Guest Media Analysis
York and Hume Fume!
by Mike Hersh

I want to deconstruct the pro-bush, anti-voter media bias as show by Brit Hume of Fox (AKA Faux) News and Salon.com's Anthony York, as seen at http://www.salon.com/politics/fix/2001/01/23/political_fix/index1.html: "Bush's 'gag rule' fires up pro-choicers".

Don't go to the Anthony York blurb yet -- I will post it at the end of this rant. York is pretending to report fairly, but this article is replete with not very-well-hidden agenda. "Fox News managing editor and chief Washington correspondent Brit Hume responded privately to the 'spam.'"

Excuse me?

'SPAM'?

This was sent to the PUBLIC media. They use OUR airwaves, they don't OWN them. This is a small piece of the on air arrogance of Hume exudes and York exalts. York quotes Hume scolding the voter: "Do you seriously think a news organization should ignore the swearing-in...."

Hold ON! Who said anyone should "ignore" anything?

The whole point is that Hume's company ignored the protests!

We know exactly why. As my friend asked, "Aren't 25,000 people who stand in the freezing rain giving Bush the finger and throwing bottles at him newsworthy?" Hume says no, and lies claiming that the voter demanded his company ignore the swearing in! Typical right wing tactic.

Hume has NO explanation for his decision to impose a Pravda-like black out on this story, "Protesters Line D.C. for Inaugural" as reported "by Ron Kampeas, Associated Press Writer, Saturday, Jan. 20, 2001; 5:11 p.m. EST WASHINGTON" as follows:

In the largest inaugural demonstrations since Richard Nixon,
thousands of protesters on Saturday hurled insults, bottles and an
egg to mock George W. Bush's election. The tensions forced the new
president's motorcade to lurch along the parade route. Protesters
clashed briefly with police clad in riot gear at a few flash points
while Bush remained inside his armored stretch car for most of the
parade up a soggy, cold Pennsylvania Avenue.

Other details from the AP article include:

A couple of protesters threw bottles before the presidential
limousine arrived, and one hurled an egg that landed near the
motorcade, the Secret Service said.

Protesters managed little else to interrupt the festivities in the
face of a massive show of 7,000 police officers.

Other "non-news" reported by the AP but ignored by Fume's Faux News:

"Hail to the Thief," read one sign along the parade route
questioning the legitimacy of Bush's election win in Florida.

Protesters sported buttons declaring, "Illegitimate Son of a Bush."

"If he had won clearly, I wouldn't have troubled to come here," said
Mack Wilder, a construction worker from Greensboro, N.C.

The protests were the largest since those during Nixon's 1973
inauguration at the height of the Vietnam war.

Bob Rogers, one of the organizers of the "Voter March," said the
fact that Bush captured the White House even though Al Gore won the
popular vote by 500,000 guaranteed busloads of demonstrators. "These
are moderate, working people, motivated by anger, embarrassment,
that kind of sentiment," he said. "They're wondering, 'We put a man
on the moon, why can't we count the vote?'"

...protesters took over a section of inaugural parade bleachers set
aside for ticketed guests.

The marchers faced stringent security measures, [or, I should point
out, would have been FAR more numerous] including a first:
Checkpoints along the parade route. There were miles of steel
fencing, and Secret Service agents in long black overcoats jogged
alongside the motorcade.

More of the AP article follows at the bottom.

Note this is not the left center muck maker Mother Jones, a well-informed but sarcastic BartCop, or the longest running, irreverent, but NEVER irrelevant American Politics Journal saying this.

It's the AP! The Associated Press!

NONE of this was newsworthy according to Hume? NONE of it?

And York is backing up Hume all the way. York parrots Hume's distortion by claiming the voter "blasted members of the media for focusing their coverage on Bush's Inauguration instead of nationwide protests." This is what it really said, according to York:

"Why have you not covered the grass roots anti-inaugural protests as
much as the Bush-sponsored inaugural events in Washington, DC?" the
e-mail asked. "Why have you chosen instead to serve as a public
relations arm for the Bush presidency?"

How stupid does York think we are? He provided the quote from the email in his article. Nothing there asked for coverage of protests INSTEAD of covering the swearing in. Rather than provide anything close to fair and balanced coverage, Hume's decision to IGNORE the protests means he has, once again, "Chosen instead to serve as a public relations arm for the Bush presidency!"

