NewsBusters Managing Editor Curtis Houck made his return Friday to the Fox News Channel for Fox News @ Night and, on the docket, Houck and host Trace Gallagher lambasted The Washington Post for their “ludicrous” and “farcical” “surrender[ing]” to pro-Hamas voices by taking down a cartoon slamming Hamas, The New York Times giving fashion advice to pro-Hamas protesters, and hundreds of journalists for signing a letter demanding media coverage take on an anti-Israel tone.
Correspondent Jackie Ibanez first brought viewers up to speed about the cartoon that “depict[ed] Hamas spokesperson, saying ‘how dare Israel attack civilians’ while a frightened looking woman several small children and a baby are shown tied to his body.”
With that, Gallagher pivoted to Houck and read more from Shipley, who claimed taking it down was in “the spirit of opinion journalism, to move imperfectly toward a constructive exchange of ideas at all possible speed, listening, and learning along the way."
Gallagher was incredulous: “That listening and learning, he was folding, right? He folded and surrendered.”
Houck was similarly not having it, calling Shipley’s kowtowing “absolutely…ludicrous and farcical,” adding: “How are they engaged in a ‘constructive exchange of ideas’ and following what he wrote is ‘the spirit of opinion journalism’ by removing a cartoon or really anything…that really hurts people's feelings?”
After rhetorically wondering how such censorship “broaden[s] your horizon,” he ripped The Post’s self-righteous slogan as well as the liberal media’s mantra of impressing the need for facts in the Trump era:
[W]hatever happened to democracy, dying in darkness, all these facts, first stuff that we've been hearing about for years really, I guess, must not really matter anymore, because it's a known fact that Hamas has been doing this for decades.
Gallagher then went to The Times’s latest antics with their Style section “giving tips on how pro- Palestinian protesters can wear a keffiyeh…to their next protest” and observed it “[d]oesn't seem like it really something that belongs in the fashion pages of The New York Times, Curtis.”
Houck called out the fact that, in the photo used of someone wearing a keffiyeh for The Times’s Instagram page, “they’re covering [their] face other than really their eyes and that’s really what we saw on the steps of Congress” with “all these congressional staffers using scarves and masks to be able to hide their identities.”
“If you're so proudly pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel, why can't you bear your face? Maybe it's because you realize it's more of a statement as opposed to something you actually strongly believe in,” Houck argued.
The segment wrapped with Gallagher wondering what Houck’s thoughts were on “750 journalists from dozens of news organizations signed a letter criticizing Western media's coverage of the war” and demanding it adopt an anti-Israel stance.
Houck blasted these pro-Hamas activists masquerading as reporters, stating the obvious that “it's not something that journalists should really be getting involved in.”
Instead, he said, “they should still be reporting the who, what, where, when, why, and how” and not “genuflecting on your personal social media pages.”
“It's really feeding into this notion, and it's well founded, obviously, based on the work I've been doing for a decade, and the Media Research Center has been doing for decades now that the press, you know, has plenty of ethical issues,” Houck concluded, and “that regular Americans shouldn't trust them.”
To see the relevant transcript from November 10, click “expand.”
FNC’s Fox News @ Night with Trace Gallagher
November 10, 2023
11:16 p.m. Eastern[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Washington Post Pulls Anti-Hamas Cartoon]
TRACE GALLAGHER: Well, the mainstream media at large and The Washington Post, specifically are facing increasing criticism tonight over their allegedly biased coverage of the Israel-Hamas war. Jackie Ibanez is live with a closer look tonight. Jackie?
JACKIE IBANEZ: Hi, good evening, Trace. Yes, The Washington Post says it has removed an editorial cartoon that was critical of Hamas after some of its readers complained it was racist and dehumanize Palestinians. The cartoon, you can see it right here. It depicts Hamas spokesperson, saying "How dare Israel attack civilians." While a frightened looking woman several small children and a baby are shown tied to his body. Some readers praise the cartoon for capturing what they consider to be the essence of Hamas terrorism. However, some post readers complained that the cartoon blamed Hamas for the death of Palestinians, instead of Israel, and promoted racial stereotypes. The paper published some of that criticism, including from a Princeton student who claimed the cartoon amounted to an attempt to excuse Israeli war crimes. That negative feedback prompted an apology from editorial page editor David Shipley, who says that was not his intent. Writing in an editor's note, "The reaction to the image convinced me that I had missed something profound, and divisive, and I regret that."
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Cartoonist Doesn’t Want ‘Cancel Culture’ to Win]
But it's not -- but it is worth noting that is at the Las Vegas Review Journal, who employs the artist, Michael Ramirez is standing behind that cartoon, Trace. Ramirez tells Fox News Digital that, that quote was an unfortunate episode of restricting free speech, and that he wants an open debate. Trace?
GALLAGHER: A lot of people have echoed that. Jackie Ibanez, live for us in New York. Jackie, thank you. Let's bring in NewsBusters Managing Editor Curtis Houck. Curtis, The Washington Post opinion editor David Shipley, also wrote the following, quoting here, "This is the spirit of opinion journalism, to move imperfectly toward a constructive exchange of ideas at all possible speed, listening, and learning along the way." That listening and learning, he was folding, right? He folded and surrendered.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Charges of Mainstream Media Bias in War Coverage]
CURTIS HOUCK: It's absolutely lewd [sic] – ludicrous and farcical, Trace, for the opinion editor, Mr. Shipley to say this. How are they engaged in a constructive exchange of ideas and following what he wrote is the spirit of opinion journalism by removing a cartoon or really anything, whether it be a column or letter to the editor, that really hurts people's feelings? How does it really broaden your horizon? You know, whatever happened to democracy, dying in darkness, all these facts, first stuff that we've been hearing about for years –
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: The Washington Post Deletes Anti-Hamas Cartoon]
GALLAGHER: Yeah.
HOUCK: – really, I guess, must not really matter anymore, because it's a known fact that Hamas has been doing this for decades.
GALLAGHER: Yes. Speaking to the media, I want to go back to The New York Times now, because we noticed this in the fashion section, and I thought maybe you would be interested in this. We've got The New York Times Style section, giving tips on how pro- Palestinian protesters can wear a keffiyeh, right? -- to their next protest and you can't read it there. But it says, "As demonstrations have cropped up globally and supportive civilians in Gaza, some Palestinians have been encouraging non-Palestinians to wear keffiyehs, the square checkered scarves traditionally worn in parts of the Middle East as a show of solidarity. Doesn't seem like it really something that belongs in the fashion pages of The New York Times, Curtis.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: ‘NYT’ Style Section Posts About Palestinian Scarf]
HOUCK: No. I mean, I just have to love the fact that in the photo that they're using, the on screen, that they're coverings your face other than really their eyes. And that's really what we saw on the steps of Congress using their COVID masks, all these congressional staffers using scarves and masks to be able to hide their identities. If you're so proudly pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel, why can't you bear your face? Maybe it's because you realize it's more of a statement as opposed to something you actually strongly believe in.
GALLAGHER: Finally, 750 journalists from dozens of news organizations signed a letter criticizing Western media's coverage of the war. What do you think?
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: 750+ Journalists Protest Media War Coverage]
HOUCK: Well, I just think it's not something that journalists should really be getting involved in. I mean, they should still be reporting the who, what, where, when, why, and how and by signing on to these kinds of letters. It's really feeding into this notion, and it's well founded, obviously, based on the work I've been doing for a decade, and the Media Research Center has been doing for decades now that the press, you know, has plenty of ethical issues, especially, the mainstream press. And signing on to these opinion-based letters and genuflecting on your personal social media pages, just feeds into that narrative that regular Americans shouldn't trust them.
GALLAGHER: Yeah, there should be a letter with 10,000 others saying, hey, 750, why don't you do your jobs?
HOUCK: Right.
GALLAGHER: Curtis, great to see you, as always. Thank you.
HOUCK: Thanks, Trace.
