Fantasyland Spin-o-Rama


The Outfoxed gals produce a hounducopia of slanders, fiction, lies, and inanity.

We' weren't sure what to call this. How does one describe an aggregation of falsehoods, phony quotes, lies, and plain old stupidity? Perhaps one word can summarize all these concepts: newshounds.

We begin with some good old-fashioned ignorance:
O'REILLY: The ACLU has sided with the conservative commentator, saying a person's medical records should not be given to prosecutors unless there's a specific reason why. But three [sic - it was actually two] judges appointed by a Democrat and one Republican-appointed judge disagreed.

Um, no, Marie-Therese. If only two judges plus one disagreed with the ACLU, then the ACLU (and Limbaugh) would have won. (You see, three judges out of seven leaves four, and four is one more than three. Got it?) M-T actually makes a snarky comment that trumpets her own mistake as a "correction"!
NAPOLITANO: We thought it was going to be a political decision, because Rush Limbaugh is so controversial. But, I don't think it was. Of the three dissenting judges - remember the Supreme Court of Florida, seven [sic - it was actually four] justices decided not to hear the appeal

M-T is zero for two. The Florida Supreme Court, which decided not to hear the appeal, consists of seven judges, as Napolitano said, not four, as M-T bizarrely claims. Individual judges didn't "decide" anything; they can only give an opinion. The Court--all seven of them--renders decisions. Again, the hounds introduce their own mistakes into what had been an error-free analysis. But that's why moneybags Gilliam pays them the big bucks.

Next, the newspups warn us of horrible bias with a typically hysterical headline:
Gibson carrying so much water for Bush, developing camel's hump
The spin was dizzying
on the Big Story with John Gibson 5/3/05. Gibson and Fox believe Bush is the man when it comes to leading the "war on terror" and we haven't suffered another attack since 9/11 because of his policies. One of the laws passed 2 years ago required airline pilots to be trained and equipped with firearms...

Another example of hound ignorance. Pilots are not required by any law to be armed or trained. In fact, the guest being interviewed, Bob Giuda, was there explaining why so many pilots were not taking advantage of what is an optional program.

But it's hardly surprising that the tail-waggers didn't even understand the interview, since they completely misconstrued (or deliberately lied about) John Gibson. What did Mr Gibson say that "carried so much water for Bush" that the "spin was dizzying"? Believe it or not, these are the questions that the hounds cite:
  • "Shouldn't it be difficult for pilots to carry a gun on board?"
  • "You're saying that they've arbitrarily, well not arbitrarily, purposely put up an obstacle course to make it difficult for a pilot to qualify to carry a gun on board. How?"
  • "Tell me what you had to go through to get your license to carry a gun in the cockpit."
  • "OK but what else, you said they set up obstacles in the way of pilots doing it, like what?"
  • "Bob Giuda, thank you very much. I think we see there's a problem. I appreciate it. Bob Giuda is the founding chairman of Airline Pilots' Security Alliance, Bob, thank you very much."

Newspoodle chrish isn't through with Mr Gibson. Complaining about some "new graphic overload" on-screen (itself a lie since she referenced nothing that hasn't been going on for months, and not just on Fox), she comes up with an assertion so preposterous that words fail us. You have to read it to believe it:
On numerous occassions [sic] I've had people tell me, when they find out what I do, that doctors have asked them/their parents if they watch Fox, and have told them to stop watching it because it is aggravating their hypertension and other illnesses.

And don't forget to sleep under a pyramid to keep your ectoplasm aligned with Aquarius.

Regarding the number one business news program on the planet, Melanie is (surprise!) upset:
If you looked at Neil Cavuto's website before the show today, you probably assumed that the discussion about the "dismal trading year" would be the first segment and lead topic. Not so. The first segment was a long (six minute) interview with Tommy Franks...The roundtable discussion took place 24 minutes into the show. Comment: First things first, like spinning the war for one boss man and selling books for the other.

Melanie would have you believe Bush is the "boss man" and Fox has to serve as his propaganda arm. But Melanie is a virtuoso at the lie of omission, and this one is a doozy. It's another example of the invisible man technique--simply don't mention a topic or guest because you don't want to disrupt your disinformation with the truth. But again, J$P will tell you want the tail-waggers don't want you to know. There was something else in that 24 minutes: it was a one-on-one interview segment with Rep Charlie Rangel on why he opposes the Bush social security plan.



What? How can this be? Cavuto is all about "spinning" for Bush? What's a newshound to do? That's easy: just erase Rangel's appearance and hope the gullible won't notice.

Ellen is the mastiff who monitors the Fox News website, and like all the hounds, she often barks up the wrong tree. How dare Fox put things on their front page like the teens rescued from sea or Lynndie England's guilty plea? :
...MSNBC's 130 Dead Since Thursday In Iraq, a top story on MSNBC.com....Also, FOXNews.com has a specially written news report on the praying teens whereas the "real journalism" network relies on AP for its article on Iraq.

