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.