Talk:Hannity & Colmes

Equal speaking time

Both Hannity and Colmes get eaqual speaking time. If you actually watch the show.

A Harvard research group did a count of words spoken by both commentators, and found that Hannity spoke almost twice as many times as Colmes. In any event, your use of the NPOV marker is inappropriate since the article says that "critics claim," and doesn't present the information as fact. --Holdek 00:09, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

It is not the words that is the issue but the amout of time used for speaking. During the show there are blocks of time ie: Hannity 3.5 minutes Colmes 3.5 minutes Commerical Hannity 2 min. Colmes 2 min. Comm. ect. Hannity usually tries to "pin" down the guests while Colmes is more a ask a question get's an answer sort of person. The time given is eaqual is my main point. --BrenDJ 16:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just because somebody says more words doesn't mean their opinion is more expressed. Another misleading report. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 23:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I removed the last sentence stating the supposedly concrete facts that "Hannity creates falsifications" and "Hannity talks more than Colmes." The former is absolutely an opinion and the latter is very debatable. --Doctorcherokee 23:45, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Just because two people speak for the same amount time doesn't mean that their opinions are equally expressed. Another logical fallacy. --Swift 08:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Added rephrased text regarding speaking time with citation. Vassyana 10:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Colmes has also called himself "Liberal" on the show many times.He might have said he was a "moderate" once in 1995. --BrenDJ 16:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More to the point, there is a rightist presenter (Hannity) and a centrist presenter (Colmes), but no leftist presenter. Fox has no desire to offer a presenting contract to the likes of Naomi Klein, because it is hopelessly reactionary. — Gulliver ✉ 01:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It also has no desire to showcase people such as David Duke. Obviously there are people left of Colmes, and obviously there are people right of Hannity. But they arent supposed to represent the two far sides of the spectrum, they are just trying to represent the Republican and Democrat view. Rangeley 03:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Often vs. sometimes

I've reverted because his critics allege that he often misleads, not that he sometimes misleads. Look at the Media Matters page. --Holdek 04:47, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and Media Matters is often misleading, according to The O'Reilly Factor (9 June 2003). Using one source to change an article, especially one known to be biased, leads to a biased article - as this one clearly is. There is simply no reason to have this statement at all, since Hannity & Colmes is obviously an opinion-based program.

In my mind, being an opinion-based program does not give the hosts of a show that seeks to provide "balanced" information to the public, the right to mislead. Even if a reporter misleads by failiure to do the neccissary research, this should ring warning bells and if it occurs "often", it is a sign of incompetence.

Now, I don't know the show very well myself, and I find the article to represent both views on the topic. If critics believe Hannity often misleads, then I think it should stand.--Swift 06:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Al Franken

Why is liberal Al Franken being mentioned as a critic of Hannity & Colmes in this article, while The Al Franken Show page contains absolutely no criticism from conservatives? An unfortunate example of a trend in political bias in Wikipedia. Especially in such a short article, the reference should probably be removed. In a longer, more thorough article it would be acceptable. --Doctorcherokee 02:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not see the article at any point mention that Fraken feels his show is more balanced and it certainly does not need to be either way. Fraken's point was only that Colmes is promoted as a liberal (thus giving Hannity & Colmes a balanced view) when he in fact feels that Holmes is just a puppet playing a liberal to make Hannity and his conservative view point look good. There is some fairly strong evidence to backup this view point and Fraken's opinion (being generally regarded as a "hard-hitting" liberal) is certainly one such example. - 24.23.37.62 (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say there is still an abundant amount of negative criticism for the show versus positive criticism in this article. 75.6.51.231 07:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As much as I'd like this to be proof of a conservative bias in the media, if you think Mr. Franken's TV show is the extent of his coerage, you've got another thing coming. Franken is highly (and, in my opinion, accurately) critical of the so-called "highest-rated show on television" in "Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them", a NYT bestseller. --YouWillBeAssimilated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.55.118.85 (talk) 06:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Critics say...

Which ones? Where?

The whole vast 3rd paragraph is entirely unreferenced. I happen to agree that it is a fair representation of what I also IMAGINE a lot of observers may say about the show. I also IMAGINE that what is said adequately reflects the views both of those who believe H&C to be impartial and those who argue for its conservative bias. However, my imagination is not the basis for an encyclopedia article and neither, without sounding unduly harsh, should other people's.

Add some references, if you could, for some of these claims - or, if not, place them in a separate section that makes clearer that these are somewhat speculative.

But otherwise, this has potential. Certainly, if you had no idea what H&C was, this would give a very decent and clear overview, and I guess that, after all, is the whole idea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.25.15.73 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

A source? How about the thousands of people who hold that criticism? Is that not good enough? Oh I see, only "important people" like Noam Chomsky are allowed to hold criticisms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.102.202.99 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has made it a guideline that articles should be cited. It is not enough that an editor of Wikipedia knows that there are thousands of people that feel that way. The editor should preferably have some sources to refer to.

If thousands of people hold a particular point of view, probably someone has written an article analysing it. And, no;　it doesn't have to be by Chomsky, but you can't just use some blogger. --Swift 20:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

For this reason, I have added a weasel word tag.

