual rules of ethics (which are not always the same as what we think of as moral ethics--some of them are pretty technical and somewhat arbitrary). And if you violate the ethical rules, you're subject to sanctions, up to disbarment (you know, what would have happened to Bill Clinton had he not "voluntarily" surrendered his law license before he got disbarred).
There's nothing really like that for journalists or commentators--they've just got to use some common sense. Here, Hannity kind of blew it on Cohen, but what's the big deal?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2018 - 01:56pm PT
|
Michael Cohen has never represented me in any matter. I never retained him, received an invoice, or paid legal fees.
It would seem pretty difficult to make this claim while simultaneously claiming attorney/client privilege.
|
|
StahlBro
Trad climber
San Diego, CA
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2018 - 02:18pm PT
|
It is not difficult if you are an idiot.
|
|
Tom
Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 17, 2018 - 03:29pm PT
|
Well, what's the significance of this so-called (Hannity) news?
The significance is that Michael Cohen, himself, grouped Hannity as part of the Three Clients, and not as a member of the Seven Clients he stated were asking for business advice.
Cohen's own demarcation of clients, with Three here, and Seven there, was of his own volition. This is what he presented to the Southern District Court of New York, within his pleading to beg himself to be able to redact any inconvenient evidence against himself.
This is just legal buffoonery, and amazing to witness. Again, this is astonishing, to witness.
Again, just listen, again, at how this legal genius has played his cards in this game.
Hannity was grouped, by Cohen himself, into a Group of Three, two of whom have been proven to have made Big Money pay-offs to women to conceal extra-marital affairs.
Hannity claims he only received informal, unpaid advice about real estate conceptualization from Cohen.
Hannity's hair may stay combed in the shower, but he's is all wet, when he says that.
Cohen, himself said Hannity was not in a Group of Seven, but in a selective, and specific, Group of Three. Two in that group wanted "fixing" and not legitimate legal advice.
Hannity looks, right now, like a person who wanted to conceal something.
Hannity looks like the kind of guy who was ravenous for the skills of Trump's master dirty fixer, needing the dirty guy who knew how to money-fix porn stars, Playboy bunny pussy, and whomever else Sean Hannity had narariously engaged with, sexually, or otherwise.
Tomorrow, the Various Times might use all their available ink to print a 72-font headline about a Tale of Pure Sordidness, wherein Sean Hannity's tiny accomplice was involved in a sordid situation.
THIS STUFF JUST WRITES ITSELF. YOU CAN'T MAKE IT UP.
|
|
ExfifteenExfifteen
climber
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2018 - 04:29pm PT
|
It's about ethics, and avoiding a conflict of interest.
I disagree. It's more about smoke screens and mirrors these days. Journalism is at an interesting crossroad in this great country of ours...
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2018 - 04:39pm PT
|
smoke screens and mirrors these days.
Yes the US lamestream media is just that nowadays along with some very criminal spin reporting to brainwash the masses as the OP in this thread keeps showing his brainwashing .....
|
|
Tom
Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 17, 2018 - 04:47pm PT
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
BATTLE FOR REALITY
In my heart, I am a mathematical geek. Truth is within a symbolic equation. Truth, through an accurate modeling of math and physics, can predict the future.
BUT, SUDDENLY, HERE COMES THIS GUY:
A gold-addicted dipshit who pretends that prevaricational rhetoric is truth.
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Portland Oregon
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2018 - 04:49pm PT
|
So if a news person or TV commentator owns stock in say for example, Apple, some ethical standard requires her to report that fact when doing a news story or commentary on Apple stock performance?
Not buying it; no such standard. In fact I think there are damn few news reporting standards; plenty of opinions however!
DMT
I think if you employ the CEO of Apple as your council, you are obligated to disclose that when you report on them.
As to the “I was never invoiced or paid by check” claim, it’s not a denial of a consideration for reciprocal agreements.
We’ll see how that plays out. There’s a reason Hannity wants to claim client privilege.
|
|
Tom
Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 17, 2018 - 04:59pm PT
|
SHUT UP. Where's my bourbon? Don't you look at me. Don't you f*#king look at me.
 Frank Booth, a conscientious voter, exhorting an associate to be aware of what is happening.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2018 - 06:16pm PT
|
It is not that bad
Yet.
|
|
Tom
Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 17, 2018 - 06:18pm PT
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The Battle for Reality
Read your Orwell.
Amazingly, that book is necessary, in these Trumpian times.
The Battle For Reality will be won by those who can assimilate reality.
Tomy Lohren, I will shut you down.
If you're ready to go, battle of the best, you better bring more to the game, than Trump tooled a strumpet.
He did, he tooled a strumpet.
Oh, well they don't speak good English in that podunk fake college you went to.
I see. Got it. You're not in tune. You don't know. . . . . . . . .
WAY, true, girl.
And, you know it be TRUE.
It be true, Trump's tiny accomplice got some good, porno-star wetness.
And, this Tomy Larhen wetness I got be WAY better, than what you got, Sista.
You ain't my Sista, Bitch.
And, you better prove your stinky wetness be better, Girl.
IT'S ALL ABOUT THAT SAME THING, AT THIS POINT . . . ... . .
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!