Playboy Interview: Brit Hume

a candid conversation with the fox news channel anchor about his upstart network, tv's political agenda, how he'll cover the new war and why tv news matters more than ever

On the morning of September 11, 2001 Brit Hume, Fox News Channel's star anchorman, chief Washington correspondent and managing editor, is having breakfast with a colleague in the company cafeteria when he looks up at the television monitor to watch his network--the newest and hottest 24-hour news network--showing unbelievable images. One tower of the World Trade Center in New York City is aflame. Hume turns up the volume and listens to the sketchy details. Something big is under way, but it's unclear what.

When another jet hits the second World Trade Center tower, Hume quickly heads upstairs to his office, where he assembles his staff. Whatever is happening in New York--by now it's apparent there has been a terrorist attack--will soon require a Washington, D.C. perspective. How is President Bush reacting? Is the U.S. military responding? Hume's team prepares to go live just as the news comes that Capitol police are evacuating the area. A jet, currently 20 minutes away, is speeding toward them.

Hume ignores the evacuation order and instructs his crew to find a different studio in the building. (Hume's regular studio faces the Capitol, and he worries an explosion could blow out their facilities.) Within minutes, the staff of Fox News' Special Report, Hume's evening news program, has commandeered a studio at the far side of the building and, moments later, Hume is on the air, reporting live. The jet en route to Washington has crashed into the Pentagon.

The horrendous day for America is just beginning as the devastation sinks in and the dead are tallied. The nation's citizens huddle around TV screens. Hume rarely moves from his anchor seat. On this day Fox News Channel is simulcast over the Fox broadcast network of affiliates, plus Fox Sports, Fox Family Channel, FX and National Geographic. The huge number of viewers is only part of the story for the network that has challenged the reign of CNN as the nation's premier 24-hour news network. Fox must prove that Hume and his team can hold their own in the face of one of the most important news stories of our era. With more viewers than CNN in some markets, Fox News Channel coverage of the crisis is up-to-the-minute and smart, competitive with CNN and the networks.

Few thought it was possible in 1996 when Rupert Murdoch established Fox News Channel. Even though Murdoch had baffled experts years ago when he founded the Fox broadcast network, no one thought he could duplicate his success with an all-news cable outlet. CNN founder Ted Turner said that he would "squish Murdoch like a bug." The new network didn't seem to have a chance against the more established news outlets--CNN, CNN Headline News and CNBC. But that was yesterday. Fox News Channel is now the fastest-growing cable network, winning more viewers than CNN in more than 30 percent of the 65 million homes with access to both channels. According to The New York Times, "In the prized demographic of adults between the ages of 25 and 54 who watch cable news, Fox News' viewership has increased by a full 430 percent in the past three years, while CNN's has declined by 28 percent." Fox' success means that it is now setting the agenda--and a breathless pace--for 24-hour news networks. Indeed, when CNN recently debuted its new look, it was a mirror image of Fox.

Before joining Fox, Hume was at ABC, where he worked for 23 years, eight of them as the network's chief White House correspondent. He watched as "the most exciting and important" television news coverage drifted from the networks to cable, particularly when CNN's ratings and its influence soared after the Gulf war. NBC entered the all-news fray with CNBC and later MSNBC, but Hume's network, owned by Disney, resisted the internal and external pressures to follow suit. Hume had once turned down an offer from Fox News Channel because of his contract with ABC, but he left ABC in 1997. As he says, "People wondered why I was leaving the Yankees to join an expansion team."

Setting up a bureau in the capital, Hume anchored his nightly show and began to build an audience. Meanwhile, Fox News changed the look of television journalism, filling the screen with far more than talking heads. The network incorporated live viewer discussions via Internet messaging and live phone calls to talk shows, as well as graphics and music. Fox News' ratings rose, helped by personalities such as Hume and the bullying conservative commentator Bill O'Reilly, a slimmer version of Rush Limbaugh who won an enormous following for his show The O'Reilly Factor.

Since the beginning, Fox has been attacked for its conservative bias. In fact, many critics slammed the network for pushing Murdoch's conservative agenda. As The New York Times Magazine reported, "Fox has become a major player in Murdoch's global empire of right-leaning media outlets." Hume has consistently argued that it's a baseless attack, maintaining that if Fox seems conservative it's only because it doesn't subscribe to the liberal slant spouted by the rest of the media.

Throughout the summer that preceded the terrorist attack, events were relatively staid. President Bush was wrangling with Congress over energy, education, stem cells and election reform. The biggest story of the season was the disappearance of Chandra Levy. The 24-hour news channels--with Fox News Channel leading the pack--could have effectively replaced their mottoes (in Fox' case, "We Report, You Decide") with something along the lines of "All Condit, All the Time."

Many of Fox' critics, however, might be surprised to see how often Hume pushes his team to make certain that its reports are "fair and balanced." In an editorial meeting, when an editor suggested a piece that would describe "what the Democrats did wrong handling the Condit scandal," Hume snapped, "Or what they did right." When he was given a story about a firefighter who died because of endangered fish in a stream (the protected stream was off-limits to firefighters, who had to travel farther for water), Hume asked, "And the other side of the story is?" He adds, "If the other side isn't told, the piece doesn't run." Whether Hume can succeed in creating a news show that is fair and balanced is hotly debated, though the network's overall bias seems plain--and right leaning. A typical teaser on the Special Report website reads, "President Bush may grant legal status to an estimated four million illegal Mexicans living in the United States. They will be given the same rights as you and me. How will this impact your taxes, your town, your job? I'll have a fair and balanced report." The network claims repeatedly to be fair and balanced, but the teaser, like much of the network's coverage, has an us-against-them tone and a conservative point of view.

Hume's role in a conservative-leaning network wouldn't have been predicted from his background. He grew up in Washington, where his father worked as an inventor. When his brother reached draft age, his parents protested against the Vietnam war.

An unexceptional student, Hume barely graduated from college but found his calling when he walked into a newspaper office in Hartford, Connecticut. He worked for half a decade as a newspaper reporter and, in 1969, he won a fellowship that led to an investigation of the United Mine Workers. A magazine article on the story caught the attention of syndicated columnist Jack Anderson, who hired Hume as a reporter. Working for Anderson, Hume was leaked a memo written by International Telephone and Telegraph lobbyist Dita Beard. In 1972, Hume wrote a story based on the internal document, about ITT's pledge to pay for part of the Republican National Convention in return for relief from Justice Department antitrust actions. It was one of the biggest scandals of its time.

Later, Hume became a correspondent, covering presidential campaigns and Capitol Hill for ABC News. In 1979, he co-wrote and narrated The Killing Ground, the first TV documentary to be nominated for an Academy Award. In 1989, he became the network's familiar trench-coated chief White House correspondent for the first Bush and then the Clinton administrations. While at ABC, he won an Emmy for his Gulf war coverage and made headlines when he asked a question at a press conference that sent President Clinton into a rage.

What higher patriotic duty can there be than to present all sides of any issue?

Hume, 58, is married to Kim Hume, who preceded him at Fox News as the network's Washington bureau chief. Father of three children, he suffered a personal tragedy when one of them, his son, Sandy, from his first marriage--a respected and successful 28-year-old journalist (he wrote for The Hill, The Weekly Standard, The New Republic and did on-the-air commentary for Fox)--committed suicide in 1998.

As we've watched Fox News' ratings (and its influence on the way that television covers the news) continue to grow, we decided to track down the network's star anchor for an interview. Contributing Editor David Sheff, who last interviewed the cast and creators of The West Wing, met up with him in Washington. Here is Sheff's report:

"Hume, spectacles sitting low on his nose, led a summer editorial meeting with seriousness but not without humor. He had a sardonic comment about almost every news story and personality that came up in the next day's meeting, too. When the group decided to ask President Jimmy Carter to be a guest on the interview portion of that evening's show, Hume shrugged and said, 'Yes, sometimes he says something.' Then he peered over his glasses and said, 'The guy you don't want is Ford.' Then, when a producer reported that there are new efforts to kill the B1 bomber, Hume yawned and said, 'I guess we have to do it, but stories about efforts to kill the B1 bomber go back to when the earth cooled.'

"We spoke again after the September 11 terrorist attack. As I watched him and the other network anchors throughout the crisis, I realized that Hume is one of the nation's strongest anchors, holding his own against such stalwarts as Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings or any of CNN's lineup."

Playboy: When you heard that a jet was on a collision course with Washington, and Capitol police were evacuating the area, what was your reaction?

Hume: I thought, Am I about to get killed here? Maybe. But this is the duty I have signed up for. I knew what we had to do.

Playboy: Did you consider evacuating?

Hume: I couldn't leave my post. The importance of that decision became clearer as the day went on. For hours the nation didn't hear from its government. After an initial brief statement, President Bush was gone and out of touch except for a second brief statement given hours later. There was no one encouraging or assuring the American people. Congress and the State Department were evacuated and the Defense Department was on fire. We thought, This is a day for us to do our duty and inform the American people. They needed calm and reasoned and authoritative reporting. This was a day for us to do our duty.

Playboy: Overall, did the media succeed?

Hume: We did. We served our country. I was impressed by the unprecedented feeling of cooperation. Everyone was watching for excess. We needed to keep our perspective and put bad information to rest. The only exclusive of the day came from CNN, which reported a retaliatory air strike in Kabul. Even for that, CNN shared its tape, though the story turned out to be wrong.

Playboy: A lot has changed since the attack. Before, briefings by government officials in the middle of the day were considered dull. Not anymore. How intense is your audience's interest?

Hume: People are shaken up in a way they never have been before. It's not going away for a while.

Playboy: Has covering this story personally affected you?

Hume: It's a distressing story to cover. There's nothing fun about it. It has been depressing. As Dan Rather eloquently and emotionally put it on Letterman, "The magnificent verse in America the Beautiful may not apply any longer. They may no longer be alabaster cities undimmed by human fears."

Playboy: Will journalism change?

