Glenn was too kind to mention it, but people like Howard Kurtz, the Washington Post's media/politics critic, have been doing puff pieces on him forever. From an article in the WaPo :
Hume is no partisan brawler in the mold of some of Fox's high-decibel hosts. By virtue of his investigative background, his understated style and his management role, he represents a hybrid strain: conservatives who believe in news, not bloviation, but news that passes through a different lens, filtered through a different set of assumptions.
...
Sometimes Hume can stretch things to make a point. In August 2003, he reported that "U.S. soldiers have less of a chance of dying from all causes in Iraq than citizens have of being murdered in California, which is roughly the same geographical size." The problem: California's population of 34 million people compared with 145,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Hume later agreed it was a "crude comparison."
You see, he has different "filters" (read: outrageous obvious biases) and occasionally "stretches" the truth (read: lies through his teeth).
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox