3/9/10 12:24 AM

Fox Haters Week in Review

We deal with crooks, liars, truthers, and some very bad dogs. The smears stop here: it's another action-packed edition of Fox Haters Week in Review!

Around the Interwebs:
There is nothing so irresistible as low-hanging fruit, and nowhere are the coconuts closer to the ground than at the loony bin, aka orreillysucks.com. Where else can you find both ignorance and dishonesty in one sentence:

Fox News even has a Democratic military expert on the payroll, General Wesley Clark, but O'Reilly never uses him.
Wesley Clark is not on the FNC payroll and hasn't been for nearly three years. (He didn't last long at MSNBC either.) And as for the claim that O'Reilly "never uses him"? Another lie: when he was with Fox he appeared with O'Reilly over and over again. And even after the General left FNC and O'Reilly was under no obligation to put him on, he continued to invite him back to The Factor:
  • The Factor invited retired General Wesley Clark to weigh in on the issue.
  • The Factor was joined by retired General Wesley Clark, who stressed the need for a definitive strategy in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, we have another deep thinker to deal with: Trig Truther Andrew Sullivan. His latest outburst against FNC concludes:
Fox News is not a conservative news organization. It is, in many ways, a racist and xenophobic one whose double standards are a result of pure prejudice not reason.
What's he talking about? It's a bit unclear, as in the five paragraphs preceding this peroration there is only one sentence about Fox News:
Fox News described the Fort Hood shootings as an act of terrorism...
Just like the Obama administration.
...but did not describe the assassination of Dr George Tiller as an act of terrorism.
Oh? Who is the "Fox News" that refused to give that description? We're pretty sure that terrorism is not discussed in the Articles of Incorporation so we have to assume that Sullivan is not talking about "Fox News" the entity but rather about some person on FNC. But whom? Andy doesn't say, so let's give him the benefit of the doubt and go with the most-heard voice on FNC: the guy with the biggest ratings and largest audience. That seems fair. Here is what Mr Bill O'Reilly said, in his own words:
  • A domestic terrorist shot the doctor dead.
  • George Tiller, who was murdered by a domestic terrorist, destroyed viable fetuses...
  • Now, I held back replaying that harrowing account because of the murder of Dr. Tiller by a domestic terrorist.
  • I said that flat-out I think the guy who did it is a domestic terrorist. I don't think it was a crime of murder. It was a terrorist act.
Where did Andy get the idea that FNC refused to call the guy a terrorist? He made it up! We don't know what Sullivan is smoking, but we definitely don't want any.

The Lie of the Week:
It doesn't matter how many times a website has been discredited, haters will still swallow anything they write. So it is that our Lie of the Week was born at the aptly-named Crooks and Liars. There one finds the following penned by David Neiwert:
Fox News' anchors seemed eager to assure viewers today that the plane-crash attack on IRS offices in Austin this morning was not an act of domestic terrorism.... Brian Stelter at the NYT notes that all the networks are treading around the word gingerly. Fox, meanwhile, is running hard and fast with the claim that it wasn't terrorism at all.
Neiwert presents a montage of Megyn Kelly and other FNC reporters stating it's not considered to be a terroist incident. But they weren't expressing an opinion. They were reporting on official statements from Homeland Security, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, and the Obama administration--all of which said the attack was not terrorism. How does accurately repeating what the the US government says become "Fox" claiming "it wasn't terrorism at all"? Here's a montage of CNN reporters covering the same breaking information that Fox did:
  • JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (via phone): [The Department of Homeland Security] now say at this time, "We have no reason to believe there is a nexus to terrorist activity."
  • MESERVE: they launched two Air Force F-16s out of Ellington Field in Houston out of this crash.... Whether or not this might be terrorist related. But as we say, DHS at this point saying no indication that that's the case, Ali.
  • ALI VELSHI: ...a number of people concerned about whether or not it was a terrorism -- an act of terrorism. Jeanne Meserve was just on with us, saying that the Department of Homeland Security does not think that there is a nexus to terrorism
  • VELSHI: They are still holding firm to the idea that they don't think this is terrorist connected. MESERVE: That's absolutely correct. They do not believe there's any nexus to terrorism
  • MESERVE: we've heard from the White House travel pool that President Obama was briefed on this situation by his counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, although let me emphasize, we've heard from multiple sources that they do not believe at this point in time that there's any terrorism relationship to the events that unfolded in Austin today
How exactly was CNN's reportage any different from FNC's? Why isn't Neiwert condemning CNN for "running hard and fast with the claim that it wasn't terrorism at all"? Why attack Fox for reporting the same news as CNN?

