4/5/10 9:47 AM

Fox Haters Week in Review

The question all America wants answered: who told The Lie of the Week? Find out in today's riveting edition of Fox Haters Week in Review!

Let's Play Screwball:
First on the docket is MSNBC motor-mouth Chris Matthews, a man who ironically owes his cable news prominence (such as it is) to Roger Ailes. Matthews, a former Democratic pol, might be described as a person who never has an unspoken thought. So it is that he decided to provide his own instant content analysis of what airs on a rival channel:

But there is a network out there, Fox News, that has offered absolutely no debate, its just trashed every single thing…has there ever been a bill before in congress where an entire network on television has blasted it every day for more than a year?”
It sounds a little like Matthews is echoing the disgraced New York Times editor Howell Raines, who wrote just days earlier that FNC's health care coverage is nothing more or less than "a propaganda campaign against the Obama administration -- a campaign without precedent in our modern political history".

We thought it might be interesting to put these claims to the test. So we fired up the trusty DVR and set the controls for all the way back to Friday morning. Here's a run-down of some of the anti-Obama propagandists who "trashed every single thing" about the health care proposals:All these appearances were on a morning filled with a lot of breaking news, which included over a half-hour of uninterrupted coverage of statements from Nancy Pelosi and President Obama. If that's a morning of anti-Obama "propaganda", it's a strange way of going about it.

By the way, FNC's most-watched primetime hour brought more pro-health care advocates: Mary Anne Marsh, Nancy Skinner, Rep Luis Gutierrez, and Dr Mark Morocco. The latter had a lively exchange with Dr Manny Alvarez--but how can that be? Fox has "absolutely no debate"! Perhaps Chris Matthews uses a different definition:
There is a lot of debate on MSNBC about this health care bill – left versus center-left, whatever.

Around the Interwebs:
For some reason, the solons at Crooks and Liars decided to haul out the wayback machine to do a post about a 1995 FCC decision regarding foreign ownership of broadcast stations. The ruling noted that Rupert Murdoch was "an American citizen", but Gordonskene finds a sinister aspect:
Ironically, Murdoch applied for and got citizenship while the hearings were underway, so it made everything seem legit.
But the link provided says the issue in question arose in 1993; Murdoch received his citizenship in 1985.

RedState doesn't have the Fox Hater reputation of Crooks and Liars, but that doesn't mean they can't slip up too. Dan Perrin is up in arms over FNC's running tally of House health care votes:
FOX News ought to be ashamed of itself. Pushing their only two away, only one away, the Dems have the votes, they are at plus one in the Yes vote tally. They were wrong when they reported it and they are still wrong.... GOP House Whip Cantor says the Dems do not have the votes, so does FireDogLake.... You should fire the idiot doing your vote counting. He or she cannot do simple math, and are injecting guesses and certainty where there is little.
Simple math is exactly what FNC is doing. As they have stated repeatedly, their "whip count" is a straightforward mathematical formula. They take the earlier House vote on health care as the base, and when any member says he is changing their vote from then to now, they adjust the count accordingly. No guessing, no tricks, nothing subjective at all. Pure numbers.

And one thumb down to the Huffington Post, who like Think Progress, used our Geraldo/Bret Baier video without bothering to credit J$P with a link. Thanks to Mediaite for doing it up right.

Some Dare Call It Treason:
What would a FHWiR be without a visit to the newshounds? Ellen Brodsky is in high dudgeon about FNC's "all out effort" to "take down health care reform", even though she probably couldn't name five people on Fox who don't support some flavor of health care reform. In this case she's all atwitter because on Friday Megyn Kelly did an interview with Gene Simmons that spent a few minutes on his opposition to Obamacare. See? Proof!

Now far be it from us to accuse Brodsky of cherry-picking to misrepresent. But it's passing strange that Ellen didn't say anything about people on that same program who spoke in favor of health care. As detailed above, Fox hosted Anthony Weiner, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, and two others that same day, in the hours before Megyn met KISS. And yet, there is not one word from any of the hounds about these segments. How easy to claim an "all out effort" when you hide contrary data from the sensitive eyes of credulous readers.

