Political Punch

I just listened to this podcast over the last hour. I can't figure out if this interview is disturbing or not.

I really like your, Jake, candid and frank approach to your to your job not only in this interview but in your podcast universally.

Jake,

I've been on vacation for two weeks, so just today I was able to catch up on the two "Shuffle" podcasts that I missed. The first was this interview with Hugh Hewitt.

While I have been listening to the Shuffle since it's inception I have never felt compelled to write in on your blog as it appears many others have too. I felt I needed to send you some support like others (in droves) have already. You did a great job with that very ridiculous guest.

His techniques were tired and dull. However, he was well spoken, well read, and sounds authoritative which is why I'm sure he has a base of sheepish listeners. While you may not be a veteran of the talk show format, your speciality is more about writing and broadcast news packages, you did a very dignified and honorable job being a neutral journalist, while still expressing some of your appropriate opinions.

Hewitt was right about one thing, your listeners are very interested in hearing the entire podcast, however not for the reasons he had hoped. I think most of your listeners (and most sane people) got the idea that he's a complete and total, self-absorbed nut. His constant barrage of "loaded questions" and insistence on you airing every last second was not only played, and painfully obvious but also desperate. His listeners must be like Rush's ... sheepish, no-nothings, who believe everything they are told. Whom unfortunately, en mass, are a very dangerous group of people (to the American way).

While I've gotten off the topic a bit and given some of my personal opinions I just want to reiterate ... that you did very well and I was very proud of practice of the art of journalism.

Thanks,
Raven

p.s. I really hope you go back to the original format of this show at some point, the format for how this show is named. I do love the interviews too ... but maybe you can do both in the same show, or switch off.

Jake--

I find it interesting that Mr. Hewitt claims you had an agenda on your podcast, given that his questions clearly showed he did.

I disagree with Hewitt's generalizations about the media. Reporters, as human beings, do have a bias in their reporting-- it's naive to think they don't. However, it's not clear to me what that bias is. I would argue that some reporters *know* they are personally liberal and try too hard not to be in their reporting. In any event, I think it's fair to give reporters the benefit of the doubt, as you put it, and I DO NOT think all reporters can be clumped into some sort of category.

I also hope Mr. Hewitt would encourage his listeners to read and listen to coverage from a variety of news sources, including his own and those from what he calls the mainstream media. It follows his own argument that listeners *must not* rely only on his opinion. They should collect a variety of opinions from a variety of sources to make their own judgments. I hope Hewitt is concerned that listeners are abandoning mainstream media and that he would encourage them to return.

My mom is an avid Rush Limbaugh listener, as well as an avid Today show viewer (sorry ABC). She understands Rush's style and can see through what he says. She is also an independent who voted the exact opposite of what Rush was advocating in the last election. How about that?

On a side note, Jake, I enjoy your podcast very much. Keep up the good work.

Jake, you did an EXCELLENT, PROFESSIONAL, INTELLIGENT, COOL-TEMPERED job dealing with Hugh Hewitt's manipulative, paranoid, hugely and invalidly generalizing, ill informed, blatantly biased, sleazy used car salesman-like words, accusations and general kindergarten immaturity. I love your professionalism so much, Jake! And, yes, I hope he plays the whole podcast on his show to help enlighten listeners with similar attributes as his!

Wonder if the software is freaking out? Posts not following in any chronological order, etc.

HAven't watched any MSM news broadcasts in several years, got tired of the blatent (but undisclosed) bias in both script and story selection.

One of my exercises back when was to count intances of Peter Jennings' uttering "right-wing" "extreme right-wing" "extremely conservative" vs. "left-wing" "exteme (or radical) left-wing" "extremely liberal" during a broadcast. I usually could come up with several instances of the first, and ususally none of the latter.

It was also funny to hear Peter talk about how extremely conservative Bush (41) is. I always laughed at that assertion. Most conservatives find him to be middle-right at best.

Finally, Jake if there is one thing you could convince your collegues on, that would to eliminate the assertions of "some say...." when addressing issues. Really? Some Who? Name names or understand at least some of us out here substitute "media thinks" for "some say".

Wow. I have never felt the need to leave a comment about the podcast - or pretty much any podcast, but that was truly amazing.

First of all, I will declare my bias - I am a Democrat who has worked in several layers of government and politics.

With that out of the way, what an amazing blowhard Hewitt was on the podcast! I was fascinated to hear him spin innocent conversations and a memo asking him to speak into some sort of left-wing conspiracy. I have even less respect for him than I had in the past.

Mr. Tapper, you held yourself very well and I appreciated your posting the whole podcast. It was made an insight into him - and posting the whole thing made him look pretty bad when he seemed to believe it would vindicate him.

On the Mormon question - I grew up with Mormons and have a huge respect for the church. I will not vote for Romney as his stance on issues differ from mine, but I do support Sen Reid - a Mormon who shares my values

Jake,

Good to see your work again. I remember your coverage of the McCain candidacy in 2000 (which was in Salon, if I remember correctly). For better or worse, I don't watch ABC News since I'm still at work when it's on the air. One of these days I hope to watch you on This Week with David Brinkley (yeah, I stopped watching after Brinkley left).

Jake,

I found the latest podcast to be interesting and appreciate you posting the entire discussion, after having listened to the disagreement.

It is interesting that both liberals and conservatives, feel it is necessary to point out the left or right leaning media outlets. Why can't we rely on the consumer to decipher the news from the opinion, other than it would leave an entire segment of talk show hosts with even less content.

There is so much argument about the particular bias of a media source, why are we not more focused on the quality of information from these sources. The New York Times provides more coverage of international news than any other U.S. main stream outlet. The Wall Street Journal provides business and personal finance news at a higher level than most. Why is their respective, left or right- leaning editorial boards my concern. Can’t I and other readers translate the news from the commentary?

I may be interested in your or Hugh Hewitt’s political views, but those are not a substitute for what is fact and news.

I enjoy the podcasts, thank you.

carlitos; because this is what happens when the news media "supports" as in...does not question US foreign policy:

"
....Complicating matters for journalists, the accounts of these exiles were often eagerly confirmed by United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq. Administration officials now acknowledge that they sometimes fell for misinformation from these exile sources. So did many news organizations — in particular, this one......

.....Accounts of Iraqi defectors were not always weighed against their strong desire to have Saddam Hussein ousted. Articles based on dire claims about Iraq tended to get prominent display, while follow-up articles that called the original ones into question were sometimes buried. In some cases, there was no follow-up at all....."

-FROM THE EDITORS
The Times and Iraq

Published: May 26, 2004

Mr. Tapper:

I was not familiar with Hugh Hewitt before, but he sounds much like every other right wing radio talk show host who isn't Rush or Hannity. He could have been Mike Gallagher or Glenn Beck or Michael Reagan, who to me seem essentially interchangeable.

I greatly enjoyed your book on the 2000 election some years ago BTW. I've read almost every popular nonfiction work on that subject, and yours was far and away the most entertaining. And balanced.

In response to "host" who wrote the comment below...

That you would find distasteful the very idea of media supporting the US' foreign policy goals is quite telling. May I offer a suggestion - if you find the US' foreign policy goals so distasteful, perhaps you could relocate to a place with different goals, goals more harmonious with your world view?

Or, to be less extreme, why is it that the media should automatically be AGAINST our own nation's foreign policy? I mean, the media should be independent, not an organ for or against the state, right? Are there any foreign policy goals worth supporting? Those which agree with your world view, perhaps?

To prove the MSM is liberal just look at who is defending Jake on this thread. ALL DEMOCRATS and Bush hating libs.

Game over.

What a tiresome buffoon that Hewitt is. I grew weary of this goofball after only 10 minutes of listening to him drone on, but I'm glad you put the whole interview on the podcast just so you could expose this phony and his paranoid ramblings. He's by far the most impolite guest you've ever had on the podcast; where does he get off demanding to know who you voted for and what your religion is? How incredibly rude. (Oh, you won't tell him who you voted for? Well obviously that's evidence that you're a part of the secret MSM Democratic conspiracy! *rolls eyes*)

I think it's fair to assume that these Hewitt supporters posting here are NOT regular listeners of the ABC News Shuffle, so they're not familiar with your work here. But those of us who've been listening to the Shuffle for a very long time know how hard you try to stay balanced and objective as a reporter. In fact, for a long time I thought you were right-wing since you always balanced out Hari's leftish tendencies on the podcast. That's a fact. After Hari left, I realized I really couldn't figure out your political leanings. But Hewitt is absolutely clueless about this and doesn't care anyway, as it serves his own biased agenda to tar you as left-wing biased, no matter what the truth is.

Of course, the real reason people like Hewitt crow on about "Democratic bias" in the MSM is because the nation is rejecting the Republicans and their utterly disastrous war in Iraq. But instead of acknowledging this, they falsely scream "media bias!!" as the reason for the failure of the Republican agenda.

There are at least two problems with this "media bias" argument of Hewitt's:
1)Nobody who lived through the Clinton impeachment can say with a straight face that the media is biased towards Democrats. Clinton was torn apart by the MSM during the entire Lewinski affair.
2)People who claim Democratic bias in the MSM forget that after Sept. 11, the President and Congress were given a free pass by the media to do whatever they wanted without much resistance from the media. The MSM offered no opposition to the Administration's rush to war in Iraq.

Jake, good job in staying professional and composed in this interview despite the impoliteness you had to deal with. Keep up your fine work as a reporter and I look forward to many more great podcasts from you.

Dear Jake,

Judging by the lengthy list of comments I'm guessing you now know that not only was the podcast not boring, it was fabulous. Please take a moment to question your judgement on the issue.

It is my impression that MSM journalists consider allegations of bias to be personal insults and that is why they react so defensively.

It is not an insult, it is a simple statement of the human condition. Please consider that the human inside a judge's robes is not and cannot be impartial. That person is transformed into an impartial judge by the donning of his robes, the requirement that he abide by the laws of judicial conduct and procedure as well as the appeals process. No such structure exists to enforce journalistic impartiality and without it, none can be achieved.

It is possible that you really think you are being impartial. Part of the reason you may be comfortable in this belief is the environment within which you operate.

There was a front page article in the LA Times on the 30th aniversary of Roe v Wade. As you know, each side in the debate is known by two names. Each side considers one of those perjorative and the other not. In the article, to which four writers contributed, the term "pro-abortion" never appeared, only "pro-choice". In the article the term "pro-life" never appeared, only "anti-abortion".

I am willing to bet that each of the writers and editors who participated in the publication of the article would argue until blue in the face that they are objective reporters of the news and I am sure they believe they are.

That their personal biases seep into their writing is inevitable and invisible to them. That they don't see it is simply the result of the myopia that results when everyone in your environment shares your beliefs.

What a great podcast! It was though-provoking and informative. At first I was finding myself sympathizing with Mr. Tapper's annoyance at Mr. Hewitt's control of the content of the interview, but after reading the email to Mr. Hewitt, I heartily agree with him. This was an attempt to sandbag Mr. Hewitt, and Mr. Hewitt handled it with grace. If Mr. Tapper sincerely wants to engage in objective journalism, he should stop worrying about feeling conflicted about voting in presidential elections, and spend more time with the older and wiser Hugh Hewitt.

Jake -

In the interest of Mr. Hewitt's full disclosure, I am (1) a Christian, (2) a republican, and (3) apalled at how he acted. Kudos for you for standing your ground on the disclosure issues without getting ugly. I thought he was petty & off base on the e-mail issue, and the repeated request to air the issue without editing.

I'm grateful you did, because I got a good look at both of you - and you came out on top in the character department.

Unlike him, I do believe - and appreciate - that you make every effort to maintain no oppinion.

I've always liked your reporting, which is why I subscribed to the podcast in the first place. Now, I trust you even more.

Thanks -

Tom

Tapper, had he done his "homework", would have been able to point out the "interviewee" and the "MSM" critic was

Council for National Policy's Stuart W. Epperson's and Edward G. Atsinger III's Salem Radio Network's Hugh Hewitt..... (Salem owns townhall.com, too....)

How is it that Hewitt can "front" for two CNP billionaire's 1200 station, Christian radio propaganda network, and it's "web presence", townhall.com, yet not even be asked about the influence on politics of the secretive Council for National Policy, and the "things" assembled by it's members...Eric Prince's "Blackwater", and Hewitt's employer...also owner of "Salem News Network"...Salem Media...huge...but not MSM?

Read the other posts...Hewitt's affluent audience of "well educated", etc..etc.., haven't a clue about who Hewitt fronts for, and obviously, neither does Tapper.

Here is their goal, from Brett Bozell III in a 1992 speech to Heritage Foundation:
"Imagine, if you will, a future wherein the media willfully support the foreign policy objectives of the United States."

Unfortunately, that is the "vision" of the MSM that CNP, Hewitt, and most posters here want to happen, too!

None more righteous than the self-righteous.

Why do liberals bleed for others while the social conservatives bleed for themselves?

Sorry you got rolled by that blow-hard's well-practiced and transparent manipulation, but I think your discomfort at his mellifluous vitriole was honest and honorable.

On the other hand, once your courtesy had been exhausted, you had proved you were open-minded and a gracious host, and you were far into receiving an abusive brow-beating, it might have been a moment for less defensiveness and a little calling out of the bullying invective that sustains the marginalized audience of Rush/O'Reilly/Hewitt.

What dull, monotonous, uninspired, content-lacking, evidence-disregarding, repetitive tripe. Sound like my kids--if you wish it and say it often enough, you can convince yourself there is a chance it may become true. Magical thinking, I believe it is called.

If humor is the highest form of intelligence, why are there no funny social conservatives? Except the entire Bush administration, in an unintentional and scary Kafkaesque sort of way. Is this another conspiracy of the liberal MSM to surpress faith in laughter?

The memo is either indicative that you have a terrible staff or that you simply lied and misled your prospective interviewee. He didn't go too far. He showed the rest of us that you and your staff either act in bad faith deliberately, or are so used to doing so that you don't even recognize it when you see it. 60 Minutes' style journalism, to get the victim to tie the noose around his own neck, is part of what made MSM disliked, and you don't even know that.

But based on the simple, basic, obvious questions you asked Hugh Hewitt about Mitt Romney's faith being a fair topic for debate, it's obvious that neither you nor anyone on your staff ever read Hewitt's book. His point, laid out in the introduction, in every chapter, and in the conclusion is: discussions of individual candidate's theology are out of bounds, and if they become considered open for debate, all non-secular candidates will lose. You acted like you'd never heard nor thought that before. Couldn't you at least have the producer who pretended you'd talk about his book have read his book, and briefed you on it?

And if you had read it, I'm at a loss. Truly. What did you take away from it? Nothing at all?

Jake, thanks for doing what you have done. I agree with Hugh just about 95% of the time, and I definitely agree about liberal bias in the media, and even agree with him that you are probably a liberal. However, at least you are trying to engage Hugh and other conservatives on this and other issues, and it looks like you are genuinely trying to be objective. That is more than we conservatives get from most of the MSM. I don't give a damn about most of the MSM because they really don't care about conservative views, but I will watch your stuff from now on.

By the way, I don't blame you for not admitting your biases or who you voted for. In the unwritten rules of conventional, MSM journalism, that would probably be career suicide.

One other thing, it was great that you hung in there with Hugh even though he was being tough on you. Turnabout is fair play, and journalists should be ready to take it if they are so willing to dish it out.