The phony anti-Fox charge was quickly picked up by the echo chamber. FiredogLake claimed "Fox doesn't think this was terrorism". And of course, the newshounds' own Ellen Brodsky uncritically parroted the slander:
David Neiwert, at Crooks and Liars, notes how eager the Fox News folks were to assure viewers that yesterday’s (2/18/10) plane crash into an IRS office in Austin had nothing to do with terrorism.... So what’s the big difference that mandates that Hasan be called a terrorist and not Stack? The only reason I can think of is that Hasan is a Muslim and Stack does not seem to be.
Such a beautiful smear. If only it were true. You see, Mr Neiwert isn't telling the whole story. For all his cherry-picked segments, there are some he skipped over and didn't include in his video. Salvaged from Neiwert's cutting room floor, here is Megyn Kelly who--if you believe Neiwert--is doing her best to convince viewers this was not an act of terror:
MEGYN KELLY: The Department of Homeland Security reported they had no reason to believe this was a terrorist act. We believe that is still the latest information. However obviously, this is one man on his own individual act of terror against the IRS and those in that building...
Wait a minute. We must have heard wrong. Let's listen to it again:
MEGYN KELLY: The Department of Homeland Security reported they had no reason to believe this is a terrorist act. We believe that is still the latest information. However obviously, this is one man on his own individual act of terror against the IRS and those in that building...
But wait, there's more! Neiwert said Fox "anchors"--plural--were eager to tell viewers this was not an act of domestic terrorism. Before Megyn Kelly took over the coverage, Jon Scott was at the anchor desk. Neiwert avoids any mention of Scott, and here's why:
JON SCOTT: From what Rick is reporting, the best I guess example that comes to mind is really what Timothy McVeigh did. This appears to be at this point some kind of, I guess you would call it domestic terrorism. The reports are that government offices, federal government officers, are in that building, including the offices of the Internal Revenue Service.
FNC's anchors claimed "it wasn't terrorism at all"? Another smear proves to be a shoddy fabrication. Crooks? Liars? Which one is David Neiwert?

As for Ellen Brodsky, who posted his drivel as if it were true, what's her excuse? We have suggested in the past that Brodsky and her minions don't spend much time actually watching Fox News. Instead they recycle claims from other Fox hater sites. That would explain what happened here, except that Brodsky denied that's true:
[Dollar] falsely accusing us of not watching Fox, when I can assure him that we do.
OK Brodsky, have it your way. That would mean you knew that Megyn Kelly and Jon Scott both described the act as terrorism, and yet posted an article claiming they said it had nothing to do with terrorism. In other words, you lied.

Unfinished Business:
After last Sunday's FHWiR, newshound Ellen Brodsky posted her own rebuttal: little more than a string of misrepresentations and lies, as our response documented. Brodsky fired back yet again, but rather than addressing our point-by-point analysis, she ignored it! Instead she made new accusations (aka moving the goal-posts, changing the subject etc) that we will deal with here. For example:
Although Dollar/Koldys accuses News Hounds of making unfounded assumptions, he did exactly the same thing in his accusation that I or somebody associated with News Hounds supposedly led an attack of vulgar comments on his website. His "proof?" That he received a comment, never published, saying, "I will tell the Kennel to come over and have some fun." Was this supposedly a comment from me? Another News Hound? Dollar/Koldys doesn't bother to say.
Hold it right there. Brodsky insists that we made an "accusation" that she or another newshound led an attack of vulgar comments. Read our words yourself. At no point do we claim that Brodsky or any other newshound left that comment or "led" the attacks. Ellen is lying.
I have challenged him to prove that that comment came from me or someone connected to News Hounds. So far, he has not provided any substantiation. And I can assure you, he never will.
Why would we provide substantiation for a lie? Read our words. We never said that comment came from you or anyone "connected" to you. Can't you even tell the truth about that?

