Video: Colmes Sticks Up For Reuters’ Decision Not To Explain Hajj’s Archives
posted at 3:36 am on August 8, 2006 by Ian
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
So-called FOX News liberal Alan Colmes feverishly defended Reuters’ decision not to explain some 920 photographs Adnan Hajj took while working for the wire service. In fact, he not only takes up for Reuters, but serves as an apologist for Hajj. The following exchange took place between Colmes and Media Research Center’s Tim Graham on tonight’s edition of Hannity & Colmes:
ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: I only have a moment here. First of all, Reuters removed all the archives of this guy [Hajj], this guy was wrong if he did what Reuters claimed he did. He said he was working in a dark area, he couldn’t see the light, he claims he was trying to remove ash from it. I don’t know if it’s true or not; but Reuters said “it doesn’t meet our standards,” the guy was let go and they removed his archives. Didn’t Reuters give the proper response here?
TIM GRAHAM, MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER: Yeah, you’re sounding like your friend Ellis Henican, who said a couple of hours ago –
COLMES: Thank you, I appreciate that.
Graham, who was interrupted in his explanation, responded to Colmes using the co-host’s lousy liberal logic:
GRAHAM: Look, if I hit you with my car and totaled your car and I said “well, you can’t question my driving ability now because I’m excellent at apologizing,” the average person doesn’t buy that. The fact of the matter is, that when you go on the internet, people were looking at this over the weekend and the first question they had was “this is so absurdly not, obviously not real”.
Colmes had nowhere to go but to say he agreed with Graham’s analysis.
The importance of this segment is not Colmes’ view, but the overall liberal viewpoint. Always apologizing for those who have obviously done wrong and not taking up for the right side. Imagine if a pro-Israeli photographer (okay, just imagine if there were such a thing) ran an obviously doctored photograph of Tel Aviv in ruins, do you think Colmes, a Jew and non-supporter of Israel, would take up for him/her? I think not.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Thanks for getting this Ian, I actually made brief mention of it in one of my more recent posts and can now link to this.
Alan seems to essentially say “stories over” because Reuters fired the guy and is “tightening” their editing policies… But he’s ignoring the real issue… How did it happen in the first place?
How did this group of editors miss this childlike photoshopping when they were “scrutinizing” it? Hajj’s head ain’t the only one that should roll at Reuters. Of course they’re claiming that his images mostly skipped the editing step… but why? Why would Reuters allow him to skip that step if they are such scrutinizers?
Reuters thought they would be off the hook by just dropping Hajj, and largely they’ve gotten away with it (because the MSM is all on their side), and Alan Colmes seems to not get the real issue here.
By the way, why does Reuters need to tighten policies? They only say that because it sounds good, but their policies are fine if they just abided by them in the first place.
I’m sorry to rant, but Alan just really irritated me with his “problem solved” attitude about the whole thing.
By the way, did you happen to catch McCain on Leno. He got real serious and blasted the “moral equivelency” crap we’ve been seeing in the MSM (though he didn’t attack the MSM directly).. He made it clear that Israel may kill some civilians by mistake, but Hizbollah whole goal is to kill as many people as possible civilian or military they don’t care… they are terrorist. I’m no huge McCain fan or anything, but I liked the stand he took on that and the way he said it… I wish other leaders would do the same.
RightWinged on August 8, 2006 at 4:24 AM
I didn’t realize Colmes was a Jew. Man, I’ve always thought he was rather annoying (and often worse) but to give even the slightest HINT of support for Hajj is just pathetic beyond belief. It’d be bad enough if a German were to express support for Hajj, for a Jew to do so is beyond insane.
Then again, we don’t call them moonbats and idiotarians for NOTHING…
I just don’t get it. Jews are, more or less, average people like the rest of us, some smart folks, some idiots, and a lot in between. Why do so many support a party that would throw them to the wolves for two bits and a pat on the head from Saint Cindy?
RH
RobertHuntingdon on August 8, 2006 at 5:28 AM
Don’t be so hard on Alan, when he’s not being hated by the left for not being liberal enough and for being an FNC shill, he gets to be Hannity’s piñata. I’d bet he gets more hate mail from the left than Hannity does.
Of course Colmes would not take up for a pro-Israeli photographer, because that would be Hannity’s job. A major flaw of the format is that occasionally one of the hosts gets stuck defending a dumb position to maintain the antagonistic nature of the show. Hannity probably wasn’t too thrilled to be defending Mel Gibson recently.
The left does function as an apologist for some pretty shady stuff, and in their twisted moonbat minds, it all makes sense. In this case, Colmes is just phoning in a defense to keep those checks rolling in. Now, reconciling Colmes’ faith and his position on Israel – I’m still trying to figure out that whole Gays for Palestine thing.
Cut the poor guy some slack, he has a face for radio, but works in television. In all honesty, the show could stand to have a co-host that comes off as having a set of beliefs other than the opposite of whatever Hannity happens to believe.
rw on August 8, 2006 at 6:08 AM
RH, John from WuzzaDem has a funny skit about the dilema that Colmes finds himself in when he ends up defending the indefensable.
The skit is called Hannity and Colmes: Slow Burn and it details the hapless Colmes as he finds himself manipulated by the wiley Hannity into defending first a 2004 Presidential election conspiracy nut, then an Aryan Nation White supremist, cartoonist Ted Rall, and finally, a NAMBLA pervert. In the end, Colmes ends up cracking and going nuts, resulting in his being drug off stage kicking and screaming by the crew of the show.
John does alot of these skits, but on the right sidebar, he has a list of his best stuff. They are all pretty damn funny.
EFG on August 8, 2006 at 7:37 AM
It’s a shame Skeletor has no self-respect. He doesn’t seem to be a complete idiot, but when you’re a lefty, you have to suspend reality.
JammieWearingFool on August 8, 2006 at 7:41 AM
Alan – “unplugged”
dallas94 on August 8, 2006 at 8:39 AM
RH- Please do not include me among the jews who support the libs and what they stand for….I do not know the reasons myself why so many of my breathen are the way they are.
I am a lifelong conservative whose son just returned from Iraq (11B-infantry)….How do you think he feels when he sees many jewish folks thinking the way they do?
It has always remained a mystery to us…..
robo on August 8, 2006 at 8:56 AM
Colmes has a tendency to be on the losing side of most debates during the back and forth banter with his guests. His arguments ring hollow as he seems to be going through the motions of defending his position on any issue, as opposed to firmly believing in his stance.
He has developed a annoying habit of ending each segment by saying, well … I’m sorry that’s all the time we have, and then throws in one final “gotcha zinger” obviously prepared well in advance – after the guest’s microphone is turned off. It reminds me of my childhood when the neighborhood brat would yell out insults to kids riding on the school bus, after the driver shut the door and began driving away.
fogw on August 8, 2006 at 9:11 AM
Alan was bad enough, but O’Reilly was just as bad when he had a segment with Michelle where he appeared to be wondering why “honesty in photos” makes any difference. I wonder if he would be outraged if we were talking about “honesty in print”?
RDS on August 8, 2006 at 9:52 AM
When confronted with some dirty dealings done by a liberal, or by a darling of the left, Colmes will always bring up something that some conservative said months or years ago, as a comparison. He never addresses what the leftist said; he will just try to say that the conservative is worse.
Paul Atreides on August 8, 2006 at 10:05 AM
So true Paul. It’s a common tactic right out of the Liberal Playbook.
fogw on August 8, 2006 at 10:17 AM
“You’re a Jew? huh….How come you ain’t smart?” – Sully “Nobody’s Fool
I don’t really get why he’s defending Hajj. Simply speaking, the man was trying to pass off doctored photos, altering the narrative. This is simply unethical, inexcusable, and infuriating. Reuters needs to realize that by allowing those photos through, they are complicit in this intentional deception by Hajj. And yes, I fully believe that Hajj intended to deceive people through this. I do not buy the “removing dust” and “made mistakes due to poor lighting” excuse. Dude, YOUR MONITOR/LCD SCREEN PRODUCES IT’S OWN LIGHT! In a poor lighting situation, you turn up the brightness. Apparently, his ‘brightness’ was off.
DakRoland on August 8, 2006 at 10:20 AM
I must say I agree with RW’s analysis (part of which I quoted here). I also must ask people to be a little nicer to Alan. The show’s not a complete Right-leaning show where people who talk agree with each other all the time. It seems to succeed at being somewhat balanced, no matter how rediculous we find a point of view coming from the other side.
And as much as Alan might drive someone crazy (I must admit, sometimes I get baffled at a viewpoint he sticks up to) support him anyway and just view what he says as something he disagrees with. He’s a human being like anyone, Jewish or not. Nobody is in lockstep with their “group” or “community”. Am I the only one who believes that the fact he is a Jew is irrelevant in the position he defends here (whether he truely believes what he’s saying or not)?
Just because Alan is a Jew doesn’t mean he’s self-hating if he doesn’t defend Israel here or there. It reminds me of two things: First, the main subject at hand in this HA page (no, not Kirsten Powers or Michelle Malkin’s looks) about labeling someone whom you disagree with, which in turn reminds me of the time people like Michael Steele, Lynn Swan, Larry Elder, Condolezza Rice, Colin Powel get attack by people because of bigotry. From Michael Steele’s Oreo Cookie incident to Larry Elder and Charles Barron squaring off (when the latter accused Larry Elder of being a creation of the “White Man”) to Ted Rall’s bigotry expressed in comic strips on Condi Rice, and so on and so on (summing up the latter’s examples, basically those of a particular “race” [I'm not one to identify people by that, by the way] attacking others in the same “race” because they’re not in lock step.
Which reminds me of the Democratic Party and their denounciation of Joe Lieberman and how Democrats (not everyone however) are opposed to him because he’s not opposed to the conflict in Iraq (to which is a part of the War on Terror)…
To sum up all the examples and things, I’m trying to say the following again: Just go easy on Alan. I don’t think he hates being Jewish or anything like that for taking any viewpoint that doesn’t lean towards pro-Israel stances.
Cutty S. on August 8, 2006 at 11:36 AM
Isn’t he an appologist for every empty-headed moonbat blue-sky theory in esistance?
Death to Islam!
Duty, Honor, Country
(in THAT order)
Rowane
Rowane on August 8, 2006 at 12:40 PM
Honestly, I do not know how Alan Colmes lives with himself. To begin with, he still believes O.J. was innocent. Secondly, he is a shill for Nifong and absolutely hostile to the falsely accused Duke students. To top it off, he has become an apologist for Hezbollah. I think that to call him “a self-hating Jew” is not too harsh.
He is very good at springing obscure past comments or votes on guest consveratives that are embarrasing on their face. He also trots out arguments that sound like Democratic talking points. I am sure he is fed all of this by Democatic operatives just prior to the programs.
Colmes always sounds agrieved when asking what he considers to be “gotcha” questions and then purses up his lips like he is sucking on a lemon when they respond. Routintely, the conservative guests like Graham last night treat Colmes as a clueless twit worthy of nothing but contempt. Colmes deserves nothing better.
ptolemy on August 8, 2006 at 1:12 PM
I think Alan Colmes is right where he needs to be.On few occasions I have agreed with him and his co-host as well. The important thing is that for the millions who do not participate in “blogs”, they need to see and hear the positions of those on the Left. Personally I think Shawn Hannity is too much of an extrovert in his approach to Conservative ideology. Beings as Fox tends Right it is little wonder that they put Alan across from Hannity. Almost an Abbott and Costello matchup.
Chief1942 on August 8, 2006 at 5:28 PM
Comment pages: