Sean Hannity. Who is this person? I hardly know. Because I avoid conflict. Because I am serenely deadheading the lavender and verbena. Because I try to alternate inhaling and exhaling in a calm way. Because I have never consumed any show that this person is on. Because all this, I have no grudge against Hannity. Until now. (Though apparently John Cleese has feelings.)

Apparently he’s a huge Donald Trump booster. Wikipedia says Hannity’s a TV and radio host, an author, and a political commentator. Doesn’t call him a reporter. Yeah, I’ve heard people mention him, but somehow never heard anyone admiring his journalistic chops.

In fact, look here. He said “I never claimed to be a journalist.”

That’s good, since he disgraces himself from a reporting-the-facts standpoint, to judge by recent events.

On a recent radio broadcast Hannity repeated a series of obviously phony assertions: that Michelle Obama had removed – “scrubbed” – all mentions of Hillary Clinton from her Twitter account. Then that Elizabeth Warren had done the same. That Barack Obama had done the same. And unfollowed her. Burn!

Hannity said, “Wow. That means they know it’s huge. You know why? Because Obama’s implicated. He’s implicated here and he’s pissed. You know what his legacy might be? Jail.”

Oh please.

His source was a far-right website whose name I don’t feel like typing. Some listeners passed it on. Allegedly a Hannity producer “confirmed” it.

THESE ARE THINGS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN MINUTES IF NOT SECONDS.

These statements were so demonstrably false, so easily rebutted, that Hannity apologized. In his way. After the show, he tweeted:

Correction. Live on radio I read a gateway pundit report that @MichelleObama had deleted mentions of HRC. And a listener said BHO and. Elizabeth Warren did same. Fact is they didn’t. I humbly apologize. Live radio.

Terrible apology. He shifts responsibility. He minimizes the importance of spreading false rumors. Also “humbly” is falsified by his next line: “Live radio.” Oh yeah. ‘I’m so important and timely that I can’t help telling lies!’

CNN Money asked about this. He emailed, “I received an email LIVE ON THE AIR that linked a Gateway Pundit article. I questioned the accuracy of it on the air. I asked my producer on the air if it was true. She said it was. I also received a listener IM saying that they saw the same. Then THE listener mentioned that there was a report about the other 2.

“Bottom line it was brought up in an insignificant way. I was dealing with more important issues like HRC crimes and lies and how CNN has been colluding with the Clinton campaign and CHEATING Bernie Sanders.”

You’ll notice this is not an apology. It’s more explanation that shifts responsibility (to a producer and A LISTENER IM). Much more minimizing: it was insignificant! I was on the air! I was talking about vital stuff! (Because he loves Sanders? I doubt it.) And getting out the Trump message about “HRC crimes and lies.” On the air! I’m on the air!

On a later radio show he had this to say:

I also want to… Unlike the media, you ever notice when they make a correction, the story’s on A1. The correction’s on page A38, paragraph four, right-hand column, and buried. But we made a mistake on the program. Usually, – and by the way I’m not at all upset with Jim Hoft over at Gateway Pundit. And he sent a nice note to us. But he had seen a story and he put it up on his website, I reported it on the air that in fact Michelle Obama and then later it came out that maybe Barack, and Elizabeth Warren had actually wiped references to Hillary off their Twitter feeds. They did not. I was wrong. I humbly apologize.

Again with the humbly. Minimizing by means of “maybe.” It did not ‘come out that maybe.’ These were random rumors he was passing on although they could easily, quickly, have been checked.

An attack on “the media” in general for something that indeed is a fault, when it happens. SorryWatch often complains about this, when it happens. But it’s TAUGHT IN JOURNALISM SCHOOLS that corrections should go in the same place the mistake was placed. His vague accusation is just slop.

By the way, Hannity may not be a journalist, but his program is part of “the media.” And it would be more accurate to say that he repeated it on the air, not that he reported it.

Now that I know more about Hannity, I’m not happy. He’s a disgrace to Irish Americans. We Irish Americans are used to disgraces. Ask any McCarthy.

Then a very similar thing was drawn to our attention. (Darn it, I’m not finished with the lavender and verbena.)

Fox News. Bret Baier. Last week they reported that Hillary Clinton was in “imminent legal trouble,” that her private server had been hacked by “five foreign intelligence agencies” and that an FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundation was “likely” to lead to an indictment after the election.

These things were widely repeated by people who liked the idea that they were true. But they were not true.

Baier defended his report, but conceded it was “inartfully” worded.

That didn’t work. He tried again. He said he had an anonymous source in the FBI (said to be heavily Trump-minded). He said he’d done an inartful bad job of explaining the implications of what his source said.

[I said] it was inartful, the way I answered the last question about whether the investigations would continue after the election. And I answered that, yes, our sources said it would. They would continue to likely an indictment. [sic] Well, that just wasn’t inartful, it was a mistake. And for that I’m sorry. I should have said, ‘They will continue to build their case.’… We stand by the sourcing on the ongoing active Clinton Foundation investigation, and are working to get sources with knowledge of the details on the record and on camera. Hopefully today.

Yeah, who’s making a case here?

God-awful apology. While he says it was a mistake, he also makes it clear that we should believe him and his ‘sources’ who will back him up on camera ANY SECOND NOW.

This is partisan, dishonest, faux-journalism, aided by a growing number of rumor websites calling themselves news websites. For some people it’s fun to make shit up, and it’s thrilling to convince people to repeat it, if you don’t give a damn about the consequences.

The idea seems to be to sling vast quantities of imaginary mud at Hillary Clinton. Doesn’t matter if the stuff you make up is ridiculous. Keep throwing ooze as fast as possible, repeating it, getting others to repeat it, then say, “Oops, apparently not proven.” “Sorry, turns out that was phony.” “How we regret last night’s slander – but NOW! NEW CHARGES! Which we haven’t checked or anything, but THIS COULD BE SERIOUS! Breaking! We’re on the air! We have reports that Hillary EATS KITTENS! ALIVE! It’s so disgusting that CHELSEA CUT HER OFF AND IS EVEN NOW SCRUBBING HER TWITTER ACCOUNT!!! Isn’t that something?! You know where people go who eat kittens alive? JAIL!!!”