Now, this first part of the interview did not have much content, but the second part aired tonight was much better. I am by no means a liberal, or even a conservative for that matter, but I thought that Michael Moore absolutely obliterated Hannity. It is obligatory to watch the second part to see just how stupid and brainwashed Hannity is. Does he really believe the stuff he espouses? Or does he just do it because that is where the money is? Hannity just seemed to throw straw men up anywhere he could to try and play gotcha with Moore; unflattering to say the least. I am truly confused. This may belong in IMHO, but I figure it will end up in the pit anyways. I cannot really think of much else to say right now; I was just hoping to see if anyone on the dope saw the interview and to read their opinions.
Happened upon it changing channels, and I just stopped, couldn’t believe MM was there. Cannot stand Hannity, but had to see how MM did with him.
And I was very favorably impressed, much more than I expected, MM was sincere, straightforward, and unflappable. He had the facts at his fingertips and he kept ignoring Hannitys bait. And he seemed utterly innocent of malice. Made Hannity look like a total chump.
Best guess: Hannity believed his own propaganda, figured he’d take MM apart no problem. Epic fail.
Agreed elucidator. The problem is that no matter how bad Hannity gets owned by his guests his loyal radio listeners and avid Fox fans only hear what they want. They have no diversity in news sources; they stick to Fox news believing everyone else is towing some party line. Why watch/listen to something that reinforces what you already believe? I guess people do not want to be challenged intellectually anymore…
P.S. Lynyrd Skynyrd was the guests after Michael Moore; what an intellectual 180.
Milton Rokeach’s dogmatism scale was an early attempt to measure pure authoritarianism, whether left or right. The scale was carefully designed to measure “closed mindedness” without regard to ideology. Nevertheless, researchers found that it correlated with political conservatism.[7] In a similar line of research, Philip Tetlock found that right wing beliefs are associated with less integrative complexity than left wing beliefs. People with moderate liberal attitudes had the highest integrative complexity in their cognitions.[8]
Here is part II
Honestly, I didn’t find it too good at assaulting Hannity’s beliefs. Unless there is more somewhere.
I watched all three parts and don’t see that as Moore “obliterating” Hannity at all. Moore is absolutely a hypocrite with his capitalist-bashing considering the fact that capitalism has made him a very rich man. Hannity is not the only person to call him on that, but he did what needed to be done there and Moore really has no defense. It wasn’t as bad on this interview, but in another interview Moore did (I forget whose but I think it was Wolf Blitzer’s) he looked like a total fool when he got called out on the same point.
Also in the third part, Hannity was making some valid points about personal financial responsibility in the mortgage crisis that Moore (at first) just sidestepped with the line “but they were swindled!”. But he later brought up the issue of medical bills driving people to financial ruin, and I’m totally with him on that.
Basically they are both shameless propogandist douches. I still like Moore’s films because they are funny and I at least agree with the spirit of his positions even though I do not follow him to the same extremes. But this interview doesn’t show Moore in a particularly good light, and I’m not sure what about it you think would indicate an obliteration.
You mean like when Moore answered Hannity’s question about what point would he be willing to admit that Obama and the stimulous plan had failed to bring unemployment down like Obama said he would, and by the time Moore stopped twisting and turning and redefining his standards the answer was when Obama becomes the president of Goldman Sachs?
Seriously. He said that. That was literally Moore’s final answer to when the point would come that he would acknowledge that Obama’s efforts to bring down unemployment had failed.
You call that sincere and straightforward?
(On second thought, maybe it was. :D)
I’ll admit that he was personable – much more so than I’ve seen him be before. He and Hannity both seemed to enjoy their exchange.
I’d be interested to know just how it is that you think he made Hannity look like a total chump.
You know, just so’s I’ll know you aren’t speaking from partisan bias or anything.
Sure, Moore comes across slightly better than Hannity, if for no other reason than he’s not restricted to blaming only Democrats for bad stuff. But neither man is impressive. I see two men for whom nuance and complexity are convenient tools to obstruct opponent’s arguments, but who make no efforts at critically examining their own views.
They are experts of communicative impact and rhetoric, but 12-year-olds of reason and deliberation.