We saw above how well-represented the pro-Obamacare contingent was on Friday's Factor, but the only segment that got hound coverage was the one in a debate format, with Drs Alvarez and Morocco. Julie Driscoll started in on substitute host Laura Ingraham:
[She] cited the "fact" that 46% of primary care physicians would "consider leaving their practices if this healthcare reform goes through."
Laura didn't call it a "fact"; she said it was a survey result.
Ingraham cited this "46%" statistic -- no doubt channeling Bill O'Reilly, who cited the same statistic -- which allegedly comes from a poll by the New England Journal of Medicine.... But the New England Journal of Medicine didn't conduct the survey.
Straw dog! Ingraham didn't claim they did.
Dr. Peter Lipsom, writing for Forbes.com, pointed out, due to the polling questions, the poll "is not a reliable measure of doctors' responses to health care reform."
Dr Lipsom's piece doesn't criticize the wording of the questions at all. His opinion as a layman (because he is not a polling expert) is that the sample wasn't scientific enough, and that the result was "widely picked up by partisan media".
[Dr Alvarez said] that he knows thousands of doctors, but can count on one hand the number of doctors that agree with this healthcare bill. Can we say "right-wing agenda?"
Yes, we can! Especially if you assume that anyone who disagrees with a piece of legislation is automatically a tool of the "right-wing". Oddly, while decrying imagined partisanship, Ms Driscoll twice cites as an authority Physicians for a National Health Care Program, a client of "Democracy in Action: Wiring the Progressive Movement". Ironic, huh?

One more item from Ellen Brodsky who again zeroed in on Fox Nation, calling out Jesse Watters for posting "an inflammatory article":
Its first sentence is, "Rep. Steve King (R-IA) is calling for a new procedural solution to stop the health care bill: Have an angry mob of citizens storm Washington and prevent Congress from acting, in imitation of the Velvet Revolution that overthrew communist rule in Czechoslovakia!"
Ellen doesn't make it clear, but Jesse Watters didn't write the article, and Fox Nation didn't post it. They quoted two sentences and then linked to the full piece. By the way, that link takes you to the site that published the "inflammatory article": Talking Points Memo. Brodsky forgot to mention that, but instead focused on several comments talking about a "coming revolution" and "lock and load". Ellen pontificates:
I know as well as anyone that readers' comments do not necessarily - and usually do not - reflect the views of a website. But comments certainly reflect the management decisions of a website run by professionals, with moderators and with the kind of resources that Fox News has. Furthermore, this is far from the first time Fox Nation has allowed comments advocating violence. Is this treason? It certainly looks like it to this layperson.
That's odd. We were sure that treason was defined differently:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Oh wait, that was last-year's newshound definition. Be that as it may, we join in agreement with Ellen about casual discussions of revolution and violence. We're thankful that during the previous administration she didn't allow any of that sort of talk.

