Tragedic Opportunism


When is a tragedy fodder for hate and derangement? When you visit the Outfoxed gals.

National tragedies are usually seen as a time reserved for mourning and reflection. But not with the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed mob). The opportunistic reactions from those parts remind us again that to be a Fox hater, you first have to be a hater.

The hounds have never been exactly sympathetic to Christianity. After all, they declared that all that stuff about the birth of Christ is simply "nonsense". So it was no surprise that they would attack Fox's religion correspondent for writing an article on the murders at Virginia Tech. Newsmutt Ellen takes Lauren Green's article, quotes the first few lines, and then claims the story ends with a discussion of the battle over souls. To complete the picture, Ellen headlines her piece:
Fox News Theorizes The Devil Was Behind Virginia Tech Murders - Seriously!

It's hard to recognize what Ms Green wrote from the newspooch bastardization. The truth: Ms Green (let alone "Fox News") does not "theorize" anything, but rather examines reactions not just from the Christian perspective, but also those of Judaism (via comments from the Rabbi at New York's Central Synagogue), modern psychology (Philip Zimbardo), and even atheism (Michael Shermer). Oh, and Ellen also lied about how the article ends. But that's par of the course with the curs.

Also par for the course is the reaction from the denizens of the dog pound, who were deeply inspired by Ellen's misrepresentations:
  • The devil got a little sloppy drunk at his weekly power lunch with Ailes and Murdoch and admitted it.
  • Speculating that 'the devil' was behind the shootings is just another way for them to layer the story to try and keep it going (while feeding the rabid right).
  • We must ask the question: is Satan legally allowed on campus? If not he was in breach of the law!
  • I think God did it. He slaughtered more people in the bible than satan could ever have dreamed of. God kicks ass the Devil just gives him an excuse.
  • So the devil did it…and here thought [sic] that it was a very sick kid who was putting up more flags then the United Nations building….and stroll [sic] in to a gun store and legally brought [sic] a gun….i [sic] could’ve sworn that [sic] what I herd [sic]….but hmm …should we now start putting up hex signs to keep the devil away …..what a news channel
  • I used to think that Lauren was good enough to have an "anchor" chair. I also didn't realize that she is as fundamentalist as she appears to be.
  • Too bad. Most journalists have to wait for their career to be washed up before getting a job offer from FNC.
  • I still can't get over that Lauren hung with Prince and Kirstie Alley and is now pushing religious crap on Fox. I suppose if the money is good...
  • Religion and NEWS AND SCHOOLS DO NOT MIX!!!
  • The closest Lauren Green has gotten to serious journalism is when she was a Newscaster in the video for "My Name is Prince." (Yes, really.) The lady is a [expletive deleted] joke.
  • If by "Satan" [Fox] meant Karl Rove... Yeah, i [sic] could believe that.

How odd that Karl Rove's name would surface. It will again. We turn to Donna, who thought it somehow outrageous that Fox would do a segment on how much ammunition the shooter was carrying. Never mind that hundreds of news outlets have addressed this very issue--when Fox does it, they are eeevil. But don't take our word for it, just ask the kennel-dwellers:
  • This is the hideous element of Fox coming out of the woodwork yet again.
  • When they hire you at Fox, they give you a physchological test to if [sic] you pulled the wings off flies when you were 10 yrs old, and when you were 16 if you tortured small animals, then as a young adult mistreated people lesser off than yourself especially people of color and of lower economic stature. If you pass then, THEY HIRE YOUR SICK [expletives deleted].
  • Face it -- [Fox] perpetrates an atmosphere of guns and death.... You can't deny it; it's right there on every minute of every show.
  • It is not 'unusual' for [Fox] to continue the 24 hour a day obsfucation [sic] process for a disaster by milking every possible 'jingle the shiny keys' scenario to keep the real news from seeping through while at the same time keeping the morons riveted to their seats with endless titalation [sic].
  • Now [Fox] have their built-in excuse to crucify anyone who brings up the Gonzales trial. That the shooter was Asian should also be fodder for their racist views.
  • Additionaly [sic] Karl Rove must be jumping up and down with glee. He does not have to manufacture a disaster to distract the distractable [sic] from his crime scene...
  • I wouldn't put it past Rove to have paid this kid to go ape just to distract the trolls from the real news.
  • Fox glorifies the Ted Nugents of the world by making guns "cool" then pretends to care when it backfires.

