©May 12, 2014
Stephen Winham
When The Advocate first started running Quin Hillyer’s columns, I assumed they were syndicated. I figured it was okay to run his pieces occasionally so we could be exposed to the far right agenda without having to actually access far right sources. I was dismayed when I realized he is billed as a member of the Advocate editorial staff and writes these columns specifically for its readers in Baton Rouge and New Orleans.
I thought the Advocate’s editorial staff and syndicated columnists already presented a fairly good philosophical balance including conservatives, liberals and moderates. I viewed it as slightly skewed toward conservatism, but that was okay. With the addition of Hillyer, the paper’s editorial posture took a hard right turn.
Among other things, I wondered if his inclusion was intended as a direct counterpoint to James Gill. In that regard, it is interesting that The Advocate has recently published 2 readers’ letters criticizing the presence of James Gill on the editorial staff. NONE critical of Quin Hillyer have seen the letters page. Surely, at least two people have submitted printable letters critical of Hillyer. Heck, I sent in two. And I know more than a few other people who find Mr. Hillyer’s columns offensive.
Hillyer’s May 11, 2014, column is emblematic of why I object to his presence as a regular columnist. It fans the flames of hostility toward our President while unabashedly cheerleading for the policies of our Governor. Expressions of opinion are one thing. Hate-mongering, coupled with views so distorted as to bridge on prevarication, are something else. Columns like his are better suited to blogs like The Hayride and other venues that make no effort to be balanced in any way.
James Gill was born in the United Kingdom, is a graduate of Liverpool University and wrote for the Times-Picayune in New Orleans before joining The Advocate editorial staff in May 2013. He is currently one of 10 finalists for the Molly National Journalism Prize, established by The Texas Observer to recognize works that focus on civil liberties and social justice. The winner will be announced June 3. The prize is named after the late Molly Ivins whose columns once graced The Advocate’s editorial pages. Gill’s columns are noted for lampooning politicians and often take a humorous turn, as was the case with Molly Ivins’ syndicated columns. Few would consider Gill’s columns mean-spirited or his views extremist, no matter how liberal they are.
Quin Hillyer is a graduate of Georgetown University (A.B. in government and theology, 1987) and a recipient of the Carmage Walls Commentary Award from the Southern Newspaper Publishers Association and the Green Eyeshade Award for commentary from the Society of Professional Journalists (formerly Sigma Delta Chi). He was born and raised in New Orleans, but now lives in Mobile, Alabama.
He worked for the Times-Picayune before joining Bob Livingston’s gubernatorial campaign staff in 1987. As Chair of the Louisiana Young Republicans in the late 80s and early 90s, he was a member of the bipartisan Louisiana Coalition Against Racism and Nazism, a ten member group actively involved in bringing forth facts to repudiate the legitimacy of David Duke’s claims to have abandoned his white supremacy agenda. He was briefly managing editor of New Orleans Gambit magazine before joining Congressman Livingston’s staff in 1991 and becoming his press secretary in 1995.
Hillyer returned to private sector journalism in 1997, working for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, theMobile Register, The American Spectator(with whom he is still affiliated), The Washington Examiner, The Washington Times and the National Review (with whom is still affiliated) and writing for others. He ran for and finished 4th in the November 2013 Republican primary election for the United States House of Representatives from Alabama’s 1st congressional district.
While his background has significant depth and is consistent with conservative views, extremism would not seem its logical product. One would expect commentary more along the lines of William F. Buckley, Jr. than Rush Limbaugh, but reading his columns is often like listening to Limbaugh. Fiery political evangelism is as good a description as any.
As far as the columns he has written for publication in the Advocate newspapers so far, most share a singular theme. Ten of his columns are archived at The Advocate website. Review them and you will find that seven seem to have little purpose other than promotion of Governor Jindal’s policies and future aspirations, including one completely unambiguous in its intent titled, “Jindal shows clear national appeal” (March 29, 2014).
In his very first Advocate column (March 21, 2014), he managed to attack the rest of the Advocate editorial staff and the President while promoting Governor Jindal. That one is titled, “Gov. Jindal was justified in jamming President Obama”. His most recent column, mentioned above, and his April 26 columns are refrains of this theme. His April 8 column supports the governor’s use of coastal wetlands funding to “bridge the gap” in the budget. His April 19 and May 3 columns support the governor’s position that the lawsuit by the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority is illegitimate.
A cynic might believe Mr. Hillyer was brought on board to promote Governor Jindal’s campaign for President rather than to just provide a strong conservative voice for The Advocate. If that is true, shouldn’t the publisher clearly state his support for the Governor and his political aspirations? Rolfe McCollister (Greater Baton Rouge Business Report publisher) is certainly not unbiased, but he is also not coy about his support for the governor’s political future. If the Advocate is to become the voice of Bobby Jindal, let’s at least be honest about it.
Louisiana Voice 
Stephen, perhaps Hillyer and Varney from the Times-Pic can get together. 😆
😉
The Manship-owned Advocate may have been conservative, but it frequently published truth to power, never more than in the last couple of years before it was sold to Georges. Who knew that John Georges, former Democratic candidate for Governor, was such a DINO?