The Lie of the Week:
There's a dirty little secret about the internet. Most people who read an article or a post take it at face value. More often than not they don't bother to click the links provided by a good writer to substantiate the claims being made. With that in mind we turn to the Huffington Post, where Democratic activist Burns Strider begins with an attention-getting headline:
FOX News Funds Research and Smear Campaign Against American Pastor
Note the inflammatory use of the term "smear", which as we have shown before is defined as a slanderous, false accusation. How can this alleged campaign possibly be described in that fashion given that it hasn't even begun yet? Nonetheless Mr Strider soldiers on, stating that Beck's staff has a new goal:
...funding opposition research and internet attack campaigns with the stated purpose of destroying the personal credibility of pastors who dare to question statements made by FOX commentators.... Glenn Beck isn't just planning to throw insults; he said that he has been using his FOX staff to research everything that Rev. Wallis has ever said or done and to dig up dirt on the people who work with the pastor....Why is FOX funding research to discredit an American minister?... FOX needs to be called to account for this. They need to explain how a news organization can possibly justify funding an opposition research effort that has the stated purpose of destroying the credibility of an American pastor?
Naturally, it didn't take long for these incendiary charges to propagate through the echo chamber. For example, Crooks and Liars:
Burns Strider, of the American Values Network, makes a good point. Why is Fox funding research to discredit a minister for believing in social justice?
Progressive Revival piles on:
Glenn Beck is using Fox News staff and resources to run his smear campaign against Rev. Jim Wallis.... Burns is right.  FOX does need to be called to account.
And of course, our pals at the newshounds:
Why is Fox “News” Channel Funding Research to Smear an American Pastor?
To back up his claim that "Fox News" is funding Glenn Beck's research into Jim Wallis, Burns offers two links, but they both go to the same source: a Glenn Beck clip posted on Media Matters. When you actually listen to the clip it becomes apparent that, contrary to what Burns stated, Beck does not say he's been "using his Fox staff" to research Rev Wallis. In fact, Beck says nothing about Fox News, or its staff, or its researchers. Zip. Nada. Not surprising, since the clip in question is not from his FNC program, but from the Glenn Beck radio show! What about his "stated purpose" of attacking anyone who disagrees with "Fox commentators"? Also false. Where did Mr Burns get the idea that FNC was funding any of this? He made it up!

Most of the comments attached to his post are what you would expect.
  • It is time for Fox News to be pulled off the air for their hate speech
  • The powers that be at FOX scare me more than foreign terrorist, nuclear war or the end of time.
  • When can Fox News be shut down for treading the legal boundaries of informing the people?
But the corollary to the rule that most people don't check the links is the logical imperative: some people do. One of the HuffPo commenters asked the right question:
  • Where is the evidence that Fox has anything to do with this? Looks to me like a Beck-only thing.
Similarly, amid the flood of comments at Crooks and Liars, there was one swimming against the tide:
This post, in its headline, one of its two original sentences, and its link assert FOX is doing this. Are they doing anything?... Beck owns his own company, Mercury Radio Arts, and his own magazine. He does not work out of FOX HQ. The attacks that are the subject of this post came on his radio show, which is not broadcast by FOX.
Even at the newshounds, one of the commenters pointed out that there was no evidence that Fox was funding any sort of "research". But newspooch "Alex" had a retort to that:
Even if you can show that Fox aren't paying for any of the research, which you haven't... I would also be happy to acknowledge any reliable information that Beck doesn't have researchers on his tv show, paid by Fox News, working on his attack on Wallis.
Never mind that there is no information that Fox News is paying for this research, "Alex" reverses the usual standard and demands proof that it's not true! This encapsulates the newspoodles: make a charge, and if someone expresses doubts, challenge them to prove a negative: that it didn't happen! Ed Wood Jr would have been proud:


Spot something you'd like to see in the next Fox Haters Week in Review? Send us an email!




Chris
Alot of debate on MSNBC? maybe but not at 8pm or 10pm when MSNBC highest rated show comes on. Also I called Matthews a liar the day you linked to it and I stand by it
March 21, 2010, 8:11:56 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
This was an entertaining yet informatively multi-substantiated writeup once again!
 
Hopefully Julie doesn't get scared off by some silly little facts.
March 21, 2010, 9:12:30 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Julie Driscoll
Fox Fan:  Took my Dollar medicine, and I'm still standing and, more importantly, still here!  Dollar and I don't agree -- and I believe some of his premises on my post were a stretch -- but it's always good to have someone holding a political writer's feet to the fire.
March 21, 2010, 9:33:06 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
You are a team player, and I like that!
March 21, 2010, 11:58:27 PM EDT – Like – Reply


ramjet
"...--and I believe some of his (J$) premises on my post were a stretch--..."
 
And I believe some of your premises and selective quotes have a stench."
 
Luv,
 
rj
March 22, 2010, 12:59:58 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Julie Driscoll
ramjet:  It would probably suffice to simply say that you don't agree with me!  Hey, I think I deserve some credit for taking the slings and arrows on this site, as well as Dollar's criticisms of my post, and continuing to show up!  Cut me a little slack!
March 22, 2010, 1:08:32 AM EDT – Like – Reply


ramjet
JD,  
 
It's not that I disagree with you, it's that you're a better writer than that.  
 