"Who would listen to this podcast? It's like overhearing a conversation on a train!" That made me laugh, considering I was intently staring at the computer speakers at the time! Enjoyed the podcast very much. I listen to Hugh regularly on the internet and enjoy his energetic style. I agree with the comments of Paul D. and mjs. You handled yourself professionally, which I found refreshing. I'll be checking out your blog and podcasts.

Jake,

I forgot to add this on my previous comment. Your dissembling about the memo that went out to Hugh describing the topic of your interview was pathetic. You either have a dreadfully ineffective staff who has no idea what you will be talking about or you're a liar. It looked like a 60 Minutes hit piece that backfired badly. And I'm sure Senator Vitter was the most important topic of the day and not, say, the fact that Congress has a lower approval rating than President Bush or the environmental horrors of China.

Rush gave us a one-way transmission system to hear things suppressed by the MSM. The blogosphere now allows us to discuss it. We've got new tools to follow what's happening and you guys are still living in the era when Morley Safer could ambush people without fear of reprisal. Good luck with that.

I was having a dry spell today, but you've given me inspiration for a blog post. Thanks.

PS - Typically, italics are used to designate quotations and not the text of your comments. Also, a "preview" button is common in comments to allow us to read and edit our comments before posting. Get with the program, dude.

Jake,
As someone who has been trained in journalism, I can safely say it is much more biased to the left than to the center and the right. That is what Mr. Hewitt has tried to say to all of you in the Dinosaur, Drive-by, Mainstream Media. Just admit it. Admiting it makes you much more transparent and then we know where you and the others come from and have your world view. Yes, we are told to be as unbiased as possible, but it can not be done. The fact is that I on my blog ofter link to MSM sources for information to get out on the center or right. But, there is no way that you or anyone else in the DDBMSM are not biased. And especially "investigative" reporters. What really gets under your skin is that people like Mr. Hewitt point that out to you. Oh, and yes it is important to get outside the "beltway" or the salons of New York City and the clubs of Los Angeles and get to know those of us who work hard every day, play by the rules and worship God and love the United States. I think it would be an eye opener.

I like Hugh, generally agree with him, and almost always see his point. I'd say he's more Republican than conservative, but I'll gladly have him on my team.

With regard to the memo, it seemed harmless to me, but I don't blame him for bringing it up. Because, with regard to MSM bias, I agree with him completely. You folks are so biased it's insulting when you won't reveal who you voted for.

Jake. We know who you voted for - journalists voted 90% for Clinton when the rest of the country was voting 40ish% for him. That question is about honesty and transparency, whether you think you're hiding something, how smart you think your audience is, not about your political views - we already know those.

I didn't listen to the podcast, only read the transcript at Hugh's site, so I don't know how flustered you sounded. Still, I thought you did OK.

And it was really interesting. You and Hugh should get together regularly and discuss MSM bias or the lack thereof. Every two weeks, get together with your examples. You could defend the MSM with examples of tough questions like the one you asked Reid - if they're out there. And you could prove your point about the memo by your future course of conduct.

Full credit to you for pressing Reid, by the way. And did you notice how he responded? He was shocked and surprised at that kind of treatement from his allies, and handled it badly."

Actually, I think you and Hugh are both right. I’m sure you don’t meet with your colleagues every morning to get your talking points from Nancy Pelosi, and I don’t doubt your sincerity when you and the rest of the MSM insist that you report the facts, as honestly and objectively as humanly possible. But Hugh is also correct. The MSM is heavily biased to the left, as evidenced by the reporting from Iraq. The reason it is so bad is that most of the alleged reporters suffer from the arrogant ignorance that Bernie Goldberg described so well. They are like that famous ditz from New York who couldn’t understand how Nixon won the election, because nobody she knew had voted for him.

I didn't listen to the podcast, only read the transcript at Hugh's site, so I don't know how flustered you sounded. Still, I thought you did ok.

And it was really interesting. You and Hugh should get together regularly and discuss MSM bias or the lack thereof. Every two weeks, get together with your examples. You could defend the MSM with examples of tough questions like the one you asked Reid - if they're out there. And you could prove your point about the memo by your future course of conduct.

Full credit to you for pressing Reid, by the way. And did you notice how he responded? He was shocked and surprised at that kind of treatment from his allies, and handled it badly.

Here’s another example of MSM bias: I am far more outraged by Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana than I am about David Vitter. Jefferson has been indicted for a real crime which many other people have gone to jail for, Vitter is a flawed human being who is doing more harm to himself and to his family. My guess is that the MSM looks at Jefferson and says, “Another Democrat politician taking bribes? How boring. Let’s get back to the next Republican scandal.”

Several readers have talked about Hugh going too far with the refrences to the email sent by Mr. Tapper or his staffers and I have to disagree. When confronted, Jake listed at least 3 different things he was going to ask Hugh about, in order of, the weeks events. Was the book going to be #5? If so wouldn't it be easy to email that he wanted to talk about the weeks news AND his book. Seemed like Hugh was right. Nonethless we who listen to HH absolutely know where he is coming from but to hear almost every journalist squirm and never admit who they voted for makes them look like they have something to hide. Nonetheless if you keep asking questions like the one to Harry Reid, you will gain real credibility with those of us who truly are objective. Just because we listen to HH doesn't mean we think he is always correct. But this time it looks to me as if he was. At least you will know what you are up against next time.

