Cover Story


The Outfoxed gals, lying about what Fox covers? Shocking! With J$P Video!

It's one of the dogmas that Fox haters invoke, over and over. FNC "didn't cover" this. Or that. And who are the principal floggers of this chestnut? None other than the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed syndicate). Whenever they pull this ancient trick , they are almost always wildly, ridiculously wrong, but for some reason that doesn't stop them. Perhaps because they are suffering from doggie projection.

Example: their old, tired mantra about the stock market. The curs insist that when the markets go up, it leads the hour on Your World. But when they do down, Fox hides the news, and Your World will do any number of stories before reporting on the decline. Only it's another hound lie. Proof: the markets go down, and the story dominates the first block of Your World:



And the newspoodles? Do they tell their readers how their shopworn theory has been torpedoed once again? Um, no. Look how their write-up of this broadcast begins:
The third segment today (July 20, ,2007) on Your World w/Neil Cavuto (an alleged "business news" program), began...

Yes, their recap of the program neatly avoids any mention of this coverage by beginning with the third segment! All the better to perpetuate their smear. Not too different from the multiple complaints they filed because Bill O'Reilly dared to criticize DailyKos. You see, he's just attacking Kos because he "hates the left". If it was really about hate speech, why doesn't he call out right wing sites? And yet, when Mr Bill does just that, exposing some hateful comments on Free Republic, what do the mutts do? Their write up talks about his Talking Points Memo and nothing else! Not a word about Free Republic or O'Reilly's condemnation of the comments there!

That's why their "Fox didn't cover" tricks are so transparent and hypocritical. And there is no better example of that than Donna's latest demagoguery. How dare Fox run a promo claiming the "best political coverage", she whines, when they never covered Tuesday's Democratic debate?
Fox Claims It Has The Best Political Coverage - Then Doesn't Cover Democratic Debate...
there was no coverage at all of the Democratic Debate last night. Typical Fox - claiming something that isn't true.
Actually, this is typical newshounds: claiming something that isn't true. But the kennel-dwellers eagerly swallow the tripe as if it were fact:
  • Unfortunately for Fox, the main dissident party has decided to stop participating in their own demonising. So the only option is not to cover them at all.
  • if you claim to be "fair and balanced" and provide unbiased coverage to ALL americans regardless of politics, then ignoring one political party is NOT "good" coverage.
  • in order to have the best POLITICAL coverage, it is customary to cover ALL things POLITICAL...like, you know, POLITICAL DEBATES

We tried to set them straight:



Sadly, the one thing that is not permitted in the echo chamber is truth, and our comment was, of course, deleted. And while the biased bassets prefer to spew slanders and falsehoods, we will simply offer the plain, incontrovertible truth [QuickTime video]:



Special bonus YouTube edition:


posted: Thu - August 9, 2007 at 12:30 PM       j$p  send 

Glen
Game,set, match. JD eviscerates them again.
August 9, 2007, 10:15:00 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
Ellen? Deborah? Chrish? Marie?
 
Any response to these observations?
 
If not, enjoy accepting your deception-induced demise...
August 9, 2007, 11:01:04 PM EDT – Like – Reply


ImNotBlue
I actually was watching the begining of Cavuto... the first story on it was about the stock market. He showed the big board... talked about a sell off... showed a clip of the President talking about it...
 
It WAS the first thing!
August 10, 2007, 3:08:46 AM EDT – Like – Reply


sknabt
“Really? Can you cite an example? I would be very surprised if you could find any comment by me where I broke my own comment rules. But, hey, I'm willing to be surprised. Let's hear it.” - quoting J$ from a previous thread
 
On a web site with rules prohibiting "juvenilia" you wouldn't expect name calling such as "newspoodles" to be found in its posts. But, of course, in the same definition only "juvenilia" aimed at conservatives is cited in the examples so we're face-hugged by the hypocritical nature of its operator, J$. So in a manner of speaking, J$’s correct. He can’t ever violate rules he wrote specifically to protect himself while allowing him to viciously bash liberals.  
 
J
August 10, 2007, 3:07:12 PM EDT – Like – Reply


sknabt
"As I've noted before, you post at the newshounds, who delete comments for no reasons whatsoever, except that they disagree with them, or point out untruths in their postings. I haven't seen you complain on their site, probably because you realize they would probably delete it!" - J$ from a previous thread 
 
This is a Bill O’Reilly-ism. Sanctimoniously tell a half truth assuming your audience won’t bother researching the issue. Works like a charm, eh?
 
First the half that’s true: I never said anything at News Hounds about your posts getting deleted. But, as I’m sure you’re aware, you and I were in a very active thread on my blog where this topic came up and “Ellen of News Hounds” and myself discussed this issue. I think you’re not even foolish enough to play your usual ‘post the evidence’ bluff on this one but here’s the link anyhow: 
http://www.eyesonfox.org/blog/wordpress/wp-admin/edit-comments.php?s=ellen&submit=Search&mode=view
 
Which provides a nice little segue into your never-ending martyr act. Being the man in the middle I’ll never be able to get to the bottom of the splat between you and News Hounds. Don’t bother writing a long rant justifying yourself to me because it’s beside the point. The point can be summed up by this comment of Ellen’s:
 
“… he has been repeatedly asked to stay off our site but refuses to do so. I gave him formal notice that any further comments from him will be deemed harassment and yet he still returned.”
 
Essentially, you ‘re banned from News Hounds. I’m not saying that’s right or wrong. But you’re being dishonest with your debate tactic that you posted some reasonable comment and News Hounds deleted it because they can’t stand the truth because, as you’re undoubtedly aware, all your comments will likely get the ax even if you agreed with something News Hounds said. Quit the martyr act. You look like a fool.
.
August 10, 2007, 3:10:21 PM EDT – Like – Reply


sknabt
“… I believe my question was about the fact that he just did an entire segment on hate speech at freerepublic.com. You claimed he is a liar because he says only liberal sites have hate speech. That is simply and obviously false given what he just broadcast yesterday. So I ask again? Do you admit that what you said (Bill claims only libs "cornered the market" on hate speech) is untrue?” - J$ from a previous thread
 
HaloSpam comments don’t appear to allow searching in my Internet Exploder pop-up so I can’t verify for sure I didn’t call Bill O’Reilly a “liar” in said context but it sure sounds fishy. Shot-gunning the “liar” label is far more your habit than mine. 
 
But to your point, no, I don’t view my opinion as false. If I recall, I referenced an O’Reilly segment where Ellis Henican (sp?) was debating Bill’s attack on Air America. Not conservative talk radio. Nope. Just Air America. Did he eventually criticize foaming right-winger Michael Savage? You bet. Is that proof Bill goes after the other side? Hardly, he was cornered by Ellis on it and caved in.
 
Now, the above example is consistent with my impression of Bill O’Reilly’s shtick. Is the FreeRepublic.com example you cite proof I‘m wrong? Not that I‘m aware of.
 
Because if we’re talking about the same Talking Points Memo Bill O’Reilly himself makes it clear he didn’t find out about Free Republic’s so-called “hate” posts on his own accord. Watch for yourself as Bill clearly says “some on the left justify the garbage by pointing to right-wing web sites like FreeRepublic.com whose posts can get nasty as well.” 
 
Notice Free Republic’s ”garbage” is merely “nasty” while DailyKos’ is characterized by Bill “as the most vile stuff imaginable” indicating to me he feels the liberal stuff is naturally worse. Bill offers Free Republic the opportunity to appear on his show to defend their web site. Did he ever offer DailyKos the same chance? If he didn’t, does that mean O’Reilly’s “hiding under his chair” in fear?
 
Here’s the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dO5TEvSNguQ
 
The connection between the old thread and this new one is you, like O'Reilly, love to get sanctimonious about liberal hate but not so much about conservative hate. The perfect example is you raising anonymous liberal hate comments to a moral issue while remaining an active blogger at OblermannWatch where you admit there's conservative hate.
 
