1/18/10 12:34 PM

Fox Haters Week in Review

Quote-cropping, lies, stupidity...plus what would a week be without a few racial slurs? The stunning details in today's mini-edition of Fox Haters Week in Review!

The Arrogance of Ignorance:
We're going for quality over quantity this week, due to a project that is taking up much of our spare time. But we couldn't let the week pass without noting this fatuous post from the esteemed News Corpse:

Fox News’ Major Garrett Really Doesn’t Understand Email... Major Garrett of Fox News embarrassed himself by demonstrating his utter lack of understanding of the Internet and email. Today he is escalating his campaign to make a total ass of himself, and he is doing a magnificent job of it.... There are some rather simple and entirely innocent answers to this mystery, but Garrett can’t be bothered to investigate them. On his blog today he admitted to journalistic negligence that would make a cub reporter cringe:
…in every instance so far, e-mailers insist the e-mail(s) they received from the White House was/were not forwarded. They are positive the e-mails arrived directly from the White House. Fox cannot independently verify all of these accounts. Fox can only represent what hundreds of e-mailers have represented to me or to the network.
So Garret [sic] is relying on the accounts of the people who contacted him who said they were “positive” the emails came directly from the White House, but he can’t verify a single one.
Whoa! Garrett says he can't verify all of them, but the corpsicles immediately rewrite that to claim he can't verify any of them! Why is it necessary to lie about what the man said? And why was it necessary to crop his quote to omit his very next sentence? Here it is with the part the corpsicles clipped off:
Fox cannot independently verify all of these accounts. Fox can only represent what hundreds of e-mailers have represented to me or to the network. But in some instances, e-mailers have volunteered to give up the e-mails they've received to White House officials if it mean obtaining an explanation about how they came to land on the Obama distribution list.
No wonder the corpsicles cropped that quote. But wait, there's more! The Einsteins at News Corpse go on to show how stoopid Garrett (and apparently Secy Gibbs) are because there's such an obvious, easy explanation for all those emails:
Apparently he never bothered to look at his very own Fox News blog on which there is a “SHARE” feature that permits anyone to send an email from that site to any other email address. And - surprise - WhiteHouse.gov has the very same feature. I don’t know if Garrett is really this clueless about the Internet or if he is deliberately manufacturing a remarkably lame scandal.
There's a slight problem with the corpsicle explanation: it's wrong! The emails Garrett is referring to all come from David Axelrod, not from some 'share this article' link. How do we know? Because they say "David Alexrod" in the from line!



We tried the 'share' feature on whitehouse.gov using some spare email accounts. It didn't put Axelrod's name in the 'from' box--these services (in this case from a company called addthis.com) simply forward links. Here's what one of those 'share' emails from whitehouse.gov looks like:


The Axelrod emails Garrett is talking about are completely and utterly unlike anything that 'share this' could possibly generate. Ergo it appears that our arrogant pals at News Corpse have embarrassed themselves by demonstrating an utter lack of understanding of the internet and email. We don't know if the corpsicles are really this clueless about the internet or if they are deliberately manufacturing a remarkably transparent scandal. But one thing's clear: they cropped a quote to smear Major Garrett, and then made total asses of themselves trying to justify their deceit.

This Week's Rodney King Moment:
We have to thank guest blogger "Brian". If he doesn't belong to some farm employee union, he should sign up forthwith. Because he is undeniably the champion cherry-picker of the pound. Given an entire week of Your World with Cavuto, he singles out a segment with Charles Payne, and complains that "there was no liberal". Of course, if he wanted he could have mentioned these segments in that same broadcast:


But that would go against the purpose of the propaganda: to lie about Fox's balance. Still, our focus is not the disingenuous post from "Brian", but rather the reaction of the kennel-dwellers. You can just see them growling at each other: that Payne guy, he's one of them. Because the racial slurs starting flowing almost immediately:
  • Charles Payne is nothing more than a lawn jockey of the GOP.
  • Charles Payne would have fought for the South had he been alive during the Civil War. He's a Vichy black.
  • On the Fox Noise plantation, Massa Craputo loves having a good house Negro like old Charlie Payne do the heavy lifting of trashing President Obama.

