Even beyond the title and image, and immediately scrolling through the article, the biased tone against Joe Biden is tough to miss. The authors poke fun at Joe Biden’s interactions with other volunteers by portraying them as slip-ups or awkward moments.
“But Biden’s visit wasn’t without a few signature Biden gaffes and strange moments.”
We also see an example of conservative diction in the quote. Conservatives have frequently used the term “gaffe” to describe Joe Biden’s mannerisms, even when they can be seen possibly as normal, everyday actions for an elderly person, whether he has alleged dementia or not. The authors use this term to describe Biden humorously asking a child at the food bank how old he is and discussing his wife’s education with another volunteer.
Sean Hannity authors also frequently use information in the form of tweets from X (formerly known as Twitter) to back up their explosive headlines with evidence. In this article’s example, the user RNC Research is tagged. RNC Research is a GOP-run account that typically has activity related to painting liberals and Joe Biden in particular in a negative light through a similar use of explosive language in tweets and clipped videos.
The authors’ tendency remains consistent among articles, regardless of which article you’re looking at. Let’s look at another Sean Hannity article, “‘UNCOMMITTED’: Biden Continues to See Significant Protest Votes in Primaries; Report.”
Sean Hannity frequently posts on social media. His posts generally consist of attacks on Democrats and defense of Republicans.
The authors write about the relatively small percentage of Democratic primary voters casting a ballot for “Uncommitted” because they disapprove of the president’s stance on the Israel-Hamas War and how it presumably affected the administration’s relationship with Israel.
“Biden has been hemorrhaging support from his once-reliable coalition. In an effort to keep the support of Pro-Palestinian activists, Biden has announced new aid plans for Gaza and is being more vocal in opposing Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu.”
The tone remains consistently negative towards Biden but also Pro-Palestinian activists, who are also affiliated with the left. All these findings are consistent with Biasly’s rating for Hannity as Moderately Conservative.
Analysis of Sean Hannity Opinion Articles
To fully understand political bias in media, it’s important to distinguish between factual reporting and opinion pieces. While reporting aims to present facts and let readers form their own conclusions, opinion articles express personal viewpoints on current issues. Although the previous section examined factual reporting, this section turns to how bias surfaces through Sean Hannity’s selection and tone of opinion content.
One example is in the reposted opinion article “WSJ OP-ED: Anthony Fauci Fesses Up”. In this op-ed, mask mandates and social distancing measures are heavily criticized, as were the practices undertaken by Fauci during the COVID-19 Pandemic. While there is variation within both political parties, the dismissal of mask mandates and other precautionary measures, driven by skepticism about the danger of COVID-19, was primarily a conservative talking point. This was typically followed by a call to reopen the economy and stop social distancing. This opinion article shows its bias by only representing one side of the issue.
“POST OP-ED: Mamdani’s Only NYC Budget Idea is Wishing for All the Cash He Wants to Spend,” argues that Zohran Mamdani is essentially relying on tax increases and optimistic revenue assumptions to fund ambitious spending. While the tone is dismissive, suggesting he is “wishing” for money. However, it does touch on a real, widely reported tension.
Even critics across the political spectrum, not just conservative outlets, have pointed out that his agenda depends heavily on new revenue streams that are politically and practically uncertain. Despite its ideological slant, the article doesn’t rely heavily on obscure conspiracy or false claims. Instead, it leans on a recognizable critique.
Words like “wishing” or implying policy disagreements as incompetence rather than debate are examples of this article’s bias. It treats revenue proposals as unrealistic without exploring the phased implementation or partial-funding strategies discussed elsewhere. That combination can make it seem more balanced than it actually is, especially compared to more overtly partisan pieces. Its effectiveness comes from anchoring a partisan critique in widely acknowledged budget realities, then narrowing the lens to exclude competing interpretations. That’s often more persuasive than outright misinformation.
Analysis of Reliability in Sean Hannity’s Online News Articles
Sean Hannity aims to serve conservatives with articles that reinforce their beliefs. Its staff writers are mostly conservatives. Readers should distinguish between news reporting and opinion pieces to evaluate credibility effectively.
The article “PHILLIP’S FANTASY: CNN Host Claims NYC Terror Attack’s Target Was Zohran Mamdani [WATCH]” reflects an average level of reliability. On one hand, it is grounded in a real event: Abby Phillip did incorrectly state that a New York City terror incident targeted Zohran Mamdani and later issued a public correction acknowledging the mistake. This shows that the core factual claim highlighted in the article is accurate. However, like many pieces associated with Sean Hannity, the presentation is heavily shaped by partisan framing. The article uses emotionally charged language and selectively emphasizes criticism of CNN while omitting broader context, such as how quickly the correction was made or how common on-air corrections are in journalism. This imbalance introduces bias that can distort readers’ perception of the event.
As a result, while the article contains verifiable facts and useful direct quotes, its overall reliability is undermined by a lack of neutrality and a tendency toward exaggeration, meaning it should be supplemented with more balanced sources for a complete understanding.