So Karl Rove was behind the Virginia Tech shootings. Except wait, no he wasn't. It was the fault of Fox News! The shooter (who apparently watched NBC, not Fox) nonetheless was mesmerized by FNC, whose mind-warping techniques "backfired" and caused the murders of 32 people. This is what you hear from Fox haters less than 24 hours after the news broke of these horrific events, while hundreds were grieving over the loss of family and friends.

Very classy.

posted: Sat - April 21, 2007 at 02:08 PM       j$p  send 

sknabt
J$, it appears to me it's you, not the News Hounds, who needs a trip to a vet. Your rabid dislike for them has you chasing your tail in a wild frenzy.
 
You write "It's hard to recognize what Ms Green wrote from the newspooch bastardization." Really?
 
Excluding the title of the News Hound piece, 2 sentence fragments introducing quotes, and 1 line crediting a tipsters, here's all Ellen says on the matter:
 
"There's an article on FoxNews.com which seriously contemplates whether the Virginia Tech shootings may have been the work of the devil."
 
Which, in fact, the article does. And:
 
"Can a debate about whether psychology is biased against Christianity be far off?"
 
Which is speculation but, as we've learned from right-wing Fox News, ANYTHING is fair game in the form of a question. 
 
Where's Ellen's distortion? Oh, Ellen, it seems, said "theorizes" in the title. Okay, it's poor word choice. Try "pushes the idea," "puts out the notion," "promotes the thought," or whatever. In the end, "theorizes" starts to look good.
 
Where's Ellen's "hate and derangement"? Oh, it's not to be found so you quote some commenters, most of whom are being satirical. Bad taste? Definitely. News Hounds fault? Would you delete their posts?
 
Of course, Bill O'Reilly's coverage on, say, Friday where he tried to tie the Virginia Tech shootings to Democratic election prospects isn't exploitive at all. No, it's just another example of Fox News' outstanding journalistic standards.
 
Your hypocrisy makes me ill.
April 22, 2007, 3:04:00 AM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Of course it makes you ill. You run over to the hounds and repeatedly post your anti-Fox diatribes there, so it's no surprise you would defend them.
 
> Try "pushes the idea," "puts out the notion...
 
To defend the doggies, you adopt their techniques. The article did not promote or push any one idea. Just liike Ellen, you ignore that it was a exploration of not just Christianity, but also Judaism, psychology, and even atheism and how they interpret the events. Why do you suppose Ellen left all that out? You want to know where the deistortions were? There's a good start.
 
In true diversion style you want to bring up something on O'Reilly, which I don't have access to check right now. Is this something O'Reilly said LESS THAN 24 HOURS after the shootings? Sheesh.
 
No, you go ahead and stick up for the newshounds, immediately politicizing and twisting this event for their own purposes. Defend the foul-mouthed, ignorant commenters too. That at least doesn't surprise me. You're all too happy to join in with them.
April 22, 2007, 9:50:20 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
If I look at a car and tell you it's a steering wheel, that's a lie of omission. 
 
It's exactly what happens at the Fox hating sites every day.
April 22, 2007, 10:44:57 AM EDT – Like – Reply


sknabt
J$,
 
I realize I'm on a "fan" site of a news organization (which in itself is a bizarre notion until one realizes Fox News is ideologically driven) so changing minds here is a waste of time. But it's getting tiresome listening to Fox News personalities and their fans trash-mouth the competition. Legitimate criticism is welcome because all news sources screw up from time to time and need to be held accountable. But your post is unjustified by the facts. It's petty.
 
If you hold Ellen to some personal standard of needing to point out every aspect of a topic then you must hold far worse data-miners like Bill O'Reilly and the rest of the Fox News pundit corps to the same standard. Which, of course, you don't.
 
But forgetting that hypocrisy, you are less honest in your portrayal of the article than Ellen. Because if her sin is lies of omission - minor in this case - your sin is spinning the facts beyond reason.
 
Because the title of Lauren's piece, "Did the Devil Make Him Do It?" obviously intends to explore that idea as Ellen said. 
 
While it's true, Lauren Green spends some time discussing the Jewish tradition that doesn't believe in possession, other than that, your argument is well located in Spin City.
 
Lauren mentions real psychological roots in Cho's behavior, but it's a mere teaser to pursue the "devil made him do it" line of reason. The psychologist she found, Philip Zimbardo, to discuss this angle just happens to be the author of "The Lucifer Effect" that dovetails into the thesis indicated by the title of the article.
 
Does she mention atheists? Sure but her 'exploration' on that topic boils down to using skeptic Michael Shermer to keep her thesis alive who, incredibly she ideologically links in this case, to Rev. Schuller. 
 
And, as Ellen points out, her conclusion sympathetically supports the theory put forth by the article's title.
April 22, 2007, 11:35:38 AM EDT – Like – Reply


sknabt
J$,
 
Oh, in my rush to reply, I failed address this comment:
 
"No, you go ahead and stick up for the newshounds, immediately politicizing and twisting this event for their own purposes. Defend the foul-mouthed, ignorant commenters too. That at least doesn't surprise me. You're all too happy to join in with them."
 
In your rush to judgment, you overlooked me saying:
 
"Bad taste? Definitely. News Hounds fault? Would you delete their posts?"
 
My point isn't to defend what the commenters said. I don't. My point is News Hounds isn't responsible for the opinions expressed in comments. Unless you do believe those comments should have been censored and deleted. It's question I asked and your ignored.
April 22, 2007, 11:47:43 AM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Let's take your last point first. They would not be repsonsible for what appears in the comments if they took a hands off approach and let everyone have their say. But they don't. They pick and choose which comments they don't like or don't want, and they delete them. Ethically, and I might add legally, because they are assuming editorial control over the comments they ARE in fact responsible for what they say.
 
> I realize I'm on a "fan" site of a news organization (which in itself is a bizarre notion until one realizes Fox News is ideologically driven...
 
Man, you make some peculiar arguments. Have you ever been to cnnfan.com? Does the existence of that site prove CNN is "ideologically driven"? How about the MSNBC fan site at MSN? Is MS therefore "ideologically driven"? I guess to some minds a fan of Fox, or the NY Times, or USA TOday must prove that all those news sources are "ideologically driven". But no, somehow only Fox is "ideologically driven" because it has a fan site. Puh-lease.
 
>And, as Ellen points out, her conclusion sympathetically supports the theory put forth by the article's title.
 
Well, since Ellen LIED about what the conclusion of the article WAS, your point here is beyond ridiculous. In fact, the article is equally respectful of EVERY viewpoint that was presented, including all the ones the dogs, and you, pretended weren't there.
 
Maybe you think a religion correspondent, writing about the reactions of various faiths to a major event, should take potshots at each religion in turn. Sure, that's the role of a religion correspondent in sknabt's world: ridicule the beliefs of the religions you cover. Lauren Green took a different approach. She REPORTED the various perspectives. She didn't demean or make fun of them. It's obvious why that was not acceptable to the anti-Christian bigots in the dog kennel. It seems you want to align yourself with them.
April 22, 2007, 12:21:20 PM EDT – Like – Reply


sknabt
J$,
 
You still won't answer my question. 3rd try. Would you delete the posts that have you so upset? Legal and ethical concerns are a red herring since there's nothing illegal or unethical involved in anything said. 
 
You've attacked News Hounds in the past for deleting comments. If they're deliberately deleting comments just because they don't like the point of view of the posters then that's simply wrong. 
 
Fan sites for newspapers and news channels are a weird concept. If CNN were some outstanding example of journalism head and shoulders above the rest I might understand it. But they aren't. If they were the only cable news operation I might understand it. But they aren't.
 
Back when Kaplan headed CNN I understand from SoD they were very biased to the left. Recently, they (and MSNBC) have been caught pandering to the right. For example, a couple years back CNN execs visited Republican Congressmen to see how they could slant their news to suck up to the right.
 
