View Full Version : Brit Hume from Fox News Brit Hume Says He Wants to Profit from London Attacks
From The Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/david-sirota/brit-hume-goes-on-tv-sa_3813.html
By David Sirota
Brit Hume Goes On TV & Says He Wants to Profit Off the Terrorist Attack
Media Matters points out that Fox News' top anchorman, Brit Hume, gave us a glimpse into just how cynical, greedy and disgusting the right-wing's outlook on the world is:
"My first thought when I heard - just on a personal basis, when I heard there had been this attack and I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought, 'Hmmm, time to buy.'"
- Fox News's Brit Hume, 7/7/05
That's right - his first thought after hearing about the awful terrorist attack in London today wasn't "how tragic," or "let's say a prayer for the dead," or "how can I help the victims" - his first thought was, there was a terrorist attack, how can I personally profit off it? In fact, his impulse to use the bloodshed to make himself money was so intense, he actually voiced it on national television (FYI - in case you'd like to voice your displeasure, Brit's email address is brit.hume@foxnews.com and his office number is 202-824-6300).
Of course, this was only the worst example from Fox. Earlier in the day, Fox reporter Brian Kilmeade seemed to cheer on the attack because he said "it works to our advantage." Meanwhile, Fox's Stuart Varney was genuinely excited that the attack will mean other progressive issues will now be knocked out of the public debate. "It takes global warming off the front burner," Varney frothed. "It takes African aid off the front burner. It sticks terrorism and the fight on the war on terror, right up front all over again."
Remember, these people are using the public's airwaves to spew out this bile. To call these people nauseating is an insult to nausea.
lawyerlee
07-11-2005, 03:58 PM
To call these people nauseating is an insult to nausea. [/i]
Still, it makes my stomach turn. :mad:
Thank you for posting this. I wasn't aware of his comments. :(
Delta
07-11-2005, 08:33 PM
Actually, this comment was made on a finacial show, during a discussion specifically about the effects of the London attacks on the market. It's not like he said it out of nowhere. It sounds crass take out of context, but I am sure Ariana doesn't care about that as long as it makes him and Fox News sound bad.
Well, here's the context. You can tell me if you still think it's not crass . . .
SMITH: Some of the things you might expect to happen, for instance, a drop in the stock market and some degree of uncertainty across this country -- none of that really seen today, and I wonder if the timing of it -- that it happened in the middle of the night and we were able to get a sense of the grander scheme of things -- wasn't helpful in all this.
HUME: Well, maybe. The other thing is, of course, people have -- you know, the market was down. It was down yesterday, and you know, you may have had some bargain-hunting going on. I mean, my first thought when I heard -- just on a personal basis, when I heard there had been this attack and I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought, "Hmmm, time to buy." Others may have thought that as well. But you never know about the markets. But obviously, if the markets had behaved badly, that would obviously add to people's sense of alarm about it. But there has been a lot of reassurance coming, particularly in the way that -- partly in the way the Brits handled all this, but also in the way that officials here handled it. There seems to be no great fear that something like that is going to happen here, although there's no indication that we here had any advance warning.
I don't know about you, but even in context it seems pretty vile to me . . .
lawyerlee
07-11-2005, 08:49 PM
I totally respect your right to disagree, Delta, and I fully appreciate your point about Ariana Huffington, but I don't see how the context makes him sound any less like a selfish bastard. :(
Delta
07-11-2005, 08:58 PM
I guess I am selfish bitch too then, because I thought the same thing at one point that morning. :cool:
I guess I am selfish bitch too then, because I thought the same thing at one point that morning. :cool:
Wow. Just . . . wow.
Kopper
07-12-2005, 07:03 AM
Wow. Just . . . wow.
I agree. No disrespect Delta, but I am just curious as to how you expect anyone to respond to that. I guess no response is probably the best option. :confused:
Delta
07-12-2005, 07:20 AM
What is so outrageous about my comment? Sure it was a little snarky but lawyerlee can handle snark.
My point was that neither Brit, nor I, for that matter were the only ones to think about the markets like that after the attacks. In fact, the Dow dropped something like 100 points that morning and rebounded by the end of the day - evidence there was a lot of 'time to buy' mentality out there. The only thing this demonstrates is that people had confidence that the terror attacks were not going to hurt the economy, which was Brit's point, and my thought as well that morning. Maybe he said it in a crass way, especially when out of context, but his point is absolutely valid and pertinent to the discussion.
