In observing the recent exchange between Sean Hannity, Donald Trump, and Elon Musk on Fox News, it strikes one as quite contrasting from the interviews conducted with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris on other networks. The former was rife with blatant cheerleading and no attempt at upholding journalistic integrity. With this in mind, I’m delving into the specifics of the talk show spectacle which celebrated a plethora of distortions, and outright sycophancy to an astonishing degree.
You’d be hard-pressed to find an interviewer who presented Biden or Harris in the overzealous manner conducted in this interview. Statements such as, ‘They have taken a wrecking ball to the deep state’ or ‘The American people are taking their country back from what is an out-of-control bureaucracy’ were nowhere to be found. Consequently, the impartiality that should stick to news anchors was absent, replaced by unashamed partisanship.
Indeed, Hannity’s performance would make a seasoned cheerleader blush with envy. The only thing missing seemed to be an actual pair of pompoms. From the outset, both Hannity and Musk indulged in mutual admiration, void of any critical thought or robust questioning.
‘I love the president,’ Musk exclaimed, adding, ‘I think the president is a good man.’ Trump reciprocated, affirming Musk was a ‘good man.’ This reciprocal adoration fest continued to propagate throughout the interview, reaching a point where the individual counts genuinely blurred.
In this lovefest, Musk took a moment to call out the media’s ‘outrageous’ alleged unfair treatment of the president. This sentiment quickly extended to Hannity’s defence, essentially arguing that any discord between the president and Musk was a nefarious invention of a biased media.
This eased over any legitimate concerns surrounding the power that Musk holds, the level of transparency around his DOGE group’s federal government actions, or Trump’s habitual unwillingness to share credit. Instead, the Hannity-led interview was a series of back-patting and clumsy evades over substantial concerns.
Such blatant idolatry raises questions about the portrayal of these influential figures – likely the two most influential personalities the country can boast. It’s startling to hear Hannity ask Musk if he’s committed to curing blindness, rather than critique his multitude of controversial stances.
Hannity’s interviews with Trump have generated considerable criticisms for their sycophantic nature. However, this recent show was somehow more grovelling – an unsettling performance with Trump and Musk fitting right in.
There was a moment when the title on the screen read, ‘Elon Musk responds to the left’s smears.’ Unsurprisingly, it became quite the echo chamber for Trump’s sentiments against his detractors, left-leaning individuals, and anyone questioning the Trump, Musk, or DOGE dynamic.
In a stunning display of double standards, Musk claimed, ‘The thing they are accusing the administration of are things they are doing. They are guilty of the crime of which they accuse us.’ Revealing perhaps more about the speaker than those accused, this blanket assertion carried an odour of guilt-displacement.
Trump wasn’t about to be outdone, even in this category of deflecting culpability. ‘The level of arrogance and cheating — they’re just horrible people,’ he added, an accusation dripping with irony and projection. When one might expect an argument steeped in facts, the discourse sunk into a whirlpool of conspiracy theories.
As expected, it wouldn’t be a Trump-Hannity interaction without the media becoming a punching bag. In their terms, CNN is terrible, the Associated Press is awful, and CBS manipulated an answer from Kamala Harris. Although this claim was unequivocally false, it seamlessly fit with the narrative being spun.
Indeed, the wide lens view rendered a confusing spectacle: what was the objective of this interview, if any substantial questioning and invigoration of fact-checking were blatantly absent? Conspiracy theories saw more air time than factual rebuttals.
Attempting to discern an objective within this charade becomes an exercise in futility. The interview, filled with adulation and devoid of challenging questions, was a tribute to the individuals rather than a dissection of their policies or actions.
The single-threaded narrative that dominated left no room for a devil’s advocate or counterarguments, thus creating an echo chamber mirroring the most egregious forms of state-controlled media. Whereas one might expect a semblance of balance and accountability, it was a bitter reminder of how far journalism can veer from its core principles.
In the grand scheme, the public deserves more than a televised adoration fest that falls short of holding the powerful to account. Contrast this with interviews involving Harris or Biden, and one quickly realises the stark disparities in journalistic standards and integrity.