Of course they wouldn't mention that he's not actually being investigated, that would totally undermine their ability to try and take down a presidential candidate.

Golly, amazing what investigative efforts are possible. Appartently unlimited efforts as long as its a democrat being investigated. Even if your not actually being investigated it can be made to seem as if you are. Another WhiteWater anyone? Can we spend millions on this one to?

Look, anyone with a functioning set of ears and a high school education can see what the story is about. The MSM doesn't need to hold our hands like children and say, "Now, children, we're NOT insinuating that Mr. Obama is in trouble, just that the money he awarded somehow wound up in the hands of a campaign contributor of his." We can figure that out ourselves, thank you very much.

I can figure it out myself but that doesn't mean that that isn't exactly what Hume is insinuating.

"and a high school education can see what the story is about"

I suppose you could have said '4th grade education' and you would still have been spot on.

No where however does Hume actually say Obama is under inverstigation. He says Obama Grant, He does not even give the indication Obama is the focus. I do not see an issue with Humes report.

He doesn't have to explicitly say Obama is under investigation, it's implied.  That's exactly why Obama's irrelevance to the probe is noted in the other report, to avoid that impression.  Hume should follow the same standard.

Lurch is in the bag for mccain. I have listened to his verbage enough to know that. He is a faucks news guy.

Despite an occasional spurt of Light, Faux news guys & gals are all in the bag for McCain.  The little drizzle of commentary I listen to from them is amazingly one-sided.

That's it Mary59....... I'm calling Fox Security on you....... and then I'll place a call to BillO.....ohhhh......you are in so much trouble!!  lol

Capt., if you turn me in I'll rat on ya, you faux hater, you!  ;-)

Exactly what you said. By NOT saying that he's not implicated in this probe, Hume, and FoxNews, imply that he IS involved in this probe.

I did not get that from the video. 

Of course you didn't.

Tell me, which category does this story fall under, "fair," "balanced," or "neither"?

I am not here to defend FOX, I just logically do not get anything wrong with what Hume said. And usaully he is a GOP propagandist.

It wouldn't be any ahrder to report Obama is not the focus of the investigatio. there are many ways to tell a lie. The most common form is to flat out say so. the more subtle way ( preferred by FOX ) is to refrain from telling the whole story. very effective as long as you don't have Media Matters recording the facts, not just for contemporary critics, but also for future history writing.

ahrder should be harder

SueEld, let's say you give your nephew 10 bucks in his birthday card. He gets caught by the police trying to buy some crack with it. Your local paper reports that there is an investigation of SueEld's connection to a drug deal.

Do you have an issue with that?

But that is not what Hume said, he said Obama Grant.

I stand corrected Sue. I don't know where I got the idea that Hume was reporting on your drug money scandals. You're right, he was talking about Obama's involvement with this grant scandal.

I don't know how I could have been so confused.

Sue,

Jethro Tull has a great concept album that has been out for 30+ years. You might take a listen..its called "Thick as a Brick"

And...most importantly, your (Auntie Sue's) picture appears next to the newspaper article.

As the saying goes, "a picture is worth a 1000 words!!"  Hume doesn't have to say that Obama is under investigation, the picture to his right says it for him loud 'n clear. 

Lying by omission. A Fox favorite for 14 years!

Randy

Why even mention Obama unless the purpose is to tar and feather Obama with the specter of malfeasance?

Randy

Exactly.

The whole thing is a LOCAL Illinois issue. The investigation has nothing to do with Obama or his campaign.

As such, why is a national, 24-hour cable news outlet reporting on it? And if they are reporting on it, why are they even mentioning Obama?

The answer to both questions is "Because it's Fox News and they will grab any opportunity to smear Obama."

Yes as a news story, it works just as well to say that a charitable organization misused funds, with no mention of where those funds came from. The story is the mis-use of said funds.They bring up Obama to try to make a connection that isn't there for smearing purposes.

Exactly, how many other tiny little grant investigations that are surely ongoing across this country also got reported? Also, look at the combination of Hume's demeanor, the graphics etc.? Can anyone honestly believe the intent is just to report on a tiny little amount of grant money being investigated? Compare this whole story to the ongoing Palin stonewalling of the investigation into abuse of power.

"...look at the combination of Hume's demeanor, the graphics etc.?"

Pit, that's what it's all about on Fox, the plausible deniability that has at least a couple of posters here hoodwinked. It's the same comedy that has posters here dismissing any racism that doesn't involve somebody wearing a t-shirt that has "Hey! I'm a Racist!" lettered across the front.

One of the first times I saw Brit Hume was at an (extended) family member's house who was gushing to me about this new fair & balanced network that really "tells it like it is".

I watched Hume read two sides to a news item; First, the Republican's take on it, delivered in his dead-serious newsguy voice, eyes locked on the camera.

Then, he gave the Dem's side of the story, phony chuckling and head shaking at absurdity of what was actually the more truthful side of the issue.

I asked my host if he'd noticed the difference in the way Hume delivered the two sides of the story. He hadn't. I got more specific, asking if he noticed that Hume was laughing dismissively as he read the Non-Conservative take on the story. The reaction was sort of "Oh, that? He can't help it if he's cracking up."

That's why it's nice to have the video clips that MMFA provides. A written transcript doesn't always do propaganda justice.

Hey Brit, do you remember that long ago time when you were viewed as someone who had integrity? As a reporter who had ethics? As a responsible journalist people could trust? Nah. And neither do the rest of us.

You speak for most of us.

Our new Solon is brushing the virtual canary feathers from his lips.