Snow Job


Even when it's spelled out for them, the Outfoxed gals refuse to tell the truth. With J$P Video!

The Fox haters are at it again. And since you can't teach an old dog new tricks, the same old hoary flimflams are the order of the day with the newshounds (another fine product from the Outfoxed gang).

There's nothing new about the "invisible man" technique. How to make Fox look biased? Report on a program by cherry-picking all the things that fit the frame, and just leave out anything or anyone who doesn't. Since the mob doesn't watch Fox they'll believe anything, no matter how many times you've been caught in a lie. This time it's a report on John Kasich's Heartland, where Liar in Training Priscilla railed against Bill O'Reilly's appearance. Here is how she describes the broadcast:
Imagine my surprise and delight when John Kasich said that the “culture warrior” himself, that Samurai of sensibility, that paragon of virtue, Bill O’Reilly would be making a guest appearance on Heartland yesterday 12/2/06. As part of the theme, the demise of culture in the US, Kasich would also be doing segments on “important stories” such as Britney Spears without underwear, animal attacks, and people trying to sell their children for new Play Stations [sic].

From that point an extended attack on Mr Bill filled out the "coverage" of Heartland. And that was that. See, it was nothing but right-wing "paranoia" and mindless fluff. How odd, since when we watched the program, it included these guys:



For Priscilla's information, that's Sen Obama (D) on the left, and on the right Rev Jim Wallis, who delivered the Democrat radio response earlier that day. They didn't fit the biased bowsers' frame, so they became the invisible men.

But this next is destined to become an instant hound classic. It all began when Donna posted this:
John Bolton Resigns - Fox Only Shows White House Side
...Fox took the time to tell us what Tony Snow thought of the resignation but no one else.... this is Fox News, where they do the deciding and they decided to just give the Republican, specifically the Bush administration view of the resignation.

Uh oh. Caught in the act again. Not Fox. The newsliars. Within minutes we posted this comment:
  • Good point, except that it isn't true. The 15-second clip from Tony Snow was followed by a statement by John Kerry giving the other point of view. You should strive for a little more accuracy.

At this point, it seemed settled. After all, responsible writers would issue a correction or retraction, and apologize. But that didn't happen. An hour went by. Two hours. Three hours. Still nothing. And then it came:
Today I reported on Fox reporting that John Bolton had resigned and they had only given the Bush administrations [sic] side. Things were a little different when it came to Studio B today. They ran the same Bolton resigns story but this time they had another perspective to the story. This time they had a blurb by John Kerry saying that we need an Ambassador that has the full support of Congress. Comment: Which got me to thinking -- is Fox reading News Hounds? They used the same story but added the statement by John Kerry, which is specifically what I had pointed out was missing from the Fox On Line story - no Democratic perspective.

Um, no. That is the same Kerry statement they used the first time. Something is seriously awry when the newspooches have the facts spelled out for them, handed to them on a platter, and they still won't tell the truth. And they compound their deception with the arrogant conceit that Fox changed its programming just for them!

Here is the original report from Bill Hemmer's Fox On Line noon program. The one that showed "only the White House side", the one that quoted Tony Snow "but no one else" [QuickTime video]:



The newshounds: why should anyone with a functioning brain believe anything these rabid haters say?

posted: Mon - December 4, 2006 at 06:33 PM       j$p  send 

Tom
I don't see what you're complaining about. You're even more dishonest. In a previous thread you claimed "Dick Morris is an independent", one of the most hillariously B.S. statement I've seen here. Just now, literally moments ago, Dick Morris went on and on about how it was bad that the Dems might win in 2008 and Obama is a bad politician and Hillary is bad, blah blah. One-sided Republican garbage. Colmes was given about 45 seconds to have his say after about 3 minutes worth of Hannity bashing the Dems with Morris.
 
You've got no room to attack people when it comes to honesty, Johnny. If you believe Dick MOrris gives "balanced" opinion and analysis on Fox you're obviously not intelligent enough to hold a political debate with.
 