Yes, you deserve much credit, and for more than you cite.  
 
J$ criticisms of your post were cursory in nature, dealt with basics, and was probably limited due to time and space considerations.  
 
I'd be happy to cut you a little slack, again.  But that wouldn't fit very well with, "it's always good to have someone holding a political writer's feet to the fire," or "The challenges I get on this site are valuable and important and I won't shirk the debate."  
 
BTW, I think your presence here, unlike many who swoop down; squack; leave their droppings; then fly away,  is beneficial to this site and most certainly, to me.  
 
I have many like-minded friends and not enough that disagree with me.
March 22, 2010, 1:38:42 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Julie Driscoll
Thanks, ramjet -- and my "cut me a little slack" comment was really a joke.  I don't expect that here, and don't want it either.  If I wanted everyone to agree with me, I'd post comments on News Hounds -- which I NEVER have.  I agree, Dollar was not terribly harsh in his criticism of my post -- and as I've said in the past, I value his scrutiny.  I think it's important (although, admittedly, I didn't used to think so!)  I like the challenge of trying to work out differences with people at this site; I think it's healthy for me, and probably for others as well.  I don't expect to heal all ills between News Hounds and this site, but at least I can show you that reasonable debate with a "hound" is possible.
March 22, 2010, 2:04:54 AM EDT – Like – Reply


ramjet
"...but at least I can show you that reasonable debate with a "hound" is possible."  
 
That's debatable.   
 
Here's some unsolicited advice:  forget about mending fences, forget about proving that it's possible a hound can debate civilly (personally, I prefer sillily).  There is a criteria here, a certain standard, that appealed to me and is the reason I've stuck around J$P.  If you're honest, you're seem to be welcome.  If you're (the collective "you're) not, you're not.   
 
Everything else is dependent on the simple foundation of honesty.  Anyway, that's my perception and my opinion.  I could very well be mistaken.
March 22, 2010, 2:58:09 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Julie Driscoll
Fox Fan - Okay, my comment appeared and disappeared.  Anyway, thanks for your comment -- I try to be a team player.  It's one thing to preach to the choir, like on News Hounds, and another to have to defend my positions to those who don't necessarily agree with me.  The challenges I get on this site are valuable and important and I won't shirk the debate.  I appreciate those of you who have welcomed a "hound" to the site, and particularly Dollar, who has not tried to drive me away.  He's behaved in a supremely classy fashion.
March 22, 2010, 1:09:31 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
"he's behaved in an extremely classy fashion."
 
Yep.  It's the reason I stay too.
March 22, 2010, 11:01:19 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Blackflon
Brodsky cherry picking, lying and distorting? Say it ain't so!!
 
In my humble opinion she is a blot on society. Here hate drives her and she has a hard time admitting her mistakes.
March 22, 2010, 8:13:35 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Julie Driscoll
Blackflon:  Your comment about Ellen "cherry picking, lying and distorting" is fair enough -- I don't agree, but it's fair enough.  But for a commenter on a site who constantly accuse the "hounds" of engaging in name calling etc., how do you justify your "blot on society" comment?  I'm sure you'll agree that she's entitled to her opinion, just as everyone here, and Johnny Dollar, is.
March 22, 2010, 8:59:51 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
I'm going to go ahead and agree with Blackflon about Ellen. Her net effect on society is negative, considering the negativity she generates and that which people anywhere can indulge in. She might be a wonderful person face to face, but she touches more lives online (societal) than in person (personal).   
 
Hence, a "blot on society".
March 22, 2010, 9:09:14 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Julie Driscoll
I suppose if that's the standard, since I also blog for News Hounds, I would be guilty of the same thing?  I think calling her a "blot on society," simply for voicing opinions backed up by facts, is an unnecessary generalization -- after all, many people agree with Ellen.  I respect your right to your opinion, but challenge your rhetoric.
March 22, 2010, 9:27:07 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
"I think calling her a "blot on society," simply for voicing opinions backed up by facts, is an unnecessary generalization -- after all, many people agree with Ellen."      
      
