Tue, Oct 31, 2006 |
By Hugh Hewitt
Mark Halperin thought our interview very fair, but e-mailed me that he thought it very unfair that I characterize him as “very liberal” as there is no evidence for this. He asked that I apologize for the characterization and remove the description or post that he is outraged at my describing him thus.
Hi Mark: I indeed assume you are very liberal given your refusal to answer the questions, and given the overwhelmingly liberal make-up of the MSM. I’ll be happy to reconsider my opinion if you give me a reason to believe otherwise. But the most reasonable motive on your part not to disclose your views, combined with your characterization of the number of liberals in a newsroom, leads me to my conclusion that you are very liberal. It is indeed the only reasonable conclusion to reach. If you want to give me some evidence to reach a different conclusion, I’d be happy to. I don’t want to be wrong, but I don’t think I am. And I doubt you’ll be able to provide me with any evidence that I am wrong.
If you’d like to object on air, I’d be glad to have you back, btw. Hugh
Mark replied that my reasoning was absurd and beneath my intellect, and that I have no “actual, factual basis” for concluding that he is very liberal. He considers the description a “a serious affront to my professional integrity,” and requests that I “note my strong objection to your characterization.”
I think here we have arrived at one of the major reasons that old media is bleeding out before our eyes
. Old media routinely assumes the worst about conservatives and Republicans, misrepresents their views and advances the left’s agenda. Mark Halperin readily admits the overwhelming bias and recounts with me many of its most memorable expressions. But then there is an objection that I don’t have any evidence to call him “very liberal” because he won’t tell us how he votes or think.
Not only do I think that Mark Halperin is very liberal, I don’t think it is possible to conclude anything else. By his own admission, the newsrooms of elite media are overwhelming liberal. He went to an overwhelmingly liberal university after growing up in an overwhelmingly liberal family. He won’t answer any questions on public policy issues and his most famous publication –his direction to cover Bush differently from Kerry– is a matter of record, though in our interview he offers a different explanation for that memo. Still he believes –strongly– that the covering of his opinions is so complete that we in the public cannot but yield to his protestation of innocence and declare him the exception that proves the rule.
I will of course offer him the opportunity to appear on the program to express his outrage, but a friend ought to take him aside and remind him of that old Irish saying: “If everybody says you’re drunk, you’d better sit down.”