Could it be that once again there's something the curs don't want us to know? Perhaps it is the slightly inconvenient fact that the wonderful MSNBC story--just like the Fox article--came from the Associated Press. They won't tell you. We will.

Meanwhile, Melanie fancies herself a sleuth, but only reveals her obtuseness:
I went to Fox's website to see how the "Common Sense" posted there compared to the televised version...In the third paragraph of the "Common Sense" posted on Fox's site, the words in bold print, below, are missing, though they were included in the televised version:

That's why in our business block of shows you'll notice something, notice it very carefully: There's always, always, a bull to counter the bear and a bear to counter the bull; a conservative to take on the liberal and a liberal to take on the conservative. All the time.
Debate means hearing positions you may not like, including my own, but hearing them argued out just the same.
Some positions you like. Others you don't. But I think you're better served hearing them thrashing things out than you would be if we ever left any of them out, and we don't.

These hugely substantive changes, according to Melanie, are evidence of some dire plot to "lie about lies". Sorry, Einstein. When there is time to spare, news commentators pad out the text and ad-lib. When time is short, they cut things from the script. Duh.

Our gal ellen is still pouring over the fox news website, proving again that if a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, no knowledge whatsoever is catastrophic. She notes articles on the site about Iraq and Afghanistan, and then opines:
But the top story during the news break before After Hours with Cal Thomas was, "The runaway bride is back in Georgia."...Not a word about Iraq or Afghanistan.

Are there really people so credulous as to swallow such slop? One 90-second update of the latest headlines, at 11:00 pm on a Saturday night, is supposed to mean what, exactly? Does ellen really believe that nobody can just surf on over to Google's video service and see how many times Fox reported on Iraq or Afghanistan on Saturday? Try it and see how clicking on page after page will create instant carpal-tunnel. But the only thing ellen thinks is worth reporting is one 90-second headline update. We wonder why. (No, we don't.)

And what would any report on the Outfoxed gals be without a phony, doctored quote? If it's a tradition for the doggies, it's a tradition for us to expose them:
Brenda Butner [sic], Bull & Bears,created a scenario of a miraculous stock market recovery on Friday caused by the Presidential Press Conference on Thursday night."Stocks falling fast. The president took on his critics. Just like that..."

Not only has this quote been heavily doctored, but deceitful deborah (master of the counterfeit quotation) put the ellipses (for hound readers, that's the three dots) that indicate editing not where she cut huge slices out, but at the end. Why there? Because if she included the rest of that sentence fragment, it would reveal more than deborah wanted you to know. Once again, we tell you what they won't:

BUTTNER: Stocks falling fast in April. It was shaping up to be one of the worst months in over two years for the market. But then President Bush took on his critics and took his case to America, selling his social security and his energy plans. And just like that oil drops below 50 bucks, some whispers his plan to privatize social security might have a shot, and stocks surge to end the week.
Unfortunatly [sic], nobody on the panel agreed with her assessment...

Tsk, tsk. Another lie.

TOBIN SMITH [CHANGEWAVE RESEARCH]: He's been out for 60 days trying to sell this thing, OK? And I think that was baking the market....

GARY B SMITH [REALMONEY.COM]: I think that definitely there is a correlation with the oil prices.
Of course Butner got the fantasy out to viewers which is all that really counts on FNC.

The real fantasy can be seen by contrasting the newshounds' tendentious spin with the truth. That's fantasy even Mr Roark couldn't make come true.

posted: Wed - May 4, 2005 at 02:13 AM       j$p  send 

Mike
When I read the latest flurry of activity by the newshounds, I knew you wouldn't let this garbage go by without comment.
 
They won't last four more years.
May 4, 2005, 2:38:26 PM EDT – Like – Reply


john t
Boy Dollar you accuse the Newshounds of misinterperting things. What she said if you could read was that it was only two judges appointed by a Democrat. Meaning only two judges were appointed by a Democrat not three. The rest of that was O'Reilly talking. Damn you are getting hard up.
May 5, 2005, 7:14:00 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Nice try john boy, but you are again incorrect. According to her corrections it was 2 judges + 1 = 3. And three out of seven cannot possibly make a majority. I know that's beyond the comprehension of the newspoodles, but I didn't realize that even their readers don't possess simple arithmatic skills.
 
Now perhaps you'd like to address deceitful deborah's latest doctored quote? And her lie about what the panel said? The floor is yours.
May 5, 2005, 9:41:41 PM EDT – Like – Reply


john t
It's really too bad you don't have common sense to see what she was saying. I would tell everyone here to go read it and see for themselves. But hell, nobody's here except you and your little buddy Mickey.
May 5, 2005, 11:10:25 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
And you.
 
