As an American, I fully understand the definition of hypocrisy.

Whether you’re a devout Catholic or an agnostic who reads between the lines, it’s easy to see the hypocrisy that runs rampant in modern day America.

And while it’s absolutely true that degrees of hypocrisy can be found in the actions of all inhabitants of this earth, only the most despicable human beings will fine tune and harness their hypocrisies in order to move into greater positions of power and wealth to the detriment of others.

Large corporations have perfected this systemic practice of monetary advancement through the guise of competition and the free market and people who understand how to harness the operating levers of these machinations have the ability to freelance in similar fashion.

In this age of readily made available information, one can document patterns of hypocrisy quite easily, as they are in abundance. Take this example set forth by Sean Hannity, which is covered in detail within the documentary, “This Divided State,” shot just before the presidential election of 2004.

From the logs of Jesus’ General, it appears that Michael Moore charged a $40,000 appearance fee to speak to a crowd at Utah Valley Community College. Now, appearance fees, even of the $40,000 variety, are standard practice from celebrity types, whether they’re former government officials, top corporate executives, All-Pro athletes or Sean Hannity: Manipulating Scumeven overweight filmmakers. The speaker’s political affiliation doesn’t play a part in the fee either, as both sides of the aisle cash in on these opportunities. So how does Sean Hannity expose himself as a hypocrite? In an effort to subterfuge Moore’s appearance, Hannity schedules a pre-emptive lecture at the same college and charges a, get this, zero appearance fee.

Wait a second… That’s not hypocritical. Student fees stay in student pockets for Hannity, yet Michael Moore, the liberal of all liberals, charges out the wazoo to come hear him preach. Before tackling this particular charge of hypocrisy, let’s think about how this no fee/fee dichotomy of actors play in the mind of students attending this school? What about the people that live in the community or the ones who came out to hear Hannity speak? What about the average tax-paying citizen hearing this news around the country?

The lasting image left in the minds of these hard-working Americans is “Sean Hannity cares enough to speak with us on his dime, while Michael Moore charges a big fee to support the creation of another one of his anti-American propaganda films.”

This prevailing message is so black and white due to Hannity’s uncanny ability to leverage his hypocritical nature throughout his career. The fact of the matter is that Sean Hannity charged this small college more than $48,000 in travel accommodations, specifically for traveling by private jet.

In the end, both Hannity and Moore charged upwards of $60,000 for their individual visits, but the way that Hannity structured the line items in hisEffect of Disinformation invoice allowed him to present a “no appearance fee” visit.

Sneaky, eh?

So why does this matter?

Michael Moore followed Hannity’s visit a week later. The pre-emptive disinformation by Hannity was designed to create a election time clusterfuck for Moore’s lecture the following week. While both men ended up selling out their respective lectures, Hannity pulled in $13,500 more in donations, which added up to a noteworthy difference in net school expenditures of ~$17,000. That’s an important number, for the next time this school is looking for a speaker with a fixed budget, they might shy away from Moore or someone similar in shape and size.

I wasn’t at either of the lectures, and I’m waiting for the DVD to become available, so I can’t say for certain why one group of people donated so much more than the other, but I’ll venture into the realm of speculation in this instance.

I’ve followed Hannity’s shtick since his days on talk radio in New York City. The man knows how the rile up a crowd, pushing button after button to get the flock moving in his direction. In the provided clip, Hannity drops lines such as:

“…Michael Moore isn’t worth one red cent of student funds, by the way…”

After measuring the crowd reaction to such an opinion (heavy cheers), he moves onto calling out to the liberals in the lecture hall to stand up and identify themselves, with a condescending chant of:

“…here little liberals, here liberals, liberals, liberals…”

With the background framed by a huge American flag draped onstage, Hannity follows up by putting a face to the opposition in the minds of the still-seated crowd by stating:

“…ladies and gentlemen, here is the surest sign that our educational system is failing.”

As the crowd cheers, all is well in Mulberry now that Hannity is here.

Now, forget the politics of the still-seated people for a moment; they could’ve represented a mixed political pot, ranging from liberals who refused to stand (or as I like to call them: Democrats) to the extreme right-wing conservatives (or as I like to call them: the Minority).

The people that remained seated are simply looking for something to believe in, which in today’s day and age, is completely understandable. But the sick thing about Hannity and his ilk is that they understand this audience inside and out and will capitalize on their fears without thinking twice.

So when the crowd disperses from a Sean Hannity lecture, you can bet that people are reaching for their
wallets to keep them feeling pumped up and proud to be an American. How could anyone, including Michael Moore, compete with a pre-emptive, "no appearance fee" grandstand such as that? (unless they were hell bent to use similar hypocritical, manipulative and deceiving tactics).