The TPM Countdown Clock
Keeping track of the brilliant insights and perspicacious prognostications for which Talking Points Memo is so highly regarded: there are now 14 days remaining until Shepard Smith quits Fox News or is fired. Alert the media!

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




Fox Fan
Excellent proofs of the lies of the Fox Haters once again J$.  
 
I hope john t and cluddo come over to apologize for their recent attacks on your from the unofficial and NOT only J$ OT thread. Cluddo also should apologize to CC for calling her your "comfort girl" once again. I thought we were done with the misogyny, but apparently cluddo didn't get the message.
August 16, 2009, 8:33:34 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Completely lost on News Clowns posters is the irony of their ascribing a servile attitude to one black man, simply because he dares dissent from a particular policy position of another black man.
 
Just who has erected a Plantation and insisted on total obeisance to the House rules here?
August 16, 2009, 8:42:20 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
FF, so Claudo is at that again, huh?
 
You'd think this Mensa member would get some new material.
 
Once I made fun of Claudo for rending his garments over the appearance of Marina Orlova (the philologist) on The Factor.
 
Claudo proceeded to lecture me (from News Hounds) that by featuring the overtly sexy Marina, O'Reilly was sending a message to well-educated women, that sexuality was still the thing of primary import when it comes to women.
 
Yet, here I am, an anonymous and faceless entity on the internet. Here, I'm SHEERLY what comes from the mind to the keyboard, and yet Claudo simply MUST sexualize me.  
 
And all because I'm a woman expressing admiration and respect towards a member of the opposite sex, whom Claudo dislikes.
 
Whether as Priscilla or Claudo, he's always a buffoon.
August 16, 2009, 9:09:09 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Lil' Barry Bailout
Newshound: "Major Garrett of Fox News embarrassed himself by demonstrating his utter lack of understanding of the Internet"
=
 
I suggest that Garrett get with Joe Biden for help...Joe can probably give him "the number of that web site" that explains it all.
 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/25/biden-slips-asks-websites-number/
 
Eh?
August 16, 2009, 9:17:04 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Mark @ News Corpse
I have rarely seen a more lame rebuttal than the one Johnny Dollar has coughed up here.
 
1) J$ complains that I wrote that Garrett didn't verify ANY of the emails to which he referred. His complaint is that Garrett said he couldn't verify ALL of the emails and that it was wrong for me to write that he didn't verify ANY of them. Of course, I was right. While Garrett did say that he couldn't verify ALL of them, he pointedly DID NOT say that he verified ANY of them. He took the word of the people who sent him the emails. Nowhere in his report does he state that he verified a single one. Which is exactly what I wrote.
 
2) J$ complains that I cropped Garrett's quote inappropriately. But the extended quote he provides has nothing to do with the point I was making. I didn't crop it to alter the meaning. I cropped it because it was irrelevant. My point was that Garrett was relying on the emailers' accounts rather than documenting the facts himself. The fact that "e-mailers have volunteered to give up the e-mails they've received to White House officials," has no bearing on whether Garrett had done his research. In fact, it affirms that he didn't. He is simply shifting the research responsibility to the White House.
 
3) J$ complains about my speculation that the emails in question might have been generated by the "share" feature on the White House web site (just one of many possible explanations). J$ says that's impossible because "The Axelrod emails Garrett is talking about are completely and utterly unlike anything that 'share this' could possibly generate." Really? How does J$ know this? Did he see the emails that Garrett is talking about? I haven't. They weren't shown on TV. They weren't published on Garrett's web site. J$ must have sharper clairvoyant skills than I have. Or perhaps he was over at Garrett's home going over the emails with him. If J$ hasn't seen the emails, then it's presumptuous of him to assert that they couldn't have been generated by the "share" feature. What we have here is third generation hearsay. Garrett's taking the emailers' word and J$ is taking Garrett's word.
 