You still haven't responded to Newshounds, Media Matters or the Huffington Post pointing out the internal Fox News memo lamenting the GOP defeat and taking shots at the Dems.
December 4, 2006, 9:41:36 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Oh, so all that means, what? The newshounds DIDN'T lie?
December 4, 2006, 9:58:12 PM EST – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
Tom-
 
Why don't you look back to the previous comment sections and admit that you ALWAYS get pwnd. You give up for a reason, you can't win.
 
Not in any previous comment thread, not in this thread's OT blathering of yours.
 
If you want to be on topic, explain to us how the newshounds were NOT lying.
 
Again, you can't win.
 
--Fox Fan
December 4, 2006, 10:50:17 PM EST – Like – Reply


Yakki.PsD
Myself,I think both of ya'll are right and wrong.
 
I think the NH should retract and rehead the story,but I also think Fox issued a very weak representation of the Democrat side.
 
The difference between voice and a mere quote,and it's impact on the psyche.
 
Either way,to me this is all mush.
 
And I stated the same thing on NH.
December 6, 2006, 12:25:29 AM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Well Kerry issued a statement. Did you want them to hire a Kerry impersonator to read it before a camera? If you issue a statement you don't get camera time. That was Kerry's decision.
 
I appreciate your candor, but I have to disagree when you claim we are both right and wrong. The NH claimed they gave Snow's opinion and nobody else's. That isn't even PARTIALLY right. It's totally, completely false. And I pointed out that they did in fact give the other point of view. I don't think I'm even partially wrong on that point.
 
But you have to ask yourself, why is it that they don't correct the story? Even when they're shown to have misrepresented the truth, they'd rather let the misinformation stand. Why exactly would that be?
December 6, 2006, 12:50:02 AM EST – Like – Reply


Yakki.PsD
I am not on anybody's butt dude. From what I understand,the topic was based on the website,not the show.
 
Heck,it's a confused mess,hence why I said 'right and wrong'.
 
I'm not taking anyone's side here,just making a post with what I see because you were gracious enough to host the video.
December 6, 2006, 4:42:46 AM EST – Like – Reply


Yakki.PsD
And FYI,I have stated that the story,IMO,should be corrected to fix the confusion.
 
I have no idea what the gals plan to do.
December 6, 2006, 4:44:24 AM EST – Like – Reply


OverHere
"From what I understand,the topic was based on the website,not the show."
 
That's the Newspoodles' favorite response, when you point something out that was shown on-air they claim their article was based on the Web site, and vice versa.
 
Wrong is wrong, period. They should issue a correction. But I'm sure they are too busy working on all the other corrections/apologies/retractions they owe. /sarcasm
December 6, 2006, 8:16:19 AM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
> From what I understand,the topic was based on the website,not the show.
 
Huh? I'm afraid I'm not following this. The article they posted clearly said on Bill Hemmer's program (that's tv, not a website) they gave Tony Snow's response but no one else's. That was untrue. The Fox website has nothing to do with it.
 
Or are you saying my article is based on the website? I'm just not clear about what your point is.
 
Oh, and you might go inform your fellow commenters over there to stop lying about how my video links "don't work". I can't be responsible for their lack of internet savvy.
December 6, 2006, 10:20:18 AM EST – Like – Reply


OverHere
The show is called FOX OnLine, so maybe that's where Yakki's confusion is...
December 6, 2006, 10:52:47 AM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Yes that's possible. But that does kind of highlight how so many people who don't watch Fox themselves are at risk of swallowing propaganda, because all they have to go on is what the Fox haters write. I mean, after we've exposed literally hundreds of cases where the newshounds have distorted or flat-out lied about Fox, how many more examples are necessary to get the point across: you can't believe what they say?
December 6, 2006, 11:15:55 AM EST – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
I don't even have Quicktime installed and the video/audio work fine for me.
 
Quicktime Alternative > Quicktime
 
I applaud Yakki for coming over here and making an attempt at civil dialogue unlike some people *cough*Tom*cough*.
December 6, 2006, 11:17:50 AM EST – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
>...after we've exposed literally hundreds of cases where the newshounds have distorted or flat-out lied about Fox, how many more examples are necessary to get the point across(?)
 
