Strange tweet from Brit Hume
There was a time when Brit Hume was considered an objective political journalist. Back in the 1990s, he was ABC’s chief White House correspondent.
But these days, as Fox News’ chief political analyst, Hume clearly leans well right.
Earlier this week, as Donald Trump ramped up talk that “rhetoric” from Kamala Harris and Joe Biden was to be blamed for the assassination attempts against him, Hume tweeted this:
If Donald Trump is held responsible for Jan. 6 because of his allegations that the 2020 election was stolen, is it unfair, after two assassination attempts, to hold responsible the Democrats who have ceaselessly claimed Trump is a threat to democracy?
But Mediaite’s Colby Hall makes a valid point, writing, “The problem is that the comparison makes no sense. It is a brazen false equivalency that flat-out ignores the fact that what caused Jan. 6 — Trump’s false election claims and his continued spouting of them — is precisely the threat to democracy that Hume invokes.”
Hall adds, “Crucially, the difference between Hume’s examples of inciting claims is simple: one is true, and one is false. The claim that fueled Jan. 6, that the 2020 election was stolen, is false. If it were true, few would criticize Trump for complaining about it. It was not true.”
Furthermore, and this is me saying this, saying someone is a threat to democracy is not the same as suggesting they be assassinated. In addition, we still don’t entirely know the motivations behind the would-be assassins.
Hall concludes by writing, “You can disagree that Trump is the threat his critics say he is. But you cannot deny the evidence. Unlike Trump’s false election claims, the threat Trump poses to democracy is not an invention; it is a belief based on his own actions, documented widely, and it’s entirely fair game for Democrats to focus on.”
Good work on Fox Business
Trump’s dangerous words are resonating with many on the right, but here’s an example of responsible journalism turned in by Fox Business host Stuart Varney on Tuesday afternoon when one of those on the right perpetuated incendiary talking points.
Varney was interviewing former FBI special agent Jonathan Gilliam, who was in another location, about Trump’s security detail. Late in the interview, Gilliam shockingly said, “I’m going to say this on air. The Democrat party … they want Trump dead.”
Varney immediately jumped in, telling Gilliam, “No, no, no. I don’t think you can say that legitimately.”
Gilliam then said, “I think we can say that legitimately based on the verbiage they use, and then they cover up. To say that they want him eliminated, to say that they want him gone, these are words that push people forward, and then you have directors of agencies like this that come on, and they do not do the job, the simple job of perimeter security over and over and over again.”
Varney interrupted again, saying, “I’m going to end it right there. I’m not going to take any conspiracy theories on this show.”
Gilliam said, “That’s not a conspiracy theory.”
Varney said, “Yes it is. Yes it is. And I’m not having it.”
Varney then moved on, while Gilliam kept talking. But Gilliam’s microphone was cut off.
Good work by Varney to cut Gilliam off as he did. Here’s more, including the video, from The Daily Beast’s Liam Archacki.
It should be noted that Harris told the journalists at the NABJ event that she spoke with Trump on Tuesday, adding, “I told him what I have said publicly, there’s no place for political violence in our country.”
Houston Landing reboots
For this item, I turn it over to Poynter media business analyst Rick Edmonds.
Nonprofit startup Houston Landing is pivoting to an emphasis on solutions journalism and a stronger focus on minority communities, including the metro’s huge Hispanic population.
The free digital site announced Tuesday the hiring of eight new staffers, several of them Hispanic or Spanish speakers. Earlier this year, Houston Landing named Manny Garcia as editor-in-chief and Angel Rodríguez as managing editor.
In a press release, CEO Peter Bhatia wrote, “We do not see Houston Landing as a passive observer in the old journalism tradition. While it is not our role to legislate change, we will show the way forward to address chronic issues and will use all our capabilities in pursuit of a better and more equitable Houston.”
In an email, Bhatia added, “We’re also focusing more on communities that have been underserved by media and will create content (by traditional and non-traditional means) that serve that substantial percentage of Houston’s populace.” According to the 2020 census, the Houston metro is 44% Hispanic and 25% Black.
Houston Landing is mainly funded by local foundations, with $20 million pledged for the startup. It is one of three large city projects orchestrated by the American Journalism Project. Last week, AJP announced a fourth, launching next year, that will serve Los Angeles.
Houston Landing hit a bumpy stretch in January when Bhatia fired his original editor-in-chief, Mizanur Rahman, after just seven months. He said then he had no personal problem with Rahman and the integrity of the journalism, “but we needed to make changes to achieve our goal of being a truly digital enterprise-driven news operation serving Houston.”
Rahman and a number of staffers said that they were blindsided by the dismissal and confused by the explanation. They complained to the Landing’s board, but the board opted to stand behind Bhatia and his strategic redo.
Trying something at Instagram