This article is already tagged as missing citations. I have added a citation, as well as marked two other problematic sections with fact tags. There has been no dicussion regarding the "weasel words", so I am removing the tag. Vassyana 10:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Weird Sentence

"Colmes has been doing a lot of voiceovers, when Hannity has not been on the show." This need some serious clarification--I'm not really sure what this is supposed to be saying. Toscaesque 04:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• It's gone. Someone can add it back when they figure out how to present it coherently. Blintz 02:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Media Matters

In the 6th paragraph: if Media Matters is to be included there should be at least a disclaimer about the left leaning stance of the group. Just because a group says they found information doesn't make them creditable, it definatly isn't a NPOV. --StarSaber 16:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree as it is nothing but an ad-hominem argument. Just because the group disagrees with the practices of Fox News doesn't make them untrustworthy. According to the article cited, Media Matters simply noted the know political convictions of people interviewed and counted them up. There is nothing biased about that. --Swift 23:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

When stating they are a liberal organization, you are not proving them false, but rather alerting the reader that the source is may not have a NPOV. The NPsOV indicated in the article could very well be liberal speakers (which the source does not agree with). Would liberal be defined as a person that is as liberal as MM believes him or her should be, or anyone with a liberal POV? While on the other hand, does anyone "less conservative" (or on the verge there of) looked at as "conservative" by MM? A simple disclaimer would put this artical to a more NPOV. As it is now, this article is biased and DOES NOT have a NPOV. — Justin 15:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, an ad-hominem argument is a logical fallacy because it proves nothing. The MM article clearly details not only the findings, but also the classification of every guest. If you find a good critisism of MM's labelling scheme, please add that. You are free to critisise the study on the merits of its methodology, just not on the merits of its conductor. --Swift 00:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't ad-hominem a type of fallacy used to refute the validity of a source? (Also, a nit-pick, but I assume you're referring to the genetic fallacy here?) I'm not sure anyone here is saying the source is invalid, but making sure people know that it is a potentially biased source--to show extra caution when investigating its claims; suffice to say, caution is not the same as using an ad-hominem argument. Now, I'm new to wikipedia, and I don't want to be perceived as hit-and-run, so I will welcome correction on the matter if Wikipedia standards negate this whole argument. Do the rules state that a potentially biased source be labeled as such or not? -MDSchultz

Pointing out the fact that an organization which is conducting a study on conservative bias that uses, as its basis, the organization's own arbitrary definitions of who is "liberal", "neutral", or "conservative", is themselves starting out from a patently left-wing perspective, is not an argumentum ad hominem. But speaking of logical fallacies, IMHO devoting as much attention as the article does to Media Matters' analysis of the show makes this article enter into undue weight territory. Since when are they widely (and by "widely" I mean by people on more than one end of the political spectrum) considered credible experts on the subject of media bias? --Hiddekel 22:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Meida Matters is funded by George Soros, no orginization under the Soros umbrella shold be an acceptible source.Kirin4 16:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the Media Matters article, Media Matters is not funded by Soros. Jhobson1 (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Alan Colmes

Alan Colmes claims to be a liberal yet attacks other liberals on the show. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.102.202.99 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Great. If he were to let people off easy despite them having weak arguments, simply because he shared their general philosophical views, then he'd be a lousy reporter. Your description of his behaviour isn't sufficient to lable him as a good journalist, but it alone certainly doesn't make him a bad one. --Swift 19:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is Alan Colmes listed as moderated-liberal? This is not what he describes himself nor does his views reflect it.Giza D 16:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

So? Sean attacks other conservatives on the show, so he is not a conservative? Chemicalkinetics 22:07, 09 July 2007

See talk:It is Conservative and Liberal- thank you Astuishin (talk) 06:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources, anybody?

It is clear that a major portion of the article is unsourced (and the external link doesn't touch many of the details mentioned in the articles). Let's recall WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY and that might help in the improvement of the article without sacrificing NPOV. 147.70.242.40 23:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Conservative and liberal?

The first line calls Hannity and Colmes conservative and liberal but this is very American POV. Link to conservatism and liberalism and you will see these philosophies do not match these news presenters very well. A better phrase would be center-right and center-left which accurately position these two on the American political spectrum so that non-Americans can understand.

Maybe the first line using the pipe trick could be :"featuring center-right host Sean Hannity and the center-left Alan Colmes" or "featuring self-proclaimed conservative host Sean Hannity and the self-proclaimed liberal Alan Colmes"

Arlright 00:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

American political labeling is almost always POV. Most self-anointed "conservatives" are far from it in the historical sense; many in this group of people would define a liberal as a person who disagrees "with me." Alan Colmes is promoted as a liberal by Fox News Channel, but he disagrees with the promotion, asserting that he is closer to that of a moderate than a classical American liberal. 147.70.242.40 00:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll try the edit and see how long it lasts. - Arlright 20:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that Hannity is "center-right," even if proclaims himself so. Quite true that "conservative" and "liberal" have completely different meanings than 20-30-40 years ago, and different in USA than in other countries -- but Hannity is viciously Republican and pro-Bush Administration when most "center-right" politicians (e.g. Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, Christopher Shays) are openly dissenting. Hannity is a real piece of work, and I think there are way more accurate ways to describe him than "center-right." --Fluffbrain 18:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think much of the debate and rancor over the use of the labels "liberal" and "conservative" derives from the fact that Hannity is a neoconservative and Colmes is a neoliberal. Both positions differ considerably from what most readers would associated with "liberal" and "conservative". Perhaps we should use the "neo-" labels. Thoughts? Vassyana 06:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Neoliberal?

