Talk:Brit Hume/Archive 1

NPOV tag
This article in its present state comes off as hyper-crtical of Brit Hume, surely he has supporters as well as detractors. More importantly his work should be presented in a more NPOV fashion. The fact that he is controversial is not incorrect or disputed (at least by me) but there must be other viewpoints of his work considering his position in the Fox News Networks programming schedule. Arminius 04:47, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sandy Hume
Why was this biographical information removed:

-	Brit Hume's son, Washington journalist Sandy Hume, committed suicide in February 1998 by a self inflicted gunshot from a hunting rifle. The National Press Club honors his memory with the annual Sandy Hume Memorial Award for Excellence in Political Journalism.

It is a fact, are the Brit Hume defenders so afraid of his family life, anf Gay son's suicide?

Whatever the reason this information was removed, it has been restored, and will continue to be restored.

I've made some attempts to give opposing views to the critics in the controversy section. Some may say that I am giving bias out myself but I don't think so. I have merely tried to give some balance through correctives. I have tried to be objective, and non-partisan, in tone and fact. The article is still way to biased though. The media matters people have way too much influence in the account. As a suggestion for one improvement someone should find a link to the journalism award Hume won this year. It was very prestigious. I think it came from an association of journalists. --Case 07:39, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Check out my edit of the article this date. It's the National Press Foundation's Taishoff Award for Broadcaster of the Year, given out February 19, 2004 at their awards dinner.  --avnative 16:42, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

But for anyone who has watched Brit Hume's broadcasts, it is quite clearly the case that he is a biased, talking-head masquerading as a journalist. He is definitely no Ted Koppel and his news presentation is full of POV. The article fairly portrays Hume. We need not bend over backwards to portray Hume in a more positive light because that would be an inaccurate portrayal if we did that.

--

It is not obvious to anyone that Brit Hume is a talking-head masquerading as a journalist. That is an opinion and as such is not objective. Like I said, or should have said more clearly, this article was biased from the ground up. It needs to be re-written entirely. I am not going to waste my time doing so though. Some other responcible poster with better writing skills needs to. That said I am considering removing the revisions of my revisions. I need guidance on this from the authorities. This change by the unnamed poster seems like vandilism in the name of ideology. Can someone tell me what the rules are on this. I don't want to be unfair or break the rules myself. I might not even bother removing the revision revision's, because I care more about other entries, so if someone knows what the rules are please do it for me. I just don't feel right changing them immediatlly right now. I might change my mind in a few hours or weeks. Brit Hume is an acomplished and succesful, popular reporter and broadcaster. He worked at ABC for something like twenty years as a top correspondent. You may hate the evil Fox but ABC is not exactly known as very conservative. It is an admirable achievement to get top cable ratings for a hard news, political junkie type, show which Special Report is, even if it has a conservative tilt. Go get a blog if you want to attack Hume this is an encyclopedia.--Case 01:44, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Casey, what's fair on Wikipedia is to display all facets of a story on a person, event, thing, etc. When one editor/user writes from one POV, saying - for example -  "Doofus McSteady was criticized for not walking his grandmother across the street yesterday" and offers no other views on the matter, it's entirely reasonable within Wikipedia to have another editor/user write "Supporters of McSteady noted that he was incapacitated with a bad back that day" or similar.  In that way all views can be represented in the article, and the readers of Wikipedia can make up their own minds about what kind of person McSteady really is.  Any questions regarding this can be placed on my user discussion page - I'd welcome that.  Happy Trails, --avnative 16:42, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Links are definitely not fair
One official link and a whole ton of links criticizing Brit Hume. I think that itself violates NPOV.
 * If you want to make it less biased, why not add some links of your own instead of complaining and doing nothing? Ethereal 09:33, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Revert of what Humes defenders would say
I reverted this addition to the article. Here it is with some changes:


 * Hume's defenders point out that what he said had nothing to do with the pace of the negative adds from Bush and Kerry at different points of time but rather the total amount of negative adds taken together.

I think that this is rubbish. Do others agree? Tim Ivorson 12:09, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sandy Hume
Why was this biographical information removed:

-	Brit Hume's son, Washington journalist Sandy Hume, committed suicide in February 1998 by a self inflicted gunshot from a hunting rifle. The National Press Club honors his memory with the annual Sandy Hume Memorial Award for Excellence in Political Journalism.

It is a fact, are the Brit Hume defenders so afraid of his family life, anf Gay son's suicide?

Whatever the reason this information was removed, it has been restored, and will continue to be restored.

I've made some attempts to give opposing views to the critics in the controversy section. Some may say that I am giving bias out myself but I don't think so. I have merely tried to give some balance through correctives. I have tried to be objective, and non-partisan, in tone and fact. The article is still way to biased though. The media matters people have way too much influence in the account. As a suggestion for one improvement someone should find a link to the journalism award Hume won this year. It was very prestigious. I think it came from an association of journalists. --Case 07:39, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Check out my edit of the article this date. It's the National Press Foundation's Taishoff Award for Broadcaster of the Year, given out February 19, 2004 at their awards dinner.  --avnative 16:42, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

But for anyone who has watched Brit Hume's broadcasts, it is quite clearly the case that he is a biased, talking-head masquerading as a journalist. He is definitely no Ted Koppel and his news presentation is full of POV. The article fairly portrays Hume. We need not bend over backwards to portray Hume in a more positive light because that would be an inaccurate portrayal if we did that.

--

It is not obvious to anyone that Brit Hume is a talking-head masquerading as a journalist. That is an opinion and as such is not objective. Like I said, or should have said more clearly, this article was biased from the ground up. It needs to be re-written entirely. I am not going to waste my time doing so though. Some other responcible poster with better writing skills needs to. That said I am considering removing the revisions of my revisions. I need guidance on this from the authorities. This change by the unnamed poster seems like vandilism in the name of ideology. Can someone tell me what the rules are on this. I don't want to be unfair or break the rules myself. I might not even bother removing the revision revision's, because I care more about other entries, so if someone knows what the rules are please do it for me. I just don't feel right changing them immediatlly right now. I might change my mind in a few hours or weeks. Brit Hume is an acomplished and succesful, popular reporter and broadcaster. He worked at ABC for something like twenty years as a top correspondent. You may hate the evil Fox but ABC is not exactly known as very conservative. It is an admirable achievement to get top cable ratings for a hard news, political junkie type, show which Special Report is, even if it has a conservative tilt. Go get a blog if you want to attack Hume this is an encyclopedia.--Case 01:44, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Casey, what's fair on Wikipedia is to display all facets of a story on a person, event, thing, etc. When one editor/user writes from one POV, saying - for example -  "Doofus McSteady was criticized for not walking his grandmother across the street yesterday" and offers no other views on the matter, it's entirely reasonable within Wikipedia to have another editor/user write "Supporters of McSteady noted that he was incapacitated with a bad back that day" or similar.  In that way all views can be represented in the article, and the readers of Wikipedia can make up their own minds about what kind of person McSteady really is.  Any questions regarding this can be placed on my user discussion page - I'd welcome that.  Happy Trails, --avnative 16:42, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Links are definitely not fair
One official link and a whole ton of links criticizing Brit Hume. I think that itself violates NPOV.
 * If you want to make it less biased, why not add some links of your own instead of complaining and doing nothing? Ethereal 09:33, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Revert of what Humes defenders would say
I reverted this addition to the article. Here it is with some changes:


 * Hume's defenders point out that what he said had nothing to do with the pace of the negative adds from Bush and Kerry at different points of time but rather the total amount of negative adds taken together.

I think that this is rubbish. Do others agree? Tim Ivorson 12:09, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What a mess wikipeda is turing into
All wikipedia is turning into for media figures is talking point for FAIR and Media Matters. How sad.

I agree. I hope the whole bloody operation falls down the memory hole. According to recent, cheerful news reports, that is now a distinct possibility. Keep your fingers crossed.

NPOV
Ties to Jack Abramoff? "Fellow" Republican? Is there any documentation that Hume is a Republican, or that he did anything other than donate to a charity?

And the references are all negative. Do we need 5 stories saying how liberal journalists opposed Hume getting an award?

I would point out that on Dan Rather's article, there is a single line about some blogs considering him a liberal. Some Blogs? Conservatives have hated Rather for years for his bias. Go read the Rather article and tell me that Hume is treated fairly.
 * I want to make a note to the person above to please sign your posts! Anyway, I still question the amount of information against Brit Hume existing in the article and the non-existance of a counterweight of other information. The NPOV standard is held here at Wikipedia, but this article does seem mildly to have an anti-POV. Chris 04:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Style reminder
From the Manuel of Style: "There is normally no need to put quotations in italics unless the material would otherwise call for italics (emphasis, use of non-English words, etc.).... Note that italicising text can make it harder for people with visual or cognitive disabilites to read."

NPOV
Regarding the "War in Iraq" section, a recent edit concluded with this statement: "Critics charged that Hume's statement was offensive to the families of soldiers who died during the Iraq war."

To state only the critics' POV is not NPOV. I have added information about noted journalists who defended Hume. Let's be neutral, shall we? "Defenders of Hume's statement included journalists Ceci Connolly of The Washington Post, Alan Colmes of Hannity & Colmes, Joe Klein of Time, Tim Russert of NBC News and Juan Williams of NPR. Williams characterized the criticisms as "petty."

Under "Social Security reform," the following is not NPOV:


 * Olbermann said that that Hume and Fox News committed "premeditated, historical fraud" in distorting FDR's policy [8]; on Olberman's program, James Roosevelt, Jr., said that Hume's "outrageous distortion" of FDR "calls for a retraction, an apology, maybe even a resignation" [9]

Neutrality requires that defenders also be mentioned. To give only these critical points of view is biased. This isn't a simple black-and-white issue. In some respects, FDR's original proposal was similar to what Bush has proposed; in other respects, it is not similar. I made revisions to clarify these points.

Air America
I'm taking out the Air America comments because I don't think they're entirely appropriate. They don't really say anything about Brit Hume, and he's discussed on Air America all the time. I'm sure liberals say nasty things about Hume all the time, but I don't see the point in documenting this one instance (if it actually did occur).

Tons of nonsense just added
Wow there seems to be a load of nonsense just added to the article (i.e. in the past couple hours). I guess I'll try to go through it and correct it all (I don't want to just revert and lose possibly legit changes), but I sure could use some help. Sheesh. T IMBO  ( T A L K )  02:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Rather than characterize unspecified edits as "nonsense," it would be helpful if you pasted here the material you object to and explain why you object.

Revert: Relationship between "Special Report" and The Weekly Standard
I reverted the addition of the following information:

''(level 2 headline)Relationship between "Special Report" and The Weekly Standard

''Commentators from The Weekly Standard are regular guests on Brit Hume's program, including panelists Charles Krauthammer and Fred Barnes. On the Thursday, December 1, 2005 addition of Special Report with Brit Hume, Hume referred to The Weekly Standard as his program's "sister publication", raising eyebrows due to the fact that the Weekly Standard is an openly partisan Republican publication.''

This information was reverted for the following reasons:
 * The information is about Special Report and The Weekly Standard, subjects for which pages already exist.
 * Hume's claim is a fact. Both Fox News and The Weekly Standard are divisions of the parent company News Corporation.  This is information public and widely known.   In fact, the Weekly Standard wikipedia page states, in the second sentence of the article,  "It(The Weekly Standard) made its debut on September 17, 1995 and is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation."

The focus of this page ought not be "media watch". Rather, it should be an relevant, informative, unbiased, encyclopedia article.

Collingsworth 00:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Brit Hume, along with the rest of Fox News, is regularly accused of Republican bias. His close working relationship to the Weekly Standard is entirely relevant because you can barely tell where the Weekly Standard ends and where Special Report begins. It is therefore relevant and going back in. It isn't about news watch, it's about Brit Hume bringing his Republican partisan publication's writers, commentators and point of view into his program. Additionaly, it is not even mentioned in the article for Special Report with Brit Hume that the Weekly Standard holds such an influence over his segment. Hence all the more reason to mention it here.

Perhaps it would be less awkward and irrelevant to come out and say that Brit Hume has been accused of bias in this article. Writing an article on wikipedia that argues for the claim that Brit Hume is biased is not in line with the purpose of wikipedia. The many POVs should be represented and considered. For instance, should the article mention the Weekly Standard and not National Public Radio, or Roll Call, or The Washington Post? Additionally, claiming that something, that is common knowledge, was "raising eyebrows" comes off as ignorant of the facts that wikipedia is supposed to contain.

I don't think it's a secret that "Brit Hume bring(s) his Republican partisan publication's writers, commentators and point of view into his program." In fact, Brit Hume introduces all commentators with their name, organization and their position within the organization before comments and opinions are stated. Anyone who watches his show or reads the article on Special Report, can see this.

This particular comment, the one that I reverted, is unlike the other controversies because it is not grounded in an opinion that Brit Hume voiced or an argument that Brit Hume made. To make the case that Brit Hume is biased, it would be more convincing to use things that he said on Special Report and on Fox News Sunday.

Please register as a user on wikipedia, and we can continue this discussion on my talk page.

Collingsworth 16:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Air America
I'm taking out the Air America comments because I don't think they're entirely appropriate. They don't really say anything about Brit Hume, and he's discussed on Air America all the time. I'm sure liberals say nasty things about Hume all the time, but I don't see the point in documenting this one instance (if it actually did occur).

Tons of nonsense just added
Wow there seems to be a load of nonsense just added to the article (i.e. in the past couple hours). I guess I'll try to go through it and correct it all (I don't want to just revert and lose possibly legit changes), but I sure could use some help. Sheesh. T IMBO  ( T A L K )  02:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Rather than characterize unspecified edits as "nonsense," it would be helpful if you pasted here the material you object to and explain why you object.

Revert: Relationship between "Special Report" and The Weekly Standard
I reverted the addition of the following information:

''(level 2 headline)Relationship between "Special Report" and The Weekly Standard

''Commentators from The Weekly Standard are regular guests on Brit Hume's program, including panelists Charles Krauthammer and Fred Barnes. On the Thursday, December 1, 2005 addition of Special Report with Brit Hume, Hume referred to The Weekly Standard as his program's "sister publication", raising eyebrows due to the fact that the Weekly Standard is an openly partisan Republican publication.''

This information was reverted for the following reasons:
 * The information is about Special Report and The Weekly Standard, subjects for which pages already exist.
 * Hume's claim is a fact. Both Fox News and The Weekly Standard are divisions of the parent company News Corporation.  This is information public and widely known.   In fact, the Weekly Standard wikipedia page states, in the second sentence of the article,  "It(The Weekly Standard) made its debut on September 17, 1995 and is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation."

The focus of this page ought not be "media watch". Rather, it should be an relevant, informative, unbiased, encyclopedia article.

Collingsworth 00:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Brit Hume, along with the rest of Fox News, is regularly accused of Republican bias. His close working relationship to the Weekly Standard is entirely relevant because you can barely tell where the Weekly Standard ends and where Special Report begins. It is therefore relevant and going back in. It isn't about news watch, it's about Brit Hume bringing his Republican partisan publication's writers, commentators and point of view into his program. Additionaly, it is not even mentioned in the article for Special Report with Brit Hume that the Weekly Standard holds such an influence over his segment. Hence all the more reason to mention it here.

Perhaps it would be less awkward and irrelevant to come out and say that Brit Hume has been accused of bias in this article. Writing an article on wikipedia that argues for the claim that Brit Hume is biased is not in line with the purpose of wikipedia. The many POVs should be represented and considered. For instance, should the article mention the Weekly Standard and not National Public Radio, or Roll Call, or The Washington Post? Additionally, claiming that something, that is common knowledge, was "raising eyebrows" comes off as ignorant of the facts that wikipedia is supposed to contain.

I don't think it's a secret that "Brit Hume bring(s) his Republican partisan publication's writers, commentators and point of view into his program." In fact, Brit Hume introduces all commentators with their name, organization and their position within the organization before comments and opinions are stated. Anyone who watches his show or reads the article on Special Report, can see this.

This particular comment, the one that I reverted, is unlike the other controversies because it is not grounded in an opinion that Brit Hume voiced or an argument that Brit Hume made. To make the case that Brit Hume is biased, it would be more convincing to use things that he said on Special Report and on Fox News Sunday.

