Just read the transcript of Hugh Hewitt’s interview with the Boston Globe’s Tom Oliphant (via Instapundit), and I think I have finally come to terms with what bothers me so much about Hugh.
His blog reads like Pravda on the Potomac and his radio show is really one of the best right-wing radio shows- the contrast is really, from my perspective, amazing. His radio show is good, despite your political leanings, and it is clear he prepares, and knows what he wants to say, and advances decent arguments. On his blog, though, it just seems to be partisan shit-slinging and re-writes of Ken Mehlman RNC press releases, so even when I think he is mostly right, it pisses me off.
Just my two cents.
Are you mad because he airs his beleifs on his own blog, or that those beleifs don’t line up with yours? If you mostly agree, then what is the problem?
I thought my explanation was pretty clear. His radio show tends to be much better than his blog, which is just partisan triumphalism and villification of the left.
I have noticed that sort of thing with many pundits. For example, Pat Buchanan makes amazing sense when writting in the American Conservative but seems like a raving lunatic when on MSNBC. Likewise, Andrew Sullivan’s blog is interesting in that his opinions change constantly, but catch him on TV and you’d think he was a member of the administration.
Print media has editors who can constrain topics and edit content. Anyone who writes to publish knows how much influence editors have …. plenty.
On tv, in most cases, I think the mandate is “be provocative, and when in doubt, be more provocative.” I don’t see the big whup about the difference in voice and perspective between tv and print. Television now is mostly tabloid. Jon Stewart was right (on Crossfire). What they do is mostly crap whose sole purpose is to attract eyeballs to commercials.
Fifty years ago, it was wrestling and I Love Lucy. Now it’s Bill O’Reilly and Nancy Grace. It’s whatever works. Always has been, always will be.
If you observe Hewitt even more closely, he makes no bones whatsoever about his partisanship. After all, he titled one of his recent books “If It’s Not Close, They Can’t Cheat: Crushing the Democrats in Every Election and Why Your Life Depends on It.”
A true story, BTW. ;)
My impression from his blog is he’s not a particularly good writer. Presumably his “If It’s Not Close…” book had editing and rewriting, as it was quite good. I recommended it. I’ve never heard him on the readio, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if good on the radio doesn’t translate to good on a blog.
John, thanks for the observation. I never read HH’s blog, but listen to the first hour of his radio show often. I was always confused by your antagonism towards the man, but I’ll buy this explanation.