More J$ hypocrisy.
.
August 10, 2007, 3:27:10 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
> The perfect example is you raising anonymous liberal hate comments to a moral issue while remaining an active blogger at OblermannWatch where you admit there's conservative hate. More J$ hypocrisy.
 
And you post at the newshounds where you admit they delete posts that expose their lies and catch them in the act. More snkabt hypocrisy!
 
> protect himself while allowing him to viciously bash liberals
 
Yeah, "newspoodles" is a VICIOUS attack! There is literally smoke coming from the monitor just displaying it!! Puh-lease. Oh, and by the way, I don't bash liberals. I bash people who post lies about Fox. That they happen to be liberals is their choice, not mine.
 
> Essentially, you ‘re banned from News Hounds.
 
Wrong. I know how haloscan works and I know how to ban people. I am not banned from newshounds. Only my posts where I catch them in a lie seem to disappear. As do those of others who do the same. Are you beginning to grasp the pattern here?
 
[more below]
August 10, 2007, 3:48:09 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
> I can’t verify for sure I didn’t call Bill O’Reilly a “liar” in said context but it sure sounds fishy. Shot-gunning the “liar” label is far more your habit than mine. 
 
Well, let's see what you said:
 
"When Bill O’Reilly tries to pretend liberals have cornered the market on hate he’s set himself up to be easily proved a liar.... Unlike you, I don't just shotgun around the "liar" label but in Bill's case I can easily justify it because he lies at least once every day he's on the air ..."
 
Looks to me like you did call him a liar. And look at that, almost verbatim your talking point about how I "shotgun" the "liar" label. You of course overlook that I use that label on the hounds because THEY use that label over and over again. They are being judged by their own standards.
 
> you, like O'Reilly, love to get sanctimonious about liberal hate but not so much about conservative hate.
 
Well, the Free Republic segment has apparently demolished your argument that O'Reilly ONLY addresses liberal hate, so now you've back-pedalled from "never" to "not so much". A good first step. There's hope for you yet.
 
Oh, and as for me, I don't get sanctimonious about liberal hate. Let's try this one more time. Slowly. Pay attention. I get worked up NOT about hate from liberals, but rather hate from Fox haters. It's one of the prime focuses of this site: expose and debunk the lies of those who would smear Fox. Once again, the fact that so many of them are liberals is their choice, not mine.
 
[still more below]
August 10, 2007, 3:54:05 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Finally, I would like to address snabt's role as apologist for the newshounds. The hounds post an article where both the headline and the text claim that Fox gave "no coverage at all" to the Democratic debate. Patently false, it was covered repeatedly throughout the day. But does sknabt admit this is a lie? OK, he doesn't use the "liar" word, except on Bill O'Reilly or maybe me. So does sknabt admit they were wrong? They made a mistake? An error?
 
Nope. A hound apologist will instead claim, oh, the newshounds "exaggerated". "No coverage at all" is merely an "exaggeration"!! Now, if I wrote that sknabt has never covered John Gibson on his site, that wouldn't be a lie. Or even a mistake. Merely a slight, insignificant "exaggeration". Right? Is it your ideological sympatico with the hounds that leads you to make such preposterous apologies when they get caught in the act again?
 
But wait, there's more! If the hounds were merely "exaggerating", or even if you were to walk the plank and grudgingly admit they were outright wrong, what did they do about it? When they learned they were wrong, did they correct their post? Did they rewrite it to reflect the truth? Or, knowing that their article is flat-out untrue, did they leave it up just as written, deliberately allowing false information to be circulated by Google News and whatever other syndicator they bamboozled into thinking they were a legitimate source of "news"?
 
You tell me. Their article is false. They know it is false. And yet they deliberately let the false information stand, and actively delete comments that expose its falsity. And to you that is not a lie? Incredible.
August 10, 2007, 4:11:11 PM EDT – Like – Reply


sknabt
And you post at the newshounds where you admit they delete posts that expose their lies and catch them in the act. More snkabt hypocrisy!
 
Nice spin job. Well, not really.
 
