3/9/10 12:24 AM

Fox Haters Week in Review

Who let the dogs out? We don't know, but they may invest in some muzzles after reading today's edition of Fox Haters Week in Review!

Let Slip the Dogs of Smear:
We begin our special all-newshounds report with a tenet of Fox haters--they have to prove FNC is wrong, wrong, wrong, no matter what. That often leads to crackpot analysis and outright lunacy. And no one begets more egregious examples than the blinkered beagles, whose yelps regularly prove to be embarrassingly wrong-headed.

They ridiculed the notion that Iran is getting closer to a nuclear weapon, calling it "war mongering" and insisting that John Bolton must be running "his own private spy agency". Well he must have loaned that secret agency to the UN, since the IAEA found evidence that Iran was looking to create a nuclear payload for a missile. Oops. This is pretty much of a piece with another hound claim that there was no evidence the Fort Hood shooter was involved in terrorist activity, and that Fox was trying to "paint Hasan as a terrorist for the sole purpose of furthering Fox’ anti-Obama agenda." How evil of Fox. And how evil of Homeland Security Secy Janet Napolitano, for painting Hasan as a terrorist. She must have been furthering her anti-Obama agenda. Oops #2.

You have to keep these laser-sharp insights in mind when you read anything the mongrels write. For example, suspected plagiarist Julie Driscoll launched a scathing personal attack on Laura Ingraham:

Evil-incarnate-with-the-crucifix, Fox News something-or-other, Laura Ingraham, did a postmortem on President Obama's healthcare summit with the Republicans. When O'Reilly asked Ingraham if there was anything about "this whole thing" that she liked, Ingraham -- the woman with the cross, the woman blazing with the symbol of Christian goodness -- instead took the opportunity to ridicule those who have no access to, or can't afford, health insurance or proper healthcare.
Was Ingraham ridiculing those who have no access, or the politicians who use them in an appeal to emotion? Don't ask Julie. Her piece is recycled straight from Media Matters. Driscoll cited Laura's criticism of Rep Slaughter's tale of a woman who used her dead sister's dentures:
Screw us for believing that people should be able to afford their own [expletive deleted by J$P] dentures.... In my opinion, the cost of Ingraham's devotion to the right and the cost of Ingraham's hate-filled "analysis" is the right to wear that cross. Get that [expletive deleted by J$P] off, Ingraham, it's false-flagging -- the God you profess to believe in can't be that big a fool.
You should take this analysis with a large grain of salt. You see, the proposed health care bills don't cover adult dental care!

Julie's fingerprints are also on another bit of harrier fakery. Condemning Bill O'Reilly for reporting on a withdrawn study about projected sea levels, the mongrels claim to know why it was withdrawn:
O'Reilly won't tell you, but we will. The reason is simple -- and surprisingly unpleasant to O'Reilly and the Right . . . it's because it's too conservative an estimate.
Driscoll and her "guest blogger" cite comments that the estimate was too conservative, but guess what? They don't come from the authors of the study. If you want to know the real reason it was withdrawn, why not do what Driscoll refused to do: go to the source? Here it is, straight from the Nature website and the authors:
We tested the sensitivity of our results to the length of the time step used in the integration of the model for the period of deglaciation, which we found to be robust. However, we overlooked that the simulations of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries are sensitive to this time step, which led to an overestimation of the sea-level response to warming in the simulations for these centuries.
Uh oh, have we spotted Another Hound Lie? We report, you decide.