The Advocate had been a balancing act for South LA’s other major paper, radical right rag, The TP (aptly abbreviated). It would be nice to believe TP transplants Shea and Kovacs are the culprits. More likely George, like so many political whores, has few scruples.
Something really screwy is going on at The Advocate. I posted a response to their article yesterday on the declining reserves at OGB. In order to post it, I had to create a Facebook account and use it to log in. Annoying. In any case, I did this, posted my comment, and even received a confirmation that it was posted, but it apparently is not showing up for anyone except me, and then only when I am actually logged into the site. I’ve tried accessing it from other devices and the same thing happens. Friends who were also concerned about the article tried to view my comment and none can see it. Between that and their addition of this Hillyer character, I am wondering if their efforts to stymie opposition to Jindal and his agenda are growing, or if I’m just becoming more paranoid. Of course, it’s not paranoia if they really ARE out to get you!
I quit the Advocate about 2 years ago because it was slanted so right. This doesn’t surprise me. I’ll read my news online and watch the major networks to try to get a balanced dose if that’s possible.
Enjoyed all comments and by reading today’s editorial “jindal kicking the can” someone must be reading LouisianaVoice and realizing that Tom was right all along!! Keep it going, Tom, and follow the money!!!
I told y’all, there really is a communication war going with the GOP, posting here because there is a plethora of ignorant and prejudice populace who will read and support them. Hillyer is another fellow in the conservative mindless writer group who thinks he is entitled to destroy our democracy, and that he and his writing doesn’t stink. Great column Mr. Windham ron thompson
I’m glad you liked my columns. Oh, well. A few points. First, my April 8 column is more in opposition to Jindal using the wetlands fund as a conduit for closing the annual budget’s gap than it is in favor of it. Second, I graduated Georgetown in 1986, not 1987. Third, you conveniently ignored my second column, pushing the idea of sentencing reform, hardly an extreme-right position. Fourth, just for what it’s worth, I’ve written critically of Jindal in the past (admittedly, far less often than positively, but still enough to raise hackles in his camp), and certainly will again. Finally, if I am such a shill for Jindal, why did my Second column on the wetlands lawsuits OPPOSE several Jindal-backed bills to further centralize power in the governor’s hands by undermining the independence of the levee boards? (I support clarifying their lack of lawsuit power, but not the other bills that were being considered.) I call things as I see them, without fear or favor.
Thank you for reading my piece. My apologies for misstating your graduation year. My source said 1986, but I typed 1987. The reason I did not mention your column about sentencing reform (along with another 2) is I was addressing the 7 columns I viewed as Jindal cheerleading. Like you, I have to call things as I see them, so we will have to disagree on your other points along with our politics and general viewpoint regarding this administration. If anything you have written about them has raised their hackles, it simply confirms their super sensitivity about even the mildest of criticism. Thanks for your comments.
Stephen, thank you, but…. how can there be disagreement about the two columns I cited that opposed Jindal’s position? I either did or didn’t so oppose him. You said I supported him, but in both cases I mentioned, I took issue with his position. To quote my May 3 column: “A few pending bills, such as SB79 and SB629, would reverse these gains by giving the governor too much control of the boards, notably by changing the way board members are appointed and by folding the boards into the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority. Such concentration of power is ill-advised; the boards’ semi-autonomy is quite valuable and should be preserved.” And to quote from my April 8 piece, which you wrongly label as supporting Jindal, I concluded like this: “I still don’t like it, for the reasons provided by PAR. Plus, it’s fundamentally deceptive. But in the great scheme of budgetary integrity, it represents just a minor erosion.” That came after several other paragraphs sharply questioning the Jindal practice at issue.
I welcome disagreements with my positions, but not misrepresentations of my position.
As I say, we will just have to disagree, and further arguing makes little sense. I certainly don’t have to explain how mixing criticism with support can enhance the support by giving the impression of objectivity in reaching a positive takeaway. For example, “But, in the great scheme of budgetary integrity, it represents just a minor erosion” – Isn’t that the takeaway: this is no big deal? – Rhetorical question, but I strongly disagree that it is a minor erosion. As I say, no point in further debate. I’m not going to convince you of anything or vice-versa. If you believe you are being fair, so be it. Personal integrity is just that – personal.
P.S. I would encourage people to go here, read all your columns, and draw their own conclusions: http://theadvocate.com/columnists/quinhillyer
Stephen – ask Quin when he plans to move to the state on which he purports to be an expert. As a native Alabamian, I can appreciate the allure of Red Mountain in Birmingham, Alabama and Auburn football games, as well as the seafood jubilees of Mobile Bay. But I’ve no business telling folks in Alabama what’s what about their state since I’ve been away from there for fifteen years. He needs to come back over here and experience firsthand the utopia his champion has created.
http://quinhillyer.com/mary-landrieu-right-wetlands-trust/