Please register as a user on wikipedia, and we can continue this discussion on my talk page.

Collingsworth 16:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Attacks & Criticism
Interesting how Brit Hume is politically criticized on Wikipedia but not Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, etc. Dan Rather is criticized, but NOT for political reasons. These three have made factual errors during their career, and made political comments. My point? A more active effort exists to discredit Hume so as to discourage viewers from watching his news, than exists to discredit the other more traditional news sources with their traditional biases. Many have pointed out the NPOV here, but it is worth pointing out the motivation behind it.

Then if you feel that way why don't you edit those other articles? Providing more info isn't a bad thing. There's arguably more info on, for example, South Park, then there is for George Washington, Richard Nixon, Joseph Stalin or a lot of other major topics. That's just how wikipedia works.

POV check
Almost every comment on this talk page disputes the POV of this article. I have flagged this article for a POV check so that hopefully some people who have neutral views on this topic can evaluate the content of the page. However, I realize that many of the people who edit the article and the talk page will never be satisfied with the content of this page. The only way to resolve this issue is to bring more people into the discussion.

Collingsworth 17:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that some of the external links in this article don't work. If someone cannot fix the links, I have no idea how to resolve the issue without starting an edit war. Collingsworth 17:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Starlight7777 added an external link to Media Matters, which lists what it considers controversial or biased comments made by Brit Hume. This is an excellent way to provide the critical POV of Hume without bogging down his page. It would be ludicrous to go on positing each individual comment that Media Matters might find misleading or biased, most of which are contended and would thus require the opposing POV. Perhaps, the criticisms should be generalized (and attributed to sources) for the sake of clarity and succinctness. Thoughts?

Collingsworth 22:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Too much info?
Is there such a thing as too much info about a person? Brit Hume is a miniscule man when considered in the history of the world. Shouldn't this entry just explain the relevant information? If one disagrees with a perceived political bias, wouldn't that be more appropriately noted on the Fox News Network page as opposed to a lengthy exposition on the Brit Hume page? This entry as it currently exists lessens the credibility of Wikipedia.


 * I tend to agree. This page seems needlessly bogged down in critcisms of Hume that, quite frankly, read like press releases from MediaMatters and other leftist groups. Some effort has been made to balance those, but I really wonder whether these items are that memorable (I watch Hume frequently, and I don't remember but one instance listed). I question whether this laundry list of forgettable issues has a place in an encyclopedic article.


 * I edited the article to remove some obvious POV problems (referring to FNC as a conservative news channel and Hume as a right wing panelist on Fox News Sunday), and added descriptive remarks about James Roosevelt Jr, whom I'm surprised hasn't posted his own bio as an article on Wikipedia. :-) Many other changes, but only to fix typos and style or wikify names and dates.Realkyhick 00:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point to specific statements that make it biased? Simply saying "it's biased against" Hume is a meaningless criticism.

Ties to Jack Abramoff?
''Hume helped raise money for a group run by admitted felon, Republican attorney and lobbyist Jack Abramoff. See Jack Abramoff lobbying and corruption scandal [10]''

The Ties to Jack Abramoff section should be removed for the following reasons:
 * 1) The information is not cited.  There is no mention of Hume at the given internal link.
 * 2) Hume has said that he does not know Abramoff.  This section implies otherwise.  (There exists a burden of proof on the part of the editor)
 * 3) The information is vague and seemingly irrelevant.  What group?  What was Hume's role in this group?  Why would the average reader care or need to know?
 * 4) Not everyone with ties to Jack Abramoff is involved in a scandal as this link seems to suggest.  I know a non-political person who worked with Abramoff at Preston Gates and Ellis, for instance.

This section should either be expended to clearly explain what is the case and why it is encyclopedia worthy, (and not, as it stands, try to implicate Hume in a scandal with a guilty by association argument) or it should be deleted. Unless it is shown that the expanded information is not trivial I will delete this section.

Collingsworth 18:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It has been awhile and no action has been taken so I want to ask here, should this section stay or go for the sake of the NPOV standard and the controvercy over it? Chris 04:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Abramoff section
Cleaned up abramoff section. Jackk 00:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed POV Check
Now that, as far as I'm aware, POV concerns have been addressed, I've removed the POV-check tag. If there are specific complaints that need to be addressed, please state them on this talk page clearly and succinctly. Cheers. Jackk 04:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed Jakk's formatting above. He used "POV-check", I changed it to a mention of "POV-check". We don't want to tag talk pages with POV-check, because talk pages are not articles.

Collingsworth 21:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Brit Hume
This page is so incredibly biased it's frightening. How does anyone know what political party Mr. Hume is affiliated with? All journalists are Independents and I demand proof be displayed out here that Hume is a Republican, or take that down.

It can be added that to declare Mr. Hume as right leaning also implies POV.

unfair and unbalanced piece on Hume
This piece on Brit Hume was clearly designed to impart a particular point of view about the man and to impugn Hume's integrity as a journalist. While it might be an appropriate entry in an opinion forum, it is clearly an example of biased reporting. Ironically similar to that which the author condemns Hume for participating in.

Liberal Bias
This page clearly needs an OBJECTIVE re-write...it is loaded with liberal bias and paints Hume as nothing more than a talking head for the GOP, which he is not.

What's all the Fuss?
After seeing the warning at the top of the page and seeing only the second sentence of the piece on Hume (which referrred to his draft deferrment), I was prepared to read a left-wing attack. But after getting further into the piece, I found it to be mosly balanced. It did go into his controversies at some length, but also quoted important people defending Hume. I am a Hume fan and found nothing terribly objectionable in this entry.