Hume: It already has. The lines have been drawn. One way has been the issue of the type of attitude journalists are supposed to have. Are they allowed to display their patriotism or is that a sin? The debate has exposed a fault line in American journalism that is not attractive. At its most basic level, is it all right for a journalist to wear a flag pin in his or her lapel? Several news organizations, including, I'm sorry to say, ABC News, have adopted policies that one may not. There's a sense that journalists must hold themselves above and apart from the people they serve. I disagree. The idea that wearing a small symbol, not of a political administration or a political cause but a flag of the country, means you have stepped over journalistic lines is ridiculous and unfortunate. At Fox, no one is required to wear--and no one is prohibited from wearing--a flag. But every journalism professor who has written on the subject opposes it. One of them wrote that he doesn't like to mix his patriotism with his professionalism, as if the two were somehow at war.

Playboy: Traditionally speaking, a journalist's job is to avoid representing any point of view.

Hume: If I were to wear a stovepipe hat with the colors on it like the guy who does Uncle Sam in the Fourth of July parade, that would be inappropriate. I wouldn't have enough headroom for the shot anyway.

Playboy: But while it is the government's job to unify the country and present an optimistic scenario, reporters are bound by the truth. Journalists aren't supposed to push patriotism. They must present all sides.

Hume: What higher patriotic duty can there be than to present all sides of any issue? However, what is the other side of the story of a terrorist massacre? Is one side the antiterrorist side and the other the proterrorist side?

Playboy: Their deplorable attacks notwithstanding, the terrorists represent an anti-American view held in some quarters of the Middle East because of a range of issues: our sanctions against Iraq, our support of Israel, our military presence. Doesn't that story need to be told?

Hume: There's nothing we know about this attack to make anything the U.S. has done relevant. We of course tell the other side of the story--the criticisms of American foreign policy. We give voice to those views. But that's not what this terrorism is about. It's not related to Islam. It's related to a crackpot fringe that may be supported by some of the more nefarious elements of the world, including Saddam Hussein. The idea that this is somehow a function of Islam or American presence in Saudi Arabia or U.S. support of Israel is nonsense. However, these arguments present part of our mission at Fox. We are trying to listen carefully to what's being said. We attempt to look deeper, not to jump on the bandwagon. A great example is a story we're currently working on about airline safety. We are looking at the argument that the federal government should take over airport security.

Playboy: You disagree?

Hume: As far as we know, the weapons used in these attacks are all weapons you're permitted to carry on airplanes. Where was the breakdown of security? The terrorists got on the jets carrying things you're allowed to carry on. There were small knives and box cutters. There is no evidence there were any bombs. Everyone is complaining about the level of education of the people who are working in airport security, but what did they do wrong? Nothing, at least from what we have heard so far. That's the kind of thing we look for. We attack the knee-jerk response. The fact is, airport security to this day has been a tremendous success story given its mission. It was designed to conquer the problem of hijacking as we knew it. This was a different kind of hijacking, one we had never seen before. In the past, hijackings were used to get a plane from its intended destination to the hijackers' destination. We successfully stopped that. This time, they were going to crash the planes into buildings.

Playboy: In The New Yorker, Susan Sontag criticized the media for echoing the administration's voice and for "infantilizing" the public. Do you disagree?

Hume: How nauseating! In the annals of moral equivalency, her article almost made me cry. She tried to draw some moral equivalency between the behavior of our government to these terrorists, but there is no moral equivalency. She represents an anti-Americanism among some of the media and much of academe. It has been there for a long time, but it had been obscured. Now it is obvious. In this attack on America, terrorists motivated by some Ku Klux Klan version of Islam committed a massacre. It's appalling.

Playboy: Many people feel as if the attack ushered in a new era--we are now living in a different world. Is it a different world for the media, too?

Hume: It is. How do we cover a long-term war against terrorists? We know how to cover traditional conflicts between standing armies. New issues are being raised. Since the government was mendacious during the Vietnam war, journalists learned they shouldn't accept what the government tells us about a conflict. Relying on direction from the government was considered the wrong way to cover a war since Vietnam and that held over into the Gulf war. Now, however, we may have to think about that.

Playboy: Are you suggesting that in a war against terrorism the media should work closely with the government?

Hume: I'm suggesting that we have some very important issues to consider. What if you find out ahead of time that there is going to be a clandestine operation? Do you report it?

Playboy: Do you?

Hume: We have to make a careful call and I wonder how the journalists who decline to wear the American flag because they don't want to take one side or the other will decide. If their policy is to report everything they know in a completely objective vacuum, what do they do if they find out where the troops are going? Should they report it? If you know that the United States Special Services are going in to take Osama bin Laden at a particular place and time, whether you choose to report it or not is a decision that affects the events. If you report it, you are in effect warning the enemy. Is it your higher duty to inform the people and damn the consequences? It's not a problem for us at Fox News. We know how we stand.

Playboy: Both politicians and the media have not been widely favored by the public. The president's approval rating is at an all-time high. Will the media be able to redeem itself, too?

Hume: There's a chance. I'm pretty comfortable about how we're going to come out, but not our colleagues. For the sake of the country, I hope they perform well. I don't have high hopes.

Playboy: You have covered several presidents. How has Bush performed during this crisis?

Hume: He has done fine. The steps he has taken are the right ones. His promises of action are correct, but so are his warnings that this will be a long struggle. He correctly put the country on a war footing in a sensible way. In general, it has been a good thing to see how everyone in Washington has come together over this. We are really seeing what most Americans long for: real nonpartisanship.

Playboy: From the front lines, how does President Bush compare with Clinton?