Personally, I don't see CNN as purely ideologically driven like Fox News (which is a class by itself) but it unfortunately can spin to the left or the right to boost ratings. That's why they picked up, for example, conservative shill Glenn Beck on Headline News.
 
I'm so tired of you sliming people you disagree with, myself included, as liars. You're way too quick at the trigger on that tired personal attack. There's no lie I can see in Ellen's very brief post.
 
Regarding the quality of Lauren Green's article, it's very poor. Despite you trying to read my mind and motives, I believe I've told you in the past I'm a Christian. So there's no hidden agenda to mock religion.
 
However, as I pointed out quite clearly in my last post and you've largely ignored, from title to conclusion to selectively picking sources and facts, the article leads the reader by the nose.
 
The fact that you are sympathetic with her conclusions or topic doesn't make it good journalism.
 
What I expect from journalism - I realize this will appear to be an amazing concept to anyone addictted to Fox News - is for a reporter to do the research I lack the time and resources to do. I expect them, given the very restrictive time allotment most serious topics unfortunately get, to accurately sum it all up for me so I can understand it.
 
An example is the Virginia Tech situation. As I mentioned elsewhere, I watch a lot of Fox News coverage on Monday and Tuesday. It was not very good or informative. Worse, as days passed it got more and more tabloid and exploitive. Late in the week, I couldn't even watch it.
 
So I listened a lot to NPR. Their coverage was very good by comparison. Still, time constraints and the fact NPR rarely focuses on a single news topic like most outlets, meant they only devoted so much time to it. I've read a lot of AP, Reuters, etc. stories for details like time-lines. The local paper devoted an entire section yesterday to locally-produced content.
 
It's sa
April 23, 2007, 7:47:05 AM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
I don't know why you're so insistent on asking what I would do with those NH comments. I have attacked them for deleting opinions they don't like--or to be more accurate, comments that expose their tricks and lies. You say that's wrong, but I haven't noticed you telling THEM that when you post over there.
 
NH has a very "flexible" standard for comments. Under their "rules" they can pretty much delete anything they want thanks to vague, amorphous "standards". So when they get proven wrong on something--poof! It's gone. You're asking ME what to do with comments like the ones I quoted from them? Hard to say, because people with that sort of mindset generally don't post here. But I have clearly defined comment rules. I delete the ones that violate the rules. I have never deleted a comment that took me to task, or pointed out an error, or disagreed with something I wrote that didn't specifically break one of the clearly stated rules.
 
In the event that a commenter said something that I thought was in despicable taste, I would probably immediately fire back with a statement of disagreement and separate myself and this site from that opinion. The NHs take a different approach. Bad taste? Extreme? Repellent? Let the comments stand. Let them increase! Pointing out where they are wrong? Hit the delete key.
April 23, 2007, 9:27:52 AM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
> I'm so tired of you sliming people you disagree with, myself included, as liars. You're way too quick at the trigger on that tired personal attack. There's no lie I can see in Ellen's very brief post.
 
Well, saying that the article concludes with a paragraph that the article does not conclude with? That doesn't count?
 
I'm sorry you disapprove of identifying "lies" when I see them. But once again, your outrage is very selective. Extremely selective. According to the newspups, Doocy lied. Gibson lied. Hannity lied. O'Reilly lied. Hume lied. Cavuto lied. Jim Angle (!) lied. Need I go on? In all the times you've posted over there, how many times have you told them that you're tired of them sliming people as liars? Even ONCE?
 
I'm sorry, but when the hounds toss around the "lie" claim like confetti at a parade, they have set the standard for how they should be judged. They get done unto them as they do to others.
April 23, 2007, 9:33:19 AM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
> I believe I've told you in the past I'm a Christian.
 
And that is supposed to mean what to me? Am I supposed to believe that on your say so? You hide behind a phony name, on a domain cloaked in privacy so nobody can figure out who you are. And I am supposed to take anything you say at face value? I have nothing on which to base that sort of trust. I don't know who you are, or how many people you are. For all I know you could be one of the hounds.
 
Anonymous bloggers have a big hill to climb. There's no way anyone can judge their biases, self-interests, etc, because they keep it all secret. So please don't be shocked if I sound skeptical. The position you assume is at fault for that.
 