Not a nice picture
I think Brit Hume is a fuckwad, but is it necessary to choose a picture of him with such a sour expression?

Kenji Yamada 21:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Brit Hume always has a sour expression.
 * Brit Hume is a curmudgeon, what did you expect?
 * Well, I have posted the new one (which is not that great) but seems to be an improvement over what was there. Another version should be up soon enough. Chris 04:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

How many sources do you want??? Why don't you call Brit and ask him for yourself?

It's an important entry and you just delete it without bothering to actually look into it? Lawyer2b is the one who shhould be censored.

"Rather confusing?" It's less than 500 words written in the most simplistic form possible. Simple chronological facts. But, you can't deal w/ it simply because it is in one lump???

What better source could I possibly have than well know news reporters who witnessed the whole thing and were actually physically involved on a daily basis????

Your excuses for deleting the entry are BS. You just want to protect Brit from real criticism. as if the Roosevelt quote 'controversy' is actually a big deal. Do ya think social security is going to be privatized because Brit mis-quoted Roosevelt? Well China flooded America w/ 'illegal' AK-47s, and stole nuclear technology partly because Brit kept quiet.

Attacks & Criticism
Interesting how Brit Hume is politically criticized on Wikipedia but not Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, etc. Dan Rather is criticized, but NOT for political reasons. These three have made factual errors during their career, and made political comments. My point? A more active effort exists to discredit Hume so as to discourage viewers from watching his news, than exists to discredit the other more traditional news sources with their traditional biases. Many have pointed out the NPOV here, but it is worth pointing out the motivation behind it.

Then if you feel that way why don't you edit those other articles? Providing more info isn't a bad thing. There's arguably more info on, for example, South Park, then there is for George Washington, Richard Nixon, Joseph Stalin or a lot of other major topics. That's just how wikipedia works.

POV check
Almost every comment on this talk page disputes the POV of this article. I have flagged this article for a POV check so that hopefully some people who have neutral views on this topic can evaluate the content of the page. However, I realize that many of the people who edit the article and the talk page will never be satisfied with the content of this page. The only way to resolve this issue is to bring more people into the discussion.

Collingsworth 17:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that some of the external links in this article don't work. If someone cannot fix the links, I have no idea how to resolve the issue without starting an edit war. Collingsworth 17:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Starlight7777 added an external link to Media Matters, which lists what it considers controversial or biased comments made by Brit Hume. This is an excellent way to provide the critical POV of Hume without bogging down his page. It would be ludicrous to go on positing each individual comment that Media Matters might find misleading or biased, most of which are contended and would thus require the opposing POV. Perhaps, the criticisms should be generalized (and attributed to sources) for the sake of clarity and succinctness. Thoughts?

Collingsworth 22:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Too much info?
Is there such a thing as too much info about a person? Brit Hume is a miniscule man when considered in the history of the world. Shouldn't this entry just explain the relevant information? If one disagrees with a perceived political bias, wouldn't that be more appropriately noted on the Fox News Network page as opposed to a lengthy exposition on the Brit Hume page? This entry as it currently exists lessens the credibility of Wikipedia.


 * I tend to agree. This page seems needlessly bogged down in critcisms of Hume that, quite frankly, read like press releases from MediaMatters and other leftist groups. Some effort has been made to balance those, but I really wonder whether these items are that memorable (I watch Hume frequently, and I don't remember but one instance listed). I question whether this laundry list of forgettable issues has a place in an encyclopedic article.


 * I edited the article to remove some obvious POV problems (referring to FNC as a conservative news channel and Hume as a right wing panelist on Fox News Sunday), and added descriptive remarks about James Roosevelt Jr, whom I'm surprised hasn't posted his own bio as an article on Wikipedia. :-) Many other changes, but only to fix typos and style or wikify names and dates.Realkyhick 00:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point to specific statements that make it biased? Simply saying "it's biased against" Hume is a meaningless criticism.

Ties to Jack Abramoff?
''Hume helped raise money for a group run by admitted felon, Republican attorney and lobbyist Jack Abramoff. See Jack Abramoff lobbying and corruption scandal [10]''

The Ties to Jack Abramoff section should be removed for the following reasons:
 * 1) The information is not cited.  There is no mention of Hume at the given internal link.
 * 2) Hume has said that he does not know Abramoff.  This section implies otherwise.  (There exists a burden of proof on the part of the editor)
 * 3) The information is vague and seemingly irrelevant.  What group?  What was Hume's role in this group?  Why would the average reader care or need to know?
 * 4) Not everyone with ties to Jack Abramoff is involved in a scandal as this link seems to suggest.  I know a non-political person who worked with Abramoff at Preston Gates and Ellis, for instance.

This section should either be expended to clearly explain what is the case and why it is encyclopedia worthy, (and not, as it stands, try to implicate Hume in a scandal with a guilty by association argument) or it should be deleted. Unless it is shown that the expanded information is not trivial I will delete this section.

Collingsworth 18:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It has been awhile and no action has been taken so I want to ask here, should this section stay or go for the sake of the NPOV standard and the controvercy over it? Chris 04:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Abramoff section
Cleaned up abramoff section. Jackk 00:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed POV Check
Now that, as far as I'm aware, POV concerns have been addressed, I've removed the POV-check tag. If there are specific complaints that need to be addressed, please state them on this talk page clearly and succinctly. Cheers. Jackk 04:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed Jakk's formatting above. He used "POV-check", I changed it to a mention of "POV-check". We don't want to tag talk pages with POV-check, because talk pages are not articles.

Collingsworth 21:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Brit Hume
This page is so incredibly biased it's frightening. How does anyone know what political party Mr. Hume is affiliated with? All journalists are Independents and I demand proof be displayed out here that Hume is a Republican, or take that down.

It can be added that to declare Mr. Hume as right leaning also implies POV.

unfair and unbalanced piece on Hume
This piece on Brit Hume was clearly designed to impart a particular point of view about the man and to impugn Hume's integrity as a journalist. While it might be an appropriate entry in an opinion forum, it is clearly an example of biased reporting. Ironically similar to that which the author condemns Hume for participating in.

Liberal Bias
This page clearly needs an OBJECTIVE re-write...it is loaded with liberal bias and paints Hume as nothing more than a talking head for the GOP, which he is not.

Scoring the Cheney interview
I added two paragraphs on Hume's exclusive Cheney interview, which will go down as a very important event in Hume's career. I also added (probably not in the proper format) a link to the Hunting Incident itself, ONLY because I know someone will want to add 12 paragraphs on this event to this article, and if so, I will revert it immediately. I do have to say that I find this article to not be very chronological. Nhprman 03:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

China, Terror and Todd Ouellette
During the last few weeks, this section was added and I would believe that it needs to be cleaned up and more understandable instead of being an ongoing paragraph, which is rather confusing. Chris 03:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've got two problems with this entire section:


 * First, its sources, which state, "-- Bill Plant, Wendall Goler and Brit Hume would verify it also. - toddouellette@mail.com". I'm not sure but I don't think "oh, and these guys would verify it also" are appropriate sources for an encyclopedia.  Also, does anybody else think a source list ending in the email address signature of the subject matter of the article makes the source list (and perhaps even the entire section) dubious at best?
 * My bigger problem, though, is even if the entire incident occured as alleged, it simply isn't notable. If every demonstrator/activist who thought a member of the press did a hatchet job on "their story" was included in every press member's bio in wikipeida, you'd have no room for the bio. While Ouellette may be notable for his demonstration and meeting with the president, there is nothing notable about what Hume did in relation to him.  When you google "Brit Hume" and "Todd Ouellette"  together, you only find this wikipedia article and a topical summary of the ABC World news tonight program where Hume mentioned Oulelette.  Apparently the rest of the world doesn't think Hume's actions with regard to Ouellette were notable either.  The whole section is more about Ouellette (and his cause) than Hume and really smells like an excuse to be mentioned.  I'm removing it. Lawyer2b 14:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Lawyer2b decided to delete the commentary about Todd Ouellette because he didn't think illegal weapon sales to the Chinese Communists was a big deal. So here it is again. Next time you delete it, at least be man enough to include your full name so readers can judge you the way you judged this entry. Don't delete it just because you can't understand what it all has to do with Brit Hume. Rupert Murdoch does business with China. Brit Hume and Wendall Goler were rewarded with cushy jobs after they kept quiet during the 1996 'election'. Certainly that deserves to be in the bio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.205.147 (talk • contribs) The above comment was left in the actual article space. I moved it here. Lawyer2b 20:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * User:24.163.205.147, both reasons you ascribe as why I deleted the section are incorrect. As I said above, I don't see how these events (even if they occurred as described) are worthy of mention in Hume's article.  So Hume didn't meet with or report on Ouellette's issue the way he wanted...what's the big deal?  That happens all the time in the journalism business.  It sounds like the reason you think it is noteworthy is you believe it shows Hume helped covered up illegal weapons sales to China. If so, then what you need are some independent sources that state that specifically rather than try to make a case for that by simply stating what Hume did. Lawyer2b 13:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * User:24.163.205.147, you keep inserting unsourced, POV, and non-notable material regarding supposed interaction between Brit Hume and someone named Todd Ouellette while refusing to respond to communications left both on this and your user talk pages regarding the material.  The material you insert in the article has also included an unsupported (and false, I might add) accusation against me specifically  and other "wikipedia members" who you claim "have repeatedly censored this entry in an effort to protect Brit Hume's reputation".  I believe your actions are in violation of WP:AGF  and possibly other policies.  I don't feel I have any other recourse other than to request you be banned from editing this article for a time.  Lawyer2b 20:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To whom it may concern: I have placed a request for User:24.163.205.147 to be banned from editing the Brit Hume article on the Administrators' Notice Board.
 * User:24.163.205.147 has violated WP:3RR with the following edits:, , , and finally . I will add this violation to the banning request.  I wish he/she would simply engage in a rational discussion regarding the material he wants to include in the article. Lawyer2b 04:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey Lawyer2b. Why don't call Brit Hume up and just ask him about it?

''How many sources do you want. I mean Christ dude you even looked up the ABC news report yourself. Why don't you call that service and ask them for a copy of Brit's report?''

''It's not my fault that you don't understand the relavance of the story. ''To repeatedly delete it is exactly what the entry is about. ''You are a judge and jury who thinks you have some obligation to protect people from reality. ''Just like Brit Hume thought he had an obligation to keep quiet about illegal weapon sales to China.

''Call Wolf Blitzer, Bill Plante and Wendall Goler. ask them if it is true. ''Oh I guess it is easier to just delete someone's entry and give a lame excuse on the talk page?

