Jed Lewison over at DailyKos catches a great one: Sean Hannity in 2008, complaining (along with a yup-yupping Karl Rove) about the horrible people who hacked into Sarah Palin’s Yahoo! emails, calling it a “federal crime,” with Rove chiming in that whoever did it ought to be found out and “thrown under the bus,” and then Hannity from his week, complaining that the New York Times won’t publish emails which were obtained from hacking into the Climate Research Unit’s server because they “were never intended for public view.” Watch it:
It’s outright, bald-faced displays of utter lack of consistent principles (OK for me, not for thee) on the part of virtually every single FAUX “News” correspondent or host which helps belie their status as anything resembling a genuine news organization. Yes, Hannity is an opinion-show host, and therefore not technically “news” anyway, but a news channel has an overall public duty not to engage in blatant, hypocritical partisan boosterism of this sort, even on its perfectly admissible opinion-shows.
It’s one thing to opine, as host of one of a news-channel’s opinion shows, that Barack Obama (or George Bush) is a bad President. Hannity, Olbermann, Ed Schultz, O’Reilly, countless others – this is their stock-in-trade. However, it helps if said host can back up such opinions with evidence which supports his dislike. But when a host is willing to publicly apply one set of rules to one group or individual, and a different set of rules to another, it goes beyond simple assertion of preference for one thing or opposition to another and into a realm of, shall we say, “flexible ethics” which undercuts the legitimacy and believability of everything asserted or reported on by not just that particular host, but the supposedly “news-based” channel which allows him or her to do such things with either impunity or tacit approval.