Hannity might, in some ways, represent a certain facets of neo-concertatism, but Alan Colmes is most definitely NOT a neo-liberal. Neo-liberals are liberals in the Adam Smithsonian sense of the word. I would suggest that Colmes' politics, atleast economically (economics being the realm in which neo-liberal theory competes), is Keynesian. It might be more acurate to describe him as a 'welfare liberal'. Joe in Seattle

See neoliberal. As noted in that article introduction it refers to "moderate" Democrats in the United States. Since this is a U.S. political talk show, I have changes the revert on the neoliberal label and added a reference to the "moderate" wing of the U.S. Democratic Party for clarity. Alan Colmes has described himself in this fashion. Vassyana 04:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to liberal before reading the talk page, sorry. I don't believe neo-liberal is correct here. It's purely an economic term most associated with the political right. Both George Bush and Sean Hannity themselves would be described as "neo-liberal".--Oakhouse 15:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is Conservative and Liberal

The show is based on Hannity being the conservative and Colmes the liberal. That will suffice for the box. Now, they may be on some part of that spectrum, but that is too much info for the box. azalea_pomp

There is clear evidence that Colmes credentials as a liberal are shaky. If anything he is a moderate. IMO Hannity and Colmes political positions should simply be briefly discussed within the article, and the the one word description in the infobox should be removed.- thank you Astuishin (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Colmes is a self-proclaimed liberal. He holds many liberal beliefs. Political blogs like MMFA or others should not be used to label people, especially when done in a negative light. --75.21.166.42 06:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well first off the source is from USA Today not media matters, secondly self description is not necessarily infallible and should be treated as such. Colmes proclaims that he is a liberal just as media matters proclaims there're fair. Those proclamations do not validate the claims as true. I simply believe there is to much evidence disputing the claim that Colmes is liberal, for that statement to be made as fact. And IMO the political positions of Hannity and Colmes should discussed in more detail in the article. - thank you Astuishin (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

POV?

This edit I'm looking at from 69.249.195.232, deleting a section and calling it POV seems somewhat improper. From what I'm seeing, what was deleted had a reference, and wasn't POV at all, it was simply statements of fact. If I'm wrong, someone point this out for me? Dan 01:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have source and is perfectly credible. So I to don't seem the claim of pov.- thank you Astuishin (talk) 04:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

So, should the edit be undone, as it seems to be unjustified? Dan 22:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It can be revised to keep the media bistro noted facts within- thank you Astuishin (talk)

Citation of Studies

If people are going to state that "Studies say this or that" then they better include a citation to an actual study. Newshounds complaining that Holmes got less time than Hannity on one show is not a study. Lets try to be a little more balanced and impartial. Arzel (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Colmes = Liberal?

Whether you believe so or not, Colmes claims to represent the Liberal point of view on the show. Generally in these types of articles we don't define what others are, we let them define themselves in the lead. Now it is perfectly ok to cite some criticism that says otherwise later in the article, but we can only report the way the show defines itself. Arzel (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember that the task of an encyclopedia is to report the truth. Remember that David Duke and the likes of them consider and describe themselves as reasonable, but wikipeida does not simply "report" these pronouncements without comment. Its pretty clear to anyone familiar with American liberalism that Colmes hardly subscribe to it. I think its fair to state his comments, and reaction to them as well to as his actions and views expressed on HC and incorporate that into the article. thanks Astuishin (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Media Matters for America

Media matters for America is a "liberal commentator"? Last time I checked it was non-profit media criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.28.7 (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Media Matters for America describes itself as "a web-based, not-for-profit, progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." It actually defines itself as liberal (progressive) and being opposed to conservative though. -- Atama^chat 21:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we're using Media Matters as a primary source. It's simply not reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.173.79 (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

First Air Date Wrong?

Somethings up. This page says the 1st air date is Oct 6, 1996. Yet the Fox News Channel page says they launched Oct 7, 1996. What gives? Did this show start on a different channel? Or did it really air with Fox's launch on the 7th? -Anonymous 03:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hannity & Colmes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071012214551/http://www.foxnews.com:80/story/0,2933,1242,00.html to http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1242,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hannity & Colmes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C1242%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101211175941/http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081124/pl_politico/26523 to https://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081124/pl_politico/26523

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Blonde guest host name

I would like to know who was the blonde chick that interviewed Kevin Nash about Chris Benoit. Sean Hannity was out that day and she interrupted by yell alright Mr. Nash this is Karen. when he said Steroids are used for therapy. and what is she up to today? thank you. 47.198.114.252 (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)