The Joes Strike Back!
The Outfoxed gals pile fiction on ignorance, topped by lies. But what happens when their readers start to mutiny? With J$P Audio!
We don't blame anyone for refusing to read the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed mob). They say sometimes it's better to be uninformed than misinformed--and where the hounds are concerned, there is danger of being both! Newspup deborah has been on the job for over a year, and yet still hasn't learned how to spell Mort Kondracke's name. And since it's deborah, we know there has to be at least one mangled quote:
[Tony Snow] claimed that there was one week in July that was the least violent so far in Iraq...
SNOW: We've had a horrible week, no doubt about it. But the month of July was the least violent...
...and everyone just needs to talk about victory more.
SNOW: I think if the President concentrates on talking about victory, he'll win politically.
Then debbie adds to the deception:
According to Kondaracke [sic], CAFTA, good job numbers, Bolton and Roberts were the good news. Then Kondaracke [sic] listed the bad news.
That's easy to say--which is why deb said it. But you can hear Mort's delivery for yourself [mp3 audio file]
Hmm. Was there more to Mort's list than debbie reported? It must have been an oversight. Yeah, that's the ticket. But it's going to be a bit more difficult to explain away Janie's fudging of a recent Dayside broadcast involving the energy bill.
[Mike] Jerrick began the segment by stating that President Bush has finally gotten something that has been on his wishlist for the past 5 years.
He didn't use the term "wishlist", but that's an acceptable paraphrase.
He turned the segment over to Mike Emmanuel [sic] who gave a more "detailed" explination [sic] of what the bill entails...He mentions what the "critics" say very briefly, but never actually delves into any of the points that these critics have issue with.....Fox also neglects to mention that the bill gives $2.7 billion in tax breaks to oil corporations....rather than having to discuss what the bill actually contains, they simply ignore the complaints of the critics, in order to keep the audience in the dark
What probie Janie neglects to mention is that Fox did point out the money going to energy companies:
And before the haters start claiming that putting it on a banner doesn't count, remember that the curs insist that "Fox uses banners at the bottom of the screen to tell viewers what they are supposed to get out of the story". So according to the hounds themselves, Fox was trying to highlight it.
But wait, there's more! Not only was there the banner, but also this exchange:
RICH LOWRY: I'm afraid though, today, I'm going to say some things that Ellis agrees with....This bill represents what Congress does best, which is just spread money around and waste money and throw free money at people, which is does in forms of subsidies for every kind of energy production in the country. So I think it's a bit of a waste of time.
ELLIS HENICAN: It's good for the oil companies, but it doesn't do squat for us. I mean, Americans this summer are paying, what, $2.50 a gallon for gasoline in a lot of places? It will not do anything about that.
What's this? Janie said Fox "ignores" the critics. How can this be? It can only be because Janie made both Lowry and Henican victims of the "invisible man" treatment--what they said didn't match her preconceived frame, so she just erased them from the program.
Meanwhile, newspooch chrish demonstrates why ignorance is not always bliss
[Shepard] Smith read "Scientists testing the wind in New York City in hopes of saving lives should the unthinkable ever happen. They released colorless, harmless gas around the Big Apple today. The goal: see how a chemical or biological weapon might sweep through the city, and figure out the best way to get people out." While viewers are being terrorized by the thought of such an attack, Fox reassures them that the government is working hard to take care of them when it happens. What a powerful soundbite! Regular Fox viewers don't even realized how badly they're yanked, from resenting the government to absolutely trusting it and back again.
Except that the Associated Press report that the story was taken from can be found on scores of news websites. Yes, we know, they're all in it too. They're all being "yanked"--by the AP! Meanwhile, nancy shows herself to be equally ill-informed:
Greg Kelly reported on the US military planning a "domestic military response" in case of a terror attack in the US....If they're leaking this via Fox, is it more than a contingency plan?
