[This article now cross-published by Salon...]

Over the weekend, new Fox "News" lamestream media warrior Howard Kurtz was appropriately critical of the pathetic "apology" CBS' 60 Minutes offered for their bogus Benghazi report which was based entirely on a lying "witness" to the September 2012 attack. (The guy was never there, the story was completely made up.)

Fox doesn't seem to allow their videos to be embedded, but you can watch Kurtz' :97 second piece on "Why 60 Minutes apology isn't enough" right here.

While Kurtz is correct that CBS' "apology" was not nearly enough, and that the serious error requires a much more thorough investigation into and explanation for how Rightwing correspondent Lara Logan was so easily fooled by her source, and why nobody at 60 Minutes kept the false story from being aired in the first place, Kurtz completely fails to even mention one very important point. Fox "News" itself used the very same source for the basis of its own false narrative in its own series of misleading stories last year. Moreover, Fox, unlike CBS, has failed to even retract those similarly bogus reports, much less apology or investigate any of them...

CNN's reliable RWer-disguised-as-media-critic Howard Kurtz interviews the former George W. Bush Administration speech writer, David "Axis of Evil" Frum, on his recent, blistering New York magazine condemnation, "When Did the GOP Lose Touch With Reality?" The lengthy, and rather courageous article, blames, in no small part, Fox "News" and talk radio for having destroyed his party through the creation of an entire "alternative knowledge system." (The piece is a must-read, btw, if you haven't.)

Good for him! (Frum, not Kurtz. The latter feigns skepticism throughout the interview in the face of Frum's statements of the obvious-to-all-but-those-who-have-reason-to-act-like-it-isn't)...

The following are quotes from media critic Howard Kurtz of CNN and The Daily Beast, as published for all to see last Sunday, even as Irene continued to devastate vast swaths of the Northeast, in his obnoxious article "Hurricane of Hype."

We, um, responded to his article here, while the New York Times' Nate Silver took a more statistically empirical approach in response, in "How Irene Lived Up to the Hype"...

[Images put to Kurtz' words by DCeiver. Hat-tip Bluegal aka Fran Fran at Crooks & Liars.]

Kurtz has yet to retract, correct, or apologize, despite Irene having resulted in "the deaths of at least 45 people in 13 states." according to Associated Press, making it the 3rd deadliest U.S. storm in over 30 years.

[UPDATED a number of times at bottom of article, with more extraordinary photos and videos of devastating "hype" in NY, MA, NC and VT leading their governor to declare Sunday that the state has "a full-blown flooding catastrophe on our hands." ||| To date, at least 45 are now dead in 13 states in 3rd deadliest U.S. storm in more than 30 years.]

Setting aside that at this time following 2005's Hurricane Katrina --- the morning after --- most in the media were breathing a sigh of relief that New Orleans had "dodged a bullet", one wonders if the folks in Wilmington, Vermont today...

...or in the Catskills of New York...

...are inclined to agree with insightful media critic Howard Kurtz' assessment that Irene amounted to little more than "A Hurricane of Hype":

Um, surely Howard knows that category rankings for hurricanes refer to wind speed and velocity, not the amount of moisture in the storm or the possibilities of life-threatening floods that may accompany it, along with the storm surge to follow, right? Surely he has many reliable sources that have explained that to him by now, doesn't he?

Dunno, Howard. Would a storm bearing down on Ft. Lauderdale have some 65 million people in its path, as Irene had? Please, Howard, have some apples with your oranges...