Dallas Morning News' Slater falsely attributed to Media Matters description of Hewitt as "a Renaissance Man of the New Media universe"
In a September 1 Dallas Morning News column, Austin bureau chief Wayne Slater wrote that conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt "sees the freewheeling mix of radio and the Internet as a potent force that has undermined what he calls the creaky monopoly of liberal mainstream media," adding: "The liberal group Media Matters, no fan of Mr. Hewitt's politics, nonetheless dubbed him 'a Renaissance Man of the New Media universe.' " In fact, it was not Media Matters that described him as such, but rather Roger Aronoff, a media analyst for the conservative media "watchdog" group Accuracy in Media, in a September 15, 2005, column.
From Slater's September 1 column:
Mr. Hewitt represents the shift in the way many people get their information. He is the ideological soulmate of fellow radio talkers Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity but also one of the earliest conservatives to plunge wholeheartedly into the blogosphere.
He sees the freewheeling mix of radio and the Internet as a potent force that has undermined what he calls the creaky monopoly of liberal mainstream media.
The liberal group Media Matters, no fan of Mr. Hewitt's politics, nonetheless dubbed him "a Renaissance Man of the New Media universe."
From Aronoff's September 15, 2005, column:
Conservatives are often held up by the liberal media as a rare species to be studied and explained to their viewers and readers. It is a nuisance that they used to not have to worry about. Perhaps that is why the New York Times has a writer for whom conservatives are his beat. And perhaps it explains the recent New Yorker profile of Hugh Hewitt, lawyer, teacher, radio host, and author of the book Blog: Understanding the Information Reformation.
Hewitt, a Renaissance Man of the New Media universe, previously worked for then-former President Nixon at his Western White House in California, and in the Reagan Justice Department, where he worked with current Supreme Court nominee John Roberts.
Media Matters' coverage of Hewitt can be reviewed here.
Hewitt's more of a Dark Ages man.
Hewitt is a soulmate of Limbaugh & Hannity?
Hewitt is a Renaissance Man?
All of them seem stuck in the 14th Century, so I have to say, WITH?
And there's even a "Gore invented the Internet" joke just for good measure.
Yes, Gore advocated the Internet.
But it was Georgie Boy Bush who made the greatest invention of all times :
GEORGE BUSH INVENTED THE INTERNETS
I thought it was impacted nuts, maybe that was Turd Blossom.
Someone redid Moon River as Turd Blossom, heard it on Air America yesterday. It was nicely done.
C'mon now...expecting a "journalist" to get information correct is not misinformation, it is reality.
Another example of just how lazy reporters are getting nowadays.
Last week on KDKA radio in Pittsburgh, the rightwing talkshow host referred to Mr. Graham as a spokesman for the independent organization..are you ready... MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER....He also acknowledged that they had be acquainted for a long time.It was not a mistake just typical Righty misinformation. And the sheep bought into it.
Wow. Just what we need: The ideological soulmate of Rush and Hannity's. You can never have enough of those.
I think one requires a soul in order to be a soul mate, Onion.
Soulless mates might be the more proper term for these mendacious gnomes.
So this guy uses a lie to perpetuate another lie. What's really happening is that the internet is undermining the creaky monopoly of Right wing monopoly of the MSM. But I guess he doesn't want to say that so he uses a lie about MMFA as a basis for his whole false premise. Amazing. I'm writing to this turd.
Keep the lies flowing, these people are desperate. Hewitt seems to be as bad or worse than Hannity. Yuck.
Interesting. And yet he's only had seven threads on MMFA in over two years. Geez, they must have missed a bunch of stuff. Hanity's way ahead of that.
Well, Hannity surely has the aggregate of more mentions, but that doesn't disqualify Hewitt from being as bad (or worse) than Sans Sanity. But maybe you're jesting. At this point, trying to compare degree of lunacy between two hacks must be the only thing left for you guys. ;-)
Sans Sanity. Beautiful!
I just want to see the proof, JJ. If HH is a lying hack then show me the money. Otherwise, it's just a baseless allegation and we all hate those. I'm not a Hannity fan but I respect Hewitt's opinion a lot more. I'm pretty sure MMFA is looking to take him down, if they can. He rides on...