''You act like you are God's gift to Brit's wikipedia page. If you had actually researched Brit you would have come across the Ouellette issue and started wondering for yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:24.163.205.147 (talk • contribs) '''The previous comment was left on my userpage. I moved it here and am replying because I believe this discussion should take place here.''' Lawyer2b 20:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * User:24.163.205.147, I appreciate the suggestion to call Brit up. If I thought I could get through to him (and/or warrant a reply) I'd probably do it.  However, that still wouldn't allow either of us to include most of your material as it would violate WP:No original research and WP:Verifiability.
 * The second issue is that according to official policy, the burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain, so I would prefer that you do the work of providing sources for your edit.
 * Thirdly, I repeat from above: My bigger problem, is even if the entire incident occured as alleged, it simply isn't notable.  If every demonstrator/activist who thought a member of the press did a hatchet job on "their story" was included in every press member's bio in wikipeida, you'd have no room for the bio. While Ouellette may be notable for his demonstration and meeting with the president, what is notable about what Hume did in relation to him? Lawyer2b 20:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Reconsideration of NPOV Tag
Reading through the article as of late, I would have to say that it has definitely made some improvements from the past, including the cleaning up of some sections and addition of counter information. Excluding the recent apparent editing war between a number of contributors, the article appears to have a more fair & balanced point of view of Brit Hume, exactly as it should. In all, I would consider this article to be generally fair and may not need to be labeled as "possibly not conforming to NPOV". Anyone else think so? Chris 04:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely. Lawyer2b 17:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Original Research
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_research. I believe the deletion by User:69.249.195.232 was an edit made in good faith, but was also a misunderstanding of the original research policy. Allow me to quote this section:


 * "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."

The sourced material is from the Social Security Administration and should be considered a valid primary source. --FairNBalanced 03:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Just so we're clear, I think Hume was more than partly correct and you did a great job finding this info which I would love to see included as you want in his article. That being said, though, I honestly don't know wikipedia policy allows it.  The first thing is I don't think the INDCJournal can be included as a source because it is a blog.  The second thing is after reading the description of "synthesis of original research", I think you might have to take out the part of your edit that says he was partly correct since the material you can quote doesn't actually mention Hume.  I think, however, we can leave the actual SSA material as it stands.  Let me edit it so I think it is under policy and you let me know what you think.  Lawyer2b 13:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am not the Wikipedia editor who wrote the paragraph in question. I only noticed that the deletion was not a completely correct use of WP:OR. As for your edit, Lawyer2b, I think it's just great. Good work. --FairNBalanced 17:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Alleged bias
This page looks very biased against Mr. Hume, and I'd encourage the administrators to dispute its neutrality.Trau
 * I agree that this article is over-the-top POV--69.19.14.15 04:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree also | - Chris 19:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is ludicrously weighted against its subject, in violation of NPOV policy. I have to laugh when I see Dan Rather's page in comparison. The widespread controversies are downplayed, the bias allegations are almost nonexistent. Hmmm. Nhprman 02:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I bet you all watch fox news regularly--if so, you are biased IN FAVOR of Humie. 72.225.252.105

This page does look a bit as though it is sponsored by Media Matters for America. It is though, a lot less biased than it was about 18 months ago. I was pretty disgusted with how it used to be - everything Brit Hume ever might have said, thought or done that wasn't totally banal was on there. It was ridiculously long with all the salacious gossip out there. So it is much better now. It is still too critical though. Compare it also to Bill Maher's entry.

This is a biased article-- the solution is to add positive information to balance it. What makes people think they are contributing something meaningful by slanting their writing against someone they disagree with? Slanting is always so obvious that it rarely has the desired effect.

Sean7phil 16:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Controversy
In my opinion, the controversies in the "Controversies" section of this article are not real controversies. They are more, again in my opinion, critizisms rather than controversies. There is a difference between the two. I apologize for my early statement that I have deleted from this page where I wrote that Brit Hume Claimed to be a republican during the "night broadcast" of the 2004 election. I should'nt have wrote being that it was based on my memory. I do remember him saying it around that time but my memory might be wrong. jmfh3733

Agreed that the "controversies" recieved no mainstream attention or outrage. They are merely criticisms and are out of place in this article

Controversies section should be changed.

Ties to Jack Abramoff? "Fellow" Republican? Is there any documentation that Hume is a Republican, or that he did anything other than donate to a charity?

And the references are all negative. Do we need 5 stories saying how liberal journalists opposed Hume getting an award?

I would point out that on Dan Rather's article, there is a single line about some blogs considering him a liberal. Some Blogs? Conservatives have hated Rather for years for his bias. Go read the Rather article and tell me that Hume is treated fairly.
 * I want to make a note to the person above to please sign your posts! Anyway, I still question the amount of information against Brit Hume existing in the article and the non-existance of a counterweight of other information. The NPOV standard is held here at Wikipedia, but this article does seem mildly to have an anti-POV. Chris 04:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree. And, it's worth noting, the most pathetic thing is the "controversy" over the remarks about negative ad. It just says he was criticized for it. Nothing more. Incredibly dumb, and has no reason to be on the page. Any objections to deleting it? --A procrastinator 01:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Alleged bias
This page looks very biased against Mr. Hume, and I'd encourage the administrators to dispute its neutrality.Trau
 * I agree that this article is over-the-top POV--69.19.14.15 04:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree also | - Chris 19:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is ludicrously weighted against its subject, in violation of NPOV policy. I have to laugh when I see Dan Rather's page in comparison. The widespread controversies are downplayed, the bias allegations are almost nonexistent. Hmmm. Nhprman 02:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Style reminder
From the Manuel of Style: "There is normally no need to put quotations in italics unless the material would otherwise call for italics (emphasis, use of non-English words, etc.).... Note that italicising text can make it harder for people with visual or cognitive disabilites to read."

NPOV
Regarding the "War in Iraq" section, a recent edit concluded with this statement: "Critics charged that Hume's statement was offensive to the families of soldiers who died during the Iraq war."

To state only the critics' POV is not NPOV. I have added information about noted journalists who defended Hume. Let's be neutral, shall we? "Defenders of Hume's statement included journalists Ceci Connolly of The Washington Post, Alan Colmes of Hannity & Colmes, Joe Klein of Time, Tim Russert of NBC News and Juan Williams of NPR. Williams characterized the criticisms as "petty."

Under "Social Security reform," the following is not NPOV:


 * Olbermann said that that Hume and Fox News committed "premeditated, historical fraud" in distorting FDR's policy [8]; on Olberman's program, James Roosevelt, Jr., said that Hume's "outrageous distortion" of FDR "calls for a retraction, an apology, maybe even a resignation" [9]

Neutrality requires that defenders also be mentioned. To give only these critical points of view is biased. This isn't a simple black-and-white issue. In some respects, FDR's original proposal was similar to what Bush has proposed; in other respects, it is not similar. I made revisions to clarify these points.

NPOV tag
This article in its present state comes off as hyper-crtical of Brit Hume, surely he has supporters as well as detractors. More importantly his work should be presented in a more NPOV fashion. The fact that he is controversial is not incorrect or disputed (at least by me) but there must be other viewpoints of his work considering his position in the Fox News Networks programming schedule. Arminius 04:47, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have just reviewed the entire article. I have not found an article-wide NPOV violation. I'm removing the NPOV tag from the top of the article. NPOV doesn't mean relevant criticisms don't get to be cited just because that's all there are. If there are any other viewpoints, you can add them with references. If there is a sentence you object to, add disputed statement tag instead. Ace Frahm 04:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been trying to massage the article (reference type, copyedit) and remove overly POV stuff -- there's work to be done still, but if there's any specific issues of POV from either a pro-Hume or anti-Hume standpoint, I'd cheerfully like to know so I can correct them. (I do think it needs some balance in or to the criticism section, to start.) -- ArglebargleIV 06:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"Alexander Britton Hume"?
Fstutzman, I did some "research" (i.e. probably the same internet checks that you did). I found plenty of (completely different) people named "Alexander Britton" and "Alexander Hume" but only four search results at all for |"Alexander Britton Hume", one of which was a copy from Wikipedia, two of which were someone else, and the other of which seems to be someone's obscure personal site, hardly encyclopedic standards of sourcing. This is not a point of personal interest to me or a passion of mine, and perhaps you are right. But I'd like to know where you get the information from. 129.71.73.248 22:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 129.71.73.248, it appears we did not do the same "research." See the Allmovie database, a leading commercial database, which contains Brit Hume's birth name (Alexander Britton).  Please also see "The International Authors and Writers Who's Who. 13th edition, 1993-94. Edited by Ernest Kay. Cambridge, England: International Biographical Centre, 1993. [IntAu&W 13]" for a paper citation.  Fstutzman 01:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * May I ask how and when you came by this information and when this was first inserted into the article? 129.71.73.248 06:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I used this incredible thing called a library. :) Fstutzman 15:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You headed off to the library on a whim to check an obscure version of someone's name just to prove a point to a random IP you decided to trail for a bit? That's a little strange.  When was this change first introduced into the article?  I am curious as to why it seems to have been an issue all of a sudden when there are so few references to it.  129.71.73.248 23:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from personal attacks. Thank you for using Wikipedia! Fstutzman 00:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for following me and making bizarre insinuations! 129.71.73.248 02:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What's bizarre is complaining that someone used the library to improve an article, as well as making numerous unknowable claims (headed off, on a whim, just to prove, decided to trail). If you want to know when a change was introduced, check the article's history. -- Jibal 03:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Books
I deleted the part about Hume publishing the book, I Am A Smug Douchebag. A google search turned up nothing, and all I can see is just someone trying to attack Hume. Cs92 22:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Another thing I think would be helpful is having a separate section in the article for his books, as well as some more details about them. Cs92 22:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

On Fox News Sunday, Hume falsely asserted that Al Qaeda in Iraq "was there before we got there"
Summary: On Fox News Sunday, Brit Hume asked National Public Radio senior correspondent and Fox News contributorJuan Williams, "Who are we fighting there [in Iraq] now, Juan?" then answered his own question: "Al Qaeda in Iraq. They were there before we got there, and they're there now."

...the 9-11 Commission found "no evidence" that contacts between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Al Qaeda "developed into a collaborative operational relationship" before the 2003 invasion. Several other purported pre-war links between Iraq and Al Qaeda have also been debunked.--Chevallero 02:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Al Qaeda was in Iraq pre-war....only a handful but they were there.A Few months ago a democrat Senator said the same thing on meet the press. Now while I wouldnt have said it.....it is true.

Moved to bottom as new. GATXER 21:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Heres what was said on Meet the Press. SEN. LEVIN: It’s now a haven for terrorists. It wasn’t before we attacked Iraq, but it now is. The question is how do we try to turn that around. And I would leave a limited force, as I indicated. And I think our resolution will do this for a number of purposes, including a limited anti- or counterterrorism purpose. There are now 5,000 to 6,000 al-Qaida people in Iraq. There weren’t any, or there were just a handful, prior to the war. Now they’re there because of the policies of this administration. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17277678/page/3/

So what Hume said is true. GATXER 23:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)