Newshound Scoop: O'Reilly Found Guilty by Judge!


When the Outfoxed gals smear someone, the last thing they want to hear is the truth.

When you want the stories that reputable news media won't report, one place to turn is the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed mob). Their track record is impressive. They brought us the exclusive report that Sandy Berger was innocent: cleared of all charges. The anti-Fox terriers told us how George Bush had a criminal conviction for cocaine, another story that the responsible media have been shamelessly covering up. And of course the hounds were way ahead of the mainstream media when they broke the news that Karl Rove has been indicted in the Valerie Plame case.

Now these intrepid journalists have done it again. In another scoop for the biased bassets, they have more breaking news. Bill O'Reilly is "implicated" in a libel case, and what's more, he's been found "guilty" by the judge!



All of this stems from the newspoodles chortling over a Keith Olbermann smear job that aired last night. Olbermann used all the propaganda techniques at his disposal to lie to his viewers. The tricks KO used to defame Bill are detailed here, but the most egregious thing he did was to edit a clip of O'Reilly so that viewers wouldn't realize that Mr Bill was giving both sides of the controversy (did a judge really tell a 14-year rape victim to "get over it"?). Olbermann ran the part where O'Reilly interviewed a writer who claimed the judge said it, but snipped out the part where Mr Bill read a statement from the judge denying he said any such thing.

And because Olbermann left it out, so did newsmutt Deborah. Instead, she followed Olby's lead in smearing O'Reilly as a character assassin, and of course the credulous kennel-dwellers swallowed it whole:
  • The judge didn't say what O'Reilly said he did, yet O'Reilly, little bitch that he is, won't own up and apologize.
  • BORe will never apologize for all the smearing he does.
  • If he fully plans on destroying a man's life, he has even extra charge to make sure what he says is true.
  • the only way to give a "fair and balanced" report... give the judge a chance to prove he had not made the statement, and that Wedge was libeling him.

Note that last comment. That is exactly what O'Reilly did:

O'REILLY: Judge Murphy turned down our request for an interview, but he did tell "The Boston Globe," which competes against "The Herald," that he never said any such thing, and that he's the victim of intimidation.

But that part of the clip ended up on Olbermann's cutting room floor. And deceitful Debbie, who also kept that information out of her report, actively removed it every time we offered it in the comments:



Comments deleted.



Comment deleted.



Comment deleted.

If there were any doubt that the curs print lies just to smear Fox, there's the proof, as they systematically delete every attempt to correct their falsehoods. Instead, they claim a judge "found" Bill O'Reilly "guilty of republishing"! The truth: the judge made no such finding in the case. Even Olbermann's report didn't make this absurd allegation, so where did it come from? Deb made it up! It is impossible to be found "guilty of republishing" because there is no such crime. ("Republishing" means you are not committing libel or slander as you are just reporting someone else's words. So the claim that he was found "guilty of republishing" is equivalent to saying he was "guilty of free speech".) On top of all this, O'Reilly was not even a defendant in the case! By the way, we posted this information too and, like Pavlov's dogs, the canines promptly deleted it:



Comment deleted.



Comment deleted.

The lies began with the infamous Keith Olbermann, and were eagerly embellished with Debbie's fanciful drivel and iron-handed censorship of the truth. It's how things work in the Fox haters' echo-chamber.

posted: Fri - June 8, 2007 at 11:24 AM       j$p  send 

ImNotBlue
Well done, $... great report.
June 8, 2007, 2:08:49 PM EDT – Like – Reply


SteveMG
Congrats, J$.
 
KO is a ticking time bomb for NBC/MSNBC. It's only a matter of time before stuff like this gets greater publication/dissemination before a larger audience.
 
Poof.
June 8, 2007, 7:46:26 PM EDT – Like – Reply


sknabt
Buried within your hyperbole there appears to be a point but it's buried deeply.
 
"When you want the stories that reputable news media won't report, one place to turn is the newshounds [sic]..." is an opening screech. This, of course, is in response to a News Hounds post that opens "Keith Olbermann reported tonight..." I realize you can't stand Olbermann (witness your activities over at Olbermann Watch) but he's part of NBC News' team, though his role is primarily punditry.
 
The only really troubling accusation I see in this entire affair is News Hounds' unwritten policy of deleting posts. Unwritten, that's not honest. Even written, it'd be censorship.
 
The attention grabbing "o'reilly [sic] found guilty by judge" headline appears to be hyperventilating over an obvious mistake which has since been corrected on their web site. This explains why you post it as a screen shot image. I'm pasting this from their site:
 
"Cooper said the Judge in the May 2007 ruling found O'Reilly not guilty of libel because he republished the false statement which in itself created a situation of harm for Murphy. It was decided that Wedge and The Boston Herald were legally responsible for the problem."
 
So what we have here is News Hounds using an Olbermann spew to criticize O'Reilly. Of course, you know my opinion of Olbermann: he's the liberal equivalent of Bill O'Reilly.
 
Judging from the dishonest and ridiculous John Gibson clips you've been posting of late I wouldn't try to toss too many bricks around your glass house. Partisans do love their pets.
June 8, 2007, 9:27:15 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Yes, the O'Reilly found guilty is a mistake. (You notice I didn't call it a "lie"!) And yet, when I pointed out that mistake, the hounds immediately accused me of "smearing" them and deleted my message. Hmmm. And notice how desperate they were to erase any mention of the fact that Olbermann used an edited O'Reilly clip that misrepresented Mr Bill.
 
By the way, even the stealth rewrite they did on their post is false. The judge didn't find O'Reilly "not guilty of libel" because O'Reilly wasn't even a defendant in the case. What's more, this case was decided by a jury, not a judge. Sheesh! I mean, how much incompetence and outright dishonesty can one kennel hold?
June 8, 2007, 9:47:29 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
Welcome once again, sknabt. I'm wondering, what exactly has been dishonest in Gibson's clips that johnny posts? Yes, Gibson does occasionally blow things out of proportion but he doesn't lie.
 
TP and MM tried to smear him by indicating that he was a racist for something completely innocent, I would have been angry too. Those sites are as (ir)reparable as NH.
 
I do enjoy reading your posts here and am happy to have someone of a good (if misled) mind to posit the opposing viewpoints.
June 8, 2007, 10:40:45 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Damail
Somebody over at Newswoofs must have really been in a snit, Johnny. They usually delete only a third of my comments. Not allowing a single one of your comments to stand? That's pretty low.
 
By the way, one of their fans claimed that you actually couldn't come up with any Olbermann lies and therefore gave up the fight. I corrected them and told them they were censoring you, instead. We'll see how long my post stands before it gets censored.
June 10, 2007, 7:35:06 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Oh yeah, I can't come up with Olbermann lies. We've documented so many lies at Olbermann Watch that we make top 10 lists, like we did for the top 10 Olby lies of 2006.
 
Yeah, as soon as I post, whoosh! It gets erased. Cowards.
June 10, 2007, 7:54:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply