Talk:Brit Hume

Untitled
Brit Hume is now a commentator and a former journalist.

I don't watch MSNBC and I don't watch Fox. YOu must elimate the word journalist from anyone who appears regularly on the Fox "news" network. If you offer opinions on political matters, you are no longer a journalist. Likely the same for MSNBC (just going by rumors on that one because I have never seen it.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhusick (talk • contribs) 04:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"Media Matters" as a source?
Wikipedia used to be pretty reliable as far as sourcing from its contributors, but when we start seeing numerous statements backed up by "Media Matters", a radical liberal front group co-founded by Hillary Clinton, it brings into question the seriousness of this site as a reference tool.

I totally agree with this observation, is an almost verbatim rant by Keith Olbermann the proper basis for a 'controversy' section which then references "Media Matters" and Olbermann as sources taking issue with the relatively small perceived distortion of a Frankline Delano Roosevelt quote? This entire section, which is devoted to this 'controversy' reeks of a partisan political accusation and an attempted smear of Hume. With a lack of a source outside the liberal-based "Media Matters" organization this entire section needs to be removed. This is exactly the type of slanted referencing that needs to be removed from wikipedia as a whole. CyberCosmiX (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Come on, one thing Brit Hume has said on the news that a liberal group and liberal Kieth Olbermann disagrees with and your going to put it up under his biography as a big controversy? I'm going to check the bio's of other journalists to see if you list all the myopic reporting conservative groups and conservative pundits have pointed out they have done over the years. June 16, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.217.98 (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It depends on what you are using it as a source for. They catalog on the record statements made by media personalities. And they also provide a source for left of center criticism of media personalities. 24.207.226.140 (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If radical leftists sites are now deemed reliable then by the same logic they shouldn't mind radical right-wing sites... Except neither would be very 'NPOV' and usually "NPOV" leans more leftward which is why there is an article about the bias of Wikipedia. Invmog (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Social Security controversy
I've added a section about controversy over Hume's remarks on social security. I haven't found any kind of response by Hume or FOX News, if there is one. Has anyone else? I think we should include it for NPOV if it exists. T IMBO  ( T A L K )  21:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

-

I think by creating an entire section on the "controversy" surrounding Hume's comments on Social security is making a mountain out of a molehill big time, clearly not at the level of warranting an entire section on this. Let me say upfront that I haven't read anything from FDR which suggests that social security be completely replaced by private investment. So Hume's critics are right to make that point. But FDR most definitely proposed that a portion of the SS program consist of voluntary private annuities. See here.

Hume was correct to point out that FDR proposed a plan which included private investment accounts. And the entire discussion at that time was in the context of Bush's proposed changes to the SS benefit system, which, like FDR's proposal, included the option to have private accounts managed by the govt. This portion of the Hume quote in the wiki is 100% true and supportable:

But it turns out that FDR himself planned to include private investment accounts in the Social Security program when he proposed it.

What is more objectionable is the rest of Hume's statement characterizing what FDR allegedly said (and I agree that FDR never said or implied this)

"..government funding, "ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

But I just don't get the big reaction over it. This is a minor error, and when considered in the context of the discussion, not a big deal. Listing this as a significant controversy in Brit Hume's Wiki bio is nitpicking to the extreme if you ask me.

EruditeHillbilly (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Social Security controversy
I've added a section about controversy over Hume's remarks on social security. I haven't found any kind of response by Hume or FOX News, if there is one. Has anyone else? I think we should include it for NPOV if it exists. T IMBO  ( T A L K )  21:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest getting another source besides Media Matters, which has been said to be indirectly funded by Bush opponents like George Soros. And what was Hume quoting from? Can the document be found online? Criddic (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Criddic