To a tiny fraction of people, you will never get the point across. To most people however, newshounds is an obvious hyperpartisan website to be taken with a grain of salt. J$P is a much needed site to prove just how much salt most people need when reading the hounds' stories.
 
Now you know why they have such high blood pressure over there.
December 6, 2006, 11:26:36 AM EST – Like – Reply


OverHere
I agree with you 100% Johnny. What gets me is how they will decry people who "only get their news from FNC" when they 1) Have no evidence that their commenters are such people--I mean seriously, the fact that someone reads/comments there alone shows that they don't only rely on one source for news and information/disinformation and 2)Likely have never actually watched FNC themselves.
 
What bothers me most about the 'hounds is not that they say what they do, because most of it is too laughable for me to take seriously, but the fact that so many people blindly follow what they say. I don't care whether people agree with me or not, but I do care whether they have made the decision for themselves or are just parroting something they read/heard someone else say. I've lost count of the number of comments over at NH that say "I don't watch FNC but I trust what you guys say about it." Maddening!
December 6, 2006, 12:46:52 PM EST – Like – Reply


CancervativeAreNowIrrelevant
I questioned this both on the mains on NH and created a thread on the OT . Here's the reply I got on the OT thread:
 
"It's very simple - on the first show, Fox On Line (which is a show and not an on line feature) John Kerry wasn't featured at all, but 2 hours later on Studio B AFTER my article had been posted, Fox ran the same story only THIS TIME they showed John Kerry with a rebuttal that wasn't shown on the first show.
 
I don't appreciate being called a liar on my own website. If you want to follow J
December 6, 2006, 7:32:41 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
"on the first show, Fox On Line (which is a show and not an on line feature) John Kerry wasn't featured at all"
 
Are you blind? Did you watch the video? John Kerry's statement was given EXACTLY as it was on the Studio B program. Same statement each time.
 
"Looks like you're the liar Jawwwny."
 
I don't appreciate being called a liar on my own site either, especially when I'm telling the truth, and it's Donna who's lying.
 
Why don't you invite Donna to watch the video from the Fox On Line broadcast posted here? Why don't you watch it yourself?
 
This is like a man looking out the window into a snowstorm and calling the weatherman a liar for saying it's snowing.
 
There really is no debate about this. It's all on the video. It's on the Lexis/Nexis transcript, if you want to check that out too. Donna is not telling the truth. I am, and the video proves it.
 
Now defend yourself, and the newsliars, as best you can.
 
PS: Thanks for the tip on the forum discussion. I posted there. What's the over/under on how many hours before my post is removed?
December 6, 2006, 7:38:51 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Well that didn't take long. In less than an hour I was banned from their forum and presumably my comment was erased. This of course is all fodder for another post, where I can claim, in good faith, that Donna purposefully lied about this whole thing. Since when presented with the proof that she was wrong, she covered it up and repeated her false claim. I love it!
December 6, 2006, 8:26:08 PM EST – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
If banned from a forum, you can register with infinite identities using only one email account.
 
Most email providers allow delivery to yourname+X@domainname.com. The +X is important because all that you need to do is add the "+" sign and a random number to the end of your username and it doesn't affect the delivery. Test it, it works with 99% of email providers.
 
ie: myname@whatever.com is the same thing as myname1@whatever.com and myname2@whatever.com etc. They all arrive at the same email address destination.
 
Highly suggested: IP hiding. Banning can be done by email address or IP. Also, hateful sites such as newshounds have a history of publicly displaying IP addresses which can put you at extreme risk.
December 6, 2006, 9:21:59 PM EST – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
Sorry- the example above should have read "ie: myname@whatever.com is the same thing as myname+1@whatever.com and myname+2@whatever.com etc. They all arrive at the same email address destination."
 
The + is the key.
December 6, 2006, 9:25:17 PM EST – Like – Reply


Johnthebaptist
It appears that not only did they delete your comment, they went as far as to delete the entire thread.
December 6, 2006, 9:27:02 PM EST – Like – Reply


CancervativeAreNowIrrelevant
Angry comments not withstanding, if true, looks like you're the liar Jawwwny.
 
