johnny dollar's archive: jan-feb 2010

If you think Media Matters is unreliable, see what happens when others appropriate their stuff. It's another long-winded installment of Fox Haters Week in Review!

Fact Check Fizzle:
In advance of the State of the Union Address, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sought to mobilize Fox haters everywhere. To do so they announced an exciting new initiative to "fact check" FNC's coverage of the SotU, and called on people to sign up and report all the Fox falsehoods and lies. The echo chamber swung into action, and the effort was given maximum exposure: HuffPo, The Atlantic, Talking Points Memo, and thousands of others. Of course the newshounds, eager for material, rushed to promote the partisan effort:

The airwaves and blogosphere will erupt with lies and spin galore before, during, and after President Obama's State of the Union speech tonight.

Unfortunately, the hound comment thread didn't exactly erupt with examples. In fact, not one Fox lie was identified.

But what about the rest of the blue blog army? What did they turn up for the DCCC? We looked for a press release without success, but the DCCC did announce their results: in a tweet! It took us back to the sign-up page, where, if you scroll down far enough, you'll find the Niagara of Fox lies enumerated for your reading pleasure. But of eight examples listed, only two are credited to a DCCC tipster. The rest? Mostly links to Media Matters! Two entries were about things said on Fox the next day, and one of those was just a comment by an interview guest.

Let's look at some of the remaning six. One cites a Media Matters article about an editorial in the Wall Street Journal. The article has nothing to do with FNC, yet here it is, listed as part of the "Fox Fact Check". Another cites a statement by John McCain about cutting the deficit; it links to an irrelevant Politico piece about how McCain voted on something. Whipping out the tu quoque fallacy is first-rate agit-prop, but how McCain voted is logically immaterial to whether his opinion is a Fox "lie". Not to mention the absurdity of suggesting that if you disagree with the opinion of someone being interviewed, that means the channel airing the interview is "lying". By that standard, every news channel lies hundreds of times every single day

Possibly the shadiest of these DCCC entries is the one that links to yet another Media Matters piece as "proof" that "Fox says" Obama has not cut taxes. The MM piece is about a New York Post editorial, but there is a fleeting mention of Fox:

Fox Forum columnist Peter Roff wrote, "We cut taxes? How did I miss that?"

Now in true MM style, you have to follow links to get the full context of the conversation. It turns out that multiple voices were liveblogging the SotU; here is the relevant part of the exchange:

• Peter Roff: We cut taxes? How did I miss that?
• Ellen Ratner: He does not to do a ton more to create jobs-- good that he is going after the tax cuts they did-- why don't you guys recognize that????
• SECupp: Cut taxes?! WHAT?
• Ellen Ratner: Peter, you would miss it unless it came from a Republican!!

So we have a guy doing a liveblog, and DCCC trumpets his words as "Fox says". Meanwhile Ellen Ratner, who is actually a Fox News contributor and appears on FNC, in the very same discussion, says the opposite. If a quote from an online conversation represents the corporate opinion of Fox News, why shouldn't the headline read: "Fox Congratulates Obama for Cutting Taxes?"

Dog and Phony Show:
The State of the Union was also a big focus over at the dog pound, and no one will be surprised that we find the newshounds adopting the same tactic as the DCCC: lifting from Media Matters! You may wonder why it took two people--Ellen Brodsky and "Brian"--just to rewrite a post from Brock's boys. Well, that's what gives it that extra dose of perspicacity and insight. Brodsky and Brian tell us that Cavuto served up "GOP falsehoods" regarding the SotU:

Host and guest each regurgitated the same Republican talking points we’ve been hearing elsewhere on Fox News – attacking President Obama for daring to criticize the decision and overlooking the serious, Joe Wilson-like breach of etiquette by Justice Alito.

B&B then go on to rebut any criticism of Obama's comments, letting Media Matters do their research for them:

As Media Matters has pointed out, presidents have a history of criticizing the Supreme Court on a SOTU stage. President Harding ripped the Court in 1922 for overturning a 1919 Child Labor Law.

Well that's a lie. Here's what Harding said:

The decision of the Supreme Court has put this problem outside the proper domain of Federal regulation until the Constitution is so amended as to give the Congress indubitable authority. I recommend the submission of such an amendment.

He didn't attack the Court for its decision. He didn't say or imply that the Court was wrong. In fact, by calling for an amendment, he acknowledged the Court's authority.

President Reagan ripped the Court for ruling on school prayer (1988 address) and Roe v Wade (1984 address).

The truth (1988):

The Congress opens its proceedings each day, as does the Supreme Court, with an acknowledgment of the Supreme Being. Yet we are denied the right to set aside in our schools a moment each day for those who wish to pray. I believe Congress should pass our school prayer amendment.