Media Matters is legitimate, no one has yet disproved anything they recorded. Soro gossip is a myth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.44.165.66 (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"Controversy"
Most of these controversies are irrelevant. First, the Iraq War quote on stats was a fairly common argument at the time. It wasn't necessarily phrased that way, but the point was often made that statistically it was more dangerous to live in various other places rather than Iraq. But Hume didn't make the argument up, he just cited it and others disagreed with the common argument There was no "controversy". The second bit on Iraq was simply a statement made by Hume with the disclaimer "this was controversial" by it, without any kind of points as to why it was a controversy or a any source to back it up. The Kerry-Bush comment was simply a comment on the total number of Kerry adds, not proportions, etc., and was simply someone disagreeing with the argument. Again, a disagreement, not a controversy. The award he received is called a controversy because a single person didn't like it, and even they were dismissed by the committee handling the award. Again, hardly a controversy. The only thing that is legitimate is the Social Security Reform piece. It deals specifically with Brit Hume, and works under the allegations that he was intentionally twisting the quote, rather than someone simply not likeing an argument. I don't remember the public attention it garnered, but I don't believe it was enough to be qualified as a "controversy", but I can't disprove it, so I'll leave it for now. The others, though, have to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultimahero (talk • contribs) 10:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It was certainly controversial, especially given the absurd and false "statistics" that he used (comparing US forces in Iraq to the population of California, because they're "roughly the same geographical size") to make it seem like the murder rate in California was higher than the death rate of troops in Iraq. Also, a future United States Senator was among those who publicly criticized Hume for it. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 06:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Add Category:Fox News Channel
Add Category:Fox News Channel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.28.44 (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The entire article needs to be rewritten, and I have reported this article to Wikipedia.
I have reported this article to Wikipedia. The entire article is biased against the subject. There are so many obvious POV violations, that it is absurd. Media Matters is not a reliable source. The entire Social Security "controversey" section should be deleted without delay. It is an ad hominem attack against Mr. Hume. The entire biography is slanted against ths ubject, clearly written by individuals with a political agenda and not in good faith. It is supposed to reflect proper Wikipedia biographical standards, not be a political opinion piece as to why individuals hate Mr. Hume. This entire article is pathetic, and beneath contempt, even by Wikipedia standards. I would also like it explained as to why this article was "locked" so that it is difficult to edit in its current iteration.