---------
 
I didn't call you a liar, did I? (Note the "if true" qualifier). Though now that you accused me of calling you a liar when clearly I didn't, I guess that makes on a liar now, right? 
 
I'm merely asking questions. Kerry couldn't have been on and not on the program in question. Someone's being less than accurate or truthful here, take your pick. 
 
I'm merely trying to determine who... 
**
*
December 6, 2006, 9:39:17 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
> you accused me of calling you a liar
 
Nope. I said I don't like being called a liar. Just like little Donna said she doesn't like being called a liar on her own blog. Something I never did by the way.
 
> Someone's being less than accurate or truthful here, take your pick.
 
There's no take your pick involved. Watch the video. Read the transcript. It's clear that this is the latest of hundreds of times the hounds have been caught making it up. Why don't you get back to me after watching the video?
December 6, 2006, 9:55:27 PM EST – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
"I'm merely trying to determine who..."
BIOR/CANI
 
Now he's teetering on the facts. Should he continue to pursue a lost argument, or should he save face and admit being 100% wrong?
 
Tough decision BIOR.
December 6, 2006, 10:12:58 PM EST – Like – Reply


CancervativeAreNowIrrelevant
Hey FF, what are you talking about? I didn't take sides on this one. 
**
*
December 6, 2006, 10:26:25 PM EST – Like – Reply


CancervativeAreNowIrrelevant
J$. Where's the link? It's been broken since yesterday. Where's the Lexus Nexus transcript? 
 
Thanks
**
*
December 6, 2006, 10:29:01 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
There is no link to be broken. The video is posted in this very article, as I suspect you well know. It isn't broken. Nobody else has said it's broken. And I just watched it.
 
Oh, the place where you'll find Lexis/Nexis transcripts is at Lexis/Nexis.
 
Once again, after you've viewed the video--the video that the newshounds won't put up, because they know it will expose them again--get back to me.
December 6, 2006, 11:07:24 PM EST – Like – Reply


CancervativeAreNowIrrelevant
This is from your thread...
 
Here is the original report from Bill Hemmer's Fox On Line noon program. The one that showed "only the White House side", the one that quoted Tony Snow "but no one else" [QuickTime video]:
 
/Symbol of broken QT link/
 
Perhaps I'm missing something? 
 
I don't subscribe to Lexus/Nexus, and ain't about to start over this silly matter. 
 
As it stands, neither you not Donna have provided sufficient evidence to prove your case.
December 6, 2006, 11:23:26 PM EST – Like – Reply


CancervativeAreNowIrrelevant
not = nor
December 6, 2006, 11:23:58 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
I'm sorry but you are again mistaken. I have provided not just evidence, but proof. You are incapable of viewing it because either 1. you are using an outdated version of QT and haven't updated to the latest, or B. your browser is an older version of IE that needs to be updated (or use Firefox instead).
 
So either you can take the trouble to update to the latest QT (7.x, whatever it is), and make sure your browser is complaint (Firefox or appropriate IE), or you can sit there and claim that I haven't provided evidence because you won't go through the trouble to look at it.
December 6, 2006, 11:51:46 PM EST – Like – Reply


CancervativeAreNowIrrelevant
I use the latest Firefox. /Thought/ I had the latest QT. Never had an issue but I'll check. I don't recall seeing a broken link symbol when a plug-in is outdated. 
 
Seeing is believing. I'll update QT and check it out. But if I can't do that then I'll have to file this under "he said/she said" as I can't validate either side. 
 
Incidentally, Donna went in to my OT thread, changed the title to "Your Reply", put her response in front of mine, accused my of cussing at her (which I most certainly didn't)... "Fun" thread, if interested.
December 7, 2006, 8:04:07 AM EST – Like – Reply


OverHere
Seriously CANI, your argument is really ridiculous. The evidence is RIGHT ON THIS PAGE... and with FireFox, you DO get a broken link if you don't have the most up-to-date plugin. Watch the video for yourself and then it will all be clear as the blue sky.
 
