Nancy with the Lying Face


You'd think a good liar would be clever enough to lie without getting caught, over and over. Not this Outfoxed gal. Updated!

There's been a strange flip-flop over at the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed cabal). Just a few months ago the Party Line about Brit Hume's Grapevine segment was that it was a dumping ground for stories that they wanted to hide. This is where they snuck in news that the eeevil Fox wants to "diminish" and not give any weight.

But there's a new mastiff in town, and newspooch nancy has suddenly decided that the Grapevine is the most important two minutes on all of Fox. 15 "reports" over just 12 days about what we had been told was nothing more than a "gossip minute". How does nefarious nancy do it? Let us count the lies:
[Brit] Hume said that Kerry "came out firing" in his response to Bush's "plan for victory" in Iraq. According to Hume, Kerry said that the presence of US troops "presents food for the insurgency. And you need to reduce that presence." Hume then tried to imply that Kerry was flip-flopping on this, saying that "just 5 months ago" Kerry "argued exactly the opposite."...
Kerry was NOT "arguing exactly the opposite." 5 months ago. What Kerry said back then -- remember, this is according to Hume -- was that "US generals were telling him" there aren't enough troops on the ground in Iraq.. Hume knows there's a huge difference, & it's beyond disingenous [sic] for him to claim otherwise....

Nancy is lying about what Kerry said:

"The borders are porous and uncovered," Sen. John Kerry said on NBC's "Today." "We don't have enough troops in Iraq."

Kerry wasn't just citing generals (which would still have been arguing for more troops...sorry, nance) but flat-out said it himself. Then we get nancy's lie #2:
Kerry was NOT "arguing exactly the opposite."

We'll take this nice and slow so even a newshound can understand it. A: not enough troops. B: too many troops. A is the opposite of B. The two concepts are what is called, in technical terms, "opposites".
As always, note the tabloid lanugage [sic]: Kerry "came out firing."...If you'd like to complain to Fox about this, email: special@foxnews.com

How's this for "tabloid language":

Senator John F. Kerry, D-Mass., came out firing against President Bush's handling of the war...

That report appears on the website of that extremist tabloid outfit, PBS. And then there's this:

In a letter to his 3 million supporters Kerry came out firing in a blistering critique of the Bush Administration...

From the reactionary gang at "Independents for John Kerry".

But nancy isn't done yet, as she fingers yet another gross distortion from Mr Hume in reporting on the peace activists held hostage in Iraq:
Hume said that they had beenkidnapped [sic] "by terrorists".... As always, note the language: the 4 were kidnapped 'by terrorists" rather than by insurgents.... If you'd like to complain to Fox about this, email: special@foxnews.com

Nancy neglected to mention this outrageous, biased headline:

Iraq Terrorists Show Off Hostages

Oh, we forgot to mention, this headline is not from Fox. It's from that right-wing, tabloid outfit: CBS News. Does little nancy even know what the definition of terrorism is?

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature

No, she insists that these kidnappers are just "insurgents", people who are merely "rebelling against the leadership of a political party". This bit of semantic dishonesty is close enough to be lie #3, but why settle for close, when nancy can give us the real thing:
Last night (12/1) Hume led off the Grapevine segment on Special Report with another one of those Fox polls that seems entirely divorced from reality.... I dug around the Fox News website a little bit, but couldn't find this poll. I was curious to see exactly how the questions were phrased or if any other questions were asked....

If this isn't a lie, then nancy is the most incompetent, addle-brained internet user on the planet, since the entire poll was on the website long before she claimed it wasn't.
Ever since I first started monitoring Fox, I've found these "polls" highly suspect -- there's never any explanation of methodology...

Lie #3. The methodology is completely explained, as to sampling, interviewing, accuracy, and weighting; the latest detailing been sitting online at Fox since June of 2004. What's more, right on the home page for the Fox Polls (available from a drop down menu on every foxnews.com page), is this clickable graphic:



But nancy has more lies:
...they never specify the population from which subjects were drawn...

Lie #4.
...they never tell you how the original questions were framd [sic]...

Lie #5. They do all of these things, not just for this latest poll, but for each poll Opinion Dynamics releases.
Fox & its polling partner, Opinion Dynamics, are opaque about the details of their polls.

Lie #6.
Most reputable & non-partisan pollsters provide reams & reams of boring background data, well beyond the simple margin of error. Not Opinion Dynamics.

And that makes lie #7.
If you'd like to complain to Fox about this, email: special@foxnews.com

And if you'd like to complain to Google News about circulating the prevarications of an incompetent Fox-hating buffoon and liar: http://www.google.com/support/news.

Update: The following comment was submitted to the newshounds website correcting nancy's errors:

---comment submission---
From: factchecker

"So I dug around the Fox News website a little bit, but couldn't find this poll."
It must have been a REAL little bit, since all you have to do is pull down the opinion menu (on every page) to go to the Fox Polls home page. It's been that way for years. All the details and background on this poll were posted YESTERDAY, when the poll was released.

"there's never any explanation of methodology"
Untrue. The latest article on their methodology has been up for the past year and a half.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95854,00.html

"they never specify the population from which subjects were drawn, & they never tell you how the original questions were framd. "
Untrue. They do it for every poll, including this one.
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/poll_120105.pdf

"Most reputable & non-partisan pollsters provide reams & reams of boring background data, well beyond the simple margin of error. Not Opinion Dynamics."
Untrue. All of this and more, archived for dozens of polls conducted throughout the year:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95854,00.html

Someone is not telling the truth here, and owes Fox and Opinion Dynamics a big-time apology. What say you, Nancy?
---end submission--

With all of these points proven demonstrably false, what has nancy done? Did she admit her "mistakes" and correct her article? Did she apologize? Did she issue a retraction? Certainly not. Those are steps that an honest, ethical writer would immediately take. But a liar reacts differently: don't change a word, allow all the falsehoods to stand, and block the comment from even appearing on the page. The same points were submitted by another blogger, who was promptly banned from posting over there. (Welcome to the club, Mike!)

If there had been any doubt, there is none now: nancy is a liar.

posted: Fri - December 2, 2005 at 11:35 AM       j$p  send 
|