The desperation meter must have been going into the danger zone because, in addition to all this, Ellen also added to her original rebuttal, tacking on a comment from "Alex". By including it in her own piece, Brodsky vouches for its accuracy (unless Ellen and Alex are one and the same). EllenAlex booms:
Koldys/Dollar wrote this:
Patrick is the guy who merrily called for Bill O'Reilly to be raped and murdered over at the newshounds forum. He was part of the gang who comment-bombed this website with all those unprintable, vulgar, repellent personal attacks.
My Challenge to You: I challenge you to send Ellen, via email, screen shots of those comments, including the IP's, which no doubt you have archived.
Why would we send anything to a serial liar and trust her to suddenly turn honest? Why send anything to Ellen when we didn't accuse her, or any other newshound, of any involvement whatsoever?

As for revealing private IP addresses: that's an easy challenge to make, knowing that J$P has a standing policy not to reveal anyone's IP address without their express consent. We take privacy rights a bit more seriously than they do at the kennel. If you start posting things the biased bassets don't agree with, you may just find the moderators snooping into your IP address, talking about where you work, and making veiled threats to report you to your boss. And if that fails, then the mongrel mods can take your IP address and reveal it to the whole world (we've blurred the numbers here so as not to be a part of their unethical behavior).

Bear in mind that after Alex first posted her "challenge", the very person we mentioned--Patrick (aka Michael Weston, aka Bababooey etc), who called for O'Reilly to be murdered--replied to Alex. Yes, he does post comments at newshounds. And what's more, he admitted to being the same Patrick we were talking about:
Yes, I did say that I hoped Billo would be raped and murder.....but you are missing the context...
Back to the EllenAlex challenge:
Prove that those comments came from a "gang" of our regulars. I don't believe it for one second. You are trying to smear us...
Another lie. We said the comments came from a "gang". We didn't say "a gang" of "newshounds regulars". You're the ones who keep saying that, which is in itself revealing.
We do NOT encourage or condone such behavior, contrary to what you would like to believe, and your insinuation that we might is vile in itself.
Of course you don't, except when you do. Here's Ellen Brodsky congratulating a "newshound regular" who had just finished disrupting a J$P comment thread by posting a string of name-calling personal attacks:
As far as I'm concerned, you can't be too rude to that little prick.
Ellen, tell us again how you never encourage or condone such behavior.

The newshounds doth protest too much.

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




Haggis
C&L claim: Johnny you seemed to have missed this at the beginning of the C&L post in your eagerness
 
"Now, it's true that Homeland Security officials originally released this statement:
“We believe there’s no nexus with criminal or terrorist activity”
They later amended this to just say "terrorist activity." Fox's Catherine Herridge also reported that Homeland Security officials had briefed President Obama on the incident, and that he had been told "this was not an act of terrorism."
So how did Fox's anchors interpret all this?"
 
Back to the curling..GB v USA
February 21, 2010, 5:47:42 PM EST – Like – Reply


 johnny dollar
No I didn't miss it. It's irrelevant. He goes on to portray how "Fox's anchors" "interpreted" all this by using cherry-picked segments that leave out anything that doesn't fit his preconceived claim. As a result he writes that they claimed "it wasn't terrorism at all". And that's a lie. But enjoy your curling. A new broom sweeps clean.
February 21, 2010, 5:53:25 PM EST – Like – Reply


Blackflon
OUCH!!!!!!   This FHWiR is gonna sting.
 
The Mutts rebuttal will be interesting. Of course, their silence will also say a lot.
February 21, 2010, 6:07:36 PM EST – Like – Reply


Haggis
Johnny.....all that's being said is....what Stack did fits the definition of "domestic terrorism" and FNC weren't willing to consider this. I wonder if FNC would have come to the same conclusion if a Muslim had done this act with all the same facts present + the administration said "this was not an act of terrorism"....I suppose we'll never know...but I seriously doubt it....I think FNC would challenge "this was not an act of terrorism"...just like they did over the Fort Hood shooting....just my opinion.
February 21, 2010, 6:16:19 PM EST – Like – Reply


 johnny dollar
You're entitled your opinion but not your own facts. Did you even read my post? Did you listen to both Fox anchors describing the incident as an act of terrorism? If so, how can you say they weren't willing to consider it, when they came right out and said it?!?
 