Of course you're probably not used to actually watching something for yourself, rather you just let the newshounds tell you how things are. Try it, you might like it!
December 7, 2006, 8:19:06 AM EST – Like – Reply


CancervativeAreNowIrrelevant
I'm not arguing /anything/. I haven't taken sides at all. To the contrary, I was open-minded enough to pose the question right on Donna's thread not even having seen the evidence. If the evidence supports J
December 7, 2006, 8:34:09 AM EST – Like – Reply


OverHere
Ok I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that you follow through on what you claim here once you see the evidence for yourself.
December 7, 2006, 8:48:48 AM EST – Like – Reply


CancervativeAreNowIrrelevant
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm... 
**
*
December 7, 2006, 8:51:43 AM EST – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
I know I'm too late for you BIOR, but you really should have installed QT Alternative instead of QT. QT works but includes persistently resident updating software, hijacks other file extensions, and iTunes... Barf, more startup entries.
 
What does Hmmmm mean other than my newshounds alias?
December 7, 2006, 10:52:18 AM EST – Like – Reply


CancervativeAreNowIrrelevant
Yes, FF. Agree. Ever since they bundled it with iTunes I avoid it. In fact, I forgot I uninstalled a while back it for /exactly/ the reason you cite, more start-up crap. Shows how much I miss it.
 
By the by. I bid farewell to some folks on the OT. I have no plans of posting there again. 
 
Last year they posted some unsubstantiated crap about Gibson off an Amazon reader review, which was irresponsible and beyond the pale. Pissed me off and I posted my dissent. There's been a bit of a bad taste in my mouth since then, truthfully. Then this.
 
If it was a mistake, issue a retraction. If, somehow/way the evidence posted here is not accurate (admit, I don't see how), then state your case... 
 
They were actually going in to my OT threads, deleting entire threads, altering content... 
 
I'll never be a "Fox Fan" and I think the Republicans are far too closely aligned with evangelicals and neocons, and corporate interests. K-Street is sickening, their spending is off the charts, and Iraq was a horrible decision, supported by "intelligence fixed around (neocon) policy" - unacceptable... Their reign has been a disaster, and I'm sure on that we'll never agree. 
 
So, I'll never vote for these clowns or watch Fox "News", or be tuning in to Sean Hannity any time soon... But /that/ site needs to get its sh*t together. Shame. It has as much to do with ethics as anything else. Started out pretty good...
 
Plenty of stuff to do in the meat world. 
**
*
December 8, 2006, 8:08:18 AM EST – Like – Reply


OverHere
BIOR, personally I have no problem that you and I may disagree on some ideologies. You have the right to your thoughts and beliefs and I certainly have no right to insist that you change them. Same thing with the 'hounds--they can think what they want about FNC or the current administration, but they should be honest about the things they say. And they're not. That's the problem with them, and even when it's pointed out to them in no uncertain terms they refuse to budge. Their "corrections" and "apologies" are few and far between, and when they do come, it's NEVER their fault. I know of several instances where they've flat out lied--or maybe even just been mistaken about something--and instead of printing a correction, they delete the entire article and all of the comments as if it never existed.
 
I respect you for saying that even though you'll never watch FOX, you don't automatically swallow whatever they say about what appears on the channel. I wish more of their readers felt that way. The reason I know Johnny tells the truth is because I watch for myself. (And no, I don't exclusively watch FOX, I watch all of the news channels) There are too many comments over at the 'hounds that start with people admitting they don't/won't watch FNC, and IMO those people are doing just what they accuse FOX viewers of doing--letting someone else tell them what to think and believe.
December 8, 2006, 8:51:02 AM EST – Like – Reply


CancervativeAreNowIrrelevant
Well, that's the point. "They watch Fox, so I don't have to"... Guys like Sean Hannity make me gag. Because "they watch Fox so I don't have to" they have to be above reproach. I'm not about to start watching what I consider tabloid-level, New York Post-level, often AM hate-jock level right-wing garbage to verify what they're saying. Life's too damned short.
 
So once trust is broken, it's broken. They've become useless. A site like that /has/ to be completely accurate and fair. Just like you can't position yourself as some kind of moral authority - make a lucrative career out of it, then start making unwanted dirty phone calls to people who work for you, and expect any reasonalbe person to seriously consider what you have to sa y about morality from that point forward. 
 