Hume: Bush is a likable guy, but he does not have the magnetism and the utter charm of Clinton. Clinton is the most charming man I've ever met. In his presence, it's impossible to dislike him. I was in the press pool one day and he was having a photo op. The pool waits in the colonnade outside the Oval Office. The doors were thrown open and the group was pouring in like kids going to recess. The president and his guest were seated side by side in front of the fireplace. It's the same drill with every administration. I happened to tumble in first. Clinton looked up at me and said, "Hi, Brit." You would not imagine that that much charm could be packed into those two words, but he was so easygoing and engaging in the way he said it that I felt momentarily shocked. You may not respect him, but you like him. I liked him before he was president, liked him while he was president and like him to this day. Bush is likable, too, but in a different way. At this level of politics, the men and women are all pretty good. They usually come by their charm naturally. They probably wouldn't be in politics if they didn't like people and didn't like the human interaction. More to the point, they wouldn't have gotten where they are if they weren't engaging personalities.

Playboy: The first president you covered up close was Bush Senior.

Hume: I liked him very much.

Playboy: How about Reagan?

Hume: He was more intuitively intelligent and shrewd than he was given credit for, and much more effective. In journalism we have a weakness. We are attracted to knowledgeability because it's what we trade in. In my view, we often confuse it with ability. We therefore find a Bill Clinton fascinating and admirable because he knows a lot. We talk for a living, so we are dazzled by his articulateness. We worry about the person who is much less articulate and who speaks in oversimplified ways.

Playboy: Like our current president, for example?

Hume: Yes, our current president--and Ronald Reagan. Neither is a particularly polished talker. Reagan was great with a written speech, but he wasn't good at talking off-the-cuff. His press conferences were wild adventures. You see the same with Bush, who avoids them.

Playboy: Do you think the media underestimate Bush?

Hume: They think Bush is a dope. That thinking is less of a danger to the president than it is to the people. Why? Smart reporters will be critical of a president they underestimate in a more discerning way. On the other hand, we may miss things if we're blinded by someone's smooth talking. I think we were blinded by Clinton. Carter, too. Some really smart reporters were blinded. If you believe someone is that smart, you feel as if you can relax and sit back and believe them. That's the danger.

Playboy: Still, wouldn't you prefer the smartest possible president?

Hume: I think Bush is very smart even if he may not know the volume of information known by someone like Clinton. Part of the view that Bush is stupid disguises a contempt and resentment that have nothing to do with his ability. These reporters look at the life he's lived. Like Reagan, Bush came to his political career later in life after another career in which he did pretty well. We don't necessarily admire that. Reagan used to be a movie actor. Bush owned a baseball team. We assume a sense of privilege and less sincerity. Indeed, Bush's performance rhetorically during the September crisis wasn't particularly impressive. He is no Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt or Reagan. We didn't elect a great statesman. However, as I said, he has thus far handled things very well.

Playboy: You once caused President Clinton to terminate a press conference. What happened?

Hume: He got mad at me because of my question about the process in which he had chosen Ruth Bader Ginsburg to be on the Supreme Court. Her nomination had followed Clinton's withdrawal of the nomination of Lani Guinier. In my question, I said that the process may have created an impression of a zigzag quality in the administration's decision making. I said it could be an unfair impression, and asked for a comment. I asked the question in a pretty respectful way, and he got mad.

Playboy: Did you regret your question?

Hume: No. It was pretty clear that he'd overreacted. Afterward I thought, How will I ever thank him enough? Andy Warhol said that everybody gets 15 minutes of fame. I knew that my 15 minutes were about to begin. They did. I came in the next morning and there were 40-some messages on my answering machine, most from radio talk-show hosts who wanted me as a guest. I knew that for a while there was going to be a furor over the Brit Hume question.

Playboy: Did you ever discuss it with Clinton?

Hume: The next day. There were some new economic statistics out and Clinton used them as an excuse to come to the pressroom and crow. He threw me the first question, saying, "Now you get your follow-up." We joked about the incident. I had just returned from my honeymoon in Hawaii, and he said something like, "The reason I got mad was that you got a honeymoon and I didn't." Clinton was given to flashes of temper. It was never clear to me that he was really mad.

Playboy: What's your take on Hillary Clinton?

Hume: Along with John McCain, she is one of the most interesting politicians out there.

Playboy: Why those two?

Hume: McCain is the most picaresque character in the Senate and one of the truly compelling figures on the national scene. I don't think that I or the rest of the people here at Fox News drank the same Kool-Aid the rest of the media drank where he was concerned, though. He is portrayed as a man without foibles. He is not without foibles. Still, he is an admirable figure. The problem for McCain is that politics is a team sport, and he's not a team player. And I think you've got to watch Hillary. She is one of a handful of people who are, in and of themselves, interesting.

Playboy: What's your view on Al Gore's future? Will he run again?

Hume: My guess is that he's going to make another go at it. It's awfully hard not to.

Playboy: What did Gore do wrong?

Hume: He made the mistake of condescending to his opponent, which is very unattractive. In addition, I think the economic populism and a lot of the rhetoric that came out of his campaign was right out of an AFL-CIO brochure from the Forties. He didn't run as a centrist Democrat the way Clinton had. He was always talking about fighting. People are tired of fighting. He was going on about the big interests, but I think that's a sour note in America at a time when more than half of the households own stock in the big interests. But look, he did all right. He almost won.