Just noted your comment above. If you're trying to claim centrist or "objective" credentials by saying you get flak from both the right and the left, know that that tactic is transparent, childish crap and one of the reasons people like Joe Klein are held in so much contempt by people whose lips don't move when they're reading.

The networks and major newspapers are going out of business, so the sooner smart people like Jake stop thinking of themselves as members of a priesthood--but as mere mortals trying to be good reporters despite the biases that our biochemistry burdens us with, the better. As for the Vitter story, headlines and story placement are well-known extensions of editorial license. On the other hand, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Without transparency we don't know if there's an agenda or unconscious bias. It unnecessarily calls your credibility into question. Having your views known might push you to become a better journalist by being more conscious of these issues.

It WAS like an argument with "a guy on a train", wasn't it? Funny line. Nice going, Jake. I thought you held your own quite well with a man who in a way sense until it sounds like nonsense. I imagine it must be difficult to have a rational discussion with someone whose own center of balance has been thrown so far out of whack from years of carrying water for this senseless, bizarro administration.

Nice hair splitting by the chap just above. Center right is conservative. Jack, you got your butt handed to you. He was on to your stunt about Vitter from the beginning and kept you backed up to the end. Your preening about how you asked Reid a question nobody in the press corps has before says a lot and had the effect of confirming Hewitt's premise.

What a jerk Hewitt was!!! If you look at Hewitt's blog you can see him lying and spinning about the interview and whether the podcast will play in entirety. Then Hewitt's rabid dogs get all frothy about it. All over nothing. The guy is nothing but a fraud.

Jim

Mr. Tapper, Great interview. From both positions...

To be credible, we must admit we all harbor bias, and go on to comprehend that our individual bias is based on our own (however limited and skewed) knowledge, experience, wants, needs and wishes.

With that, we all live, think and reason within our individual bubbles of our bias. Hewitt, unlike most members of the dying MSM, is clear, upfront and honest about his bias. It's clear that his line of questioning to you made you very uncomfortable, regarding thoughts and revelations of your own bias.

And with that, Hewitt largely handed out your profession’s bias, deep fried, salted and ready to eat.

As an aside, we all recall that several years ago ABC News, of their own free volition, made the decision to hire the former senior political, campaign adviser and communications director for Bill Clinton. Who has now aspired and become the main political correspondent, analyst and political voice for ABC News.

With that being true, one of my favorite quotes comes to mind:

It does not take sharp eyes to see the sun and the moon, nor does it take sharp ears to hear the thunderclap. --- Sun Szu

Jake-
My perception is that you are one of the few in MSM that really does try to be even handed. Hugh Hewitt (who I do
admire) does treat any MSMr as guilty
as charged--and with prosecutorial zeal. You came thru better than most when subjected to his unrelenting style that he does so well when he is on his
own "fastest gun" wins turf. But though I think you should have been given a bit of slack, Hugh is right about the overwhelming majority of MSM
journalist types who can recognize the bias of Fox, but can't see their own.

I hope you did not feel "delegitimized" Jake. I think your back and forth with HH went well. I would have to think that answering questions to give your readers background info will only increase your audience. Keep asking the fair questions and don't accept nonsense for answers...

Jake,

Thanks for the great interview with [by?] Hugh Hewitt! I enjoyed the unscripted verbal interchange immensely. I hope you will become a regular on Hugh's talk show.

Regards,
Brad Brown

Jake, the "interview" was great radio and good podcasting too.

I've listened to Hugh Hewitt now for several years in Minnesota, and I always consider the source for whatever I hear.

What caught my attention was the discussion on Mormon bigotry. I do think this will be a very interesting thing to watch in ALL media as the Romney campaign moves forward. I think you as an "MSM, inside-the-beltway" kind of guy could really stake an interesting claim to this territory to see if something is actually there or not.

I'd be curious to see some kind of media comparison between what was said of candidate/future President Kennedy as a Catholic (in so-called "less enlightened times") versus what may be out there for Romney. This type of analysis could easily be done with Lexus-Nexus and other technology, and could even be done just through the primary season if Mitt doesn't take the nomination.

Just a thought.

Hope to hear you again on Hugh's program. You presented yourself well.

Entertaining podcast. It certainly made my Saturday morning work go faster. Several points:

a.) Hugh did get a little tiresome with the memo issue and the "will you broadcast the podcast issue"?

b.) Hugh was right on the mark relative to MSM bias. Ideology and worldview are ingrained. It allows someone to select the facts that support his/her opinion and ignore the facts that do not. The problem with MSM is not biased reporters. Rather, the problem is that they everyone is biased in the same way so that it seems to an MSM employee that they are mainstream. While Jake Tapper did a fine piece of journalism with his questions concerning Harry Reid, there is no secret that his network clearly feels the war is a mistake, we have no chance of winning, Bush lied, et al. Consider the selection bias with his question - Vitter is a non-issue. How about talking about the surge operations and the congressional reactions to the war? Instead, we play to form and fuss at Vitter.

c. I am glad that Hugh challenges these MSM beliefs and admire Jake for showing up and having to defend his beliefs.

Posted by: TLB | Jul 13, 2007 8:49:34 PM.

"The mainstream media does have a culture that is more akin to Hollywood than Middle America."

