,
41 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
Hannity is DANGEROUS—he pretends to be in media while acting as a Trump adviser and surrogate. RETWEET if you agree. salon.com/2017/10/15/stu…
2/ I don't care about Hannity's opinions—he can believe what he likes. But pretending to be in the media while advising Trump is VERY wrong.
3/ Fox News should've made it clear to Hannity LONG ago: you can be in the media OR you can be a top Trump adviser and surrogate. NOT both.
4/ There's a reason Hannity refused comment when media asked him over the last few days to confirm he's a top Trump adviser: it's UNETHICAL.
5/ Here's WHY it's unethical: the DEFINITION of "state TV" (like North Korea has) is when the "media" actually works with and for the State.
6/ If Fox News were a media organization—and it no longer is—it would've fired Hannity the MOMENT it learned he was a REGULAR Trump adviser.
7/ It's fine for a POTUS to call someone in media and be friendly with them. But Sean Hannity is a TOP—and REGULAR—Trump adviser on POLICY.
8/ As Trump cultivates more relationships like this—say, with Jeanine Pirro—he begins creates a de facto state media that operates secretly.
9/ As SALON notes, Trump just made his SEVENTIETH—70th!—appearance on "Hannity" since announcing his candidacy. Hannity IS Trump's state TV.
10/ If Hannity DIDN'T think he was lying about his ethics and his conflicts of interest, he would've answered queries about advising Trump.
11/ Hannity is a Trump "agent"—in the legal sense. Trump uses him to pass legal disinformation and threaten both prosecutions and witnesses.
12/ Hannity has ALREADY been caught passing provably false information about the DNC hack in order to benefit a politician he was advising.
13/ The reason to call Hannity "dangerous" is that Trump could seek to build—maybe already has—identical relationships with others in media.
14/ Who else does Trump have an in-kind quid pro quo with? Granting interviews—which means advertising money—in exchange for advice/support?
15/ If news outlets DON'T fire "journalists" who offer policy advice to politicians in exchange for access/ad revenue, where does that lead?
16/ Hannity is "Exhibit A" of where it leads: as SALON showed, Hannity uses his air-time to threaten Russia probe witnesses and prosecutors.
17/ IF Trump has an access-for-advice deal with Hannity—and Hannity threatens witnesses—shouldn't Mueller interview Hannity on Obstruction?
18/ Given that the Russia probe is Hannity's political focus—and Hannity ADVISES TRUMP ON POLICY—shouldn't Mueller be interviewing Hannity?
19/ Is Hannity discussing a probe he KNOWS he's a potential witness in? Is he threatening prosecutors or witnesses in a case he's a part of?
20/ Is there any OTHER top Trump adviser who goes on TV nightly to call Mueller and Comey criminals and spread psyops about the FBI's probe?
21/ Fox News has been in the news REPEATEDLY for the legal misconduct of its "talent." How has Hannity ESCAPED that conversation, precisely?
22/ Propaganda is legal—but pretending to be in the media while working for Trump? A probe witness, intimidating witnesses? Much less clear.
23/ IF Hannity has an access-for-advice deal, that COULD be fraud—as to advertisers and/or cable subscribers. Then—the witness intimidation.
24/ What would the Right do if it found out Brian Williams was secretly a top adviser for Clinton? (What did it do when he told MINOR lies?)
25/ Just reverse the names and political allegiances and you'll have NO problem imagining the full scope of the Trump-Hannity scandal. {end}
PS/ Regarding Tweet #20 in this thread: I meant any other Trump adviser who poses as INDEPENDENT MEDIA while doing the things I mentioned.
PS2/ We can't let Hannity off the hook by saying he's a shill or that his relationship with Trump is clear. It's not—he HIDES his advising.
PS3/ Hannity can have secret dinners and phone calls with Trump if he's GETTING information from POTUS. ADVISING him? A different situation.
PS4/ Doubt the media analysis here? Check in with media ethics experts to see if *they* agree this sort of relationship is deeply unethical.
PS5/ Doubt the legal analysis here? Ask other lawyers about persons connected to federal probes seeking to intimidate other probe witnesses.
PS6/ Doubt the advertising analysis? Do cable subscribers to—or advertisers on—Fox News think they're paying for Trump administration staff?
PS7/ Doubt the historical analysis? Find a scenario analogous to this in recent American political OR journalistic history—Left OR Right.
PS8/ We've normalized *so much* in America under Trump's regime that we've actually gone ahead—as a nation—and normalized STATE TV. Amazing.
PS9/ Even SALON—so clearly trying to cut Hannity off at the knees—erroneously referred to him as a "Fox host" rather than a "Trump adviser."
PS10/ Indeed, isn't it now INCUMBENT upon all news outlets to determine if Hannity IS a Trump adviser, so in reports they can call him that?
SOURCE1/ nytimes.com/2016/08/22/bus…
SOURCE2/ vanityfair.com/news/2016/08/d…
SOURCE3/ theblaze.com/news/2017/04/2…
SOURCE4/ latimes.com/politics/la-na…
SOURCE5/ "Hannity made clear in a call [with Trump]...Trump must draw a harder line on immigration enforcement." pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/…
NOTE: Hannity HAS called himself a journalist—often—and describing his roles has NEVER admitted to being an adviser. mediamatters.org/video/2017/08/…
