View the trailer

The Hugh Hewitt Show

Listen 24/7 Live: Mon - Fri   6 - 9 AM Eastern
Call the Show 800-520-1234
European Voyage Cruise 2017 Advertisement

Talkin’ Tribe with Terry Pluto

Tuesday, October 18, 2016  |  posted by Duane Patterson

The Audio:


Glenn Thrush On His Appearance In The #PodestaEmails

Tuesday, October 18, 2016  |  posted by Duane Patterson

Politico’s Glenn Thrush is a regular and valued guest on my program. He’s also a friend and though I am not a frequent user of his colorful language, I do know that the practice of checking quotes with sources is practiced throughout journalism –as confirmed by National Review’s Eliana Johnson to me on today’s show– and that checking details of stories is also common. (Its often been a courtesy extended me by reporters writing profiles of my, especially when debate season hit.) Glenn joined me this AM;

The audio:


The transcript:

HH: Joined now by Glenn Thrush, chief political correspondent of Politico. Glenn, good morning, welcome to the Hugh Hewitt show.

GT: Good morning.

HH: How do you like being the subject of a story as opposed to the reporter on it?

GT: Oh, man, it sucks.

HH: (laughing)

GT: …you know, particularly when it’s, you know, essentially stolen emails and it’s on process stuff and you’re just trying to break news, you know?

HH: Let me ask, you know, I’ve been reading the harshest treatment of you over at the Daily Caller by Alex Pfeiffer, and I know you two are not friendly. But…

GT: Wait, hold on. I’m not unfriendly. The guy has just been going after me, so…

HH: Yeah, okay. Agreed. And I, by the way…

GT: Yeah.

HH: Full disclosure, Glenn’s a friend of mine, and he did not reveal in a podcast once that I did not know who Louie C.K. was, so I’m deeply indebted to him.

GT: (laughing)

HH: And Glenn’s very funny, so you didn’t…but nevertheless, so people now know my bias. I think there is a whole long of shock, shock there’s gambling going on here. Is it common practice among political reporters to send their stories to principals in order to fact check specifics?

GT: I do it, take this down, Hugh, I mean, there’s two components to that answer. I do a version of read back, what I call read back, with every single story that I do. If I’m doing a story that involves anything that’s in any way controversial or involves facts, complex facts that I require fact checking on, I do it in every single story. Let me give you a larger example of that. When I did a big profile of Speaker John Boehner for Politico Magazine a while ago, probably a year and a half ago, I sat down in Boehner’s office with two of his senior staffers with the text in my hand and essentially read them almost every single word, and they would say yes, this is true, this is not true. And in fact, as a product of most of those interactions, I get more information, not less. On the Podesta one, and again, I’m loathe to kind of talk about reporting methods, because you know, this stuff wouldn’t, you know, this stuff is essentially out there as a result of an illegal hack. But in the Podesta case, essentially what I got him to do was to confirm significant internal details on a story that I had only gotten from sources that were lesser. So essentially, my take on that interaction initially was that I had succeeded in getting him to confirm things that I hadn’t done. Now my language in terms of doing that was, I was, I made a joke. I called myself a hack. You know, not in a million years would I have expected that joke to have become public. And people can say what they want, but you know, I am a big, big, big proponent of letting people who are the subjects of your stories knowing A) what is coming, and B) what the details are so that I can get them right. Continue Reading

Understanding Evangelicals

Monday, October 17, 2016  |  posted by John Schroeder

The nomination of Donald Trump has has resulted in countless articles, blog posts, tweets, etc. on what it means for Evangelicals.  Conclusions have been all over the map.  But the past couple of days have seen a couple of pieces one on Sunday from NBC News and one today from the NYTimes that have enough heft to deserve comment.

The Times piece has a lot of useful information, but is of a type that has become most typical in this cycle.  In tone and remark it attempts to paint Evangelicals as hypocrites and the Republican party as falling apart based on internal conflicts in its significant religious wing.  Of those interviewed for the piece, as opposed to studies or editorials cited, I recognize only my friend Matt Anderson who has been #NeverTrump since before there was a #NeverTrump – based precisely on the expectation of charges of hypocrisy.  In dismissing the article, I do not wish to dismiss that hypocrisy charge – it has a great deal of validity – I am just not sure it is dispositive regarding a #NeverTrump position.  In point of fact, any number of those claiming Evangelicalism are highly hypocritical and have been since long before Donald Trump made the scene.  Trump may be putting a spotlight on them, but he is hardly the real issue.

The NBCNews piece is far better at describing the various factions inside Evangelicalism and contains this particular observation which explains so, so much:

But in the context of how modern candidates, operatives and pollsters define evangelical Christianity as a political constituency, a better question might be: “How could it be otherwise?”

The piece goes onto make the case that evangelical Christians as so defined are largely white, but I don’t think that is really the issue either.  I think the issue is that evangelical Christianity is not a political constituency.  It’s just not. Continue Reading

Advertise With UsAdvertisement
Sierra Pacific Mortgage
Back to Top