Hunt Hacks at Fox

Today, Roger L. Simon blogs about that Hezbollah propagandist Johnathan Hunt. Roger picks up on several of the obvious things I have already covered previously on this blog.

First, Roger notes that CNN continues it's history of bias, linking to their latest example;

CNN Int'l snubs Israeli civilians

Then Roger rips into Johnathan (my emphasis);

But Fox News too has appeared to join, at least in part, the Whores of Hezbollah. Their Beirut correspondent Jonathan Hunt fairly bragged tonight that his network was the only one admitted by Hezbollah into Beirut's southern suburbs to repeat the same shots we have seen ad nauseam, adding the weird disclaimer they were not allowed to show the faces of the terrorists (he didn't call them that, of course) themselves. Hunt has been particularly egregious throughout the conflict, a perfect example of the British yellow journalism tradition, swallowing whole every propagandistic tidbit, parroting back without question the Lebanese government "civilian" death figures, which turn out to be about 1000 in any case, a rather astonishingly low number for a month of conflict. (Compare that to thirty minutes of 9/11.) One wonders what Brit Hume was thinking when forced to cut to this character during his nightly reports. Fox, in general, has a pretty low level of in the field reporting, but so do all of them.

That's no excuse Roger. They'd be better off not reporting live from Lebanon than aiding the enemy by spewing terrorist propaganda disguised as hard "newz".

Roger also has an update citing Associated Pravda bias (my emphasis);

MORE MEDIA BIAS: This time from the AP. Their headline at this hour (22:14 PDT) reads -

Rockets hit Lebanon despite cease-fire.

There's no indication in the headline, of course, that these are Hezbollah katyushas hitting their own country (which is the case if you read the article). Would the reader naturally assume these rockets were coming from Israel or fired by Israeli forces? Bias or bad writing? You decide.

Blaming it on bad writing would be plausible only if you could find some examples where similar mistakes pointed in the other direction. But they all point in one direction, don't they Roger?