July 27, 2006

Fact Free and Lovin' It!

In Today's Grapevine, two claims stand out for their obvious indifference to anything resembling documented factuality. In the first instance, Hume, writing about support for U.N. ambassador John Bolton among right-wing Jewish groups notes:

Pro-Israel groups are pressuring New York Senators Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton to abandon the Democrats' filibuster of U.N. ambassador John Bolton, who now has the firm support of the Jewish community.

However, Hume offers nothing in the way of referenced facts (no polling numbers, for instance) to back up the rather surprising claim that John Bolton has the "firm support of the Jewish community." Instead, Hume seems to be simply repeating (though without attribution) a satement in the conservative New York Sun by American Jewish Congress president, and Bolton supporter, Jack Rosen. It is worth noting that Rosen's claim is, itself, unsupported by polling data or other factual sources.


In another section, Hume makes the following claim:

If you doubt there is a real strain of anti-Semitism in European opinion, consider this. One of Norway's largest newspapers has published a cartoon comparing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to an infamous Nazi death camp commander who indiscriminately murdered Jews by firing on them from his balcony.

Meanwhile, the leader of the Dutch Socialist party, the country's third largest, has compared Islamic terrorists to anti-Nazi resistors, saying, "During World War II, Dutch people thwarted Nazi Germany's destruction machine by blowing up town halls. ...Things are not all that different in the Middle East. Islamic fundamentalism, including the terrorist wing, is a reaction to Israel's occupation of Palestine."

Hume does not explain, however, why it is anti-Semitic to compare Olmert to a Nazi, or to compare Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation with Dutch resistance to German occupation in World War II. Hume appears to assume that criticism of the Israeli leadership, as well as the Israeli occupation of Palestinan lands is, in and of itself, anti-semitic.

July 19, 2006

Dishonest Brit

One of the problems with subtlety and nuance is that it hands those who would seek to discredit you plenty of opportunities to attack you through misleading distortions and dishonest citations. And Brit Hume is the T.V. king of misleading distortions and dishonest citations. Take for instance, Hume's summary of a recent Op Ed. piece by the Washington Post's Richard Cohen.

Israel 'A Mistake'?

Liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen writes today that the "greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that Israel itself is a mistake." Cohen blames the creation of Israel for a century of warfare in the Middle East, including the present conflict.

And while he says there's "no point in condemning Hezbollah... [or] Hamas," Cohen argues that Israel should exercise restraint — writing that retaking Lebanon and Gaza would lead to world condemnation of "the inevitable sins of an occupying power." His solution?

Cohen says Israel should pull back, withdraw from the West Bank, and accept terrorism and rocket attacks, while "waiting (and hoping) that history will get distracted and move on to something else," adding, "It is best for Israel to hunker down."

In fact, Cohen does refer to the founding of the State of Israel as a mistake, but he adds:

It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort we are seeing now.

So Hume is guilty of stripping Cohen's assertion of all nuance, portraying him as a simple opponent of Israel, rather than someone who is sympathetic to the historical realities that led to the nation's birth. Hume's second point is far more dishnonest, in that he actually quotes Cohen is such a way as to reverse the meaning of his statement. Hume insists that Cohen sees no point in condemning Hezbollah of Hamas, but fails to note why:

There is no point in condemning Hezbollah. Zealots are not amenable to reason. And there's not much point, either, in condemning Hamas. It is a fetid, anti-Semitic outfit whose organizing principle is hatred of Israel.

Whether the is or is not a point in condemning these groups, by excising Cohen's stated reason for not bothering wiht it, Hume dishonestly implies that Cohen is expressing approval for their actions.

Next, Hume does his best to prop up Bush supporter Joe Lieberman's flagging campaign by noting:

Money Matters

Liberal Connecticut Senate challenger Ned Lamont outraised and outspent Democratic incumbent Joe Lieberman by $600,000 over the past two months — but that's not necessarily an indication of his grassroots support in his home state. Lamont contributed $1.1 million of his own money to his campaign, and what's more, the Stamford Advocate reports that 70 percent of donors to Lamont's campaign are from out of state.

In typical Grapevine fashion, no mention is made of the corresponding out-of-state funds that have poured in to the Lieberman campaign. I've been having difficulty digging up the numbers myself, but I did find this story in Connecticut's Journal Enquirer that notes that in April, 75% of Lieberman's campaign funds came from out-of-state sources:

The senator has raised $6.97 million in the current election cycle and had $4.29 million in cash on hand at the end of the month.

The report shows that more than three-quarters of his major donors in April - 104 - reside in states other than Connecticut, including 42 in Massachusetts, 30 in the New York and New Jersey metropolitan area, and 12 in Washington, D.C., and its Maryland and Virginia suburbs.

But, of course, you find find Brit Hume mentioning any of that.

July 18, 2006. (A Long Absence)

Let me get back to this blog after a long absense:

In today's Grapevine, Brit Hume is shows himself to be meeting to his usual low journalistic standards on at least two accounts.

Noting liberal criticism of California senator Barbara Boxer's decision to support Joe Liberman's candidacy against a strong primary challenge, Hume claims that:

California fundraisers have accused Boxer of putting loyalty before principle, and liberal blogs have called her a "foolish, selfish sellout."

As usual, Hume sees little need to provide a reference of any sort for this quotation, so most readers will come away without knowing that the phrase "foolish, selfish sellout" appears only in the comments section of a blog post on Arianna Huffington's Huffington Post.

Later, Brit Hume makes the claim that:

New Jersey Republican Senate candidate, Ton Kean Jr. has pulled ahead of incumbent Democratic Senator Robert Menendez for the first time, after trailing by seven points just a month ago. Kean holds a 40 to 38 advantage over Menendez in a new Quinnipiac university poll...

But Hume fails to note that the poll had a +-3% margin of error, meaning that statistically, the race is a dead heat and neither candidate can claim to hold an advantage over the other. To be fair, this sort of statistical sloppiness is common, even when it comes to real journalists.