If they (NH) screw up, they have to admit it, post a correction/retraction or explain themselves better. Either their egos have gotten too big or they think they can get away with it because their viewers don't/won't watch Fox most of the time and don't see the segments they're reporting on... there has to be comlete trust to do what they do... They can't get carried away to the extent that they're posting bullshit. 
 
Donna's WILD reaction to my request for verifcation was telling. I wasn't being an a-hole about it. Yo Donna, here's what you said, here's a video that refutes it. What's the deal? She goes off, deletes threads, insists her post was accurate (despite fairly compelling evidence to the contrary), alters content, accuses me of cussing at her (I didn't... not "at her". I seldom direct profanity /at/ a person who's posting... my "unspoken" profanity rule, which I readily admit to having broken on occasion... but certainly not /this/ occasion... )
 
So, uh, yeah. Better things to do with my time...
**
*
December 8, 2006, 9:14:57 AM EST – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
This is amazing. Welcome to reality, BIOR.
 
The reality of coverups, lies, and OT moderation (the "unmoderated" area) most of us here have long been exposed to.
 
Agree with them, and you can "run with the pack". Dissent and you are disowned even after a long history of commitment and dedication.
December 8, 2006, 9:16:37 AM EST – Like – Reply


OverHere
BIOR, I am no fan of Hannity either so on that we do agree. 
 
And I also agree with your assessment that if they are going to be the "watchdogs" and "watch FOX so you don't have to" then they need to go above and beyond to be completely honest. I once asked them if they would rather see FOX evolve into what they consider a truly fair and balanced news network, or see it gone. Instead of answering the question, they edited my comment. That right there said it all to me. They don't truly care about whether FOX is fair and balanced, they just want to smear the network and see it go away.
 
I never started reading NH until they were well into their lying tactics so that's all I've ever seen. If they started out being honest then it's a shame that they've evolved into what they are now.
December 8, 2006, 10:31:08 AM EST – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
I third the dislike of Hannity notion; almost never watch it.  
 
OverHere, NH started with the movie Outfoxed. I've seen it a few times and read about it in between. It's filled with out of context Michael Moore style clips, it lies about Fox employee's titles, it shows one half of a screen of two interviewees while pretending the other person wasn't there, and on and on.
 
Point being, they did NOT start out as honest, they started as liars and they will fizzle out as liars when others in their pack wise up.
December 8, 2006, 10:41:32 AM EST – Like – Reply


OverHere
Thanks for the info Fox Fan, I've actually wanted to watch Outfoxed so I can see for myself what it claims (and now I do recall that the original NH "staff" did the research for that movie) --I need to get my act together and do that now that I'm thinking of it.
 
I guess we have to hope that more of their regulars come to see what their tactics are.
December 8, 2006, 10:51:15 AM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Outfoxed is notorious for its biggest lie, which has taken root in the Fox haters echo chamber and will probably never get killed off. (Hint: it has to do with Carl Cameron's wife. And it's phony.)
December 8, 2006, 3:58:22 PM EST – Like – Reply


OverHere
That lie I do know about. Doesn't surprise me one bit that they haven't corrected it.
December 8, 2006, 6:30:29 PM EST – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
The newshounds have officially snubbed BIORsGhost. They deleted his OT post explaining why he wasn't coming back to a website that repeatedly lied to him.
 
The botched coverup continues...
December 9, 2006, 9:51:20 AM EST – Like – Reply


OverHere
Could it be they are starting to come apart at the seams over at the kennel??
December 9, 2006, 6:26:54 PM EST – Like – Reply


H2O
The WEB is filled now, with paid shills, they are all liars following a script from the NWO, clan of edomite, Kahzar lizards..
 
You will see and understand this soon enough.
 
What can anyone of us do?
 
There is only one viable option.
Psalm 137
see scripturesforamerica.org 
for more, look in the upper right corner for another link.
H2O
January 9, 2009, 11:28:04 AM EST – Like – Reply