Jump to content

Talk:Hugh Hewitt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biography Sourcing

[edit]

I am surprised that all of these unsourced CV points remain here. Tone and content are typical of a Hewitt publicist. One most obvious example is the idea that the RMN Library job came "at the request" of the former president. Further, there is no source whatsoever for any of these purported high government jobs. This stuff needs to be sourced or removed.

This site needs to stop being used as a publicity front for corporate interests.

JerryGraf (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SOFIXIT. Dicklyon (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made what I regard as generous edits in the biography. I am leaving the major elements intact, compensating for the absence of sourcing by asserting that these bio points are claims of the subject. I also clarified that the AG has more than one Special Assistant, and that the Office of Personnel Management, has more than one deputy.

JerryGraf (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've matched the Reagan administration claims with the abstract citation provided. (The pdf link on the citation does not work). Once again, happy to replace these bio points once properly sourced. I would add however, that Mr. Hewitt's "career" in the Reagan "White House" merits skepticism. Even if the claims are believed, he held four jobs inside of four years in three different departments ending ultimately, in a fringe government HR job.

JerryGraf (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan, Harvard, Ratings

[edit]

207.200.116.137 (talk · contribs), would you mind offering some sources for these edits? The first claim is extremely subjective and vague, and the second needs qualification and data to back it up. The third is probably okay. android79 23:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...and we have more of the same changes without any discussion or sources, including one that describes Hewitt's blog as "centrist," which is patently absurd. Please justify these changes here or I will continue to revert them. android79 16:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...and again... android79 01:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; these changes should be reverted. He refers more often to the University of Michigan than Harvard. I'd bet the second was true based on his periodic bashing of one of his LA competitors. The third is true, but I haven't seen any source for that. I think that his claim about being the smartest guy on radio is advertisement for his show and is inappropriate for wiki. And Hewitt's not "centrist", although he called himself "center-right" the other day when talking to a high school sophomore about the guest speakers he had in geography class. Sophy's Duckling 17:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reverts were generally correct; he refers to both Michigan and Harvard a lot, KRLA's ratings (being a 5000 watt station up against a couple of 50,000 watt blowtorches) are lower in general, and his "smartest guy in radio" claim is hyperbole intended to poke at his competition.
However, as re "center-right" - That has been a consistent theme of Hugh's for years, and in fact has been a motif several of his books. It might be worth a mention on its own terms. I may write that shortly.

Mitchberg 18:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly see how much he refers to his almae matres and that he says he's the smartest guy on radio is relevent, though. they were added by (given the tone of the edits) someone who disapproves of Hugh Hewitt and thinks that he's an egotist of gigantic proportions. The second thing about the competition is relevent (I think), but we don't have a verifiable source yet. Sophy's Duckling
I may not have been clear enough; I do not feel that the college references or his self-proclaimed intelligence are relevant at all - that's just standard radio smack-talk, not encyclopedic information.
I agree, the edits are from someone who doesn't like Hewitt. I'm probably the opposite, of course - Hugh is a friend.
I can find a source re the ratings, although those are so transitory as to be hardly worth including...
Mitchberg 23:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guests and Cast

[edit]

I broke out Hugh's regular guests, cast/crew, and regulars into a separate section.

Mitchberg 01:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think David Allen White should be included as a regular, although he appears only about once a month. (Professor of World Literature at the Naval Academy)

Criticism

[edit]
Shouldn't the criticism he's received from conservative weblogs, especially during the Harriet Miers controversy, be included as part of this article?