Playboy: As a White House correspondent, do you have to be careful not to offend the president and others in the administration because your access will be cut off?

Hume: No. The job of White House correspondent is a judgment beat more than a reporting beat. You have to interpret what's going on. You're not generally after scoops, and you're not worrying about access. You have to judge and interpret the news and apply the appropriate skepticism and analysis. The great temptation is for a reporter to do this in a smartass way. It creates an aura of sophistication intended to impress the audience, but I'm not impressed by cheap shots. The best reporters offer the appropriate note of skepticism and irreverence, but they are never unfair. It's a balancing act.

Playboy: Nonetheless, aren't correspondents all vying for the inside scoop?

Hume: The number of scoops that come out of the White House by the correspondents who cover the building are remarkably few. It's even more true now that the Bush team has such a tight lid on information. I don't think they're handling it very well, but that's the way they've chosen to do it.

Playboy: How aren't they handling it well?

Hume: There's a tighter flow of information. Trying to control the media reminds me a little bit of trying to teach a pig to sing. It doesn't work, and it annoys the pig. If it doesn't work and annoys the media, why do it? At first the Clinton White House tried to control everything, but it didn't work for them, either. George Stephanopoulos, in charge at the time, admitted it was his mistake. Every administration sooner or later tries it.

Playboy: Regardless of the administration, however, is a reporter punished by the White House if he is antagonistic?

Hume: The White House doesn't grant access depending on whether or not you're a nice guy. It has to do with your audience--who they want to reach. Ann Devroy [White House correspondent for The Washington Post for 12 years before she died in 1997] was mean as hell, and she never stopped getting scoops or access. If you're with one of the major networks or newspapers, they have to do business with you.

Playboy: How much clout do you have at Fox?

Hume: We're a lot farther up the food chain than we used to be.

Playboy: What has changed?

Hume: Part of it is, we've been around long enough to become a fixture. It works that way in Washington: After a while, you're accepted even if people don't like you. It becomes understood that people have to deal with you. It's not only time, though. There's a sense that ours is a widely viewed operation. We're on in Washington--people here see us. You can tell how we're doing by how easy it is to book people on Fox News Sunday, which has improved dramatically.

Playboy: Are you having an easier time in the Bush administration than you had in Clinton's?

Hume: Yes. We're treated fairly by this White House.

Playboy: Implying that you weren't treated fairly by the Clinton White House?

Hume: The Clinton team would have liked to strangle us in our cribs. They weren't happy we were here. As a result, they weren't leaping to be on our shows. Now we're doing better even among the Democrats, despite the perception that we're Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes' conservative network. It's a function of having been around and presenting a newscast that is pretty mainstream. As a result, we're being treated fairly, whereas with Clinton there was a sense that we were an illegitimate enterprise that was presenting some kind of whacked-out adversarial news. In addition, we were perceived as not big enough to matter. Now we are broadcast nearly everywhere and our audience has exploded. The perception by this administration is that we're not going to be automatically unfair.

Playboy: Is it, in fact, assumed that you will be sympathetic?

Hume: In an interview early in his term, I said, "Mr. President, we had difficulty at times in the early years, and we are hoping we will get fair treatment now. I'm not asking for anything more than that." He said, "I can tell you right now that you're going to be treated fairly." My feeling was that this was a proper request. If I had said, "Mr. President, as you know, we're not unsympathetic to you," it would have been improper. Nor is it true that we will present news that pushes any partisan agenda. For anyone in doubt, we are the ones who broke the story about Bush's DUI before the election. It's not partisanship but fairness. That's how we will continue to build our reputation.

Playboy: Fox News' ratings rose after the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. Does it bother you that the news is so salacious?

Hume: I don't think there's anything new about it. Most news organizations always have balanced news, sensational stories and entertainment. A small handful of news organizations--including The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times--are devoted purely to straightforward news. They have sufficiently large circulations among an elite sector of the audience. However, most media don't have that luxury, so they do what they have to do. Newspapers and other news organizations have always tried to engage as many viewers or readers as possible with promotions, games and comics, and there has long been a premium on celebrities. There's always a struggle between serious news and stuff that's interesting or entertaining but may be frivolous. There's a certain magic in being able to find stories that are revealing, important and consequential on some level but also have the element of entertainment.

Playboy: Isn't that a dangerous trend? When it's all about ratings, won't you or similar news organizations drop the stories about education or the budget in favor of sensational stories?

Hume: I don't think so. In fact, we're likely to get more of everything, not less. While Chandra Levy and Lewinsky and the O.J. Simpson trial took over huge sections of daily programming, they did not take over all of it. There was still room for those that chose more substantial news. It's more true than ever when you have so many choices--from C-Span to CNN to Fox.

Playboy: Fox News has been accused of adding to the deterioration of serious news coverage by initiating sensational headlines and MTV-like graphics. How do you plead?

Hume: To the extent that it enlivens the coverage without affecting the substance, no harm, no foul. It may even do some good if it makes people tune in and pay attention when you consider what we're competing against on television. You get worried if you're trashing everything. If you trivialize the important things and rely on the unimportant, then you've missed your opportunity. We are careful to monitor that line.

