February 03, 2004


Finally, somebody has taken a principled stand against ideological journalism:

A member of the board of the National Press Foundation has resigned her position because of plans to present Fox News' Brit Hume with an award.

Hume, the managing editor of Fox News and its chief Washington correspondent, was selected to receive the NPF's Taishoff Award as Broadcaster of the Year during a Feb. 19 awards dinner.

But Geneva Overholser, formerly ombudsman at the Washington Post and currently a professor of journalism at the University of Missouri, told USA Today Hume doesn't deserve the award because he practices "ideologically connected journalism."

Good for you, Ms Uberholster! The Taishoff Award should only be given to pure, non-ideological journalists, like Ted Turner, Dan Rather, Nina Totenberg, Ken Burns ...

Posted by Tim Blair at February 3, 2004 05:11 PM

Perhaps Overholser favored Gilligan of the BBC.

Posted by: perfectsense at February 3, 2004 at 07:19 PM

Brit Hume is awesome.

Posted by: Joe Geoghegan at February 3, 2004 at 08:07 PM

I feel sorry for journalists who don't worship at the ideological shrine most main stream journalists do. People, like me, who are non journalists need to have journalists who refuse to bow down and worship at the anti-government, anti-war, anti-anything not approved by the 'elites'.

Too bad people like Geneva Overholser can't look into a mirror of truth and see themselves as the rest of us see them. G. Overholser probably believes most news, like that in the NY Times, is just middle of the road mainstream.

Haven't got a clue as to what will wake these people up so they can see they aren't impartial and their biases shine through in their writings. Their values and beliefs are not shared by most middle of the road Americans.

Posted by: Chris Josephson at February 3, 2004 at 09:22 PM

How could you miss Bernard Shaw? Your slipping, Tim...

Posted by: Tongue Boy at February 3, 2004 at 11:55 PM

And Walter Duranty of course. He still has his Pulitzer, remember?

Posted by: Andrew Duffin at February 4, 2004 at 01:01 AM

Overholser said: "Fox wants to do news from a certain viewpoint, but it wants to claim that it is 'fair and balanced'. That is inaccurate and unfair to other media who engage in a quest, perhaps an imperfect quest, for objectivity."

At least she admits her own quest is imperfect.

With everyone claiming the fair and balanced high ground, I think there's room for a novel news outlet positioning here:

This is the BBC, bringing you wildly inaccurate stories from around the world, together with extremely partisan analysis by blatantly biassed reporters. Guaranteed to confirm your very worst prejudices. We get to the bottom of every story and turn it totally arse-about! Listen and watch every day and you will never be able to wipe the smugness off your face!

Posted by: ilibcc at February 4, 2004 at 11:14 AM

Nina Totenberg eight years ago on television wished that Strom Thurmond or his children or grandchildren died of AIDs. More recently on television she hoped that gen. Boykin, who dared make a religious speech to a religous group as a private citizen, was "not long for this world."
That, by this jerk, is not biased. She'll keep her seat for Nina and her death wishes, but not for Brit.
No wonder the mainstream media is held in such contempt. And this woman leads a journalism school. Let's hope she resigns from that too.

Posted by: virge at February 4, 2004 at 01:39 PM

Obviously none of you recognize biased journalism when you see it. I would NEVER accept an award from a group that recognized Brit Hume -- he's a nut!

Posted by: Ted Rall at February 4, 2004 at 02:54 PM

I worked on the same paper as Overholser once. She was and I guess still is a pluperfect kneejerk liberal. Never had an original idea of her own during all the time she was writing editorials for the Des Moines Register.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at February 4, 2004 at 04:36 PM