I do not, for the record, defend John Gibson's remarks (he is a weirdo) nor the smugness of the other Fox people that morning.
LittleFredPunkinHead
07-12-2005, 08:00 AM
Maybe he said it in a crass way, especially when out of context, but his point is absolutely valid and pertinent to the discussion.
In context, it's crass too. Did you think, first thing when you heard about the attacks, "Hey, time to buy"? Because that's what Brit said. I imagine that that wasn't really his first thought, but that's what he said.
And actually, even if it was really his first thought, that wouldn't necessarily be so bad to think. If that's what your mind is trained to, that's what you'll think. However, advertising that that was his first thought is just kind of a**holish, IMO. It shows a lot of disrespect to say on TV that your first thought was not for the people involved, but for the financial opportunity available.
Delta
07-12-2005, 08:16 AM
OK, I'll agree with you littlefredpunkinhead that it is not something to say in polite company or national TV, at least in the manner in which he said it.
But the headling saying he "wants to profit from London Attacks" is pretty disingenous. :rolleyes:
Also on that note, if I want I can post tons and tons of distorted and half-truth items from right-leaning blogs, but things like that (and like this) don't really do any good for furthering political discussion.
It shows a lot of disrespect to say on TV that your first thought was not for the people involved, but for the financial opportunity available.
Exactly.
Also on that note, if I want I can post tons and tons of distorted and half-truth items from right-leaning blogs, but things like that (and like this) don't really do any good for furthering political discussion.
Yes, Arianna Huffington is way left. And yes, I think her views and the views of those connected with her (i.e. the author of the article) can be distorted. BUT I did post the quote in context, and even in context, without reading the Huffington story, it seems most people think Brit Hume was inappropriate.
But the headling saying he "wants to profit from London Attacks" is pretty disingenous.
I don't think it's disingenous, really -- maybe a little on the sensational side, but not disingenous. It's basically what he said, after all . . .
LittleFredPunkinHead
07-12-2005, 09:54 AM
Also on that note, if I want I can post tons and tons of distorted and half-truth items from right-leaning blogs, but things like that (and like this) don't really do any good for furthering political discussion.
Sure. I would say the same for FOX News though. ;)
Delta
07-12-2005, 09:56 AM
OK, in that case, I suppose I wanted to profit off of the attacks too, as did the thousands of people who traded on the futures and the millions of people who had the same thought.
Delta
07-12-2005, 09:57 AM
Sure. I would say the same for FOX News though. \
No doubt.
Secret_Squirrel
07-12-2005, 11:54 AM
Well, here's the context. You can tell me if you still think it's not crass . . .
SMITH: Some of the things you might expect to happen, for instance, a drop in the stock market and some degree of uncertainty across this country -- none of that really seen today, and I wonder if the timing of it -- that it happened in the middle of the night and we were able to get a sense of the grander scheme of things -- wasn't helpful in all this.
HUME: Well, maybe. The other thing is, of course, people have -- you know, the market was down. It was down yesterday, and you know, you may have had some bargain-hunting going on. I mean, my first thought when I heard -- just on a personal basis, when I heard there had been this attack and I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought, "Hmmm, time to buy." Others may have thought that as well. But you never know about the markets. But obviously, if the markets had behaved badly, that would obviously add to people's sense of alarm about it. But there has been a lot of reassurance coming, particularly in the way that -- partly in the way the Brits handled all this, but also in the way that officials here handled it. There seems to be no great fear that something like that is going to happen here, although there's no indication that we here had any advance warning.
I don't know about you, but even in context it seems pretty vile to me . . .
I don't watch Fox or Brit Humes, nor do I have money in the financial markets (unless you want to count retirement plans). But just going on the quote here, I think it's being blown out of proportion.
1) It was a show about how the terrorist attacks would effect the markets.
2) I think the quote is not being taken in its entirity. Mr. Humes did not say: "the first thing I thought of when hearing about the attack was the futures market." What he said was:
"when I heard there had been this attack and I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought, "Hmmm, time to buy."
That sentence has mulitple parts. When he (a) heard about the attack and (b) saw that the futures market was tanking, then (c) he thought...
Broken down, that is: A + B = C
This is how successful investors think. They take the day's events and speculate how they will effect the financial markets.
The OP content twists it to: A = C
Feel free to dislike Brit Humes for a myraid of other reasons, but I think the statement that he wants to profit off the London attacks doesn't make a lot of sense.
Delta
07-12-2005, 12:28 PM
But Squirrel, that kind of common sense gets in the way of hating Fox News and everyone on it. ;) There are lots of things Brit's said that would be valid for the left to go after, but this is not one of them.
wendalah
07-12-2005, 12:38 PM
This reminds me a bit of some earthquake talk we've been having around So. Cal lately. A couple of small quakes happened recently, fueling talk of "the big one" coming.
My comment: "Oh good, a nice big quake and maybe the housing bubble will finally burst."
Delta
07-12-2005, 01:02 PM
"Wendalah says she hopes to profit from imminent California Earthquake" :eek:
wendalah
07-12-2005, 01:06 PM
Damn tootin' ;)
LittleFredPunkinHead
07-12-2005, 01:27 PM
The difference being, you didn't say that on TV. ;) :p
I think the quote is not being taken in its entirity. Mr. Humes did not say: "the first thing I thought of when hearing about the attack was the futures market." What he said was:
"when I heard there had been this attack and I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought, "Hmmm, time to buy."
That sentence has mulitple parts. When he (a) heard about the attack and (b) saw that the futures market was tanking, then (c) he thought...
Broken down, that is: A + B = C
This is how successful investors think. They take the day's events and speculate how they will effect the financial markets.
The OP content twists it to: A = C
Okay, being the OP here I'd like to say that my content does not leave out you B. In fact the original quote includes B (the "and I saw the futures" business).
Anyway, I think what he said was distasteful, even in an economic conversation. It's an insensitive thing to say -- what would you think if he'd said that after 9/11? Or if you'd lost a family member in the London attacks? I think the point here is that Brit Hume and those of his ilk are NOT the people of great integrity that the right wants us to think they are. At least that's my point.
Delta
07-12-2005, 06:53 PM
those of his ilk
classic
Quote:
those of his ilk
classic
Ooh! This is getting fun. :):):) Anyway, I admit I used the word "ilk" because it means "type" or "kind" and has a somewhat negative connotation. I happen to have a very negative opinion of Brit Hume and Fox News -- and of the far right, in general (though I'm REALLY not very far to the left).
But while that may not have been the most adult use of language, at least I've never thought of how I could possibly profit from a tragedy.
Oh, and Delta, would you like to respond to anything else in my post? Or do you just want to spar?
lawyerlee
07-12-2005, 07:05 PM
I could never put Delta or Wendelah in the same category as Brit Hume. :eek: I detest him and can hardly believe he has the nerve to call himself a journalist. :mad:
I could never put Delta or Wendelah in the same category as Brit Hume. :eek: I detest him and can hardly believe he has the nerve to call himself a journalist. :mad:
I don't think I did put them in the same category as Brit Hume . . . That would just be mean! If it came off that way, I apologize.
lawyerlee
07-12-2005, 07:10 PM
I don't think I did put them in the same category as Brit Hume . . . That would just be mean! If it came off that way, I apologize.
I didn't think *you* did. But Delta kind of put herself in that category. Ewww!
I didn't think *you* did. But Delta kind of put herself in that category. Ewww!
Whew. I'm glad I didn't come off as a total beeyotch!
And "ewww" is right. I certainly wouldn't want to be put in the same category as Hume! ;)
Delta
07-12-2005, 07:12 PM
Hmmm, one more thing.
I think the point here is that Brit Hume and those of his ilk are NOT the people of great integrity that the right wants us to think they are.
I consider myself part of the right and I don't care what you think of Hume and his 'ilk.' I think I am more concerned about what you think of people who really matter, like the President (but I know I don't have to ask how you feel about him ;) ) and Supreme Court nominees, not Fox News people.
I do, however, think intellectual honesty is sometimes lacking in the political back and forth and things are often taken out of context and distorted to suit whatever political agenda needed. I am guilty of that myself. (Agenda is another 'classic' word in these discussions.) And so I was just calling that as I saw it.
I don't see what his comment has to do with his integrity anyway. I am not perfect but I do try to maintain some sense of integrity in my daily life, and I don't think that thinking about the impact of current events on the market dampens that.
lawyerlee
07-12-2005, 07:16 PM
I don't see what his comment has to do with his integrity anyway. I am not perfect but I do try to maintain some sense of integrity in my daily life, and I don't think that thinking about the impact of current events on the market dampens that.
I don't think anyone on tv news tries at all anymore to be an actual reporter, rather than a partisan filter for whatever ideas are popular at any given moment. And that's where I think Hume's lack of integrity comes into the picture with respect to his comment. While I think all tv news is guilty of this, I happen to think that FOX News is the worst about it.
And I do think you have personal integrity, Delta, from what I know of you, so I really couldn't compare the two of you. It may sound like a dig, but it is meant as a compliment because I do respect you even if I don't always agree with you.
Hmmm, one more thing.
I do, however, think intellectual honesty is sometimes lacking in the political back and forth and things are often taken out of context and distorted to suit whatever political agenda needed. I am guilty of that myself. (Agenda is another 'classic' word in these discussions.) And so I was just calling that as I saw it.
Agreed. And I, too, sometimes am guilty of the same.
Oh, and you're right that you don't need to ask me what I think of the President. My post would probably have to be heavily censored if I even tried to tell you. ;)
Oh, and lawyerlee -- ITA w/you on this.
Delta
07-12-2005, 07:27 PM
Thanks man.
While I think all tv news is guilty of this, I happen to think that FOX News is the worst about it.
I agree. And funny, the only show I watch on Fox News is Brit's. Otherwise I watch CNN, unless Hardball is on. Chris Matthews is the biggest political junkie on TV and I love it.
I agree. And funny, the only show I watch on Fox News is Brit's. Otherwise I watch CNN, unless Hardball is on. Chris Matthews is the biggest political junkie on TV and I love it.
So, we all agree . . . sort of. I feel like singing "Kumbaya"!
Delta
07-12-2005, 07:39 PM
I feel like singing "Kumbaya"! Nah, I'll leave the touchy-feely stuff to you liberals. ;)
Nah, I'll leave the touchy-feely stuff to you liberals. ;)
All right, but you're missing out, I tell ya!
wendalah
07-12-2005, 09:02 PM
Obligatory remark as an instructor in a convergent journalistic program: Broadcast journalists DO start out as being very, very full of integrity. I swear. But I mean, you know how TV is in general. It goes awry.
lawyerlee
07-12-2005, 09:38 PM
Obligatory remark as an instructor in a convergent journalistic program: Broadcast journalists DO start out as being very, very full of integrity. I swear. But I mean, you know how TV is in general. It goes awry.
I was a print journalism major. ;) :D
lawyerlee
07-12-2005, 10:35 PM
I don't know how I ended up posting here last night. Sorry, guys! :o Carry on. :)
Secret_Squirrel
07-13-2005, 10:11 AM
Okay, being the OP here I'd like to say that my content does not leave out you B. In fact the original quote includes B (the "and I saw the futures" business).
The original quote may include the "and I saw the futures" part, but the point of the thread title - "Brit Hume... Says He Wants To Profit From London Attacks" - as well as the quoted article, glosses over that clause as if it doesn't exist.
Anyway, I think what he said was distasteful, even in an economic conversation. It's an insensitive thing to say -- what would you think if he'd said that after 9/11? Or if you'd lost a family member in the London attacks? I think the point here is that Brit Hume and those of his ilk are NOT the people of great integrity that the right wants us to think they are. At least that's my point.
That's fine if you feel that way. I'd never try to tell people what to think about anyone or anything else. But the thread title wasn't: "Brit Hume Was Insensitive After the London Attacks!" so I didn't respond to that.
And given the subject of the show, I am still not of the opinion that it was a terrible thing to say. On the contrary, if it was a show about the financial markets, I think it was his job to say it. I am also suspecting that this was not the first on-air comment Brit Hume made about the bombing and he probably offered appropriate condolences earlier.
Now, had it been a general news program and that was the only thing he said about the bombing, then it would have been inappropriate to me.
Now, had it been a general news program and that was the only thing he said about the bombing, then it would have been inappropriate to me.
Well, we can agree to disagree. I think it was inappropriate no matter what else he said. If a British reporter had talked about how he could profit from 9/11 by playing the market, I wonder if you would feel the same way? But maybe you would. I don't know.
And regarding the title of the thread, that's just how I see it. Sure it's inflammatory, but it's certainly gotten folks talking, hasn't it?
And by the way, I love your screen name and avatar. Squirrels are the cutest! :)
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.