72.68.191.88 22:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly could be included.
Expect counterpoint!
Mitchberg 18:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Media Matters criticisms of Mr. Hewitt are appropriate. Please keep this place informative. Thanks. C. M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.94.22 (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

minnesota

[edit]

could someone tell me what hugh hewitt beat michael medved in? something aobut minnesota?AeomMai (talk · contribs)

Hm. He and Medved were in a trivia contest at a PR appearance at a bar in Minneapolis where, if memory serves, Hewitt's team beat Medved's team. Not really encyclopedic...
Mitchberg 16:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blogging

[edit]

The section on Hugh Hewitts blogging (which somehow manage to avoid actually talking about his blog) is incredibly weak. For one thing "new media" has absolutely nothing to do with conservatism. It is just as much a liberal movement, and to say it is conservative marginalizes Hewitts contribution to blogging. If someone could find a confirmed source for the year he started blogging that would also go a long way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.115.126.82 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 19 September 2006

Quite true. Thanks, 65.115.126.82, for pointing that out. Would you like to have a try at expanding that section yourself? Feel free to edit the article itself; if you make any mistakes, someone else will (almost certainly) edit them out. Or you can write your ideas here. Cheers, CWC(talk) 08:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nixon Library

[edit]

In a Slate.com article today (Jan. 31, 2007 http://www.slate.com/id/2158699/) by highly respected presidential historian David Greenberg (http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~davidgr/) himself a Nixon scholar, Prof. Greenberg states that Hewitt was fired from the Nixon Library due to the controversial policy of vetting scholars based on pro-Nixon views. The wikipedia entry that "Hewitt left" the Library is, therefore, dubious and misleading based on this very reliable source. Revision should be strongly considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.12.73 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 31 January 2007 UTC

Hmm. That opinion piece claims that "Bush has, like the most facile Postmodernists, denigrated the expertise of long-standing authorities, deeming their claims to authority mere masks for a political agenda", so Prof Greenberg is not making any pretense of neutrality. The only mention of HH is this:
When Hugh Hewitt, the original director of the Nixon Library, said he would screen and bar insufficiently pro-Nixon researchers, he was countermanded and sacked. The SMU administration, in contrast, ...
My feeling is that this offhand remark in a highly-slanted opinion piece is not a reliable enough source to meet the requirements of WP:BLP. What do other editors think? CWC(talk) 11:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor update: Hewitt has written very briefly about Nixon overruling his vetting proposal here. CWC(talk) 06:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


In 1990, he sparked controversy by proposing screening of researchers wishing to use the library resources. Hewitt suggested refusing admission to researchers deemed "unfriendly" – specifically Bob Woodward, whom he characterized as "not a responsible journalist." John Taylor, a spokesman for Nixon, overturned Hewitt's decision after two days.

Well, at the very least this is inconsistent and should be cleaned up. It says Hewitt proposed and suggested, doesn't say he or anyone else actually decided anything, but then goes on to say that "Taylor overturned Hewitt's decision." What decision and when? As an aside, the link above to Hewitt's brief piece is broken. Tpkatsa (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Professor

[edit]

In his show he says he is a professor of constitutional law, and he sometimes discusses what he is teaching his students... this should be mentioned... where does he teach? myclob 03:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He teaches at Chapman University School of Law. I've just edited the article accordingly. Does anyone know when Hewitt joined the faculty there? CWC 10:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morning glory, evening grace

[edit]

Hugh greets his callers with this exchange, which appears to be unique to his show. Anyone know the origins of this phrase, and its meaning?—Loadmaster 14:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little Googling turned up this explanation on a web newgroup:
Hugh used to be on in the mornings. He had a regular caller who would say "Morning glory, Hugh!" Hugh then adopted that as his intro. Then he moved the show to afternoon drive, and he had a contest with his listeners to come up with a suitable counterpart to "morning glory," and thus was born "evening grace."
So I guess this is the most likely explanation of the origin of the phrase.—Loadmaster 15:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

[edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "Campaign contributions" :
    • {{cite web | url=http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=loc&addr=5752+OAKLEY+TERRACE&zip=92603 | title=Fundrace 2008 | publisher=[[Huffington Post]] | accessdate=2008-05-28 }}
    • {{cite web | url=http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=loc&addr=5752+OAKLEY+TERRACE&zip=92603 | title=Fundrace 2008 | publisher=[[Huffington Post]] | accessdate=2008-05-27 }}

DumZiBoT (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The article still has a link to "Dominionism#Christianism". It appears in the opening sentence of the penultimate (second-to-last) paragraph of the "== Biography ==" section ("Hugh_Hewitt#Biography").