As I’ve indicated, I don’t know if you were an out of control troll over there or if you are being censored for your politics. To be frank, this late in the game I’ll never figure it out. I’ll tell you outright I don’t believe you nor do I believe News Hounds on the topic. Until I witness behavior patterns for myself so I can sort things out the jury’s out. 
 
“Yeah, ‘news poodles’ is a VICIOUS attack! There is literally smoke coming from the monitor just displaying it!! Puh-lease. Oh, and by the way, I don't bash liberals. I bash people who post lies about Fox. That they happen to be liberals is their choice, not mine.”
 
Yet you ban by rule “Faux News,” for example. The threat for said offense - according to your rules - is deletion of posts so you disprove your own spin. I could leave it at viciousness is in the eye of the beholder but more needs to be exposed here. Because you’re downplaying the sort of “hate” (by your terminology) you routinely spew at any critic of Fox News. 
 
All of the above hypocrisy would be bad enough, but you can’t stop being completely disingenuous. Your ridiculous observation you don’t attack liberals they just “happen to be liberals” belies the fact you love posting liberal-bashing rubbish spewed out by your Foxy heroes. Stuff like Gibby trash-mouthing liberal bloggers. And before you knee-jerk your standard lame excuse you just post what interests you and it doesn’t mean anything, you doggedly defend their liberal-bashing opinions refusing to yield an inch.
 
Wrong. I know how haloscan works and I know how to ban people. I am not banned from newshounds. Only my posts where I catch them in a lie seem to disappear. As do those of others who do the same. Are you beginning to grasp the pattern here?
 
I’ll defer to you on this topic because I wouldn’t touch that crappy service if you paid me real money so I have no clue about it’s inner workings.
 
So where does that leave us? Even assuming you’re completely right, it leaves us at News Hounds being similar to your site. You’re sensitive to liberals name-calling (e.g.,., “Faux News”) and they’re sensitive to yours. Bill O’Reilly accuses liberals of posting hate but dilly-dallies (has ever deleted the “hate” posts on his site?) dealing with conservative posts just as bad if not worse. 
 
That’s why I’m a critic of deleting “hate” comments. Where do you draw the line? Partisans appear to prefer hypocritical standards in my limited experience.
.
August 11, 2007, 3:03:57 PM EDT – Like – Reply


sknabt
“Looks to me like you did call him a liar. And look at that, almost verbatim your talking point about how I "shotgun" the "liar" label. You of course overlook that I use that label on the hounds because THEY use that label over and over again. They are being judged by their own standards.”
 
I see a possible error in what I said. Is it more accurate to say Bill O’Reilly lies twice per show? Because he also, I believe, generally adds some reminder at the end along the lines of ‘remember, the spin stops here.’
 
Bill O’Reilly’s format depends on editorial like his “Talking Points” segment. He often actively promotes his personal views during his debate segments to the point of shouting down guests like Senator Dodd. By definition that’s spin. Is there any doubt Bill realizes he’s shilling his personal views? So, by definition, he’s lying when he says he doesn‘t “spin.”. Some would argue it’s classic marketing hype but we’re not marketing beer here.
 
Well, the Free Republic segment has apparently demolished your argument that O'Reilly ONLY addresses liberal hate, so now you've back-pedaled from "never" to "not so much". A good first step. There's hope for you yet.
 
Whoa… you’re misreading my earlier comment. Pardon the repetition but often I have to keep repeating my arguments until you acknowledge them.
 
Do you doubt that partisans promoting the idea that either liberals or conservatives have monopolies on hate are lying for their cause? In the 2 cases we’ve discussed Bill O’Reilly tried to perpetuate that lie. It’s undeniable fact. The fact he was confronted by Ellis Henican and caved or was, as he himself admits (and you are actively ignoring), confronted by liberals in the case of Free Republican then caved doesn’t alter the fact one iota.
 
Find me a case of Bill O’Reilly attacking conservative “hate” sites when it was his idea. I suspect the sound you just heard is your house of cards collapsing. 
 
You of course overlook that I use that label on the hounds because THEY use that label over and over again. They are being judged by their own standards.
 