I know there are some people, even on this very board, who believe that complexity is an excuse for equivocation. They believe that to be politically courageous is to boil every position down to a soundbite and run with it. Deliberation, nuance, and admission of insufficient information are signs of cowardice to these people. But they are wrong. The world is complicated. The financial crisis is complicated. Terrorism is complicated. The people who reduce them to soundbites are out to sell you something, not educate you.
Perhaps obliterated was too strong of a word, but I thought Hannity looked like a fool when Moore asked him about his church attendance. It was obvious Hannity was not telling the truth. Like I said, I do not have a dog in this fight and could n’t have cared less whose ideology came across the strongest. You are probably right that it was just two entertainers entertaining, as most of the banter seemed friendly in nature.
It just seems to me that Hannity has all of these complaints, but offers no viable solutions. It’s the same thing night after night: bitch bitch bitch. I guess the same could be said of Moore, however he is encouraging people to become more involved.
I’m sick and tired of this bullshit line of reasoning, as if only people living in caves and subsisting on foraged nuts and berries are allowed to criticize rich people. Yeah he’s rich, because of that he’s actually got a little more insight into the financial industry than your average bartender or truck driver.
This same bullshit canard is always trotted out about Al Gore also regarding the environment. To the AM radio addicted mouth breathers he’s not allowed to speak out about the environment unless he gives up all modern conveniences and weaves his own clothes from flax he grew in his commune garden and walks to all of his appearances on sandles he made from tires he found in the dump.
From Part 1 beginning at around 11:00. Transcription mine so there may be typos but if so they’re unintentional. Emphasis mine obviously.
Okay, I detest Sean Hannity. I’m mixed on Michael Moore- I think his movies have some brilliant moments and some bullshit moments and my feelings about him are similarly mixed. I’ll also say I’d love to see al-Qaeda destroyed (though I’m not Christian), but how in the hell can you say you love your enemy as Jesus commanded, then call for the death of a group, and see no real contradiction?
Sean adds
So the next best thing is to destroy them?
Again, I don’t say al-Qaeda’s destruction would be a bad thing, but I don’t reconcile it with “love thy neighbor”, I just see it as a necessary evil.
Though frankly I’ve never understood how Christians reconcile the “love thy neighbor/turn the other cheek” thing with “support the military industrial complex”. They’re just flat out irreconcilable whether it’s today or the U.S. Civil War (with both sides praying in the same denominations of the same churches in the same language to help their side destroy the other) or the IRA bombing Protestants or Protestants killing Catholics or whatever. I think if people truly did turn the other cheek it would be a bad thing; we’d all be living as serfs occupied in nations by people who didn’t feel that way, but for me there’s no barrier because I don’t claim to base my life on the teachings of Christ (other than the general “do good to others/do no harm to others” with the “it’s okay to defend yourself” asterix by it). Hannity claims- constantly- to be a devout Christian and he’s asking for multiple deaths as a good thing.
Well, sure, but that was instructive, showing you what not to do!
Here, let me load this porno flick…see what they’re doing? That’s not nice, don’t do that. Next scene is the teenage lesbian stewardesses, so maybe you don’t have the equipment to do what they do, but its still nasty, so don’t anyway.
I go to church. Most people don’t even remember the sermon right after it happens. That’s why I take notes or get the CD. As a musician, I’m more likely to remember what songs were sung.
I’m not saying Hannity was telling the truth, just that not remembering a sermon is not proof that you didn’t attend.
In the first few months we were shedding over 600,000 jobs a month. Last one was 200,000. Which one is a bigger number. Does that mean they are doing better or worse? I see a lot of bias. It is as always from you.
No bias. The question was whether or not Moore was being straightforward and had all the facts, as friend elucidator claimed. My post was to illustrate that this was not the case…which it wasn’t. Had Moore quoted the same statistics you did, then assuming you are correct he could have been said to have the facts at hand. But he didn’t. He stammered and equivocated and, when finally pressed hard enough by Hannity, said that the point where he was prepared to admit that Obama’s efforts weren’t working would be when he became the president of Goldman Sachs. Now, while I will readily admit to having a strong (and in my opinion correct :D) conservative bias, my response to elucidator was was not biased but was simply a straightforward recitation of the facts.