Sorry, nancy. Nobody is "leaking via Fox". The story broke in the Washington Post. Oops. But there were unsettling rumblings from the pound:
...the News Hounds have been a little (and I DO mean "a little") overzealous recently, reading bias into FNC reports that isn't necessarily there....Posted by: BIORsGhost
Now look at Melanie's irate exegesis of an article at foxnews.com:
It began: The mother of a fallen U.S. soldier who is holding a roadside peace vigil near President Bush's ranch shares the same grief as relatives mourning the deaths of Ohio Marines, yet their views about the war differ. Comment: "Differ?" Those who "differ" with Sheehan are the blessed. They believe Bush. They don't question Bush. Read the article. As Fox has it, the Ohio relatives are far more patriotic than Cindy Sheehan. Sheehan is a troublemaker. So much for Fox's "support our troops" mantra.
The immediate response was typical, as the credulous are easily convinced:
I think that Fox News knows its audience and believes that they (its audience) doesn't read past the first paragraph - so they put misleading info in the first paragraph. If you go on to actually read the entire article Fox quote [sic] 2 parents of slain Ohio marines - one is backing the war and the other agrees with Cindy Sheehan. Therefore that first paragaph is totally misleading....Posted by: LD
But soon there were more growlings of discontent from the pack:
Nowhere, in the content or tone of the article cited, was there even a slight suggestion that the parents of fallen troops who support the war are more patriotic than Ms. Sheehan. Nor did it imply that she was a "troublemaker."...There was no editorializing by the article writer, whatsoever.... Posted by: Interested Bystander
As it turns out, this horribly slanted article, crafted by Fox to serve its own devious purposes, wasn't written by Fox at all. It is yet another Associated Press report (and says so, right at the top of the piece--nice catch, Mel!). And that repulsive wording, that Melanie claims shows you "as Fox has it", can be found on roughly 70 different news sites that subscribe to the AP. Including CBS News. Oops again.
The discontent simmering among the average Joes was about to erupt. It was nancy who lit the fuse, starting out with a classic hound HeadLie:
Successful Sub Rescue Doesn't Merit an ALERT on Fox
According to nancy, because she saw no alerts at 3:15 in the morning for a rescue that occurred nearly three hours before, therefore there were no alerts whatsoever. That is truly hound logic, and even the kennel dwellers saw through it. And it's great that for once, we can just sit back and let the outraged commenters do our work for us:
They had been covering it since shortly before 10 pm, when the news broke that it was nearly freed. They provided alerts throughout the night, I went to bed around 1 am and had seen it reported several times. I was talking to a friend just before midnight when we both saw a lengthy report that the sub had surfaced and all 7 sailors were alive and safe. It was fully reported that a British vehicle had arrived first and was responsible for the rescue, and nothing negative was said about them. FNC did cover it, just not during the time you were watching. It was at the top and bottom of every hour for the 4 hours I watched, with updates in between as something new broke. With all due respect Nancy, you are absolutely incorrect in saying this story didn't warrant a FOX News Alert. It received several when the news first broke, more than 3 hours before you turned on your TV. Posted by: OverHere
Nancy can't take criticism, so she jumps in with a defense, and starts it out with another falsehood:
The announcement that the sailors had been rescued was made shortly before 3:00am EDT.
Huh? What announcement? The one she happened to see on some web page? Actually they were rescued during the 12:00am EDT hour, as Fox reported, live--and, yes, with an "alert" and "interruption of a rebroadcast".
When the story was unfolding, Fox was all over it, with multiple ALERTS & special emphasis on one aspect (rah rah US Navy). When the story ended with a successful rescue (by someone other than the US Navy) Fox buried it. Get it? Got it? Good. Posted by: nancy
But the Joes weren't buying it:
I think everyone knows how much I loathe Fox News, but to be fair, I saw that the sailors had been rescued--on FOX while channel-surfing--at about 10pm CDT last night. So if you were watching 4-5 hours later, you probably wouldn't have seen an interruption of programming because it was old news already. Posted by: Sandi
Finally, our buddy "the reasonable man" offered this commentary:
There were alerts all over the place when the rescue actually took place, hours before she decided to start watching. But rather than admit her wording was imprecise, she stonewalls, digs in, and does it again: "When the story ended with a successful rescue (by someone other than the US Navy) Fox buried it." How would you know? You weren't watching when the story ended with a successful rescue. You were watching hours later, in the middle of the night.