Clicking on that link does not give a "404 Not Found" error, because the web page it points to (the "Dominionism" article) does still exist. However, the "Christianism" section of that article no longer exists, so IMHO the link does need some kind of remedy.

The sentence containing that "faulty" link, currently says:

Hewitt has been criticized by Andrew Sullivan, who calls him a "Christianist."

followed by a "<ref>..</ref>" tag which I am leaving out here.

The link seems to be pointing to a section that no longer exists (at least, with its former contents, and in its former place or "position" within the Dominionism article.)

For an example of the erstwhile section that the link was (probably) "intended" to point to, please see, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominionism&oldid=163384862#Christianism

I am not in a big hurry to fix up this particular "outdated" cross-reference, partly because it has been over a year since the deletion of the section that it "used to" point to. It seems to have been deleted (or -- replaced?) as part of a massive overhaul of the Dominionism article. With some reverts and so on, (?) that may have happened more than once -- but the most recent edit that I found (without spending "too much" time looking!) that appeared to contain a deletion of that section, ("Dominionism#Christianism"), was an edit at 12:52, on 9 October 2007. ((See the "diff" at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominionism&diff=next&oldid=163384862 )).

Hence, if anyone (maybe someone more familiar with the Dominionism article) has any advice, this would be a good place to present an "idea" / recommendation for how the outdated cross-reference should be repaired.

My first "idea", would be to simply replace the existing hyper-link (cross-reference) by a link to Dominionism#Other_terminology -- partly since that section (in its current form) does contain a mention of Andrew Sullivan, (and, see the mention of Andrew Sullivan quoted above, in the sentence containing the link that needs to be fixed up).

The part of the link syntax that causes it to be displayed as the word "Christianist" should of course (probably) be retained.

However, since it has been over a year, I think we can afford to wait for comments / suggestions. If I do not see an edit by someone else to fix this, within some reasonable period of time, then I guess I will [be bold and] go ahead with an edit; ...and, if by then no one has come up with any suggestions that seem better than the one mentioned above (as my first "idea"), then I might use that [first "idea"]. So now is your chance... --Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! The link to "Christianism" (article!, not section) is not red! That was a surprise to me... maybe the link that needs to be tweaked, should point to that.
(also, maybe there should be [maybe there is?] a link to that from the article about "Dominionism"?). --Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So-called "liberal bias" in the media

[edit]

I have edited the article to say that he refers to liberal bias. For anyone who thinks that there is in fact a liberal bias in the traditional media, please see this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice.haugen (talk • contribs) 02:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with you and the LA Times. The LA Times itself is a very liberal newspaper and it skews all of its finding to the left. Please see this article for another study [http:// newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2008/11/01/no-doubt-about-it-all-fox-news-tipping-obama-s-]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.216.160 (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23hhrs
    Triggered by \bsearch\.twitter\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Hewitt and his personal faith

[edit]

Anybody that has listened to the Hugh Hewitt show for any length of time knows that Hugh Hewitt describes himself as a "Catholic" and a Presbyterian in this Hugh Hewitt is stating:

"I'm an Evangelical Roman Catholic Presbyterian, Andrew." - http://www.hughhewitt.com/andrew-sullivan-on-the-conservative-soul/

When a Protestant calls themselves, "Catholic," we are saying that we agree with the Creeds of the Roman Catholic Church. This is "catholic" in the sense of the word "catholic" in the Nicene Creed:

"I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church." Notice small "c" - From the Nicene Creed of the United States Catholic Bishops http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/ This is the Catholic Church in the sense of those that are Real believers in Christ as "I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made." - Nicene CreedEaseltine (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, his personal faith should be added. Mister Conservative (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Title of article: change italics to roman type

[edit]

The originator(s) of this article typed the title in italics instead of standard roman type. (The article refers to the man himself, not to his talk show.) This is the only WP article I find with this style error, and it will probably require a formal title move -- unless someone knows how to change the italics to roman without that (rather) drastic step. Thanks, Mason.Jones (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blog?

[edit]

why do we categorize the guy as a blogger when we don't name his blog? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.206.230.193 (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hugh_Hewitt&oldid=1258063125"