BRuce1, I agree with you...if he spreads mis-information, MMFA will expose it and everyone will be informed. If he goes down, that will be his legacy.
Bruce, Hewitt spoke (2006) of Limbaugh as a great source of information. Someone who says this with a straight face, I would not trust to give me anything close to real news...
From MM link:
During the May 28 [link to transcripts.cnn.com] style="__styledocument: [object]">edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, conservative blogger and nationally syndicated radio host [link to www.hughhewitt.com] style="__styledocument: [object]">Hugh Hewitt pointed to conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh as a model of the type of media figure that could help the mainstream media get Americans' "trust back." Defending Limbaugh to Reliable Sources host Howard Kurtz, Hewitt stated that "people can't argue" with Limbaugh's "re-branding as America's anchorman." "But," Kurtz interjected, "Rush Limbaugh would make no pretense of being an objective journalist. He's a commentator." Hewitt replied, Limbaugh "also does information dissemination, which is what I do and what you do." Neither Hewitt nor Kurtz made any reference to Limbaugh's extensive record of misinformation.
here's another little false attack by limbaugh on the national association of letter carriers. a so called conservative carrier complained to rush that the union magazine only endorsed republicans, with which rush agreed. the union president pointed out in a letter that they sent a survey to all presidential candidates, but only democrats responded. the letter:
http://download.premiereradio.net/guest/rushlimb/pdf/UnionLetter.pdf
sorry, make that the union magazine only endorsed democrats. a little clearer now?
Well, Bruce, if MMFA is trying to take him down, then why only 7 mentions in two years? You argued that yourself. I actually wasn't even saying he was worse (don't know). I was arguing that he "could be as bad or worse" and that the aggregate of his mentions not being up to Hannity's doesn't necessarily mean much. And Limbaugh, America's anchorman (Mary's post)? I don't think even Rush buys that whopper.
Seven mentions in two years indicates to me that HH is not a big misinformer.
His Limbaugh reference lead me to believe that he is a big time misinformer; however, I haven't actually listened to him.
The fact that Media Matters hasn't documented other misinformation from him may be due to the fact that so many other righty talkers are out there spreading manure.
You can't possibly believe that MMFA would give a conservative talker a free pass. Let's at least be honest.
Is seven times in two years a good thing? Gee, pretty low standards. And that doesn't even count the times where the guy probably did misinform and it didn't get highlighted here. If you want to use the aggregate of number of mentions at MMFA for your only criteria, then you haven't got a point to debate. In point of fact, there are other criterion that may be considered in his being included here. There is a guy here in Dallas that I listen to every once in a while and it seems that every time I hear him, he's dishing manure. But his audience may not be that huge. And it may be that there are other more eggregious nominations for any given day. And of course I would also say that MMFA probably doesn't have the staff to monitor every righty manure pusher in the country.
Julia, Hugh is a national talker and prominent conservative on the radio. If you don't think they are monitoring his program then I just disagree. And yes, I think 7 threads in two years is an extremely good record.
Bruce:
Hugh Hewitt claimed that Mitt Romney is "not going to have a problem with pro-lifers" in seeking the presidency in 2008, but rather "[h]e's going to have problem with anti-Mormon bigots on the left, especially." March 12 , 2007
But he also said:
Conservative Hugh Hewitt, a law professor and talk-show host, says one big speech won't be enough. "Mitt Romney has a Mormon problem, as does the rest of the country. It's much bigger than I thought, and it's going to require a lot of conversation and focused study," says Hewitt, author of A Mormon in the White House?: 10 Things Every Conservative Should Know about Mitt Romney, due in 2/12/2007
Which statement by Hewitt do we believe, Feb. 2007 or March 2007? Did Mitt, really change the minds of conservatives in one month or maybe he made a really really big speech?
Well, I don't know anybody on the left who has a problem with a Morman in particular, just Romney. This is a canard pushed by righty talkers like Hewitt who have gotten the same talking points as all the other misinformers. Since they all essentially use the same play book, are there any that are better than another? I doubt it. You guys really need to get better sources of info.. These guys are serial misinformers, none better than the next.