This, of course, was the last straw. These uppity commenters have to know who's boss. So nancy rushed to the delete key to nip this insurrection in the bud.
Ah, that's much better. Nice and peaceful now. The rabble have been put in their place. That will show them. They won't dare question hound authority again.
posted: Tue - August 9, 2005 at 03:39 PM j$p  send
Wow Johnny, I'm honored!
I'm sure this is clear from my comments, but I have never supported the poodles or any of their faithful. I don't play their stupid sniping games and in spite of their idiocy and irrational name-calling I try to remain civil to them, but I definitely do not agree with their positions or their evil hater agenda.
But again, I am honored to be quoted on your Web site!
August 10, 2005, 5:24:38 PM EDT – Like – Reply
OverHere, it's good to have you overhere. You tried to show them the path of truth and honesty; it's not your fault that it didn't take!
August 10, 2005, 5:52:51 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Thanks Johnny! It was actually the hounds who clued me in to your Web site, they bash it so much over there I figured it must be worth checking out. I'm glad I did!!
August 10, 2005, 7:43:38 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Wow. I made J$. Thanks!
August 10, 2005, 9:26:24 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Here's an idea....
Collect a sampler of some of the incredibly hate-filled ravings of some of the regulars there.
There are a few that could REALLY use some therapy / medications for the churning boiling rage they express towards anyone who doesn't toe the line, or who questions the veracity or interpretations posted by the "Hounds.
The thread from 8/10...
O'Reilly should retract..."
seems to provide some good examples...
"Big talker, huh, all talk and no action, as usual from a 1" l*mp d*ck!
...you f@Here's an idea.... Collect a sampler of some of the incredibly hate-filled ravings of some of the regulars there. There are a few that could REALLY use some therapy / medications for the churning boiling rage they express towards anyone who doesn't toe the line, or who questions the veracity or interpretations posted by the "Hounds. The thread from 8/10... O'Reilly should retract..." seems to provide some good examples... "Big talker, huh, all talk and no action, as usual from a 1" l*mp d*ck! ...you f@$&ing coward...." [language editing by J$] and what would any discussion among the true believers be without the gratuitous accusation that our soldiers / Marines are war criminals? "there could be some 'doubts' as to why they were sent to a war based on LIES and then have to think about some of the atrocities they were forced to participate in!!!" Please, Johnny....Won't you help?ing coward...." [language editing by J$]
and what would any discussion among the true believers be without the gratuitous accusation that our soldiers / Marines are war criminals?
"there could be some 'doubts' as to why they were sent to a war based on LIES and then have to think about some of the atrocities they were forced to participate in!!!"
Please, Johnny....Won't you help?
August 11, 2005, 7:31:29 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Oh tomaig, their hatred for the military is legendary. My boyfriend died over in Iraq and I once posted that over there (don't ask me why, it was in a thread about the number of casualties reaching 1700) and their regulars expressed sympathy for me in one breath, and then went on spewing their venom in the next. One idiot even had the courtesy to wait until the next day before calling him a war criminal. But he died bringing supplies to our troops and Iraqi villagers. And his job during the war was flying wounded Marines and soldiers to the hospital. None of that mattered to them. He wore the uniform of the United States Marine Corps so he was a war criminal. I don't even read their military comments anymore because they just make me mad.
But like Johnny's article shows (in an effort to say SOMETHING on-topic here...lol), their commenters (even the regulars) are starting to see through them. It's only a matter of time before they will implode and I can't say I'll be sorry to see it happen.
August 11, 2005, 11:08:03 AM EDT – Like – Reply
It's only a matter of time before they will implode and I can't say I'll be sorry to see it happen.
I hope there's a Fox News Alert when that happens.
August 11, 2005, 11:55:47 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Not to be too off-topic, but the same mutiny is taking place with the comparisons betwwen Beth Holloway Twitty and Cindy Sheehan. It's actually funny to watch.