The word smear is defined as a slanderous defamation, a false accusation of an offense or a malicious misrepresentation of someone's words or actions, an attempt to damage someone’s reputation by telling lies about them. That seems fairly straightforward, but the biased bassets have invented their own definition: something that's true but we would rather you not mention. Examples:
  • Fox "smeared" Rep Baron Hill because they played a video from five months ago and that made it "old news" (but not as old as this).
  • Fox "smeared" Robert Gibbs because they discussed him getting a twitter account.
  • Hannity "smeared" Michelle Obama by mentioning her statement about being proud of her country.
The whippets don't even try to suggest that any of these are untrue--they're just "smears" because they'd rather people not bring them up! We want to assist in the education of the newspoodles. So to help them understand simple English, here are a few examples of genuine smears:These are all false. And there is something else they all have in common: they were all perpetrated by the newsmutts. What's more, even after having been exposed as untrue, they are all still standing without correction or retraction. That's what makes 'em "smears", dawg!

The Lie of the Week:
We have suggested repeatedly that the newshounds, while they profess to watch Fox, really spend most of their time recycling complaints, videos, and arguments scoured from other websites. This brings us to a post from "Alex"purporting to review FNC's health care summit coverage. It is ironic that "Alex" confirms our suspicions:
I collapsed on the sofa with a cup of coffee to watch FNC live for 15 minutes... Overall it was a disgustingly biased, sneering fifteen minutes. I wrote yesterday that I hoped there would be some balance provided at another time during the coverage. From what I’ve read, and reviewed on video since then, that was a hope in vain.
How better to characterize seven hours of broadcasting than by watching it for 15 minutes, then scouring the interwebs for other people's opinions and video clips? By the way, from the description "Alex" gives of the "15 minutes", it's actually more like nine minutes: a whopping 2% of the coverage.
The meme infecting some of the more factually challenged members of the rightwing blogosphere is that not only did Fox News Channel’s coverage of yesterday’s Health Care Summit trump that of CNN and MSNBC –but that MSNBC didn’t cover it at all, preferring hockey to healthcare....First, lets deal with the “MSNBC didn’t cover the summit” lie. MSNBC covered the healthcare summit and then broke off for hockey – because NBC has the contract to cover the Olympics.
"Alex" is strangely coy about what "right-wing" blog made this claim, so it's impossible to verify that any website did so. But coming to her rescue is a hound commenter--conveniently the first one out of the box--to claim that it's J$P!
  • HH (aka Blackflon) posted this (screen grab below) last night on Dollar's comment thread, and Dollar never corrected him even though he himself put up a link to an article that mentioned MSNBC's coverage: I see that MSNBC is not covering the Health Care Summit. They are covering hockey instead...
If that's what "Alex" is hanging her hat on, she shouldn't rewrite other people's words. Blackflon said MSNBC is not (present tense) covering the summit, not that MSNBC "didn't cover it at all". We didn't correct Blackflon for a basic, elementary reason: he was right! The hound screengrab was cropped so it didn't show the time stamp. When Blackflon posted at 4:21 pm, MSNBC wasn't carrying the summit. They were covering hockey instead. Back to the brilliant insights of "Alex":
When the main network doesn’t cover the Olympics in the afternoon, MSNBC and other affiliates do.
True, but NBC has five cable channels available in addition to their broadcast network. They didn't have to put the Olympics on MSNBC, in the middle of the health care summit. They made the choice to dump the second half of the live summit in favor of hockey. Note: it seems passing strange that "Alex" considers it a "lie" to say "MSNBC didn't cover the summit". In the same paragraph "Alex" claims that Sarah Palin "apparently didn't watch the summit" because she switched in the afternoon to watch the Olympics on MSNBC. So "Alex", if it's a lie to say MSNBC didn't cover the summit, it's a lie to say Sarah Palin didn't watch it. She did the exact same thing MSNBC did! Folks, don't try to make sense out of any of this. It's Hound Logic. "Alex" continues:
When showing confrontation in a split screen, MSNBC put President Obama in a bigger box. FOX put the Republican in the bigger box.
Here "Alex" is repeating what she read from a CNN transcript, because as we know "Alex" didn't watch any of FNC's airing of the actual summit. No surprise: she gets it wrong. Fox gave the bigger box to the person who had the floor and was speaking, be they Republican or Democrat. In another example of parroting someone else's reporting, "Alex" states:
Fox News provided the most uninterrupted coverage before the lunch break...
Actually FNC showed the entire morning session without interruptions, pundits, or commercials. CNN and MSNBC repeatedly talked over the summiteers, muted their audio, and inserted commercial breaks. It would be more accurate to say that Fox was the only commercial news channel to air uninterrupted coverage of the morning session. But "Alex" wouldn't know that. She didn't bother to watch. That said, she doesn't do much better with the nine minutes she does claim to have seen:
Megyn Kelly and Trace Gallagher were smirking their way through what Kelly called, in a mocking tone, "Healthcarepalooza" and reading out a selection of messages which were coming in via their on-air "town hall" - all slamming the Democrats, or both parties, but all parroting Republican talking points... Do you mean to tell me that out of the 25,000 comments Gallagher claimed had poured in by then, there was not ONE in favor of the bill, or approving of the summit?
Gallagher didn't say there were 25,000 comments. He said 25,000 people were logged into the chat. Oh, details, details. As for those chat comments..."All slamming the Democrats":
I like the exchange for Obama to say to McCain, 'The election is over'.
"Not ONE approving of the summit":
People saying 'no, it's not boring at all'. In fact some are saying 'this is a great civics lesson'. A number of people saying 'this is the farthest thing from boring'.
"There was not ONE in favor of the bill":
John said: 'They should pass the bill'.
"All parroting Republican talking points":
Dick Wilson says: 'My guess is that 99% of the 50% who say do nothing either have good health insurance, medicare, or both. In other words, I've got mine, the hell with them.'
These were read on air by Gallagher during three brief hits--one of them part of the nine minutes "Alex" claimed she saw. So someone isn't telling the truth here. Is it your lying ears, or the lying newshounds? Before you answer that, there's more:
I’m not sure how well Fox News’ spinpalooza, featuring sneering hosts...
Who were the "sneering hosts"? The only host "Alex" mentions is Megyn Kelly. Oh wait, that's the only one she actually saw. So is she claiming that Bret Baier and Shep Smith were "sneering" too--without having seen their coverage? Looks like.
...sneering hosts and an endless parade of rightwing shills, qualifies as superior coverage of the debate.
Who's she talking about now? It can't be anyone in the morning session, since we know it was the other cable news channels that broke away from the summit to air pundit spin, not Fox. Kelly did talk with Dr Marc Siegel who addressed issues that impact practicing physicians. "Alex" did see one guest interviewed by Megyn Kelly: a town-hall protester who could be fairly called "right-wing". So if we include Siegel (for sake of argument only, as it's an insult to describe him as a "shill" for anyone) what do we have, an endless parade of two people?!? Here's the truth:It's not like this is secret information. Videos of the two interviews are sitting right on the fox news website. But "Alex" either didn't review videos as she claimed, or deliberately left them out. And these are just from Megyn Kelly's portion. More Democrats and liberals appeared both before and after that. So where did "Alex" get the idea that Fox's coverage was "an endless parade of rightwing shills"? She made it up! These desperate, specious slanders earn "Alex" the highly-coveted distinction of having told The Lie of the Week.

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




Fox Fan
Newshounds. Resign or get impeached by Johnny.
February 28, 2010, 8:55:33 PM EST – Like – Reply


Grammie
Johnny, this stands out in a long, long list of outstanding FHWIRs.
 
Based on Johnny's superb work here week in and week out FF, if Johnny had been prosecuting Clinton's Impeachment he would have been convicted.   
 
That attack on Laura Ingrham was an absolutely more viciously hatefully  disgusting attack than normal, even for that group of sickos.
 
Will there be another lying rebuttal that rebuts nothing?  I noticed even the normal pathetic attempt was absent last week.
February 28, 2010, 9:14:19 PM EST – Like – Reply


ImNotBlue
Ah, so it was Newhounds who started in on Megyn Kelly... I should have known.  Over at Mediaite, while the coverage was still going on, a few posters started to complain that Kelly was doing a bad job.  When I asked for specifics (you know, like what she was talking about, what she did, things she said, etc.) they took high offense to it, and said I was simply asking too much.
 
I should have realized it was the Newshounds meme just repeating itself to the willfully ignorant.
February 28, 2010, 9:16:58 PM EST – Like – Reply


sarainitaly
having watched all seven hours on FOX, I can back you up J$!! Man, I love these posts!! So delicious. Keep it up!
February 28, 2010, 9:28:22 PM EST – Like – Reply


 johnny dollar
Thanks all for the kind words. Really, that's the sort of thing that keeps me going.
 
Interesting. After the FHWiR there is a pattern of hits coming from proxy and warez (piracy) sites. Seeing it tonight too. I wonder who our visitors could be?
February 28, 2010, 9:50:32 PM EST – Like – Reply


Danny
The question is this:  Will the vile she-dogs respond to Dollar's critique of their site?  I note that the last time Ellen (the vile one) and Alex (Ellen's sock puppet?) responded to Dollar they got their rear ends handed to them in spades.  I am guessing the potty-mouthed she-curs, like scalded dogs, will run away and won't respond this time.  
 
Once again the hounds have proven that they are totally and absolutley intellectually bankrupt and that they really have nothing to say.  
 
If it were not for their lies, their strawman arguments; their smears; and their expletive laden insults the basset hounds would be totally speechless!
February 28, 2010, 9:52:54 PM EST – Like – Reply


Danny
BTW Let me say that I have been anticipating this installment of Fox New haters even more than I have been anticipating the next episode of my favorite show, THE LEGEND OF THE SEEKER.   BURN NOTICE is only my second favorite show.  I am sorry but Cara and Kahlan are far hotter than Weston's Irish girlfriend.  
 
And now we know why Johnny Dollar is so dangerous to News Hounds and others of their ilk.  He has been dilligently taking spy lessons from Michael Weston.   
February 28, 2010, 11:00:50 PM EST – Like – Reply


Grammie
Now you know why I gave poor Fiona a break and left the field to her to follow Johnny instead!
February 28, 2010, 11:19:37 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Johnny,  if anything, News Hounds readers should thank you for keeping the writers there on their toes, but obviously you don't keep them on their toes.  
 
Unfortunately, they have the sort of overall audience that allows them to keep making it up and to keep spouting the buzz words (as Alex does) and they're quite content with that.  
 
They have the sort of audience who thinks that "Oh, yeah!" is truly a rebuttal.  
 
That audience is in the bag.  News Hounds writers can be as lazy and as sloppy as they are, and it doesn't matter as long as they criticise the right political side.  
 
We appreciate you, Johnny, and as silly and reflexive as the News Hounds audience is, I'd bet my Le Creuset collection that there is one or two of them who are at News Houndsprimarily for some company, and who glean that they're being scammed and intellectually insulted by the blog powers that be, and who take a secret delight in FHWIR.  
 
To them, I say, drink your fill.  The truth will set you free!
March 1, 2010, 4:55:23 AM EST – Like – Reply


Blackflon
Great work Johnny. I didn't think I needed to explain my Olympics/Summit comment but I guess when we are dealing with the likes of littlejohnt and his hateful Dolly's of Distortion, one must remember the level of ignorance these people have.  
 
March 1, 2010, 7:34:47 AM EST – Like – Reply


Blackflon
Is this genius living in the real world? Does he not comprehend what he reads?  
Well, we are dealing with littlejohnt here.  
 
Well, the article from the NHs Koldys linked to is from November 2009. To show that the NHs were "wrong headed" (Koldys words) he linked to an article from BBC about a report that came out in (drum roll) Feburary 2010.    
   
Of course his mindless sheep don't even bother to read the links, let alone look at dates. Whatever Koldys says they just take as the gospel. Koldys has to go back to 2009, 2008 and beyond to find a NHs article and then find a current article and start screaming, see they're "wrong headed". Like I said, the silly little man has completely lost it.  
 