Garrett's obsession with this non-issue, and his inability to understand it, is still evident. But what's really noteworthy is Johnny Dollar's sycophantic, kiss up, lame ass defense of Garrett's stupidity.
August 16, 2009, 11:22:49 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
"How does J$ know this? Did he see the emails that Garrett is talking about? I haven't. They weren't shown on TV."
 
Then how do you explain that my post has a screengrab of one of the emails? FYI, the screengrab was taken off the...TV. So that makes four things you were wrong about. But thanks for reading J$P.
 
PS: Oh, and by the way, the White House announced tonight they are revising and reforming how they handle emails. It seems like they didn't believe your 'share this' theory either. But then, the White House must be lying too.
August 16, 2009, 11:47:46 PM EDT – Like – Reply


ramjet
I just e-mailed J$P my "Dear Friend" e-mail from Dear David.
 
At the very bottom of the e-mail is:  
 
"This email was sent to (my name- redacted)@tampabay.rr.com"
August 17, 2009, 12:29:15 AM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Funny thing, it looks like the screengrab I posted of one of the emails, and nothing like the 'share this' emails that the corpsicles claim explain the whole story. How can that be? You must be lying too. You're in on it, with Garrett, J$, and the Office of White House legal counsel. You're all in it together, ya hear?
August 17, 2009, 12:31:24 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Richard
Newsdope telling lies?? Say it anit so J$!
 
But of course it is...for a real good laugh stop by Kos and read his post there....most are a pack of half truths....but the Kos crowd ask no questions and just tell him great job! LOL!!!
August 17, 2009, 2:03:18 AM EDT – Like – Reply


ramjet
My favorite part of the smelly rebuttal Mark deficated above is his witty and urbane debate ending retort, "J$ must have sharper clairvoyant skills than I have."
 
I don't think Mark is giving himself all the credit he deserves, or even any. To wit, from his blog:  
 
"So Garrett is relying [GARRETT NEVER SAID HE "IS RELYING ON THE ACCOUNTS" IS HE?] on the accounts of the people who contacted him who said they were “positive” the emails came directly from the White House, but he can’t verify a single one [HOW DOES MARK KNOW THIS? SHARP CLAIRVOYANT SKILLS, PERHAPS?]. He is satisfied [GOSH! HOW DID MARK COME UP WITH THIS INSIGHT? SCS/ESP NO DOUBT] that these people whom he has never met, never questioned [TWO WERE INTERVIEWED BY FOX], never vetted, are so reliable that he is under no obligation to confirm their assertions [OBLIGATED? NOPE. INTENDS TO? I'D WAGER THERE'LL BE SOME 'CONFIRMING' GOING ON, BUT ONLY THE CLAIRVOYANT KNOWS].  
 
Now, using my sharpest clairvoyant skills, this is what I've devined from what Garrett wrote. Note quotation marks.
 
"The network and this correspondent have in the past 30 hours received hundreds of e-mails from people who say they have received -- via their personal and private e-mail account - White House communication(s) they never sought."
 
"Some who have e-mailed me or the network insist they never used an opt-in or subscribe function..."
 
"Others says they have visited the White House website ..."
 
"A third category of e-mailers say all they have contacted their members of Congress or U.S. Senators on legislative topics -- health care and others. These e-mailers say they never used the White House website ..."
 
"Fox cannot independently verify all of these accounts. Fox can only represent what hundreds of e-mailers have represented to me or to the network."
 
"But in some instances, e-mailers have volunteered to give up the e-mails they've received to White House officials if it mean obtaining an explanation about how they came to land on the Obama distribution list."
 
"At the time of the briefing, I did not possess permission from any e-mailer to provide their address to the White House. Fox has that permission from many e-mailers now."
 
"But among the questions on the minds of many e-mailers is how they could receive direct communication from the White House they never sought."
 