Hannity’s tendency to promote a right-wing agenda over honest journalism has undermined its credibility as a news organization. It has been involved in multiple controversies where reporting was misleading. Examples include Hannity spreading and promoting unverified claims about Hillary Clinton’s health during the 2016 Presidential Election and the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich. On Sean Hannity, an article titled, “FAILED EXPERIMENT: Liberals in Oregon Reverse Course, Recriminalize Hard Drugs After Overdoses Skyrocket,” reads more like an opinion piece with heavy conservative diction and tone. Each example was Hannity attempting to slander Democrats or question credible institutions to galvanize his conservative audience.
Quality of Sources and Facts Used
Some Sean Hannity articles lean too heavily toward how comprehensively they present opposing viewpoints.
In the article “DON’T MESS WITH TEXAS: Abbott Seizes Control of Park Along Border, Blocking Border Patrol,” The authors, who were unnamed Hannity staffers, used six quotes. Each quote is a lengthy sentence or two, which indicates high reliability if the source is reputable. However, the article relies on multiple sources that lean to the right, as shown before.
The sources were as follows:
- Fox News (conservative-leaning)
- Texas Military Department
- Greg Abbott, Governor of Texas (conservative-leaning)
- Brandon Judd, Border Patrol Agent
The authors used multiple unique, reasonably reliable sources that lacked diversity on both sides of the aisle. The Texas Military Department and Border Patrol are nonpartisan and provide exclusive insight into events surrounding the U.S./Mexican border. One thing missing from the article is statistics regarding the situation at the border. This includes the number of migrants entering the United States, the capacity of ports of entry such as Eagle Pass, and the number of law enforcement officers. Instead, all we get are quotes like the one below from the Texas Military Department (in response to Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s emergency declaration on the border).
The other sources used lacked diversity, as they were mostly right-leaning or conservative. One example is Texas Governor Greg Abbott, a prominent conservative voice on issues like border security and immigration, releasing a statement on X (quoted in the article) following his emergency declaration.
“As caravans of migrants are moving through Mexico toward the U.S. border, we are making clear that Texas will be a tough place to cross.”
The Sean Hannity staffers also failed to hyperlink their sources, as in the Fox News report. Overall, the quality of sources could’ve been better if the authors had included ones that provided a full picture of the situation at the border and excluded significantly biased ones.
In “BOMB DROPPED: President Trump Says Iran Agrees To No Nukes, ‘They Will Never Have a Nuclear Weapon’ [WATCH]” the article is built around statements from Donald Trump claiming Iran has agreed (or will agree) to never obtain nuclear weapons. The problem is that there is no widely confirmed, finalized agreement reported by neutral outlets backing such a definitive claim. More importantly, recent fact-checking shows that many of Trump’s public statements about Iran’s nuclear status have been exaggerated or unsupported.
The article largely repeats Trump’s statement, treating it as breaking news or a major development. The tone suggests certainty (“bomb dropped,” decisive breakthrough), but the evidence base is thin, which creates a mismatch. A more dependable version of the story would require multiple independent sources, confirmation from diplomats or international agencies, and a clear distinction between claims, negotiations, and verified agreements.
Selection and Omission Bias
Sean Hannity provides extensive coverage of Utah’s Republican leaders, which is reasonable given the state’s political makeup. However, bias may still emerge through framing and story selection.
“TRUMP TORCHES IRAN’S LEADERSHIP: ‘Watch What Happens to These Deranged Scumbags Today’” demonstrates clear selection and omission bias in how it presents information about Donald Trump’s comments on Iran. It selectively highlights Trump’s most aggressive and provocative statements, such as calling Iranian leaders “deranged scumbags” and threatening imminent action, while framing them in a way that emphasizes strength and decisiveness rather than controversy. While these quotes are real and reported elsewhere, the article omits important contextual details that would give readers a fuller understanding of the situation.
For example, broader reporting notes that these remarks came amid escalating violence, civilian casualties, and a complex regional conflict involving multiple countries. The Hannity piece also leaves out criticism of Trump’s rhetoric, international reactions, and the humanitarian consequences of the conflict, all of which are essential for balanced coverage. By carefully choosing which facts to include (Trump’s statements) and which to exclude (context, consequences, and opposing perspectives), the article creates a one-sided narrative that reinforces a particular political viewpoint, reducing its overall objectivity and reliability.
In “DISMANTLING THE DOE: White House Hands Key Education Duties To Treasury, Signals Endgame,” the article selectively highlights sources and facts that reinforce the administration’s position. The article highlights specific statistics that make the policy look necessary and urgent. These facts are real, but they are selectively framed. This is selection bias in data framing, which involves choosing facts that point in one direction while omitting competing interpretations.
The most significant bias in the article comes from what it doesn’t say. The article presents dismantling the Department of Education as a progressing “endgame,” but omits a crucial reality: fully eliminating the department would require an act of Congress and major political support. This makes the policy far less certain than the article suggests.
The article frames the department mainly as bureaucracy and loan management, but omits its broader functions. The article does not mention the widely discussed concerns of ending the DOE.
The article’s bias is not primarily about false information; it’s about how reality is curated. Together, these biases produce a narrative that feels coherent and persuasive, but it is incomplete. The result is not outright misinformation, but a strategically narrowed version of reality that leads readers toward a predetermined conclusion.