Playboy: You have been accused of crossing it.

Hume: By people who don't watch us. When we started Fox News, we decided we wanted to create a compelling news station that offers a different kind of reporting than anything out there--coverage that is fair and balanced. We wanted to choose stories that weren't being covered and to find the angles of well-covered stories that were being ignored. In such a competitive atmosphere, we had to do all kinds of things to distinguish ourselves. We knew that Fox News Channel had to be a valid competitor to CNN, and not some down-market version. For example, when the Florida election deadline arrived, we needed to be there with high-quality coverage. We needed to provide a sophisticated and correct analysis. It was an important test for us, and we delivered the goods.

Playboy: Some observers disagree. For one thing, you had freelance political advisor John Ellis heading your election night "decision desk," but Ellis is a first cousin to George W. Bush. In addition, you were criticized--by no less than Dan Rather--for reporting the initial certification of Bush's victory without skepticism.

Hume: Rather was flat wrong. In his report, he called it "the believed certification." I'm sorry, but it was not a believed certification. It was the actual certification of the election, like it or not. It had legal standing and was official.

Playboy: But it was contested.

Hume: Which we reported. However, [Florida Secretary of State] Katherine Harris was not doing this just as she perceived it. She was acting pursuant to a court order. It was not her opinion. It was an official act. Rather was wrong. He was so wrong that it was humorous. He's good, but he was wrong.

Playboy: Do you agree that it was improper to have Ellis, who was reportedly on the phone to various Bushes throughout election night, working on your team?

Hume: I have known Ellis for a long time. He's brilliant, and, in spite of his relationship to Bush, he's utterly dispassionate, serious and professional. When the exit polls showed that Bush was losing his lead, I ran into Ellis and asked for his sense of things. He drew a finger across his throat--a dagger. He was prepared for things to go the other way. Did it look good that we had a Bush cousin? Maybe not, but I think the criticism was a cheap shot. Ellis did and does a good job.

Playboy: Do you agree that there is a viewpoint you're pushing?

Hume: Yes, there is a viewpoint.

Playboy: It is Rupert Murdoch's?

Hume: Rupert lets his publications be what they need to be. Out of his gigantic publishing facility in London comes the Sun, which is as racy a tabloid as you can find, and the Times of London, which is as sedate a publication as there is in the UK. They are pitched to different audiences, and Rupert knows the difference and wants them to be what they need to be. It's no different here.

Playboy: Nonetheless, is it fair to say that Fox News reflects its owner's conservative view, just as CNN reflects a liberal view?

Hume: You could look at it that way, but it would be a crude and oversimplified judgment. We believe that the main-stream media, by and large, tilts left. I don't believe there are a lot of individual reporters and producers and anchors running around with commitments to a political agenda. That's not the issue. Nobody is out there trying to consciously help one political party over another. But I've found in my long years working with various news organizations that there are viewpoints so universally held that they seem almost imperceptible. Everybody holds them to the point that they feel like neutrality. Consider how difficult it is to find reporters who are deeply skeptical of environmentalists, for example. Who are pro-life. Who are likely to have voted Republican in any recent election. Journalists are not necessarily crusading, but their viewpoints are in danger of affecting their work. I genuinely believe that most reporters are pure of heart and don't intend to cover a story with a slant in any direction. However, fairness is not an attitude--it is a skill that must be developed, nourished and worked at all the time.

Playboy: If your views are the opposite of most liberal reporters', however, perhaps your sins are similar. In other words, do you agree that Fox' coverage slants to the right?

Hume: Pushing a party line would be our death. We want our coverage to be compelling and we want it to be fair. I work hard at being certain that we tell both sides of every story.

Playboy: Did the press go too far when it covered Clinton and Lewinsky?

Hume: Clinton was impeached! That's a story, wouldn't you agree?

Playboy: Many Americans maintain that the scandal was largely about the president's private life. How do you decide what is fair game?

Hume: When I was working for Jack Anderson, I did a story about Randy Ag-new, who was Vice President Agnew's son. He had broken up with his wife and was living with a male hairdresser. Was it a story? Is someone a public figure by extension? Randy Agnew had done nothing to cross the threshold into public life. He was not prominent in his father's campaigns. He wasn't crusading on public issues by virtue of celebrity. He was only famous because his father was the vice president of the United States. Was that reason enough to look at his private life? I argued no, but the story ran, and I felt badly about it then and I feel badly about it to this day. It pains me to talk about it. It was just a juicy story about some guy's private life that should have been left alone. Later on, however, I did a story about Al Capp, the cartoonist who created Li'l Abner. Capp had a spot on NBC's Monitor, a radio show on which he delivered right-wing commentaries. He was extremely critical of college protests against the Vietnam war. He referred to college professors as Fagins who preyed on their students. He was also a prominent figure on the lecture circuit at colleges. We found out that he had sexually assaulted several women during a visit to a university back in the early Seventies. We pinned down the story by getting affidavits from a couple of the women. We did the story when a lot of newspapers killed it. I thought the story was legitimate and still think so today. Capp was lecturing the nation, pontificating about the behavior of college professors, while using his access to students on campuses to prey on them sexually. It was a slam dunk. The hypocrisy was there. The story addressed his qualifications to speak on these issues. Weighing the two stories, I decided that the rule was that people were not fair game just because they were public figures by extension, unless they stepped over the line and entered the fray. In the case of Clinton, there was no question. He was a public figure, and not one by extension, and his behavior was relevant, including his lies.