Even if true, you‘re simply justifying your “hate“ by mimicking the “hate“ of those you don‘t respect. But your general smear doesn’t ring true. I’m not going to say they don’t use the terms “lie” or “liar” in their criticisms but my casual observation is they don’t shotgun it like you do to demonize opponents. So I searched most, if not all, of their ‘featured’ posts (those not aged off to archive or reduced to mere titles) for the terms “lie*” and “liar*”. I didn’t get a single hit. Hardly scientific or a definitive proof but it does lead me to believe you’re blowing a lot of smoke. 
 
Slowly. Pay attention. I get worked up NOT about hate from liberals, but rather hate from Fox haters.
 
How do you key this stuff in? You’ve got to be laughing at your own spin so hard you’re crawling on the floor in pain. 
 
You really
August 11, 2007, 3:09:03 PM EDT – Like – Reply


sknabt
[continued....]
 
You really could have fooled me in your dogged defense of Gibby’s hypocritical and completely dishonest liberal-bashing where he, like O’Reilly, single out liberal hate blogs for their outrage. 
.
August 11, 2007, 3:09:54 PM EDT – Like – Reply


sknabt
Finally, I would like to address snabt's role as apologist for the newshounds. The hounds post an article where both the headline and the text claim that Fox gave "no coverage at all" to the Democratic debate. Patently false, it was covered repeatedly throughout the day. But does sknabt admit this is a lie? OK, he doesn't use the "liar" word, except on Bill O'Reilly or maybe me. So does sknabt admit they were wrong? They made a mistake? An error?
 
Actually, I thought I clearly did made the point they were wrong. Your problem is you’re clearly out to demonize News Hounds so people not wielding bloody verbal baseball bats aren‘t sincere enough. Unless I join your hypocritical right-wing crusade of “hate” (by your standards) in smash-mouthing them too I’m an “apologist.”
 
As you’re aware, I’ve agreed with some of your criticisms in the past. If I thought News Hounds was such a great site I’d dump Eyes On Fox and just be a regular commenter over there. I might even ask them if I could blog on their site (fat chance, I realize). I generally just skim News Hounds for topics - like I do here - but I’ll stick my neck out here to make the general observation I agree with you some of there analysis is far too sloppy. But, by the same token, they do a decent job of documenting Fox News’ bias. Which, IMHO, is the real source of your angst. You nip at their heels here and there desperately trying to discredit them but you can’t stifle the fundamental issue: Fox News is a heavily biased, trash journalism news channel.
 
You like to feature clips of Fox’s liberal-bashing on your site and you doggedly defend said bias. Your motives and agenda are clear even though you play some cowardly game of trying to hide it. 
 
“Now, if I wrote that sknabt has never covered John Gibson on his site, that wouldn't be a lie. Or even a mistake. Merely a slight, insignificant "exaggeration". Right? Is it your ideological sympatico with the hounds that leads you to make such preposterous apologies when they get caught in the act again?”
 
Straw man. I’d assume you weren’t that familiar with my web site. No, I wouldn’t assume it was a “lie” unless it was clearly in a context where your motivations were undeniable. 
 
You tell me. Their article is false. They know it is false. And yet they deliberately let the false information stand, and actively delete comments that expose its falsity. And to you that is not a lie? Incredible.
 
You and I argued about a video a long while back where it’s quite clear you creatively edited it. Worse, this came on the heels of you accusing me of the same so I posted a correction and, if I recall, posted the entire segment. You’re not one to post corrections nor are you one likely to yield an inch in a debate. I don’t see a lot of fundamental difference between you and News Hounds except you’re in a sanctimonious snit to desperately discredit them while they pretty much ignore your web site.
.
August 11, 2007, 3:12:34 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
Sorry sknabt, but calling Fox News a "heavily biased, trash journalism news channel" only serves to further exemplify your own bias. You have been brainwashed by the well documented liberal MSM "trash journalism" that permeates American media.
 