Poor man. It must hurt to live in his world.
March 1, 2010, 8:50:17 AM EST – Like – Reply


 johnny dollar
Looks like it's not enough to explain the meaning of 'smear'. Now I'm going to have to explain the meaning of 'wrong-headed' so even john t can understand it. When you ridicule someone for what they say, and a few months later it becomes clear that the person you ridiculed was right all along...that's 'wrong-headed'. It happens so often at the kennel that perhaps I should refer to it as 'hound-headed'.
March 1, 2010, 9:16:37 AM EST – Like – Reply


Chris
you also debunked the notion that Fox wanted war with Iran. I remember you posting a video of all the guests on Fox who said going to war with Iran is wrong and shouldnt be done.
March 1, 2010, 10:17:06 AM EST – Like – Reply


ramjet
 
Speaking of "The Lie of the Week" segment, here's something I noticed from Alex's "Fox Defenders in Glass Houses Shouldn't Throw Stones...." masterpeice in irony.  
 
Quoth the raving:  First, lets deal with the "MSNBC didn't cover the summit" lie.  
 
OK! "Lets" (sic) do that!  By all appearances, Alex, our young, intrepid, never tepid bloggerslashjournalist has accused one "of the more factually challenged members of the rightwing blogosphere" of lying.  Having put the damning lie in quotes, one is left to wonder just who the damn liar is.  "Attribution! Attribution!" screams the audience, clamoring for the name of the liar.  
 
Now, I'm not a professional journalist (wait a minute....yes I am) but an article "Reported by Alex" containing a statement inside quotation marks would normally be guided by the first rule of reporters/journalists:  Don't make sh*t up!  
 
Giving one and all the benefit of the doubt, as I am wont to do, I seek a reasonable answer as to how a seasoned reporter could put in quotation marks such an inflamatory, defamatory, patently false, bald-face lie without giving attribution.  
 
Oversight?  Ahhhh, nope.  since this is a hit piece, one must conclude a central object of the article is to hit by naming names.  
 
Parenthetical citation or notice?  Don't think so.  No evidence to support that one.  
 
Attributional ambiguity?  Possible, but not likely.  Doesn't fit the situation.  
 
Quoting one's self?   Sadly, again possible.  I could write paragraphs explaining this one, but suffice to say, "It ain't good."  
 
The computer ate my homework?  I like this one, solely because it might work in a court of law.  
 
Alex lied?  If, in reality's realm, no one said "MSNBC didn't cover the summit," then we have our answer.  If, on the other hand, someone did, it would be nice to know who, or where, or when.  
 
Give us something, anything!  Glass houses, indeed.  
 
March 1, 2010, 11:20:35 AM EST – Like – Reply

Cecelia

Grammie
Author!!  Author!!! Author!!
 
It's a shame that Alistair Cooke isn't still with ud to do an intro to your masterpiece in irony.
March 1, 2010, 12:10:59 PM EST – Like – Reply


ramjet
Thank you, thank you much.   
 
I'm truly humbled and credit any accolades that may pass this way to my inspiration, Ell's acolytes of the Hound Pound.  As any true artist can only impart that which is displayed before him, I write as an inspired reactionary, with no talent other than an ability to disclose that which is in plain sight, and, I propose, a flair for composing prose that, if successful, can be criticized in toto by the News Hound pedigree.
March 1, 2010, 2:26:31 PM EST – Like – Reply

Cecelia

Scott
Four-legged Wolves love HOWLING to the BRIGHT side of the moon.  Deranged two-legged flea infested "intellect" MUTT'S love ELLENING to the DARK side of the moon.
March 1, 2010, 11:29:57 AM EST – Like – Reply


Blackflon
"Ellening".     Now, that's a good one. We could replace lying with Ellening.
March 1, 2010, 12:46:37 PM EST – Like – Reply


Scott
Good job Blackflon.  You caught my point on what come's out of the Dark Side of the of the political spectrum.  I owe you a beer or dozen,    "ELLENING" just sound's so much better and more to the point then saying "lying" as anything on the left is lie's so "lying" no longer mean's anything to them.  Isn't one of their rule's to "personalize?"  So what better way then renaming "lying."  And yes that was an original word and thought by me.  I do get lucky every now and then with a wise thought, just ask J$.
March 1, 2010, 5:43:14 PM EST – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
Watch out guys, Ellen says she's going to SUE US!  
March 1, 2010, 8:20:53 PM EST – Like – Reply


 johnny dollar
What?!? ROFL! Where does she say that?
March 1, 2010, 8:29:37 PM EST – Like – Reply


Danny
I knew one of the genuises at the pound said that he would donate fifty dollars for the purpose of hiring a lawyer to determine if NH could sue all of us on this site.  But, I had no idea that the Queen of vile had even thought about taking the misguided offer.  Link  puhleaase!  
 
There is a humorous thread in the forum that compares johnny Dollar to some guy also named Bob who also is critical of Newshounds.  It is always funny to hear the petulant pooches call someone else cowards when they are among the most cowardly beings who have ever existed or to call someone else stupid when they are the most brainless entities on this planet.  I guess they are much too dull to see the irony!  
 
If somone know the link to the other Bob's site, I'd like to check it out.
March 1, 2010, 9:39:05 PM EST – Like – Reply


Danny
I should have said named Bob not also named Bob.  Sorry.  Our host will always be Johnny to me.
March 1, 2010, 9:44:03 PM EST – Like – Reply


Grammie
Go to any of his comments and click on his name which links to his site.
 
Don't be surprised if he doesn't quite come across as the mutts describe him.
March 2, 2010, 1:10:44 AM EST – Like – Reply


Danny
I couldn't find his comments on the mains.  However, I did some sleuthing, and I am pretty sure they are talking about Bob as in planetofbob.  He seems like an OK guy to me.  He comes accross as an adult attempting to talk to a hord of screeching brainless brats.  
 
On his site I did find this startling admission by notveryhow:  
 
<i>  
I represent no one but myself, and I want to apologize for the behavior of “some” of the posters at Newshounds. <b>The Mains can be a brutal place. </b>  
Some of those people bug the he11 out of me. They have just a kneejerk reaction from the Left to ANY opposing voice that would do Freerepublic or Fox Nation proud. They don’t even stop to read or understand what is being said, but just launch into abuse mode (and if any of you guys come reading this, you know it’s true). </i>  
 
littlejohnnytroll proves notveryhow's point.  If you post over three sentences without it's containing a juvenile personal attack, littlejohnnytroll can't pay attention.  His ADD (which is the least of his problems) acts up.  And of course he goes into his "abuse mode" which he in his dementia confuses with sound argumentation.  (He says that he is in his fifties; if I were he I would be embarassed to admit that I were more than five).  
 
littlejohnntroll is only a sample of what is at newshounds.  At that site there is absolutely no one who can carry on and intellectual debate.  All they can do is lie, argue with strawmen; and resort to ad hominem attack after attack.  Newshounds is truly a putrid swampland.  However, the hounds are only following the example of their despicable leader    the Queen of emptyheaded vileness herself   non other than Queen Ellen Brodsky.
March 2, 2010, 12:32:33 PM EST – Like – Reply


I.M. Right
Watch out guys, Ellen says she's going to SUE US!  
 
Those idiots seem to be making more and more threats.  J$ - you have struck a nerve!
March 1, 2010, 11:33:40 PM EST – Like – Reply


Johnny-Five
A most excellent FHWiR J$. Thanks for the entertainment.
March 1, 2010, 10:15:37 PM EST – Like – Reply


I.M. Right
J$ - once again, an excellent FHWiR! Thank you for all of your hard work on it.
March 1, 2010, 11:23:55 PM EST – Like – Reply