Playboy: Are the children of presidents fair game?

Hume: Chelsea Clinton never entered the fray. In my view, the media's restraint regarding her was absolutely right.

Playboy: How about the Bush kids?

Hume: That's a trickier question. If you get in trouble with the cops and your father is president, you cannot expect privacy. On Fox, we have told the story, but we've never gone far with it. We can't ignore it. At the same time, when I think about my own behavior at that age, it seems ho-hum that the Bush children have been drinking in bars while in college.

Playboy: If Chandra Levy weren't missing, would Gary Condit's extramarital-relationship with an intern have been a big story?

Hume: Probably not. The intern factor was irresistible, though. I mean, don't they ever learn? In addition, Condit was critical of Clinton in terms of disclosure. His reluctance to discuss the case seemed hypocritical. Worse, when people in his office tried to get witnesses to lie--to file false affidavits--that crossed the line. He was involved in behavior that was manifestly improper by trying to get people to lie in the middle of an investigation.

Playboy: When reporters wrote about the suicide of your son, Sandy, do you feel they crossed the line?

Hume: It was fine. No line was crossed. My son was a journalist in his own right. He had worked on some fairly major stories. He was a public figure. I can't say that there shouldn't have been some inquiry into what happened.

Playboy: Did the experience change at all your view of how the press should cover personal tragedies?

Hume: It affected me powerfully in other ways, but I don't know that it had much effect on me as a journalist. It awakened me to some of the issues about faith--large enough questions that they affect everything.

Playboy: Do you look at the personal tragedies of public figures differently, though?

Hume: I don't think so. It was a very personal matter. I have said more to you now than I've ever said about it, and I don't really care to go into it further. I don't think it affected my journalism in any direct way. My opinions about journalistic ethics have evolved over the entire course of my work as a journalist.

Playboy: Did you always want to be a journalist?

Hume: I had no idea what I wanted to be. I was a terrible student. In fact, I was pretty much a ne'er-do-well. I went to good schools, which was a result of sacrifice on the part of my parents, but after the eighth grade I didn't do well. I had lousy grades in high school and barely got into and out of college. Success was not widely predicted for me. My high school English teacher told my parents it was a virtual certainty I would flunk out of college. I didn't, but it was close. My greatest fortune came when I was out of college and needed to get a job and got one at a newspaper. It was a stroke of luck, because I never cared about news-papers or paid much attention to the news. It all changed when I walked into my first newsroom. It was fabulous, a cacophonous place--whereas now there is relative quiet in most newsrooms because everybody is staring at their computer screens. When I walked into my first newspaper office in Hartford, however, I just loved the energy, the irreverence, the noise and the sense of urgency.

Playboy: Your first big story as a journalist was about the mine workers' union. How did it come about?

Hume: I got a fellowship at the Washington Journalism Center, as it was then called, and got hooked up with Ralph Nader. I told him I had time to work on something and asked if he had anything. He said he did: "I've got just the subject for you, and you're going to write a book about it." I thought to myself, Yeah, and pigs can fly. He was looking into the terrible situation in the coal mines--the rates of accidents and injury and death. He said, "Where is the mine workers' union?" He had found the union to be feckless, passive, inept and weird. So I went at it. It was like turning over a rock.

Playboy: How did you switch from print to television?

Hume: ABC News had been a frail also-ran in terms of its news ratings and prestige, and it was trying to do something admirable. It established a documentary series, the first of which was about the coal miners in West Virginia. Because of my book about the union, ABC asked me to act as a consultant. In 1976, the network asked me to try it as a correspondent. As a shoe-leather reporter, I thought the correspondents seemed kind of silly. They wore makeup and spoke to an inanimate object. It wasn't really reporting, to my mind. There was a general feeling of superiority among print reporters.

Playboy: Is there still?

Hume: Most of that is gone. TV news became very serious. The power of television became apparent. In addition, of course, it's a source of celebrity; journalists like being on TV. Even print journalists like to be on TV whenever they are asked.

Playboy: When you got the job of White House correspondent, you were following in the footsteps of Sam Donaldson. Were you nervous?

Hume: I was. In those days Sam was famous for his boldness at press conferences and his questions shouted to candidates and presidents who may not have wanted to hear them. Sam was and is a superb television craftsman, and his work at the White House and his understanding of how to marry the raw materials of television to a good story is unmatched. On the other hand, I felt like I was well prepared after 11 years on the Hill with time out for covering national political campaigns. I didn't feel like I was at a disadvantage, though it was a tall order to fill those shoes.

Playboy: Who picked out your White House correspondent's overcoat?

Hume: I got my own. For years, I used this taupe overcoat. It worked better than trench coats, which I tried, too. You have to be careful about dark coats at night, because it looks like your head is hanging in the sky. Also, you don't want to look like the Man From Glad with a white raincoat.

Playboy: After all the jokes about anchormen's hair, how much attention do you give yours?