Julie, Johnny caught you in a couple of minor mistakes in the last FHWiR. Ellen, OTOH, has been caught in so many bald-faced lies (with J$P Video!) that her negative effect on society is overwhelming considering the acceptance of her word as fact by NHs despite evidence to the contrary.      
      
Ellen is a proven serial liar.      
      
Some people agree with her, but that's because they're just as ill-informed (or knowingly dishonest) as she is.
March 22, 2010, 9:41:35 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Julie Driscoll
Okay, now I'm not gonna concede the "mistakes" Dollar caught me in necessarily, but I do try my best not to either manufacture bias where none exists or make things up to fit my premise.  The amount of information out there is so vast, it's easy, as I've learned as a blogger, to cite sources that aren't the greatest.  Of course, if I were perfect, what would Dollar have to do?!?
March 22, 2010, 9:54:05 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Blackflon
Julie, calling Brodsky a "blot on society" is from my own observations of her behavior. She is very rigid about her hate for Fox News and her posts are full of errors. She lets her ideology get in the way of her reportage( I really like that word). Several other posters on the internet seem to have the same kind of problems. Daily Kos comes to mind.
 
The so called "name calling" is not in the same vein as the type that comes from her own site.
Most of the name calling I do(like Hideious Hen House) is done as hyperbole and no individual personal attack is intended.( Although I may slip up on occasion).
 
I hold no hate for that crowd. Just trying to keep it light.
March 23, 2010, 7:48:45 AM EDT – Like – Reply


 johnny dollar
Look, Ellen has a post up right now about Fox ignoring the immigration rally and the epithets hurled at the Congressmen. Now she has an opinion, but it's not based on facts. The immigration rally WAS covered, and there were whole segments about the epithets. It's that sort of thing that leads to the kind of reaction Ellen engenders in these parts.
March 22, 2010, 9:43:37 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Julie Driscoll
I actually started to research my (admittedly pre-conceived) notion that Fox didn't cover the racial slurs and quickly realized they did . . . so I agree with you there.  Except for that little thing about me being a "plagiarist," you've rarely accused me of outright lying -- I actually learned under Ellen's very exacting tutelage.  She was uber-strict about factual back-up and generalities when I was guest blogging.
March 22, 2010, 9:51:33 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
I'm interested in Ellen's tutelage methodology.  
 
Does she teach how to fabricate FNC's coverage while not watching it?
March 22, 2010, 9:55:34 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Julie Driscoll
Can't say she does . . . and I have no clue how that works.  I watch O'Reilly nearly every night, and if there's a post there, then I do it.  If there's not, I don't.  I can't speak for how other bloggers work -- I can only say, again, that when I was learning on News Hounds she ran a tight ship.
March 22, 2010, 10:01:59 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
You're saying that she doesn't practice what she preaches?   
 
March 22, 2010, 10:04:56 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Julie Driscoll
No, Fox Fan, I didn't say that . . . but nice try!  What I said is that I can't speak to the accuracy of every bit of information on News Hounds, nor on the Examiner, where I also blog, for that matter.  I try to make sure that I personally post accurate information and don't stretch the truth.
March 22, 2010, 10:09:43 PM EDT – Like – Reply


 johnny dollar
Ellen is so exacting that just before she accuses Fox of not covering the epithets, she admits that well, I can't swear this is true, but I'm going to say it anyway. It's too bad she isn't as concerned about factual back-up herself as she wanted you to be.
March 22, 2010, 9:55:48 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Julie Driscoll
I read all of News Hounds' posts, but I admit I don't go over them with a fine tooth comb the way you do, so I can't speak to the accuracy of every bit of information.  And she didn't teach me to be a "plagiarist" -- I did that one all by myself.
March 22, 2010, 10:03:35 PM EDT – Like – Reply


 johnny dollar
Oooh, two p-word mentions in one hour. Don't tell me you're still smarting over that?  Do you know how many times NH has called Ann Coulter a 'suspected plagiarist' even after findings that the charge wasn't justified? I expect they'll still be using it five years from now! At least 'vote-fraud' suspect is still an open question!   
March 22, 2010, 10:10:56 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Julie Driscoll
By the way, Johnny, Ellen doesn't say Fox ignored the immigration rally.  "I can't swear that Fox never covered the big immigration rally yesterday but it certainly got far less coverage than the tea partiers."
March 22, 2010, 10:25:24 PM EDT – Like – Reply


 johnny dollar
Well yeah, the special coverage that day was for health care. It's usual that special coverage for health care would cover health care more. But they also covered the immigration thing too. Not as much? True, but I'd be shocked, shocked if that weren't true of every news channel that day. But of course Ellen's answer to that is, we don't cover the other channels. Which is true, except when they do.
March 22, 2010, 10:27:57 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Julie Driscoll
But that's not what you said . . . "Ellen has a post up right now about Fox ignoring the immigration rally and the epithets hurled at the Congressmen."  She never said ignore -- she said "largely" ignoring, and that's different.  And I happen to think it's true.
March 22, 2010, 10:31:41 PM EDT – Like – Reply


 johnny dollar
Score a point for the houndette! But cut me some slack...I went by memory, while typing messages, trying to keep up with '24' and still switching over to Bob Beckel. There's only so much a guy can do at one time! I still think her post is a good example of someone spouting off about something even after admitting they don't really know if it's true or not. E.G. the epithets.
March 22, 2010, 10:34:42 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Julie Driscoll
You have all the right in the world to think so.  Backing your opinions up with facts wouldn't hurt, though -- sweat the details, Dollar, sweat the details.  Yes, you seem to be juggling many balls so I'll cut you some slack since you save "Queen Driscoll" from time to time . . . .
March 22, 2010, 10:37:41 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
Johnny does sweat the details, Julie. Every Sunday.
March 22, 2010, 10:43:01 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Julie Driscoll
Yes, he does, I'll give him that.
March 22, 2010, 10:45:46 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Blackflon
"Queen Driscoll".  I like it. Can I use that when I "attack" you?
March 23, 2010, 7:51:35 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Julie Driscoll
Yeah, I kind of like it!  (It was coined by one of Dollar's commenters.)
March 23, 2010, 8:27:45 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Chris
one quick comment on "24"- I never expected that twist. its getting good
March 23, 2010, 9:17:54 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Frankly, I think saying something was "largely ignored" and prefacing it with "I can't swear" [that this is so], is tantamount to weasel-speak.  
 
What does "largely" mean-- that they mentioned the slurs once? Twice? Three times, a lady?
 
That phraseology and the assumptions undergirding it are the very antithesis of the fastiidious you describe Ellen as emphasizing.
 
That's a terrible technique and worthy of scoff.
March 23, 2010, 2:44:14 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Julie Driscoll
Hell, yeah, I plan on pouting for quite a while over that.  Yes, I'm well aware of Ann Coulter's past difficulties and News Hounds' interest in them.  And while we're on the subject of repetetive and redundant . . . I don't anticipate Hannity or Palin letting go of "palling around with terrorists" any time soon either.
March 22, 2010, 10:19:46 PM EDT – Like – Reply


ramjet
JD,
 
Re:  Your Friday, "Ingraham Uses Healthcare Reform to Take a Swipe at Undocumented Immigrants."
 
I wrote, "And I believe some of your premises and selective quotes have a stench."  
 
You never inquired to which premises and selective quotes I was referring.
March 22, 2010, 11:12:44 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Julie Driscoll
You're right -- I never did.  I thought you were referring to Dollar's general comments.  Feel free to tell me.
March 22, 2010, 11:22:50 PM EDT – Like – Reply


ramjet
"...this seems to be the right-wing's latest talking point to scare people away from healthcare reform."  
The name of the program is The Factor.  If a survey indicates a significan portion of primary docs would consider leaving medicine or trying to retire early, that is a factor in the healthcare debate, not a right-wing talking point "to scare people away from healthcare reform."  
 