Face it, Hume and York: this justifiably angry voter has your number, and you don't want to admit it.

So what do you do? Sand bag.

First, York pumps up his fellow media whore for his "spirited defense." He calls Hume simply "a Fox News anchorman," when Hume is also a longtime Bush family insider. York never mentions Faux News is run by a former top Republican White House public relations trickster, Roger Ailes. Maybe he doesn't know?

To be honest I don't know for sure whether York is a whore. He may just be writing a sloppy, shoddy self-contradictory news blurb that omits who Hume, Ailes, and Fox really are, and so comes across as biased, arrogant and wrong to those who know. Maybe York is just kissing Hume's butt to get a job at fox, and not a whore at all? Wait. That would make him a whore. Never mind!

Remember, the email said "Why have you not covered the grass roots anti-inaugural protests as much as the Bush-sponsored inaugural events in Washington, DC?" Apparently either York and Hume are just part of the PR arm of the bush occupation, or else they're too stupid to know the difference between "as much as" as opposed to "instead of." Whores. Stupid. Or Stupid whores. It's up to you to decide, but I am kinda leaning toward #3.

According to CNN, 25,000 people were lining the parade route to protest. That's a lot of people! I saw people giving Bush the finger, holding up signs saying "Lord Help Us All," and openly swearing at him for stealing the election. This is not newsworthy? Please!

Now unlike York and bush buddy Hume and Reagan's old PR hack Ailes and Faux News, I am not unreasonable. I agree that asking for as much coverage for the "swearing at" as the swearing in is asking for too much. But NONE at ALL? This is the central point. As my friend observed, CNN devoted quite a bit of footage to protesters. Why not FAUX?

This is the question York and Hume refuse to answer, again quoted in blurb by York: "Why have you chosen instead to serve as a public relations arm for the Bush presidency?" Hume dodged this question, lied about what the guy said and the facts.

Hume also just lied when he claimed there were just a few, unimportant "scattered protests around the country." Once again, according to CNN, a 25,000 were lining the parade route, and thousands also marched and protested around the country.

The point is, Hume IS the stinking public relations arm for the Bush presidency!

Hume was Bush Sr.'s tennis partner in DC. Hume is a right wing hack. York amplifies Hume's LIE and whined that this "Libguy" was violating Hume's privacy: "Brit Hume responded privately." HUME'S privacy? What is Hume's expectation of privacy in an email to a so called "spammer?" Hume is STILL whining about the President's private life every week on his little Sunday morning rock n' news show. This lot whining about privacy is like Eminem condemning wise asses.

York sniffs, "Libguy9754 then forwarded Hume's response to his entire e-mail list." *GASP* If York thinks that's so bad, ponder this. York just made the whole thing much more public than the spammer ever did when he put it in Salon.com. York then whines that Libguy9754 took Hume to task, quoting: "Look at what your colleague wrote me." Then York exposes himself, trying to dodge the point by dismissing Libguy9754 as a crank who has no point.

This shows how HOSTILE some in the media are to anyone who questions that they are the a public relations arm for the Bush presidency, and proves that Libguy9754 is correct when he writes: "This is the face of journalism today ... an arrogant right leaning group who think it's OK to toe the line for the government as long as it's a government run by Republicans." (Again, from email, as quoted by York.)

York smirks that Libguy9754 "fumed" against Hume, whom York claims offered a "spirited defense" by misrepresenting this voter's legitimate points. York dismisses the guy who is correct as a crank and a spammer who invades Hume's privacy, and is so nuts he demands NO coverage of the inauguration.

Was Hume fuming? No--he was "spirited." York paints the person who is telling the truth as a crank and portrays the lying whore Hume as reasonable. It looks to me like York is nothing but a cheerleader for Hume who is just a ditzy pompom girl for the bush occupation.

"Hey! LOOK at the spammer! He's fuming, huh? He actually thinks we should cover 'a few scattered' players on the other team when our new quarterback w bush is taking the oath of office! HA! HA! Hey, Brit! You sure were spirited at the fuming spammer! You got him GOOOOD! We got the spirit! Rah Rah! GOOOOOOO TEAM!"

Someone get a bucket for me to puke in.