I would have to second that observation of TLB's with the emphasis on the term "culture" to replace "bias". The MSM does have its own culture complete with "A"-"B"-"C" lists of its own celebrities. It thinks that other Americans either think like they do, or should, and any other points of view are dismissed as "interesting".

The MSM culture is not much different than Wall St. culture. The networks and the print media are information brokers and offer up the news to benefit the brokerage house, be it Morgan Stanley or Columbia Broadcasting. As for the individual investor or the individual reader/viewer, well, they're on their own.

Hewitt, as usual, was a blowhard. The guy couldn't argue his way out of a wet paper bag.

Good job calling him on his B.S.

Oh, and his dis-ingenuous about Vitter was hilarious. You should've listened to him during the last presidential campaign. Nothing but personal attacks. Nothing.

The guy is a pathetic shill for the current administration.

Very good interview Jake. Nice job, thought Hugh was a little too much of an aggressor but you guys had a good back and forth.

Mr. Tapper,

All news is biased. The MSM absolutely refuses to acknowledge it's biases. The readers cannot be good americans (the purpose of the third estate is to help us be good americans, right Mr. Tapper?).

To not acknowledge and discuss the biases piece by piece makes research into propaganda. It may advance your cause but not achieve the objective of improving our democracy.

Your biases.
1) Story choice (should be representative of all of the news-which is not achievable).
2) No hidden agendas
3) Lack of innuendo and sarcasm
4)Straight set of questions covering a representative sample of avaiable current positions on topics.
5)Statement of story and reporter/question biases, restrictions and limitations.

Guess you failed.
Scott Dunham Wallace, Ph.D

I am always rather horrified by someone that says "I am a conservative Christian," then goes on to rail against someone who has confessed to a "sin" in the past. I guess the standard is: You can only "preach" about "sin" if you have never done that particular "sin". ROFLOL If that were true, then at least half, or maybe a great deal of the New Testament would never have been written. We would, more than likely, only have a New Testament that quotes Jesus. Many "preachers" I have heard, always admit that they are "preaching" to themselves or from experience. So, jt, your self-righteousness is really a form of hypocrisy in itself. The REAL point is, has a person left that particular sin behind, and is he trying to live righteously now, not what sin he may have committed 10 years ago.

First off, very, very entertaining podcast. Lots of interesting discussion. I'm a longtime, pretty right-leaning listener of HH. He has great interviewing technique (as you well know) and is a great talk show host. I think like many radio hosts and bloggers, he tends to overstate the mediums' impact, at times. But, that is only because he thinks they are already "transformative" as opposed to getting to that stage as part of the "new media revolution." And when I say "overstates," I don't mean by all that much.

But, his credibility, for me and many others, was forever damaged by his GOP shilling for Harriet Miers...not that he supported her, or had his own opinions about it, or stuck to his guns, but rather that he was just incredibly disingenuous during the whole affair. Also, that he partook in some of the generalizations that some of the "elite" GOP insiders used to impugn the motives and intelligence of those who disagreed with him. He conducted himself very poorly on the whole during the Miers' kerfuffle.

Still, he is greatly entertaining, puts on an interesting, incisive show, and his interviews of politicians, pundits, military, and others is a fabulous source of news that sadly is not available in the MSM.

Having said all that, here are some other thoughts on the interview.

1. That I say he is a source of "news" does not mean he is an ojbective source. But, he is correct in that we know where he is coming from, factor that in to our opinions of his opinions (that "adjusting for the lie of the green" analogy was simply perfect), and go from there. This pretense to being able -- for those who actually make the concerted and difficult attempt to do so -- to be wholly "objective," to not having your distilled political views, opinions, interpretations, biases, understandings, takes on life in general, seep into your (I'm speaking generally of the MSM but you are by no means exempt) reporting, coverage, and choice of stories to cover, is, well...comical. If you actually believe yourself, then it is even more so.

2. He can't seriously think that the moderates and leftists that call in represent a fair cross section of his audience. I would guess it's about 10% Tancredo (whom Hugh loathes) righties, 40% mainstream conservatives of one stripe or another, 20% libertarian-conservatives, with the remaining 30% being moderates and Democrats. He was cute, though, about saying he "gets calls from" and then letting the listener infer that was a representative cross sample of his audience.

Anyway, pulled those numbers completely out of you-know-where, but it's my best guess.

3. The mass mockery of the MSM he spoke of doesnt exist. It does exist for those politically informed, though the general public certainly doesnt have much faith in journalists. But, the left is as likely to think the MSM is biased right as we are to think it's biased left. That it is not as massive as HH says doesnt mean it's not substantial, or that what he says isn't true.

4. I don't think your Vitter question was "dishonest" like he portrayed, but that's only because I listened to you and believe your intent wasnt to be dishonest. But, that you led off with Vitter says a lot, in light of what HH has been covering this week, who he has interviewed, and what is going on in the world of current events in general. Seriously, would you lead off with that kind of questioning, worded as you worded it to HH, if you were interviewing a Ed Shultz or some other popular liberal pundit? Doubtful. The line of questioning was based on your legitimate curiosity into how "the right" reacts to such "hypocrisy." That you associate such hypocrisy with the right -- although you might grant that some of the same goes on in the left; still you clearly believe that conservatives are much more likely to engage in it than liberals -- and that you seriously don't understand how having a strongly felt belief about normative values, yet acknowledging to oneself that onr may be too weak, selfish, etc. to live up to your own standard, is not the same sort of hypocrisy as defined by the dictionary -- professing to believe one thing, but in reality, not actually believing it, as opposed to not being able to live up to your own standards.