If you had connected the links, beginning from those in your own article leading to their logical conclusion in the spirit of research seeking information and perhaps even some truth, you might have come at your article from a different, more persuasive angle.  
http://www.themedicusfirm.com/pages/medicus-media-survey-reveals-impact-health-reform  
 
 http://www.themedicusfirm.com/pages/survey  
 
There's a good deal more; the interrupting partial story, the socialized medice selective quote, and some minor nitpicking stuff.  
 
I do have a question.  Is the term illegal alien a smear?
March 23, 2010, 12:25:18 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Julie Driscoll
No, the term "illegal alien" (although we libs prefer "undocumented") is not a smear -- what is a smear is attempting to connect the influx of "undocumented" aliens to the fact that many patients don't pay their doctors.
March 23, 2010, 8:29:05 AM EDT – Like – Reply


ash
Hmmm? Why was my comment taken down?
March 23, 2010, 9:34:48 AM EDT – Like – Reply


 johnny dollar
It was all politics and unrelated to cable news.
March 23, 2010, 10:09:48 AM EDT – Like – Reply


ash
Ahh. Okay My bad!
March 23, 2010, 10:13:20 AM EDT – Like – Reply


shizzle
Frankly, I think saying something was "largely ignored" and prefacing it with "I can't swear" [that this is so], is tantamount to weasel-speak.   
 
What does "largely" mean-- that they mentioned the slurs once? Twice? Three times, a lady?  
 
That phraseology and the assumptions undergirding it are the very antithesis of the fastiidious you describe Ellen as emphasizing.  
 
That's a terrible technique and worthy of scoff.
============
 
Well, I would disagree. I would say that it is an admission that one didn't watch the entiretly of fox coverage that day, but that one watched enough to determine it wasn't wall to wall coverage like the tea party rallies were getting.
March 23, 2010, 5:25:19 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Well, in the larger context of the health care vote, it couldn't have been, and that nebulous formulation hardly jives with the preciseness and caution that Julie described Ellen as stressing.
March 23, 2010, 7:25:34 PM EDT – Like – Reply


shizzle
Well, in the larger context of the health care vote, it couldn't have been, and that nebulous formulation hardly jives with the preciseness and caution that Julie described Ellen as stressing.  
====  
   
I suppose if she wanted to 100% rule out any chance of error: Ellen could have refrained from sleep for 24 hours and put a stop watch to the time fox spent covering the immigration rally, and then compared it to coverage tea party rallies received, with a similar 24 hour cycle. However, that seems impractical to me regarding one's opinion on Fox's coverage.  
   
I think it is perfectly fine to say, that in the hours she spent watching fox news, one set of rallies was significantly more hyped and covered than another. Especially, if those hours are prime time when most fox viewers are watching.  
   
I don't know though, if that strikes you as nefarious, then I'd assume everyone here who has claimed incidents of bias in the rest of the media are probably as guilty of the same nefarious instincts.  Unless they are very specific and limited in the scope of their criticism that is.
March 23, 2010, 8:03:35 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
How hard would it have been to have gone with a formulation such as:  'I've watched for an hour and they haven't mentioned the slurs at all....or they've mentioned them once'
 
In the midst of being assured that Ellen advises caution and precision, it's ironic that this is was one of the examples in question that launched that discussion.
March 23, 2010, 8:19:35 PM EDT – Like – Reply


shizzle
How hard would it have been to have gone with a formulation such as:  'I've watched for an hour and they haven't mentioned the slurs at all....or they've mentioned them once'  
  
In the midst of being assured that Ellen advises caution and precision, it's ironic that this is was one of the examples in question that launched that discussion 
=============== 
 
Well with due respect then why don't you do it as well when you make claims?  Frankly, I don't think when when you make an all ecompassing statement about Fox news, MSNBC or another media outlet you need to qualify it with,  "I only watched 2 hours of the network today." I assume you watch quite a bit and when you are making those statements you intentions are not nefarious and are instead your impressions about the coverage. 
 