Example: the Green article is "very poor". Oh? What are you, a journalism professor? Oops, we don't know, do we? You want a reporter to "accurately sum it all up for me". So what was inaccurate in the article?
 
> The fact that you are sympathetic with her conclusions or topic doesn't make it good journalism.
 
OK, you've convinced me. You're NOT a journalism professor. You say as a fact that I am "sympathetic" to the article's "conclusions" (it didn't reach any--even a first-year English major would realize that) or it's "topic" (what does it MEAN to be sympathetic to the topic of a news story?!?). So, please, tell me what the "conclusion" this article came to IS, and then quote me back where I expressed agreement with that conclusion. I await your reply.
April 23, 2007, 9:42:19 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
Sknabt is a far better guest to this site than Tom could ever wish to be. Thank you Sknabt and thank you johnny for the intriguing debate!
 
Interlude over, please continue. 
April 23, 2007, 7:22:47 PM EDT – Like – Reply


laural
Good point, foxfan. Sknabt is Hitchens by comparison. Tom's just nuts.
April 23, 2007, 9:57:46 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Yes, sknabt's arguments are obviously on a higher level than Tom's. But you'll note that sknabt hasn't reponded yet. I asked him several direct questions that should be easy to answer, like asking for a quote from me to back up his claim. So far, nothing.
 
Unfortunately this is not new. A little while ago, far from agreeing that the hounds shouldn't delete critical comments, he was defending that practice. He claimed that it was ok to delete the comments I post there because I was posting what he called "foaming conservative" statements.
 
Then, as now, I asked him to back that up. What were these "foaming conservative" comments I posted at NH? Even coming up with one would have been nice. But sknabt suddenly fell silent. I hope that is not what he's doing now as I was enjoying this discussion and would really like to know, if he's going to make claims about what I do or think, on what basis he is doing so.
April 24, 2007, 12:55:49 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Tom
Rupert Murdoch admitted he was a Republican supporter of George W. Bush the other night at the Milken Event.
 
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/business/news/e3i91266009d4f35a6cdc6b5580497bb047
 
Give it up. You can't convince anyone of your flat lies. I mean, you're defending a news channel run by the douche bag who crushed a book deal written by a Hong Kong figure who was trying to warn of Chinese suppression of human rights in Hong Kong after the take over. He did it to curry favor with the Chinese.
 
And this is who you idolize? There's a word for people like Murdoch. SCUMBAGS.
April 25, 2007, 1:29:57 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Ira
Three questions Thomas:
 
Where in that piece did Murdoch admit he is a Republican?
 
And who said that Johnny or anybody else here idolizes Murdoch?
 
Oh and if Murdoch crushed that book deal as you allege, did the author get published by another house?
April 25, 2007, 8:15:25 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
Who is the '08 candidate Murdoch held a fundraiser for? Hillary! Sounds like he's being fair and balanced.
April 26, 2007, 6:58:45 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Ira
Fox Fan: Rather than specifically answer questions, it appears that once again Tom has headed for the tall grass, or more likely the far-left smear sites!
April 26, 2007, 12:12:17 PM EDT – Like – Reply


sknabt
J$,
 
If you insist on my posting in these CRAPPY comments then you're going to have to put up with my belly-aching until you PUT UP A COMPETENT FORUM FOR DEBATE. Comments are for QUICK COMMENTS then move on to the next blog entry.
 
You whine I don't answer your questions. Why do I have to ask 3 times if you'd delete the News Hounds posts? It's not that hard and the question didn't merit your hang-wringing reply.
 
It was an important question to me for a number of reasons. 
 
One, after reading your 'house' favoring rules here, I don't have a warm and fuzzy about your own tolerance level. More to the point of this thread, I figured you'd back down and say "no" which then begs the question why blame News Hounds?
 
I don't go running to News Hounds complaining because I've never gotten tangled up in seeing them delete posts for political reasons. Sorry, your word isn't good enough.
 