BTW, Mark, using what you wrote to defend what you wrote has a sort of convoluted stench to it.
August 17, 2009, 2:12:35 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Mark @ News Corpse
So Johnny, you support your long, rambling diatribe with a single screen grab that has no identifying info as to where it came from. Nice documentation.
 
At best, it is a single example, yet you claim that "The emails Garrett is referring to ALL come from David Axelrod" Have you seen them all?
 
And you don't even bother to respond to the other BS I debunked.
 
p.s. Oh by the way, the White House announcement confirms that the emails were the result of third parties who entered the addresses - not some wild WH conspiracy. Exactly as I said, it was easily explainable, but Garrett jumped to ridiculously paranoid conclusions that he couldn't support and didn't even bother trying.
August 17, 2009, 2:43:04 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Mark @ News Corpse
One more thing...
 
I still can’t figure out why people think this is some kind of scandal. It doesn’t make sense.
 
The Axelrod email was written explicitly for advocates of the White House health care proposals. Did you read it? It would make no sense to send it to anyone but supporters. So why would the White House scheme to get email addresses of opponents and send them this particular email?
August 17, 2009, 2:51:43 AM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
"And you don't even bother to respond to the other BS I debunked."
 
If you had debunked something I'd respond. You clearly lied and misrepresented Garrett. He said he couldn't verify ALL of the emails, you twisted that around to say he couldn't verify ANY of the emails. That's pretty blatant and everyone who read the post knows it. If you want to insist it isn't, then that's just sad.
 
"a single screen grab that has no identifying info as to where it came from."
 
How many screen grabs should I post? They all have the same name in the 'from' box: David Axelrod. That fact alone makes your 'share this' theory utter nonsense.
 
"you claim that "The emails Garrett is referring to ALL come from David Axelrod" Have you seen them all?"
 
He wasn't talking about emails that were not from Axelrod. Did you read what he wrote? The way to tell what emails someone is referring to is to go by their words. Garrett clearly spoke of emails coming from David Axelrod. Hence those were the ones he was referring to. I'm surprised I have to explain this stuff.
 
"confirms that the emails were the result of third parties who entered the addresses"
 
Very sly. It doesn't confirm anything. It says nothing about third parties "entering" the addresses (still clinging to your phony 'share this' theory?). And a white house response (and this may shock you) is not necessarily true. Believe it or not, the job of reporters is to question White House responses, especially when they don't add up.
 
But there's a better, more concise way to explain all this: you're wrong, I'm right.
August 17, 2009, 10:06:31 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Blackflon
The Axelrod email was written explicitly for advocates of the White House health care proposals. Did you read it? It would make no sense to send it to anyone but supporters. So why would the White House scheme to get email addresses of opponents and send them this particular email?
Mark @ News Corpse | Homepage | 08.17.09 - 2:56 am | #  
******************************
Gee, Mark@News Corpse, I am not an advocate of White House Health care proposals and I received one of those messages on 2, count them, 2 of my email accounts.
What say you?
August 17, 2009, 10:40:58 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Blackflon
This Mark@News Corpse has more explanations and excuses for his lies and distortions than a politician. Maybe he should run for office.

Edited By Siteowner
August 17, 2009, 10:42:49 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
I still can’t figure out why people think this is some kind of scandal. It doesn’t make sense.
 
The Axelrod email was written explicitly for advocates of the White House health care proposals. Did you read it? It would make no sense to send it to anyone but supporters. So why would the White House scheme to get email addresses of opponents and send them this particular email?
Mark @ News Corpse | Homepage | 08.17.09 - 2:56 am | #
------------------------------------------
 
Oh, I doubt you'd be this unimaginative if liberals had started getting unsolicited email attempting to debunk anti-war opinion, authored by the Bush WH.
 
Particularly, if the Bushies had sent out anything similar to a recent solicitation by the Obama Administration.  
 
So let me help you out so that you can hark back to those patriotic anti-govt paranoid days when the Bush Administration was usurping our rights via the same polices that Pres. Obama has now kept in place.
 
Perhaps, a little reminder of those times and a little role playing might turn your "I can't figure out" into a reminder of the 'I am only too ready to imagine that the WH might wish to set me personally straight" days prior to Jan. 09.
 
Perhaps, it will also help you understand that a few more media personalities than Major Garrett would have found these circumstances more than interesting back in the day too.
 
We'll keep our fingers crossed...
 
Obama Administration solicitation:  
 
"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform [the Iraq War] out there, spanning from control of personal finances [myths about Administration motives for going to war in Iraq] to end of life care [compromise of the CIA]
 
These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.  
 
Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the [Bush] White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform [the War in Iraq] that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."
August 17, 2009, 11:09:11 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Blackflon
The Cavuto/Payne entry shows how typically ignorant the Hounds are.
 
They don't seem to feel they distort but this is a perfect example.
 
Select one segment from any number of programs and say, "This shows how unfair and unbalanced Fox News is on their programs".
 
Of course if you are not a far left democrat with fire and brimstone coming out of your ears then you just don't meet the standards that these clowns seem to have.
 
Stop whining, News Poodles.
August 17, 2009, 12:00:26 PM EDT – Like – Reply


ramjet
This really is too easy:
 
"...but Garrett jumped to ridiculously paranoid conclusions that he couldn't support and didn't even bother trying."
Mark @ News Corpse | Homepage | 08.17.09 - 2:48 am  
 
"Fox is continuing to ask the White House about how people who never requested communication received e-mails on health care and other topics. So far, it's slow-going. But not for lack of effort."-Garrett
 
"White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Thursday established what sounded like the standard by which any inquiry into this matter could be conducted. This is Gibbs address me during Thursday's briefing:
 
"I'd be interested to see who you got that e-mail from and whether or not they're on the list," Gibbs said. "You're asking me if they're on a list and if you can figure out a different way of checking without asking me to double-check the names, I am happy to."-Gibbs
 
"I have made it clear to Gibbs - through repeated e-mail correspondence - that the e-mails are his to review for a reasonable period of time to determine how they landed on the White House "list" he himself first referenced. Gibbs has declined to respond."-Garrett
 
"In general, the White House has said private e-mails in its possession are being housed strictly for legal, legitimate archive purposes. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest otherwise."-Garrett
 
Major Garrett did not, has not, nor would not, "jump(ed) to ridiculously paranoid conclusions." He has not offered any conclusions at all, not one, ridiculous, paranoid or otherwise. How could he possibly support, or try to support non-existant conclusions?  
 
Mark???? Mark???? Your crystal ball fogged up???
August 17, 2009, 12:32:05 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Why is it a "ridiculous paranoid conclusion" that the White House may have garnered email addresses though flag@whitehouse. com?
 
Many people comment on opposition blogs and it's not out of the realm of reason to think that blog owners might get access to posters email addresses, that these people might publish them themselves via the site, etc., and these third parties sent them along via the flag@whitehouse.gov address.
 
It's not a "ridiculous" assumption. It's a question worth asking based upon the Administration's own solicitation of "rumors" about the WH health care policy via the internet.
 
No one HAS to believe that this HAS happened. What reporters SHOULD believe is that it's a possibility, along with many other possibilities. That it is is a pertinent question for Robert Gibbs, via all the inquiries made by people who have wondered how the WH got their email address.
 
My being sarcastic about Mark saying that he can't "figure out" what the scandal might be, not withstanding, he seemed to have no problem 'figuring' that Garrett had jumped to some kind of paranoid assumption...simply because Garrett had the temerity to question Gibbs about unsolicited email.
 
The ability of these folks to act as though it's tantamount to heresy, treason, insanity, and drinking a full-fat latte with extra whipped cream, to behave as though you might not consider the WH as being Christ's perfect instrument on earth, is astounding.
August 17, 2009, 1:31:59 PM EDT – Like – Reply