Or a megaphone!

Here is the Anthony York blurb...

>From Salon.com:

The personal touch

Over the weekend, an e-mail was sent to political reporters from
someone calling himself "libguy9754"; it blasted members of the
media for focusing their coverage on Bush's Inauguration instead of
nationwide protests over the election results, prompting at least
one spirited defense from a Fox News anchorman.

"Why have you not covered the grass roots anti-inaugural protests as
much as the Bush-sponsored inaugural events in Washington DC?" the
e-mail asked. "Why have you chosen instead to serve as a public
relations arm for the Bush presidency?"

Fox News managing editor and chief Washington correspondent Brit
Hume responded privately to the spam:

Actually, those inaugural festivities at the Capitol are sponsored
by the joint congressional inaugural committee. Do you seriously
think a news organization should ignore the swearing-in of a new
president in favor of scattered protests around the country?

Besides, we knew that covering it the way we did would infuriate you
personally and that was an added plus.

Best wishes, Brit Hume

Libguy9754 then forwarded Hume's response to his entire e-mail list,
complaining, "Look at what your colleague wrote me," and alleging
that Hume's response was evidence of a vast right-wing conspiracy.
"This is the face of journalism today ... an arrogant right leaning
group who think it's ok to toe the line for the government as long
as it's a government run by Republicans,"
fumed libguy9754.

-- Anthony York [2:35 p.m. PST, Jan. 22, 2001]

...and more of the AP Article full of the material that Brit Fume
"spiritedly" rejected as not newsworthy:

But the protesters managed little else to interrupt the festivities
in the face of a massive show of 7,000 police officers. As the day
grew darker and colder, authorities had arrested only four people
and activists began to disperse. "Hail to the Thief," read one sign
along the parade route questioning the legitimacy of Bush's election
win in Florida.

Other protesters sported buttons declaring, "Illegitimate Son of a
Bush."

"If he had won clearly, I wouldn't have troubled to come here," said
Mack Wilder, a construction worker from Greensboro, N.C., who joined
over 100 others from the state for a five-hour bus journey through
fog and rain. Bush remained in his limousine for most of the
traditional parade route up Pennsylvania Avenue from the Capitol to
the White House.

The new president finally exited for a brief walk outside only after
he reached a secure zone near the White House filled with
inauguration ticketholders and no protesters. The protests were the
largest since those during Nixon's 1973 inauguration at the height
of the Vietnam war.

Those protests drew about 60,000; organizers of the Bush protests
anticipated 20,000. Predictions of sleet and snow did not
materialize, and the protesters -- as well as the celebrants --
faced little worse than mild drizzle and fog. Though protesters had
many disparate causes, most said they were motivated by the Florida
election controversy.

Bob Rogers, one of the organizers of the "Voter March," said the
fact that Bush captured the White House even though Al Gore won the
popular vote by 500,000 guaranteed busloads of demonstrators. "These
are moderate, working people, motivated by anger, embarrassment,
that kind of sentiment," he said. "They're wondering, 'We put a man
on the moon, why can't we count the vote?'"

On the Capitol steps where he was sworn in, Bush exchanged smiles
and pleasantries with Al Gore -- a civility that at times extended
into the streets. Pro- and anti-Bush protesters joked with each
other, and jostled each other on crowded subway trains. At some
junctures, the sides exchanged insults.

When pro-Bush people chanted, "Help is on the way," protesters
countered "Hell is on the way." At one point, protesters took over a
section of inaugural parade bleachers set aside for ticketed guests.

Earlier, a few officers were hurt after protesters threw bottles at
them. One officer was seen bleeding from the eye, but none required
hospitalization. Two streakers jumped barriers while a cowboy in
underwear sang to the crowd. The streakers were detained by police.

The marchers faced stringent security measures, including a first:
checkpoints along the parade route. There were miles of steel
fencing, and Secret Service agents in long black overcoats jogged
alongside the motorcade. Authorities were worried because many of
the expected demonstrators participated in recent protests, such as
the one in 1999 in Seattle that resulted in violence and hundreds of
arrests. Police Chief Charles Ramsay strode alongside his men,
wielding a nightstick.

Mike Hersh is webmaster of www.BushOccupation.com, the favorite website of the US Secret Service.