I ran into a similar situation at the Democratic Underground. I didn't complain there either. What would be the point with them, they're a liberal-only forum by design and quite upfront about it. I just quit posting there because it quickly became very, very uncomfortable.
April 28, 2007, 3:40:47 PM EDT – Like – Reply


sknabt
>> I believe I've told you in the past I'm a Christian.
 
>And that is supposed to mean what to me? Am I supposed to believe that on your say so? 
 
Well, I obviously said it to make a point. Since you don't believe me, you're right. It was a waste of key strokes.
 
>You hide behind a phony name, on a domain cloaked in privacy so nobody can figure out who you are. And I am supposed to take anything you say at face value? I have nothing on which to base that sort of trust. I don't know who you are, or how many people you are. For all I know you could be one of the hounds.
 
This is silly. I realize you're digging up a tired attack of my credibility based upon my EyesOnFox blog but, in this context, I'm just another commenter. You need a complete background check on anyone not agreeing with your opinions?  
 
There is absolutely NOTHING to be learned about my name. Last time I Googled my name one of the top hits was a pig farmer in England (not me, BTW )
 
I've PERSONALLY seen people in a discussion forum I participated in going to the trouble of looking up one poster, driving by his house, and posting details on his family.
 
My credibility is based upon what I say. Since you and I politically disagree, I'm sure that means my credibility is whale spit in your eyes. 
 
Of course, you aren't particularly transparent either. I'd have to play Sherlock Holmes to look up your domain registration, verify it lists a real name, etc. Of course, if I or anyone else were to go to that trouble, you'd have to wonder about us.  
 
> Anonymous bloggers have a big hill to climb. There's no way anyone can judge their biases, self-interests, etc, because they keep it all secret. So please don't be shocked if I sound skeptical. The position you assume is at fault for that.
 
Ah, double baloney. If you can't tell my biases by my posts then you're simply not paying attention.
 
I'm sure I could look up your real name. A poster on my forums claims you're an attorney. That's all I know know about you. That's more than I need to know. I could care less if you're Rupert Murdoch's butler and he's financing this website.
 
> Example: the Green article is "very poor". Oh? What are you, a journalism professor? Oops, we don't know, do we? You want a reporter to "accurately sum it all up for me". So what was inaccurate in the article?
 
And, even if I WERE a journalism professor so what? You're not going to criticize my opinion here?  
 
Your smokescreen here is hopeless.
 
The weakness of the article are as I explained. The reporter clearly came up with a thesis stated in the title and found sources - even when looking at atheists - who largely fit her thesis. The inaccuracies are the omissions I suspect I would find if I were writing the article myself.
 
>> The fact that you are sympathetic with her conclusions or topic doesn't make it good journalism.
 
>OK, you've convinced me. You're NOT a journalism professor. You
April 28, 2007, 4:06:45 PM EDT – Like – Reply


sknabt
Great. Once again, my comments are truncated!!!
 
Did I mention I ***HATE**** debating in comments? 
April 28, 2007, 4:10:17 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Yes, I think I may recall your saying that at one point or another. OTOH, I have learned from painful experience that posting in someone else's forum is an invitation to character assassination. With one click of the mouse, any response I make can be made to vanish, as if it were never there, while all the Einsteins cackle about how I don't have any response to their brilliant insights. I'm not saying your forum would behave in that fashion, but it's hard to say when I can't even Look at it without registering. You aren't going to get my registration for something I can't see what it is beforehand.
 
But that's just me.
April 28, 2007, 4:33:18 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
> Of course, you aren't particularly transparent either.
 
I'm not? Aside from the fact that some posts here include my real name, aside from the fact that the domain is registered under my real name (about a 60-second process to learn it there), aside from the fact that my real name is plastered on the front page of another blog where I write, aside from the fact that my name appears in every URL of every article on this blog, and aside from the fact that I am a registered member of the Media Bloggers Association with my name right out in plain view for everyone to see... Well yeah, aside from all that, I'm keeping it a secret.
 
Now since we're back on speaking terms again  perhaps you'd like to get back to my simple question. You claimed as fact that I agreed with the "conclusion" of the Green article. I just need to know two things: quote from the article the conclusion it comes to, and quote from me where I agree with that conclusion.
April 28, 2007, 4:38:52 PM EDT – Like – Reply