How many elephant trunks are you working with tonight?
February 21, 2010, 6:22:17 PM EST – Like – Reply


ImNotBlue
Doesn't Jon Scott's comment (featured in the post), pretty much render the argument you just made, false?
 
QUOTE: (JON SCOTT) From what Rick is reporting, the best I guess example that comes to mind is really what Timothy McVeigh did. This appears to be at this point some kind of, I guess you would call it domestic terrorism.
 
It seems HE was willing to consider it "domestic terrorism," because he said just that.  How do you continue this argument?
February 21, 2010, 6:22:35 PM EST – Like – Reply


Haggis
yes i read your post....No I didn't watch the video due to watching the curling.
 
Johnny...when are you going to tackle Fox nation....your severely undermining your arguments about hate on the left...when you know all to well that FN is one of the most hateful spouting sites on the web...you need to take the bull by the horns and tackle it next week. I'm sure you just shudder when you see all the haste there. I simply can't take your outrage over NH post seriously when you say absolutely nothing about FN and I'm certain I'm not the onlyone thinking this.
 
GB 3 V USA 2
February 21, 2010, 7:07:35 PM EST – Like – Reply

Guest

 johnny dollar
"I simply can't take your outrage over NH post seriously..."
 
How ever will I sleep at night?
February 21, 2010, 7:09:35 PM EST – Like – Reply


Haggis
I'm sure you'll sleep like a new born.
What your saying is....you just turn a blind eye to hateful posts on the Right...but come across all outraged when something on the left gets posted....I'm sorry to say there is only one word for that...and I'm sure you know what it is.
February 21, 2010, 7:16:56 PM EST – Like – Reply


 johnny dollar
If you can point out Fox haters from the right I'll be happy to deal with them. In fact I have done so on occasion. I appoint you my right-wing Fox hater bird-dog. Sniff 'em out, report 'em to me, and I'll take it from there.
February 21, 2010, 7:18:21 PM EST – Like – Reply


Haggis
I'll hold you to that   
I've got some Clinton posts to start with.
February 21, 2010, 7:23:04 PM EST – Like – Reply


Haggis
"If you can point out Fox haters from the right I'll be happy to deal with them."
 
Very funny...I'll be sending in the hatefull posts from the right
 
So you're going to do sweet FA about the hate posted on FN?
February 21, 2010, 7:43:42 PM EST – Like – Reply

Guest

GATXER
"So you're going to do sweet FA about the hate posted on FN?"
 
If its hate about FOX NEWS J$ should do a post....howver I find it hard to think that theres allot of hate ABOUT FOX NEWS on FN. Why would someone go on FN to bash FOX NEWS from the right?
 
Haggis does understand that FHWIR isnt about just hate.....but about hate about FOX NEWS doesnt he?
February 22, 2010, 1:55:49 AM EST – Like – Reply


ImNotBlue
Is this your way of changing the subject, after you were show completely false on your previous accusation?
February 22, 2010, 12:42:55 PM EST – Like – Reply


Chris
Haggis=TROLL-maybe we should just ignore him and he will go away?
February 21, 2010, 7:15:49 PM EST – Like – Reply


Haggis
Haggis=someone with a different point of view....are you saying you feel threatened by that.
February 21, 2010, 7:26:06 PM EST – Like – Reply


Chris
No, but I've seen almost everyone of your comments "shredded" to little tiny pieces
February 21, 2010, 7:43:17 PM EST – Like – Reply


Grammie
You just took the words right out of my mouth, Chris.  
 
Haggis' rhetoric and tone simply screams at us to come play my games with me.  Don't go over there and discuss anything seriously.  
 
Unfortunately he seems to be rather skilled at using our own human nature against us.  He knows that something he says will irritate, how can they not when that is their very purpose, one of us enough to get a response and after that he plays his little games to extend it as far as possible.  
 