The truth (1984):

During our first 3 years, we have joined bipartisan efforts to restore protection of the law to unborn children.... We should rise above bitterness and reproach, and if Americans could come together in a spirit of understanding and helping, then we could find positive solutions to the tragedy of abortion.

Reagan did not "rip" the Court or attack their judgment, and like Harding Reagan argued for an amendment, recognizing the Court's authority. In 1984 Reagan didn't even mention Roe v Wade or the Supreme Court! But there's one more B&B falsehood to deal with:

George W. Bush complained about "activist judges" "redefining marriage by court order." (2004 address)

This example is laughable in its transparency. Like Reagan in 1984, Bush never mentioned the Supreme Court. He's talking about local and regional judges, not Justices of the Supreme Court. B&B would have you believe he was attacking the Supremes for a ruling about "redefining marriage"--a fictional ruling that exists only in the diseased minds of David Brock and Ellen Brodsky.

Speaking of lies, remember what it took two people to write, that "host and guest" attacked Obama about this? Watch the video for yourself and you'll find no such attack from Cavuto. Oh, and as for Brodsky's claim that they both "overlooked" Alito's reaction? They discuss it at 5:45 in. Why tell a lie that is so easily disproved?

Also chiming in on the SotU was someone who goes by "Alex". Putting on her Perry Mason hat, "Alex" turns legal scholar:

Martha McCallum told viewers that according to the Fox News “brain room", President Obama was wrong when he said that the recent SCOTUS ruling on corporate donations to candidates would “open the floodgates” for foreign-controlled companies to spend in US elections. Well, once again Fox News gets it wrong and our intelligent and well-educated 44th President gets it right.

As the ruling makes clear, the law regarding foreign corporations and groups was untouched. It's the same now as it was before the decision came down.

So what does "Alex" do to "prove" her case? No one should be surprised as the road leads once again to Media Matters. Letting Brock do her research for her, "Alex" parrots the MM citation of the dissent (!) to argue that Fox is wrong. No, we're not making this up. Never mind that constitutional scholars and Law Professors say Obama was mistaken. The dissenting opinion, which has no force of law whatsoever, has been elevated by "Alex" to the ultimate authority!

The dissent speculates about what might happen in future cases, raising the possibility of reversing the ban on some foreign contributions. "Alex" presents this educated guesswork as if it were fact, even though the respected SCOTUSblog says that "the clear implication" of the ruling is that the Court would not overturn the ban on foreign contributions. So just how does this prove that Obama was right and "Fox was wrong"?

And that brings us back to the main issue. Now this is going to get even more pedagogic, but it needs to be said. Refer to the quote from "Alex" above. Note how she claims that MacCallum and Obama were talking about "foreign-controlled corporations". Compare that to Obama's words:

The Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.

And to MacCallum's words:

The president's reference to foreign corporations' participation in this change is what is wrong here. Now, the court specifically wrote that it was not overturning restrictions on foreign dollars. Those will stay in place.

Why is "Alex" using a phrase ("foreign-controlled corporations") that neither Obama nor MacCallum used? Because that's what the dissent was about! "Alex" explains the dissent's position:

They have good reason to believe that a back door may have been opened wide for campaign funding by foreign-controlled U.S companies.

Again, Obama didn't say "foreign-controlled US companies" and neither did MacCallum. They were both talking about "foreign corporations", not the foreign-controlled US companies mentioned in the dissent. The two are not interchangeable; legal implications for one are different from the other. So whatever the merits of the dissent, it certainly doesn't prove Obama right or Fox wrong because it's not talking about the same thing!

When you're honest about who said what, it's clear that Fox News and MacCallum were and are verbatim correct. "Alex" can doctor quotes and drag red herrings across the path, but either she's an ignorant schlub who parrots Media Matters because she doesn't know any better, or she's purposefully telling Another Hound Lie.

Perhaps the mongrels should stop cribbing from others. We looked at their posts over a 14-day period and found that some 80% of them were based on an article or video from some other website. Maybe if they started watching Fox News Channel a little more instead of relying on what other people post, they wouldn't make so many embarrassing mistakes.

Priscilla whined this week that we chastised her because she "misspelled the name of a Fox News reporter". No, Prissy, you didn't make a typo--you got her name wrong because you had no idea who she was. Just like you did when you referenced "Fox reporter Tim Vaughn"--who isn't a Fox "reporter" and whose name actually is Tim Gaughan. And there's the wannabee mutt who on Jan 20 wrote about "a regular old Fox “news” program yesterday, America's Election HQ, in fact – which is part of the minority “news” lineup." Except there is no FNC program by that name! See, this is what you get when "newshounds" write about Fox News but know little about it, because they don't watch Fox so you don't have to. Even their slogan is a lie.

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