I found myself watching the Sean Hannity “interview” of vice-president Dick Cheney last night on Fox. I must say I have chortled through quite a few Larry King-style, fawning interviews by liberal journalists of liberal politicians in my time – all under the rubric of “objectivity.” But I don’t think I have ever witnessed a more fawning, sycophantic and simply rigged interview than that between Hannity and Cheney. In fact, the whole conceit that this was an actual interview is preposterous, along with the notion that Hannity is in any way a journalist. The first instinct of an actual journalist is to ask the tough questions even of someone you admire – perhaps especially of someone you admire. Hannity’s instinct is the exact opposite: ingratiation of his interview subject and his audience. The transcript reveals no distinction of any meaningful kind between the interviewer and interviewee. Here, for example, are a selection of statements made during the half hour. See if you can tell whether Hannity or Cheney said which:
a) “The world’s much better off and much safer today because Saddam Hussein’s in prison, will soon go on trial in Iraq, and the 25 million people in Iraq, as well as in Afghanistan, have been liberated. Those are all major achievements.”
b) “We just had elections in Iraq. The security forces are growing in Iraq. There’s still an insurgency, but there’s a lot of progress.”
c): “We’ve got millions of people here illegally… It adds significant cost to local communities who have to provide educational services or health services.”
d) “People express their concern about the vulnerability and susceptibility of our borders.”
e) “The Koran had not been flushed down the toilet, and the – Newsweek had to withdraw its comment. It’s important that they be careful and exercise a sense of responsibility here, because lives are at stake.”
d) “When Newsweek puts out reports that the Koran was flushed down the toilet, and then later they have to retract a story like that. The impact it has on people worldwide and those people that are looking for reasons to hate the United States or justify, perhaps, actions against our troops.”
f) “Two hundred and fourteen years, we’ve never had a judge that would have otherwise been approved by the Senate filibustered.”
g) “We need to restore the traditional practice of the last 214 years.”
No prizes for correct answers. You can figure it out from the transcript. This is a free country, and Sean Hannity and Fox News can broadcast what they want. Fox is far more entertaining than the other cable news channels and I can see its appeal, and the need for a less liberal network. But this was not journalism. It was propaganda, cloyingly arranged between interviewer and interviewee, based on talking points adhered to by both sides, and broadcast as if it were a real interview. I worry that viewers actually begin to believe that this is journalism, that asking questions designed to help the interviewer better make his case, in fact often supplementing his answers to improve their rhetorical power, is somehow what real journalists do. It isn’t. I wish I could provide a better kicker for this blog item than Sean Hannity did. But I can’t. So here’s his sign-off: “Lynne, I was too tough on him.”
The Dish 