Trump has entered the Querencia Phase of his presidency

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 1021 - 1040 of total 4648 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
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 Kimmelís 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, donít 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: Hereís what we donít 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.
Dingus Milktoast

Trad climber
Minister of Moderation, Fatcrackistan
Apr 17, 2018 - 02:31pm PT
It's considered an ethical standard to disclose relationships when reporting on them.

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
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 .....
NeeBraun

Trad climber
80302
Apr 17, 2018 - 04:46pm PT

hey there say, st00pid Americans... if you're not stone cold crazy like me surely you must be brainwashed.
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 ďI was never invoiced or paid by checkĒ claim, itís not a denial of a consideration for reciprocal agreements.

Weíll see how that plays out. Thereís 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.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Apr 17, 2018 - 05:34pm PT


Journalism is at an interesting crossroad in this formerly great country of ours...


fixed it for ya ;-)
Messages 1021 - 1040 of total 4648 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta