Hugh Hewitt is furious
Donald Trump’s performance during his on-stage televised interview with a panel of three reporters from the National Association of Black Journalists is being criticized as “clearly racist” and “completely unhinged,” with media critics praising the reporter who began the interview by reading a selection of the ex-president’s attacks on Black politicians and Black journalists back to him. But one journalist, Washington Post columnist and right-wing talk radio host Hugh Hewitt, is rushing to Trump’s defense.
Many journalists, including Black journalists, felt was it inappropriate to host the criminally-convicted ex-president who has a decades-long history of racism and, over the past nine years since he first launched his presidential campaign, has made bigoted and racist remarks.
Former CNN commentator Keith Boykin, the co-founder of the National Black Justice Coalition, one day before the controversial interview, had written: “As NABJ gives a platform to Trump, I would hope they ask him about the many times he attacked Black journalists like Yamiche Alcindor, April Ryan, and Don Lemon.” He provided video support:
On Wednesday, Trump walked on stage one hour late – he claimed 30 minutes, and claimed repeatedly it was because the NABJ’s sound equipment wasn’t working, while journalists reported it was because the Trump campaign did not want real-time fact-checking.
As he sat down, ABC News’s Peabody Award-winning senior congressional and lead campaign correspondent Rachel Scott began what was slated to be a one-hour interview. (The Trump campaign pulled Trump out after 34 minutes. Entire video here.)
“I want to start by addressing the elephant in the room, sir. A lot of people did not think it was appropriate for you to be here today,” Scott acknowledged up front. “You have pushed false claims about some of your rivals, from Nikki Haley to former President Barack Obama, saying that they were not born in the United States; which is not true. You have told four congresswomen of color who are American citizens to go back to where they came from. You have used words like ‘animal’ and ‘rabid’ to describe Black district attorneys. You’ve attacked Black journalists, calling them a loser, saying the questions that they ask are ‘stupid’ and ‘racist.’ You’ve had dinner with a white supremacist at your Mar-a-Lago resort. So my question, sir, now that you are asking Black supporters to vote for you: Why should Black voters trust you after you have used language like that?”
Journalist Hugh Hewitt served in the Reagan White House, was a professor of law at the conservative Chapman University, and in Trump’s early days as a presidential candidate Hewitt flip-flopped between supporting him and saying he should be replaced on the GOP ticket (with Ivanka Trump).
“During the 2016 campaign, he warned that Trump did not have ‘the temperament to be president’ and said the Republican Party failing to deal with the consequences of Trump winning the nomination was akin to ‘ignoring Stage IV cancer,'” Politico reported in 2018.
Hewitt supported Trump in 2016 and 2020.
On Thursday, Hewitt ran to Trump’s defense.
“As we wait to see if the Middle East explodes, I’m going to play all of former President Trump’s interview before the NABJ yesterday. I’ve never seen a more unprofessional opening of an ‘interview’ than that offered by ABC’s @rachelvscott to former President @realDonaldTrump,” Hewitt declared.
That did not go over well with many journalists and critics.
“Why is quoting the former president’s own words to him unprofessional? I’m certain you’ve done the same in your long career in news. It’s standard practice and topical given the substance of his past comments contrast sharply with what was intended as outreach to the audience,” responded CNN anchor Jim Sciutto, who offered Rachel Scott “Kudos.”
Hewitt responded to Sciutto, suggesting Scott took Trump’s words “out of context,” and implying she wasn’t a real journalist because she opened with a hard-hitting question rather than niceties:
“I often. indeed usually, press guests. I often use quotes, but not out of context. I try not to be argumentative. And, crucially, when a guest accepts an invitation –guests over the years including you, @HillaryClinton and @JohnKerry etc– I do not begin with a non-question litany of accusations. It was a completely unprofessional opening attack. It is also an example of why the media is loathed in the United States. Agenda journalism at its worst. An important opportunity was missed because the ‘journalist’ was doing performance theater, not an interview.”
Rachel Scott’s opening question to Trump was similar to Fox News’s Megyn Kelly’s opening question to Trump in 2015 at a GOP presidential debate.
Many critics are defending Scott.
“Rachel Scott was professional because she set up her question with verified contextual evidence detailing Trump’s own actions and words. The question was relevant because Republicans and Trump’s supporters have been pounding on VP Harris’s identity as ‘DEI hire’ in media,” wrote media critic Susan Bordson.
The Atlantic’s Norman Ornstein, and AEI Emeritus Scholar, served up a broader critique: “Hugh Hewitt is simply an embarrassment. And all of those outlets from the WaPo to NBC who featured him should be embarrassed for doing so.”
Veteran conservative political commentator Charlie Sykes on Wednesday praised Scott, saying, “today [she] became A Legend.”
Bush-Cheney 2004 presidential campaign chief strategist Mathew Dowd, now a Democrat and political pundit, wrote, “Rachel Scott of ABC News showed Jake Tapper, Dana Bash, and many others how it should be done in this moment in our countries history. Brava to her.”
Anti-racism activist and writer Tim Wise, a senior fellow at the African American Policy Forum declared, “Rachel Scott did more to hold Trump accountable than every white journalist in this country combined ever has, at least to his face. They never ask hard questions like that. They’re too afraid or whatever.”