Hume: The thing you worry about in television is that something about your appearance will be so striking that it will distract from what you're saying. You want to be attractive, but you don't want to call all that much attention to the way you look or what you're wearing. You know how you can tell when a print journalist has finally made the transition from print to broadcasting? He stops making jokes about makeup and starts wearing it.

Playboy: Do you have to be careful about changing your hairstyle?

Hume: Dan Rather changed his hair, and there is no end of to-do about it. With Ted Koppel and Sam Donaldson, there's always the thing about whether it's a wig. I'm surprised when people write to me to say they either like the way I dress or hate it and then tell me I don't know how to dress. I've been dressing the same fuddy-duddy old-fashioned way since I was young.

Playboy: What made you decide to go to Fox after 23 years with ABC?

Hume: I had been approached by Fox once or twice. It got so far as dinner one time when they were going to start a news division. It wasn't the right time because of my contract, and it wasn't the right offer. But I was interested, because unlike a lot of my colleagues, I didn't think Rupert Murdoch was the anti-Christ. I had met him and found him unassuming--courteous, easygoing and genial. I liked him a lot. Even before NBC announced it was going into partnership with Microsoft, ABC News announced it was going to start a 24-hour competitor to CNN. [ABC's parent company] Disney had given the go-ahead but then backed down. Meantime, here comes Rupert Murdoch, who has no news division of any consequence to build on, and yet he's going forward. My contract was up at the end of the year. I thought, Who do you want to work for? Do you want to work for a company that has a head start and walks to the edge and then backs away, or somebody who's willing to take a gamble? The answer to that is obvious. By the time 1996 rolled around, I had read that Rupert had named Roger Ailes to start a 24-hour news channel. I knew Roger from politics. I knew that he shot straight and that no one should ever underestimate him. Rupert had tried various ways to start a news division but had failed, and I thought, This will not fail.

Playboy: Your wife, Kim, was working at Fox. Were you reluctant to work in the same office?

Hume: No, but I was reluctant to see how it would be perceived. I was concerned that people would think this was just a mom-and-pop operation. I'm sure there are people who thought it was nepotism, but I can't help that. I don't think the people who work here think so.

Playboy: Would you try to argue that Bill O'Reilly, Fox' biggest name, is fair and balanced?

Hume: Bill O'Reilly does a show that's about Bill O'Reilly's views. That's legitimate. We're not saying that he's bringing you the evening news. O'Reilly does a good job. I like and admire him. I admire the way his show is run.

Playboy: Would you want to be a guest with whom he disagrees?

Hume: I know I'd get my say, and I know I might be interrupted. Still, Bill is pretty fair. He's opinionated, but it's his show, after all.

Playboy: In general, do you approve of the political talk shows that seem more like shouting matches?

Hume: I don't particularly like to watch them when you can't hear what everyone is saying. On the other hand, they can be lively.

Playboy: Do you think they change people's minds?

Hume: Maybe. You get to hear the basic case for each side of an issue, if the shows are done well.

Playboy: Who are your favorites among the mainstream anchors?

Hume: Tim Russert does a good job. Peter Jennings is still the best at breaking a story. I don't know that anybody has ever done it as well. At the height of his power, Cronkite wasn't as good as Peter is now.

Playboy: How has Fox News Channel and CNN changed their jobs and the jobs of other newscasters?

Hume: We are making their shows increasingly irrelevant. Network news is going to be with us awhile--it still commands a large audience--but it's not the same as it used to be. To some extent, network news is being supported by local news. The networks come along with a half hour of world news after the local news and get a lot of piggyback audience. Meanwhile, the news junkies have come to cable.

Playboy: What's your view of the father of cable news, Ted Turner?

Hume: He is a hero. He had an idea that nobody else was willing to bet on. He created CNN out of sheer will. He's a colorful, eccentric, brilliant guy.

Playboy: What's in store in the contest among the 24-hour news channels?

Hume: It's down to us and CNN.

Playboy: Are you dismissing MSNBC?

Hume: They're likely to have success, but they're going in another direction. They won't admit it, but they are really a part-time news channel. They are magazine-show oriented. I think they're competing with somebody--maybe the History Channel or even E--but not with us or CNN. It's a two-horse race.

Playboy: What are going to be the defining factors in the two-horse race?

Hume: One thing is how quickly we can expand and get more reach. Another is how able we are to respond to breaking news. CNN has an enormous array of affiliates that supply them. We have a smaller number. CNN is trying to enliven its schedule and upgrade its people, but I don't know how quickly they'll be able to do it. They have more reach, but that is changing. Meanwhile, I like our correspondents and anchors better. I'm biased, of course, and CNN is a big and successful organization, and it's not to be underestimated. But during the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, we showed how well we can cover an event of world importance. Our coverage will improve, too. We already were set up in the Middle East, and we quickly increased our presence there.

Playboy: When you made the decision to join Fox, you compared it to being with the Yankees and going to an expansion team. How do you feel about it now?

Hume: I came here and we had no news organization. Now I feel personally invested in this place. The key players are Rupert, who had the nerve, and Roger, who had the skills, to do what was needed to build this. I play a supporting role. I'm along for the ride, but I'm putting everything into the game. I want Special Report to succeed, and I want Fox News Channel to win. Will we? Stay tuned.