I realize it was comfy in your plush single-sided bastion of left leaning MSM reporting before you watched Fox. I'm very sorry that you have to listen to both sides of news stories and debates now. You have my compassionate condolence.
August 11, 2007, 3:23:04 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Scott
Sknabt, are you just a hypocrite or really living in mommy's basement? You bash Fox but from your own little Fox bashing site you claim, "I was even interviewed on the phone by Fox for my opinion during the debates for the 2000 Presidential Race."
Are you whining like a little muttonutt because Fox never called you again because they found you had no idea what you were talking about? Your own words again on your little site, "I am an ameteur historian with interests in espionage, terrorism, special operations and military aviation." Reads to me like you and Rosie are one and the same. Stick to something you know there muttonutt, because spelling, grammar and history are not your forte.
August 12, 2007, 4:02:57 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Scott
By the way, if you were interviewed by Fox, as you claim, then being an IT whiz you surely have proof of that. Please do sure the link to your mighty interview.
August 12, 2007, 4:04:55 PM EDT – Like – Reply


sknabt
"I realize it was comfy in your plush single-sided bastion of left leaning MSM reporting before you watched Fox. I'm very sorry that you have to listen to both sides of news stories and debates now. You have my compassionate condolence."
 
Balance like the David Asman special "Victory or Retreat: The Surge and Politics" I just watched?
 
Let me see. About 1/2 of the show presented the Pentagon's POV. Following that "fair and balanced" part 2 anti-war guys competed with the pro-war views of General Patraeus, General Odierno, General Scales (ret.), Ollie North, pro-surge 'liberal' Michael O'Hanlon, Michael Barone (to spin poll numbers in favor of the war), and Mitch McConnell. I probably missed someone on the pro-war side but I'm going largely by memory.
 
Not to mention Asman and Company provide some nice background like telling us America was pushing back the commies at the end of the war and the country didn’t fall to the them until Congress pulled the plug on funding South Vietnam’s army. Darn libs! Not to mention there was some slick stuff portraying Clinton policy as "soft" and Bush policy as "ferocious". Darn libs at it again!
 
Is that the kind of balance you're talking about? Or are you talking about the sort of balance where they downplay Scooter Libby and, in fact, run a David Asman special focusing on Sandy Berger? Darn lib and a Clintonite to boot!
 
I shouldn't complain, though. Fox News might take me seriously and run a David Asman special on Scooter Libby. I'm not sure my heart could take a story on how a great American patriot was lynched by American-hating liberals over a poor memory. Darn those libs one last time! 
.
August 12, 2007, 4:20:55 PM EDT – Like – Reply


sknabt
"Sknabt, are you just a hypocrite or really living in mommy's basement?
 
Oh, no, J
August 12, 2007, 4:37:31 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
OK sknabt, even though it's a few snippets from a single show that I didn't even watch, I'll bite.
 
"...anti-war guys competed with the pro-war views..."
 
Not fair and balanced how? Sounds like you watched a two sided debate.
 
"...telling us America was pushing back the commies at the end of the war and the country didn’t fall to the them until Congress pulled the plug on funding South Vietnam’s army. Darn libs! Not to mention there was some slick stuff portraying Clinton policy as "soft" and Bush policy as "ferocious". Darn libs at it again!"
 
I thought you were a history buff sknabt. You should know that it's the truth. Read all about the dem's plug pulling and its effect at the History News Network (GW University).
 
http://hnn.us/articles/31400.html
 
Also, would you not describe Clinton's vs Bush's foreign policy as soft vs ferocious? Looking back over the last 15 years I'm going to have to say that's true too. C'mon self-described history buff!
 
Apparently Fox is evil for telling the truth.
 
"Darn libs!"
August 12, 2007, 5:07:59 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Jakealope
I am so sick of all you right wing [expletive deleted], and some leftist too, whining about media bias. You are a petty little fool who rants when some story isn't worded the way you like it, but since you are vapid and semi literate at best, it is an endless source of whining. No wonder why you admire O'Reilly, he spends half of his vapid petty show whining about how he doesn't like this or that story like some obnoxious drunk.

Edited By Siteowner
January 26, 2008, 10:34:58 PM EST – Like – Reply