I make the same assumption on the other blog as well.   
 
March 23, 2010, 8:27:08 PM EDT – Like – Reply


 johnny dollar
That's your mistake. There are too many examples of what they claim not matching what was actually broadcast that it's impossible to believe they watch 'quite a bit'. But maybe some of them do in fact watch, and then just lie about it.
March 23, 2010, 8:31:43 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Julie Driscoll
Or watch and don't lie about it.
March 23, 2010, 10:55:36 PM EDT – Like – Reply


ramjet
"... too many examples of what they claim not matching what was actually broadcast..." pretty much takes care of "Or watch and don't lie about it."
 
Though I do believe "But maybe some..." is more speculation than accusation.
 
March 23, 2010, 11:16:17 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Well, you or anyone else has the option of holding me or anyone to that standard.  ESPECIALLY if we are an "official" blogger...AND... if we have just been cited for our standards of precision, accuracy (fairness).
 
I do have more leeway in here casual conversion than does Johnny.
March 23, 2010, 8:32:49 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
Julie, NHs have been proven hundreds, if not thousands, of times to be serial liars.
 
I'd like to see the NHs watch and not lie about it.
March 23, 2010, 11:17:44 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Julie Driscoll
I watch.  And I don't lie about it.
March 23, 2010, 11:32:54 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
I wouldn't call you a liar. Maybe fictitious writer, straw-dog materializer, but never a liar.  
March 23, 2010, 11:37:47 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Julie Driscoll
Oh, well, that's so much better . . . uh, thanks?
March 23, 2010, 11:45:08 PM EDT – Like – Reply


shizzle
Well, you or anyone else has the option of holding me or anyone to that standard.  ESPECIALLY if we are an "official" blogger...AND... if we have just been cited for our standards of precision, accuracy (fairness).  
  
I do have more leeway in here casual conversion than does Johnny. 
============== 
 
 
Well, it's true that I could claim most here (including myself) have been guilty of what you are logically holding up as a standard of "weasel-speak," that is the making of an all encompassing statement based on what has to be incomplete data. I just don't think it's all that valid. My question to you is if Johnny dollar has made an all encompassing statement in a blog post about msnbc would you classify it as  "weasel-speak" as well? 
 
Anyway you are of course free to disagree, if you choose. I clearly just see the headline on the post to be less nefarious than you. 
 
 
March 23, 2010, 8:46:32 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
>My question to you is if Johnny dollar has made an all encompassing statement in a blog post about msnbc would you classify it as  "weasel-speak" as well?  
 
No. It would be true, with J$P Video!
March 23, 2010, 8:58:04 PM EDT – Like – Reply


shizzle
<img src="http://cdn.js-kit.com/images/stars/admin-comment.png" title="This user is an administrator"/> Fox Fan<img src="http://cdn.js-kit.com/images/icon10-external-url.png"/> 
>My question to you is if Johnny dollar has made an all encompassing statement in a blog post about msnbc would you classify it as  "weasel-speak" as well?   
 
No. It would be true, with J$P Video!===You're saying he'd place a 24 hour video online? The question is a hypothetical fox fan, a thought experiement if you will.
March 23, 2010, 9:02:48 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Probably, not. 
 
However, if an opponent had I'd have thought it a valid point in asking him to defend his statement.
March 23, 2010, 9:10:26 PM EDT – Like – Reply


shizzle
Probably, not.  
 
However, if an opponent had I'd have thought it a valid point in asking him to defend his statement.
 
=========
 
That's fair enough. I can't argue their is anything wrong with asking your opponent to justify their positions and the statements they make in support of them.
March 23, 2010, 9:15:58 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
Welcome back, sniz!
March 23, 2010, 9:19:15 PM EDT – Like – Reply


shizzle
Thanks Fox fan!
March 23, 2010, 10:32:12 PM EDT – Like – Reply