Unfortunately, Hugh picked a good example to show MSM bias, but took it too far in trying to show "dishonesty." Dishonesty implies intent; you didn't intend to set HH up in a gotcha, though many reporters would and do - in this case, I'm pretty sure you weren't. More illustrative, though, is that you don't see why picking that topic to lead off, or to even speak about, to a "conservative" pundit, in general, when those not of the elite MSM could care less (he was right when explaining that righties, the vast, vast majority anyway, just assume politicians are as weak and human as the rest of us, and while, dissappointed, aren't shocked or outraged -- par for the course for human beings, and sadly, very much par for the course for politicians) about it, displays exactly the MSM insularity and bias toward, and about, the right that HH was speaking of.

Anyway, that was some great, great podcasting, and your not appreciating that makes it all the greater. You seem like a decent, inquisitive journalist (for an MSMer, anyway ;-). But, you and the rest of MSM would be well-served to be more honest with yourselves and with your own biases. You'd be better journalists, and the public would be better served, if you realize that your viewers don't think youre robots, and are going to figure in the lie of the green no matter how "ojbective" you try to be or think youre being. May as well help them guess as accurately as possible, otherwise theyre prone to miscalculate (eg, think you're the same as Dana Milbank) and their guesses will be way off course.

You tried to cover up your bias to no avail. You are no match for the brilliant and knowledgeable Hugh Hewitt.
Thanks heavens there are other outlets for news coverage. I haven't watched MSM TV or read news print since I acquired Cable TV and my computer! PS - What made you so knowledgable about the world and news coverage - your education in a preppy school! Get some experience and socialize with middle America who carry the tax burden!

From the Hugh Hewitt interview:

"The answer is because I am conflicted about whether or not it is appropriate for somebody whose job it is to be an arbiter, a truth teller of these elections, whether or not it is appropriate for that person to ultimately step into the voting booth and choose. I do understand those who say that it’s not appropriate to vote, and that’s how I felt in the last election, and that’s generally how I’m coming to feel."

For the love of God, Jake, get over yourself. You're not some kind of superhero whose identity must be kept a secret for the safety of us all. You're a reporter and a commentator and in the era of the new media, you're just one of us. I have a blog, too, Jake. I do news stories and analysis, too, Jake. It's not a big deal.

I'm sure we'd all gasp in horror and faint dead away if you revealed who you voted for. Right.

What a totally puffed-up crumb you are. You're an ant who thinks he's an elephant.

I am a long time listener of Hugh's who leans decidedly left. He has several interview techniques which were evidenced in your exchange...[such as] the assertion repeated almost mantralike that the MSM is biased and cannot be trusted and that the "new media" blogs, talk radio, Drudge etc. are the source of accurate information about the world. The inherent "truthiness" problem of these outlets is never addressed.

Posted by: beardman77 | Jul 13, 2007 7:42:56 PM

Lol, you listen to Hugh -- and to this very podcast, too? -- and you come away with that? Take off the blinders, beardman. He says no such thing about the "'new media' [being] the source of accurate information about the world." He does, however, explicitly say, and say often, including in this podcast, that the reason talk radio and blogs are so appreciated on the right is that their audiences know where the host or blogger is coming from, and can factor that in to their opinion of the host's or blogger's anlaysis, who make no bones about their own biases.

For a pithier, better take on it that I can give, check out this later comment by Gary:

The point Hugh was making is a legitimate one and here it is in "Other Words".....

The political right, including right leaning radio, are all openly clear that they have a bias, while the left, of which about 90% of the main stream media is, try to hide their bias by saying they are neutral.

Hogwash, we all are biased and it is only right that the reader/listener/viewer be told what that bias is. To say that they can remove their bias is just down right foolish. Either a person admits his bias or he is not informed.

Posted by: Gary Morris | Jul 13, 2007 8:07:33 PM

P.S. Heard your Reid questioning on Prager, too. GREAT JOB. That I'm so emphatic should tell you how truly rare that is (in my own biased world, that is).

Anyway, while I think you must be a cut above (in the good way) most of the MSM in their attempts at ojbectivity and ignorance of their own biases, the podcast does show me that you are not compeletly inoculated from the elitist beltway bug. Still, you're pretty good for a MSM journalist, and I think you really do try to be as objective as you can.

P.P.S. First off, no need to be coy about being Jewish. HH is quite the supporter of Jew, Israel, and recognizes anti-semitism clearly -- not only because of the biblical imperative, but on his own empirical evaluations of principle and morality, and the United States' best interests. Second off, I am Jewish, and think your hesitancy to discuss your religion is too typical of elite, liberal Jews. American Christianity is NOT the European Christianity of our grandparents. You guys need to realize that if your religion comes up in conversation, in America you need be nore more hesitant about revealing openly and assertively your religion than you would be about your favorite baseball team.

