Newshounds Outfoxed! Secret Posts Recovered from Server?

J$P Exclusive! Sometimes the apprentice pups at the Outfoxed-sponsored website make a small error and post something that doesn't quite fit their agenda. But on the internet, can you really delete anything for good?

The gals at Newshounds, another fine product from the Outfoxed cabal, use many of that film's editing tricks to paint a picture of rampant bias at Fox News. But what would happen if a young cub newshound pored over today's tapes of FNC and chose quotes that weren't quite what the site's bagmen had in mind? They would be deleted immediately, of course; but on the internet, if one moves quickly, you can grab things before they completely vanish...

Fox & Friends Spinning for Linda Ronstadt
On today's show, co-host Steve Doocy revealed again his blatant partisanship as he continued to beat the drums for leftist singer Linda Rondstadt. Doocy fawned: "Linda Ronstadt last night was in Los Angeles; she had a big performance. First words out of her mouth were, 'Seen any good movies lately?'. She got a standing ovation." And of course, to drive the point home that we are supposed to admire this singer and everything she does, co-host E.D. Hill rushed in to add, "That's funny!" What's funny is how obvious it is that Fox News will do anything to promote the Democrat agenda.

Pushing the 9/11 Party Line
At 9:11 this morning (can that possibly be a coincidence? I don't think so!) Fox correspondent Catherine Herridge showed up with a copy of the final 9//11 commission report. Who leaked it to her ahead of time, Richard Ben Veniste or Jamie Gorelick? Why couldn't they wait until 11:30 when the news is supposed to come out? Were they that eager to bash Bush? Isn't it suspicious that no other network had the story so far ahead of time?

Fox Gives Free Air Time to Kerry
It's no surprise that as soon as reporters started questioning the 9/11 commissioners about their report, Fox cut away to give air time to Gore advisor Marc Ginsberg to spin for the Democrats. Perhaps Fox didn't want you to hear the Chairman of the commission tell about the connections to Iraq. But there was more to it than that. For some reason, when John Kerry stepped up to give his reactions to the report, Fox dropped everything and went to Kerry live, and covered his meaningless statement complete! It's always interesting when one news network covers something that the others don't, and neither CNN nor MSNBC cut away to Kerry for his live comments. Just another example of Fox's blatant Democrat propaganda.

Cavuto Twists Market Analysis
Neil Cavuto has been more than obvious in recent weeks, avoiding what is supposed to be the topic of his show--business and the economy--in order to focus on bad news from Iraq, or to give more air time to promoting the Democrat convention. But today he did bring in a group of market analysts and actually broached the subject of why the market is going down. Several of these financial pro's suggested it may be because John Kerry's poll numbers are going up. Cavuto, of course, would have none of this, and immediately defended his pal Bill Clinton: "You know, it wasn't as if the market tumbled under Bill Clinton, a Democrat." Then he really laid into his guests: "This crowd certainly has its biases!" and followed that with a loaded question: "The fact of the matter is, does Wall Street ahead of the fact tend to fear more than it actually has to deal with in reality?" But when the market experts didn't toe the line with Cavuto's intended spin, he quickly jumped in to change the subject to terrorism--once again, avoiding business news to scare Americans into thinking that George Bush is not protecting them.

We Report, and Report, and Report
Funny how John Kerry gets a bump in the latest Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, and all of a sudden it's huge news. They have to report it during the day, over and over, then repeat the poll data again during the evening shows. Do you really believe they would be hyping these numbers if they showed Kerry still behind? Just more proof that FNC is an arm of the Democratic party!

O'Reilly's No-Spin Zone Goes Vertiginous
The master was in fine fettle tonight, presenting a partisan pageant of one Democrat after another. First he plugs (again!) that 9/11 report with the commission's co-chairmen, gratuitously adding that he support all of their recommendations. All of them! So much for being an independent. Then he spends an entire segment with an advisor from the discredited Clinton administration, followed by a genteel love-fest with another Democrat, Congressman Harold Ford Jr ("I like you, and I respect you," O'Reilly gushed!). A nice one-two punch of partisan bias. To complete the trifecta of favoritism, he runs again his softball interview with the disreputable Bush-hater Al Sharpton! On a day with so much breaking news, what possible motive would have to run this again, other than to give more free publicity to the Democrats?

Hannity & Colmes: A Small Step in the Right Direction?
We have been complaining long and hard about Alan Colmes's arrogant "counting down the days to the election of John Kerry". Could there be any more obvious proof that Fox News is in the Democrats' pocket? Tonight, there was a small nod to even-handedness...they actually allowed Sean Hannity to do a countdown to the election of George Bush. Whoah, how did that happen? Didn't the producers get the memo? Obviously they are feeling the heat from our website and its many thousands of readers; that's the only explanation.

All the facts and quotes in the above summaries are 100% true. The comments, however, are completely made up, using the same techniques of selective editing and innuendo that the newshounds employ. The purpose for this exercise? To show how simple it is to manipulate, even if you limit yourself to telling the truth. As our reports have shown, the newshounds are not so restricted, therefore it's even easier for them. The moral of our little story: caveat lector.

posted: Thu - July 22, 2004 at 11:10 PM       j$p  send 
What source do you have for these allegedly repressed posts? As a wary reader, I'd like some support behind such accusations. cites its sources. While it's ultimately an editorial site worthy "a grain of salt," it doesn't come to conclusions maliciously.
Also, what is proven with these posts besides is a public digital medium? Unfortunate, unintentional misinformation occasionally leaks out. They could be erroneous posts from contributors; perhaps even hacker attacks.
Censorship isn't carefully crafting your message. It isn't focusing members' motivations. It isn't a community or organization with an agenda. Censorship is agendas institutionalized and subsidized, weakening others' voices. It surfaces when someone franchised turns to the masses and says, "I have a mandate; you're only allowed one question."
Censorship is not practicing discrimination; journalistic, literary, or editorial. It's the legitimized suppression of it. "Caveat
November 16, 2004, 5:01:56 PM EST – Like – Reply

..."Caveat Lector," indeed.
Even under 1000 characters, my comment was truncated. Sorry about that!
November 16, 2004, 5:04:58 PM EST – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
You need to re-read the last paragraph of the piece more carefully. I think you have sort of missed the point.
November 16, 2004, 5:25:14 PM EST – Like – Reply

You wanted to address the motivation, accuracy, and credibility of the site, did you not? You wanted to criticize a site dedicated to criticizing a very specific cable channel; perfectly within your First Amendment rights as an online editorial author. You see, we both share a uniquely American punditry tier with Michael Wilson, the writer, producer, and director of "Michael Moore Hates America." We're all challenging some challenger. That doesn't mean your opinion is well-founded, however.
I believe your suppression indignation towards is either an outcry against censorship or a non-issue. Either you feel the site accomplishes nothing but unfairly besmirching FNC or you're simply complaining about the editorial nature of an editorial site. Satire, of course, would fall into the " is libelous" category.
Which would it be?
November 17, 2004, 1:30:25 AM EST – Like – Reply