Now perhaps you'd like to address deceitful deborah's latest doctored quote? And her lie about what the panel said? The floor is yours.
May 6, 2005, 12:35:38 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Mike
> Boy Dollar you accuse the Newshounds of misinterperting [sic] things. What she said if you could read was that it was only two judges appointed by a Democrat. Meaning only two judges were appointed by a Democrat not three.
 
===================
 
This is a classic example of a brain-dead hounds follower. Besides the bad spelling and grammar, he bases his comments on totally erroneous information.
 
According to their official web site, the Florida Supreme Court denied certiorari in Rush's case by a vote of 4-3:
 
WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS and BELL, JJ., concur.
PARIENTE, C.J., and QUINCE and CANTERO, JJ., dissent. [cut-and-pasted from the pdf file of the decision]
 
More cut-and-paste:
Justice Charles T. Wells assumed his duties as Justice of the Supreme Court on June 16, 1994, after being appointed by Governor Lawton Chiles.
Justice Anstead was appointed to the Florida Supreme Court August 29, 1994, by Democratic Governor Lawton Chiles. 
Justice R. Fred Lewis was appointed to the Supreme Court of Florida on December 7, 1998, by the late Gov. Lawton Chiles.
Justice Kenneth B. Bell was appointed to the Florida Supreme Court on December 30, 2002, by Governor Jeb Bush 
 
Count: Three (3) judges who concurred [disagreed with the ACLU] were appointed by a democrat; one (1) was appointed by a republican. 
 
O'REILLY said: "The ACLU has sided with the conservative commentator, saying a person's medical records should not be given to prosecutors unless there's a specific reason why. But three judges appointed by a Democrat and one Republican-appointed judge disagreed."
 
Only an idiot - like "john t" - would try to defend the newshounds unresearched comment "[sic - it was actually two]."
 
My previous prediction stands: they won't last four more years.
May 6, 2005, 4:59:50 AM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Mike, in one fell swoop you not only document the stupidity of the hounds, but also show that "john t" (as usual) has no idea what he's talking about. Either he makes it up as he goes along, or else he is blindly parroting what his hound masters have told him to say.
 
After his arguments have been exposed as a fraud, what do you think the odds are that "john t" will show up again in this thread? Slim and none. And Slim just left town.
May 6, 2005, 10:53:28 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Mike
I found this exchange on newshounds' off-topic area. This explains a lot about "john t" and his abilities:
 
> I have a help me request. Anyone know enough about computers to help me figure something out? I had all those problems with the system last week, and now I can't seem to run anything flash, etc. 
- Posted by: Kim, Pb.D at May 3, 2005
 
Another newshounds follower, blessed with the usual superior intelligence not possessed by mere right-wingers, put in his help:
 
> Kim, I had a similar problem a couple months ago. I had to save everything I wanted on to disk and then 'Format and Recover'. It kind of sucked at the time having to go through all my files, but afterwards I was really happy because my computer was all clean like it was when it was new. [Comment: Well, goll-lee!] 
- Posted by: Michael, IfK at May 3, 2005
 
"john t" quickly joined the discussion, and, displaying his superior grammatical skills, revealed the true source of his computer skills and articulated a possible solution:
 
> This might not be much help. But there is a way you can change you computer back to a date when it was working right. My wife's had to do it a couple times with ours but she's not here right now. If anyone knows what I'm talking about that way you don't lose anything.
- Posted by: john t at May 3, 2005
 
[Comment: Could this be the top-secret "System Restore" feature only available to those who have access to the Windows "Help and Support" function?] 
 
We are certainly fortunate to have these intellectual giants looking over and advising us!
May 7, 2005, 9:34:22 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Mike
I can't resist the opportunity given me by a newshounds' commenter to expand on my last point. "John L" posted, in a thread about Rupert Murdock starting his own blog, that Rupert can't "counter them with a blog of his own because I see two possible outcomes...The first possibility is that it is unfiltered and the intelligent, articulate, witty folks who post here would go there and show how ridiculous and disconnected from reality their GOP talking points are."
 
Well, "john t" is a prime example of an "intelligent" folk with his superb, in-depth research. His skills of articulation are surpassed only by such folk as "bruce wright," who posted on May 7, 2005:
 
"yesterday on cavoto -he was interview lady about diet - he asked her some question about children -thinking children would call her a b----for having them diet like her -think not appropriate for this time of day -around 4:45 pm -friday afternoon -bruce wright"
 
As for "witty" folk - the only clean example I can find is this post by the cretin "BushIsOurRuination" on May 7, 2005:
 
"Hey, Rupy... BLOG Dis! I gotchya BLOG fer ya, right here."
 
[Comment: That really slays me!]
May 8, 2005, 1:37:39 AM EDT – Like – Reply