August 12, 2005, 10:03:13 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Good afternoon, rightwing, chickenhawk, brainwashed, am-hate jock parroting, FNC-worshiping, USA destroying, mental patients who don't comprehend the phrase "intelligence is fixed around policy", or know what a "neocon" is or who they are in your own party, even though they've hijacked it and now control it along with moronic televangelist types. And, who are too freakin stupid to tell the obvious difference between propaganda and news... I found your utterly pathetic little bit of cyberspace...
So - I think, just for ducks, I'll play "Johnny (|)" on this site from time to time. Congrats, Johnny (|), you now have THREE unique visitors to your pointless masturbatory circle jerk of a blog.
'Cept, unlike Mr. Dollar, I'm not a nitpicker caught up in ridiculous minutiae, while completely losing site of the "big pic" in some overzealous (and silly) attempt at a "gotcha" moment. I just sooooooooo love to rub your face in the reeking sh*$t of your own lack of logic.
Besides, this joint needs a little action. To much of a FNC love fest/circle-jerk happening... I'll post with a barfbag nearby...
You have been given fair warning. Prepare to have your insipidness exposed. If I insult you along the way, try not to get too psychologically damaged... more than you already appear to be, anyway.
Prepare to be exposed and "exploded".
August 25, 2005, 6:12:57 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Hi Johnny (|),
Ya saw fit to overstate your case using my quote, which was a fair criticism of ONE particular thread (OBTW... would you EVER adknowldege if YOU actually agreed with one of their criticisms of FNC??? 'Course not! Wanna know why??? Because you're 100% intellectually dishonest...)
I digress, so why didn't you post THIS quote???
Let's expose Johnny $...
Part 1. :
"The Transportation Security Administration, which administers the lists, instructs airlines not to deny boarding to children under 12 or select them for extra security checks even if their names match those on a list."
--- Fair enough point. However, he leaves out the very next sentence:
"But it happens anyway. Debby McElroy, president of the Regional Airline Association, said: "Our information indicates it happens at every major airport."
--- and the next one:
The TSA has a "passenger ombudsman" who will investigate individual claims from passengers who say they are mistakenly on the lists. TSA spokeswoman Yolanda Clark said 89 children have submitted their names to the ombudsman. Of those, 14 are under the age of 2.
Comment: This is an example of a 1/2 truth. And, it's classic Johnny $. The "BIG PICTURE" is the administration's policies via the TSA "No Fly List" is causing confusion at airports. In fact the title of the article is... "Babies Caught Up in 'No-Fly' Confusion". It's sites that at one airport 14 or 89 of names on the "No Fly" list are under the age of 2(!). That's 16%(!) under the age of 2 on the list.
1. The adminstration's execution of their security procedures is pretty pathetic if 16% of the names on the list in the example I've referenced are less than 2 years old.
2. The administration's execution of their security procedures is EXTREMELY lacking in terms of insuring there is a clear understanding at the entry point - the airports, as evident in the (willfully out of context) passage ->YOU
August 25, 2005, 6:58:45 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Sorry, BIOR, but you are mistaken. The point is not who is at fault, the administration, the airport, or your next door neighbor. You're new here, so you're going to have to understand this. If you want to say the Bush adminsitration is responsible for this, the tsunamis, and sunspots, knock yourself out.
My point is not who's responsible, but rather that the quote, used by the hounds to prove Fox bias, originated with the Associated Press. The AP article had a lot of quotes in it, but I'm not going to waste space going over every line in the AP story.
The hounds focused on that ONE LINE. They claimed its purpose was to prevent anyone from blaming the Bush administration. How could that have been the purpose of it, when it came from the Associated Press? Was the AP also trying to protect Bush?
Mel took a line that came from the AP and painted it as a Fox trick to protect Bush. But oops, she didn't do her homework and didn't realize it came from the AP. That's why, when the fact came out, she did a secret, sleath rewrite of her article, shifting the attention to the fact that the line came at the tail end of the interview. And unfortunately for Mel, that lie has been exposed too.
August 25, 2005, 7:19:18 PM EDT – Like – Reply