Gone but Not Forgotten

Why the Outfoxed gals react to facts the way Dracula recoils from a crucifix.

The Fox haters have an echo chamber, and it is well-guarded. No one is allowed in who might contradict their smears or inject a note of truth. Of course, the guard dogs are the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed cabal). They are virtuosos at silencing anything that might expose their tendentious lies.

When Jon Scott hosted a fair and balanced discussion of Barack Obama's campaign (with Republican Fred Malek and Democrat Joe Turnham), that wasn't fair and balanced enough for the newsmutts. The topic: Has Obama's campaign made mistakes? Whoah! Such subjects are verboten, according to the mongrels:
This was a completely unprofessional, partisan, made up segment with absolutely no basis in fact.

How it could be "partisan" when both sides were represented is unclear, but that's hound logic. As for it being completely "made up" with "absolutely no basis in fact"? Another hound lie. An article by former Time magazine writer Mike Allen headlines: "Rookie Mistakes Plague Obama", and goes on to detail the very topics in the "made up" Fox discussion. Allen's article, the basis for the Fox segment, got a lot of buzz, including at the New York Times.

So why did Donna say Fox's segment had "no basis in fact"? Good question. We informed her that it was her attack on Fox that had no basis in fact:

Our comment lasted only a matter of minutes. It was immediately removed. So much for any theory that Donna simply made an innocent mistake. Her eagerness to keep the truth off her page documents an intent to deceive. One slice of honesty in the echo chamber: gone, but not forgotten.

In the You're So Vain You Probably Think This Weather's About You category, Judy takes self-aggrandizement to new levels. When Steve Doocy said, "We watch Rosie so you don't have to", the cur was off and barking that Doocy was "stealing from NewsHounds"! We tried to break it to her gently:

Let's see...that one lasted about nine minutes before it was nuked into the memory hole. One moment of factuality briefly touched the noise machine: gone, but not forgotten.

And then there's ol' reliable, chrish. She spotted an outrage on foxnews.com, where an article about the chocolate Jesus statue omitted something. The exhibition had been cancelled but:
Bill Donahue's sin of omission not reported by Fox
...FOX didn't see fit to note that Donohue's "fatwa" continues.

Now here's a curiosity. The biased bassets are yelping about this horrendously unfair article, and yet their write-up provides no link to it. Why would that be? Perhaps the doggies are trying to cover their paw prints. One of their favorite tricks to is condemn something on the Fox website and read all sorts of eeevil intentions into it. Only it turns out the item in question wasn't written by Fox at all. We've busted them on this time after time. Hmm. Could that be why they withheld the link to this article? Judge for yourself.

What do you know? It's an article by the Associated Press, not by Fox at all. The same article also be found at Newsday and the New York Daily News, among others. By now the futility of injecting any truth into the dog pound's echo chamber is manifest, but we gave it a try (obscenities have been blurred):

No way the biased bassets can allow that to stand. After all, it defeats the entire purpose of not giving a link in the first place. So naturally, the comment vanished. Poof! And another glimpse of reality in the kennel is erased. Gone, but not forgotten. The anti-Fox terriers should be proud: when it comes to free expression and truth, their little pound is right up there with Radio North Korea.

posted: Sun - April 1, 2007 at 06:08 PM       j$p  send 

Fox Fan
If Fox News is so bad, why do the mutts have to resort to fabricating stories for their articles? Judging by the unchallenged insistence there you'd think they could back up their claims with the truth. This is just a needle of exposure from a haystack of lies the mutts use as their kennel bedding.
Can anyone from that site step up and defend the instances of intentional lies and coverups coming from the PbDs documented in this article? Well done johnny!
April 2, 2007, 7:06:42 AM EDT – Like – Reply

So let me get this straight, Johnny, you're whining and complaining that they deleted your comments, when you delete my comments when I make a complete fool out of you by pointing out the hate-filled racism over at places like the Free Republic forums, that even Matt Drudge has acknowledged?
Little bit on the dim side, aren't you?
April 3, 2007, 4:24:03 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
That's an example of the sort of personal attacks that can your message deleted, but it's just short of the line so I'll let it stand.
I don't know how you "made a complete fool" out of me with something about Free Republic. Where did I say ANYTHING about Free Republic? Maybe you'd like to "make a complete fool" out of me by posting something about projected hoe-handle distribution for fiscal year 2007-2008. Or pick some other topic that I never said anything about!
April 3, 2007, 4:39:09 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
How about we get back on topic and take the challenge I offered Tom? 
Step up and address the PbDs' lies exposed in this article instead of skirting the point with personal attacks against the author!
April 3, 2007, 6:42:30 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Remember Fox Fan, Tom doesn't read the newshounds. He just knows an awful lot about what goes on over there.
April 3, 2007, 9:15:47 PM EDT – Like – Reply

"Remember Fox Fan, Tom doesn't read the newshounds. He just knows an awful lot about what goes on over there."
Right, please point to a post where I display my "vast knowledge" of what is happening at Newshounds. I don't read it because I don't see the need. Fox News' bias is evident to most common sense people. You can't even convince a partisan Republican like Jonah Goldberg that Fox is neutral. He admitted Fox leans right in its editorials AND its news coverage.
You can't convince Goldberg, and you think you'll convince independents? LOL. Guess that explains why 88% of Fox's audience voted for Bush.
April 3, 2007, 9:24:28 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
> Guess that explains why 88% of Fox's audience voted for Bush.
> I don't read it because I don't see the need.
And yet you put up links to a site you don't read? Hmmmm.
April 3, 2007, 9:50:07 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Tom posts here. Waits for Johnny to post. Then runs back to the Mutts.
Tom: Girls, Girls, Johnny said this and he said that. What should I do? What should I do?
Mutts: Oh, just tell him 88% percent of Fox News viewers voted for Bush.
Tom: Okay, Okay, but didn't use that last week? Shouldn't we use something else?
Mutts: TOM! Your not paid to think! Your job is to carry our water! Now go!
April 4, 2007, 12:08:01 AM EDT – Like – Reply