Again, I’ve yet to see the film and have only seen the clip from the Hannity presentation, but I’d bet that Moore’s audience included a greater opposition to his platform due to the Hannity circus that rolled out of Dave Reid: Fixeight.comtown just a week prior; "anti-American" targets remain fresh in ones mind, especially when they’re coming directly to ones neighborhood.

So you might be asking yourself, how does all of this relate to blogging and Web 2.0? It relates on a multitude of levels:

  • If you’re reading this, you’re already participating in the blogosphere, legitimizing it that much more as an alternative form of media and/or press.
  • If you make a comment to this post or subsequently post elsewhere, you’ll serve to expand theJay Patrikios: Scatterboy.com
    discourse around Sean Hannity and the power of misinformation
  • If you trackback to this post, you’re working towards creating a semantic perspective around Sean Hannity and the power of misinformation

Active participation in the blogosphere , such as the above, supports one of the primary pillars of the Web
2.0 meme
; to make opaque information transparent. You might not have come across this instance of hypocrisy and misinformation if you weren’t reading this blog. Ten years ago, that statement would have been an absolute as personal publishing had yet to hit the market. So while people, like you, are expanding the reach and discourse of the blogosphere, intuitive interfaces—from Rojo to Blogpulse to Technorati—are being designed to help people connect the dots of information and data, aggregating far ranging contextual topics acrossIdleatwork.com the web.

DeWitt Clinton: Unto.net Easy access to reliable information? Community and political discourse? Could it possibly be that we’re in the midst of rebuilding a Democratic Republic from the ground, or network, up?

Social networks exist in the reality of our lives. On-line, services such as flickr , Yahoo! 360 and LinkedIn are popping up all over the place, and while each of these social networks are focused on specific interests and needs of people via a particular branded domain, with hooks into other data sources from around the web, they still only serve as a microcosm of the semantic potential of Web 2.0 and beyond.

What would happen if brands truly opened up and worked together to share the greater possibilities of profit? How much more connected would our lives become in the process of such innovation? How could optimized information object search and retrieval, mixed into these applications, change the dynamics of wealthy, resourceful individuals using the media as a lie and spin zone?

I’d be a hypocrite if I said I wasn’t looking forward to the day…


7 Responses to “Blogging, Web 2.0 and This Divided State”  

  1. 1 texastentialist

    What you rightly call hypocrisy others (neo-cons) call sound strategy. The MO is whine about your opponents doing something bad (blame game, playing politics, abusing such and such) and then do the very same thing yourself full throttle and continue to deny that your doing it (just your enemies “playing politics�). Basically you need a deep seated contempt for (small d) democracy and the American people and you’re good to go.

  2. 2 spcoon

    yep, and that’s where it just gets disgusting for me. i mean, i’m not religious, but i do consider my ethics and integrity to be extremely important. as a non-christian, i thought those were shared priniples of our christian bretheren. so for a faith-based administration and it fox media mouthpieces to conduct themselves in such hypocritical fashion, by intelligent design… it’s enough to lose your lunch.

  3. 3 texastentialist

    “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” — Barry Goldwater - Acceptance Speech as the 1964 Republican Presidential candidate

    When you serve a greater good (god, Allah, Jehovah, the Market) then the ends justify the means. And if a few infidels die on the way to the Utopia, so be it…

    I’m so happy to be a heathen in the reality-based world.

  4. 4 spcoon

    it’s funny that you quote Goldwater, who will always be measured as the epitome of an extreme conservative. a Goldwater advisor actually quoted Mao Tse-tung by saying, “Give me just two or three men in a village, and I will take the village.”

    these people will finger point and name call the “evil” of the world (with Goldwater, it was communist practices), yet at the same time beg, borrow and steal any philosophy, tactic or means to meet their desired end. it’s morally reprehensible.

  5. 5 texastentialist

    “these people will finger point and name call the “evil” of the world (with Goldwater, it was communist practices), yet at the same time beg, borrow and steal any philosophy, tactic or means to meet their desired end. it’s morally reprehensible.”

    That because they recognize “evil” differently than simple folk like you and I. The power-brokers see evil as anything that diminishes their power. Period. Inversely anything that increases their power is “good.” Market forces thrive best under a totalitarian regime (unions are crushed, regulations are gutted, will of the people is trampled and all power joins as one – see fascism) and the common ideology of the fascist can be used interchangeably. The “enemiesâ€? might move in and out of fashion (commies, terrorist, insurgents, Liberals) but the end remains the same – more power at all costs.

  6. 6 spcoon

    yeah, i know their ways. i’m just sick of it all.

    and let me get this on the record (haha), when a Democrat next moves into office, i’m going to be on him like white on rice. it’s time for americans to deal with politics like chris rock suggests (paraphrasing), “stop being a part of a group and think for yourselves.”

  1. 1 Sean Hannity: Corporate Tool Of Disinformation at connecting*the*dots