A question for most members of the MSM and their defenders:

If the MSM is supposedly "neutral" and "objective," why do we never find references to "ultra-liberals" or the "far left" from them, whereas there are myriad references to "ultra-conservatives" and the "far right"?

Look, I don't like either one of you idiots, but it was a great podcast. As a spectator, I would have to agree with Hewitt. Assuming that the email he read was true, you (or the email author) did invite him on your show under the pretenses that you would discuss his book about Mr. Magic Underwear. Your very first question to him was about Senator Vitter’s infidelity, and your reasoning behind asking this question was to discuss the current events of the week. Of all the major political happenings that occurred this week, was Sen. Vitter's sex the most pressing issue to ask him about first. You’re a smart yid, why don't you admit that you wanted to see him squirm while trying to defend Sen. Vitter. It makes for a better show when a right-wing radio talk show host, who kisses republican ass all day long and loves Jesus, tries to defend a supposedly family values GOP Senator paying for whores. We're not fools buddy.

Jake-

You got too defensive about Hugh's observation regarding the invite he received to come on your show. You claimed that you were going through the stories chronologically, but then you said that the first story you covered this week was about the Republican defections on the war. Why, again, did you ask about Vitter first?

It's ultimately a selection bias issue, though Hugh said (and I agree) that you are among those MSM reporters that tries to play things straight. I think that you were the one that got your interview sidetracked...you should have spent less of your interview time trying to defend yourself, the media, Stephanopoulos, etc., and just moved on to the book.

A good interview, though, and enlightening on the biases of the media regarding Mormonism and the presidency - though not anything that those of us who listen to Hugh don't already know.

Despite Jake's concern that no one would listen I found it good radio.

Jake it would be a lot easier if MSM types owned their biases. Simply saying I tend to vote for political party X, but I can be fair would suffice. All the talk about not wanting to share, disclose, remember etc. only inspires a lack of confidence in listeners.

Also, an informed person can't be agnostic about the run up to the Iraq war. Either the 17 U.N. resolutions over a decade were being flouted, or the WMD story was a hoax, or the Kurds had suffered enough, or Sadam a force for unity that could not be replaced. An informed and educated person has to believe something about history or you will believe you will believe anything.

Jake,
Your interview with Hugh is my first exposure to you and your work. You sounded very reasonable and fair-minded to me. I am a big fan of Hugh's, I listen almost daily, but I thought he got just plain silly arguing on so about the wording of the invitation he received from your organization. On Dennis Prager's show, I heard the replay of your exchange with Sen. Reid and was very impressed both by the frankness of your question and your unwillingness to let him off the hook without answering a simple yes/no question. I will certainly add your blog to my list of regular reading material.

It has never been clear to me why MSM journalists, when confronted by the likes of Hugh, don't just confirm their obvious left leaning biases and then proceed to make the argument that they have been educated/trained to present unbiased objective reportage. Do they fear that such an admission will put their jobs at risk? Would this be viewed as a sellout in their social circles and earn them pariah status? Honestly,the ridiculous contortions they do when confronted with simple questions on basic things like their voting record (always good for a minimum of 10 mins of hemming and hawing)and politcal party contributions can be painful to endure. Thisappears to be a predominately left affliction as most conservative journalists seem only to proud to openly proclaim their idealogical affiliation.

Jake,
I understand you dispute the point buy why do liberals like yourself try to claim some sort of stranglehold on "the truth" and "the news" while doing it from a liberal point of view while those who comment on it from a conservative point of view and admit their bias are to be considered some kind of sideshow to "the real news" aka something filtered through ABC, NBC, CBS, Washington Post or NYTimes?

Who deemed you guys the ultimate arbiters of what's bias, what's news and what's the truth?

When you are being attacked by the left and the right? Oh come on that's a tired and hackneyed MSM claim. You took Hugh's legitimate criticism as a personal attack, it was not. Recently Diane Sawyer related an anecdote that revealed just how little respect Americans have of journalists. Diane in her own words: "the judge said to me, 'Can, you know, can you tell the truth and be fair?' And I said, 'That's what journalists do.' And everybody in the courtroom laughed." Why do you think everyone laughed? Is it because talk radio poisoned every one's views? NO, it's because we are subjected to blatant and obvious MSM bias, day in and day out, attempting to masquerade as objective and non judgmental. It's a transparent fraud the only ones who don't know their wet, are the fish.

One thing for certain, the interview was great radio. I hope you continue to podcast, and also return to the Hewitt show.

By the way, in the comments at ThinkProgress, Sen. Reid is catching about the same amount of "two minute hate" as you are.

The flaw in Hewitt's inquisition of mainstream journalists is that it presumes everyone deep down is just like Hugh--i.e., a partisan unitard. Real journalists may be a breed set apart. They like to be blown away by interesting truths. The fact that a certain two-sidedness is practically a liberal cliche, as is speaking truth to the powers that be, may make journalism in some ways an inherently left-of-center pursuit. But I think it's probably more accurate to say that a conservative-authoritarian is a sort of born non-journalist.

I'm a big fan of Hugh's but I thought that you were genuine and sincere, I say that not ever hearing of you, nor reading any of your work. The interview started to grate on my nerves a bit, I guess Hugh makes a better interviewer than an interview'ee.
I do hope that Hugh makes you a regular guest on his show.

Jake,