I've noticed when he gets no bites he will frequently repeat it several different ways and/or then move on to a new topic.  When he strikes out in a few at bats he leaves to return when the fish are biting better.  
 
 
"Haggis=TROLL-maybe we should just ignore him and he will go away?"  
 
 
Good idea.  I don't think that he will just go away permanently b/c he obviously gets some deep satisfaction from these sicko games but I think if everyone ignored him he would tire very quickly of playing with himself and become a tiresome but limited factor.  
 
So, Haggis, I put you on notice that I will not respond to you in any way from here on.  You seem to be endlessly pleased and enamored of yourself so I am quite certain that you won't suffer from any lack of attention from me.
February 21, 2010, 7:41:15 PM EST – Like – Reply


Haggis
"he would tire very quickly of playing with himself"
 
Steady on there, Grammie....this is a family site....Kids might be reading this very minute and now asking parents very awkward question.
February 21, 2010, 7:52:09 PM EST – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
I disagree Grammie, Haggis will never tire of playing with himself. No sane and able man does.
February 21, 2010, 8:31:59 PM EST – Like – Reply


Grammie
FF, you have achieved Grampie's most cherished dream:  You have left me speechless.
February 21, 2010, 8:34:50 PM EST – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
I never tire of women telling me that, Grammie.  
February 21, 2010, 8:50:31 PM EST – Like – Reply


Haggis
Everyone obviously hates me here....So write to Johnny with your complaints and urge him to ban me.
February 21, 2010, 7:57:15 PM EST – Like – Reply


I.M. Right
Haggis - J$ asked you a specific question which you completely ducked and dodged to avoid.   
   
Did you listen to both Fox anchors describing the incident as an act of terrorism? If so, how can you say they weren't willing to consider it, when they came right out and said it?!?    
    
You owe J$ an answer.  I'm not letting it drop, just ask Bret Baier.
February 21, 2010, 9:40:40 PM EST – Like – Reply


I.M. Right
Stan, Chippy, Alabama Dem, Nibbles, and Bungling Bob don't hate you Haggis.
February 21, 2010, 11:54:29 PM EST – Like – Reply


GATXER
J$ doesn’t ban you when you lie.......J$ doesn’t ban you when you post with different names......J$ doesn’t ban you when you post under other names and hide who you are and lie about it.......J$ doesn’t ban you when you admit you are here to fight.......J$ doesn’t ban you when you pretend you saw something ON Fox when in fact you only read about it on a Fox hater site........J$ doesn’t ban you when you post stuff from Fox hating site without saying where you got it from......so why on earth would he ban you just because people "hate" you?  
   
For the record I don’t hate Haggis.....pity YES hate no. Why don’t you try any one of those things at a Fox News hating site and see how fast you get banned for life.
February 22, 2010, 2:08:54 AM EST – Like – Reply


ImNotBlue
I don't think we hate you... just wish that you wouldn't try to smear, distort and lie about FNC simply because you have a political disagreement with some of their programming.  The problem isn't the different opinion, it's the hypocrisy involved in trying to defend it.
 
If you (and other left-wingers) would simply say, "I don't like FOX because I disagree with their political opinion," things would be fine.  Instead, they have to make up stories, and pretend like there's some deeper rational.  There isn't!  It's just politics!
February 22, 2010, 12:45:19 PM EST – Like – Reply


I.M. Right
J$ - an excellent FHWiR!  It's astounding that those creeps would publish OS's IP address.  The li'l feller stating that his rape and murder comment was not taken in context.  Oh, I never thought that rape and murder could be used in a positive context! (/sarcasm).  Disgusting little creep.
February 21, 2010, 9:45:41 PM EST – Like – Reply


Grammie
I just remembered that he also commented at OW for a while and that he expressed a desire there for Cecelia, Mike, J$ and I to be raped and attacked and that would teach us a lesson we deserved.
 
Once the creep gets an idea in his head he just can't help sharing it with everybody.
February 21, 2010, 9:59:06 PM EST – Like – Reply


I.M. Right
he expressed a desire there for Cecelia, Mike, J$ and I to be raped and attacked and that would teach us a lesson we deserved.   
 