Do not ruin Wikipedia for students attempting to gain accurate knowledge or use Wikipedia for studying. The article is so poorly written that it should be entirely rewritten. Rpchristiano (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversies section
I just removed the controversies section. That is absolutely ridiculous. I can't believe there were three paragraphs devoted to what Keith Olbermann believes to be a historically inaccurate comment, and a minor one at that. Keith Olbermann wanted Brit Hume to resign??!!! If anything, we should add a criticism on Keith Olbermann's page for that stupid comment! -Brad Kgj08 (talk) 04:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So, edit it, condense it, but don't just remove it because you don't like it. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed it because it is so insigificant. In a biography that is only a few paragraphs long as it is, why should three paragraphs be devoted to how some people think that Mr. Hume made a historically inaccurate remark.  If we did that with everyone, our wikipedia articles would be hundreds of pages long.  Look at all the people that take people's remarks out of context.  People are taking John McCain's 100 year comment completely out of context.  That doesn't mean that we need a section devoted to the issue for the thousands of people who have twisted John McCain's words.  And even if you don't personally believe that people are taking McCain's comments out of context, there are a lot of people that do, just as there may have been a lot of people who thought Brit Hume took FDR's words out of context.  The section is completely worthless and insignificant. -Brad Kgj08 (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ... in your personal opinion. Others like me respectfully disagree.  --Art Smart (talk) 03:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You have not explained how this is significant. This is an extremely insignificant issue, and Brit Hume may or may not have taken it insignificantly out of context.  Does this issue warrant 1/3 of the entire biography on Brit Hume?  Is it actually that important? -Brad Kgj08 (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hiya, popping in as an uninvolved administrator. I have no opinion on the information, but do want to see policies upheld, especially Biographies of living people and undue weight.  But ultimately, the decision on content rests with the editors here.  My main advice is, if someone doesn't like what's in the article, edit it down.  But please do not remove reliable sources.  The information from those sources can definitely be decreased, but deleting sources themselves is not wise. --Elonka 21:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources like Media Matters? Kgj08 (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with the particular source or statement that you're talking about, so can't really offer an opinion. Where there is dispute on whether a source is reliable or not, it's a good idea to bring it up on the talkpage. If consensus cannot be reached on the talkpage, then you can post about it at the reliable sources noticeboard to get more opinions. --Elonka 16:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Media Matters despises Mr. Hume. It is a political opinion/commentary -based website and should not be included as a source for a biography. A controversy section is legitimate in a biographical pice, it should not be over four paragraphs long. That is biased and unfair by any measure. How would you like the totality of your own biography to consist of only the controversies in your life? The balance of the article is entirely skewed against the subject and the entire article should be rewritten. Rpchristiano (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the consensus is that this controversies section is outrageous, the sources are biased, and the whole thing is blown way out of proportion. I'm not going to completely remove it (even though it should be) but I'll drop it down to one sentence. Anything beyond that is absurd. 68.198.48.12 (talk) 02:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well nevermind I guess I can't edit it. It's protected. Wikipedia is great - lock the articles after sufficient liberal bias has been inserted. 68.198.48.12 (talk) 03:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This Article Should Be Unlocked
A consenus has been reached to edit this article in accordance with proper Wikipedia standards. The article in its current iteration is unacceptable. Whomever locked the article must unlock the article. I have issued a complaint with Wikipedia. This article has obviously been locked to preserve the current bias against the biographical subject. Unacceptable and shameful Rpchristiano (talk) 04:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

College Major
Does anyone know what Mr.Hume's major was in college? Would anyone like to add it to the appropriate section?64.90.25.125 (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Retirement
As of today he is no longer anchoring Special Report, it remains unseen if he will still act as a panelist on Fox News Sunday. I forgot what his title was today, senior political commentator or something of that sort, this also needs to be added to the page. It really needs a total rewrite... --Tyler (talk) 03:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Religion?
Should there be a bit about that considering its growing importance to him after his son's suicide and his recent statement?--T. Anthony (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this is fair. The context of his statements are important. There also should be an effort to link to discussions on the merit of his criticism of Buddhism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LynnCityofsin (talk • contribs) 21:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Can We Have the Religion Section Re-Written by a Native Speaker of English?
The grammar and syntax are absolutely dreadful:

"This explanation also drew criticism as having been trying to defend his previous actions." Whaaaaaaaaat??????

"This being in the aftermath of his son's death by suicide in 1998." Can we say "sentence fragment"?

Also, why is Hume's opinion of Wood's beliefs offensive, while Olbermann's criticism of Hume's beliefs is not? Seems like a big double standard here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.40.2 (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. Invmog (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Dunno who "Olbermann" is but can reply that Hume's proselytizing, or for that matter anyone pushing a comprehensive system of "faith" or irrationality would be offensive to my reason if the senses weren't dulled to it by this time. Perhaps that's "Olbermann"'s perspective as well. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Presume it's this person, who would appear to be a fellow right wing traveler, but guess it's just the right wing skewing of things American generally and that media operation in particular that he's considered a "liberal". So unlikely he would be advancing a reason based rejection of the Abrahamic cults. After reading article and giving benefit of the doubt struck the last sentence though it is probably true. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Damn it Colbert...
You and your renaming of things that makes me vandalize Wikipedia!! Brit Hume is now Free Hume!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.237.145 (talk) 05:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brit Hume. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090116124253/http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003602243 to http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003602243

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Sandy Hume
"In February 1998, Sandy Hume committed suicide." 👇 "In February 1998, Sandy Hume died from suicide." Jmsebold (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)