What a disgusting slug Patrick is.
February 21, 2010, 11:03:58 PM EST – Like – Reply


Grammie
I agree.  Before Ellen nuked her J$ Forum topic b/c even she was embarassed (no easy feat that) by the psychotic rantings there Pegleg posted a comment with a half dozen or so IPs of those she claimed were trolls and/or using hijacking names.
 
I emailed J$ to check on the IP she listed for me and he told me it was not my IP so I let it drop.
 
One other thing.  After I banned and deleted (after just two days) from commenting on Johhny's very own dedicated in his honor forum I went from getting maybe three or four spam emails in a week at most to getting well over a dozen every day for months it seemed.
 
Coincidence?  I report, you decide!
February 21, 2010, 10:08:41 PM EST – Like – Reply


Blackflon
The Liar in Chief is at it again.
 
Fox News’ Latest Obama Smear Attack: Robert Gibbs TwittersReported by Ellen - Sun 8:37 PM  
 
She puts up a snarky post complaining about Fox News Watch's so called snarky comments about Gibbs.
 
Where have I seen this before? Oh, yes. It's a staple of the News Hounds dog washers.
 
Pot meet kettle.
February 22, 2010, 7:46:28 AM EST – Like – Reply


sarainitaly
Another stupi attack:FOX News is convinced the guy who crashed the plane into an IRS office is not a terrorist After all, he isn't brown.
http://www.americablog.com/2010/02/fox-news-is-convinced-guy-who-crashed.html
February 22, 2010, 10:16:11 AM EST – Like – Reply


 johnny dollar
Written by someone who didn't watch Fox. That's what happens when you believe someone else's cherry-picked selectively edited clips.
February 22, 2010, 10:23:00 AM EST – Like – Reply


davidneiwert
So, lessee ... the fact that CNN and MSNBC similarly reported that it wasn't an act of terrorism somehow nullifies the fact -- which I reported quite correctly -- that Fox was claiming it wasn't terrorism? I don't give a rip about CNN; I watch Fox.  
 
Oh, and the sound bites of Scott and Kelly that you cite? They all came <em>earlier,</em> well before Fox started running with the claim that this wasn't terrorism. In case you don't know how these things work in the news world, johnny, the later reports effectively nullify the previous remarks. That's why they call them "updates".  
 
Finally, you might want to actually spell someone's name correctly when you're falsely calling them a liar.
February 22, 2010, 12:01:27 PM EST – Like – Reply


 johnny dollar
I'm sorry but you are very mistaken. Scott's report came before, but Megyn Kelly's comment didn't. It came after the clips you used, so it was what you call an 'update'. According to you, it 'nullifies' all the previous remarks you cited. In fact had your montage gone on a little longer, Megyn Kelly's statement about 'an act of terror' would have been included. But it wasn't.   
     
For that matter, you didn't write that Fox first called it terrorism, but then changed their mind--which would have been erroneous but at least consistent with what you are now claiming. No you said flat out they didn't call it terrorism, when they did.      
     
You do make a valid point however. Spelling does not always come easily to me and I apologize for getting it wrong. I'm too hung up on 'I after E' I guess. I will correct that. But I stand by the remainder. You claimed Fox didn't call it terrorism, when both anchors expressly did...and you made sure that you didn't tell your readers about it. I don't know if that makes you a liar, but it certainly doesn't make your piece an honest one.
February 22, 2010, 12:10:36 PM EST – Like – Reply


Danny
For several days after the challenge was issued by Alex and the heinious she-curs there was taunt after taunt from the smelly kennel.  
 
"Why won't Dollar respond to the challenge?" they asked.  "All we hear are crickets.  You see that proves he can't back up his assertions"
 
Well now Dollar has responded.  He has thoroughly nuked their arguments and demonstrated that they were debating straw men of their own creation.
 
Now we hear nothing from the she-dogs or from Her Vileness herself.  Nothing!  Only the sound (to use their language) of crickets.  
 
Doen't this prove once again that the Heinous she-hounds have absolutely nothing to say?  Doesn't this demonstrate that once again they have been throroughly owned, and they know it.
February 23, 2010, 1:24:20 PM EST – Like – Reply