1/18/10 12:34 PM

Fox Haters Week in Review

Purloined prose, outdated polls, religious bigotry, and a call to murder Steve Doocy?!? The details in today's action-packed edition of Fox Haters Week in Review!

Stealing One's Blunder:
It's been a busy week over at the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed mob). Our pal Julie decided to take on the eeevil O'Reilly--because Mr Bill made an outrageous statement about government run healthcare:

That's a very tough sell these days.
No wonder Julie's upset. How dare anyone claim it's a tough sell! Armed with righteous indignation, Ms Driscoll served up a classic incorrection:
And wow, how do I break this one to Bill? The whole polling thing? Yeah, he’s wrong – in an Ipsos/McClatchy poll (which Fox News’ v.p. Bill Sammon incorrectly quoted), 52% of those polled said they believed a public insurance plan was necessary.
First, only 52% support for something is hardly proof that it's not a "hard sell". But more to the point, why did Ms Driscoll dredge up a poll from a month and a half ago with 6-week-old data? Unfortunately for the newspups, Mr Bill cited a current poll, so Julie was forced to deal with that:
O’Reilly then claimed, incorrectly, that “most Americans are now dissatisfied with the President’s healthcare deal. According to a brand new NBC News poll 47% now disapprove of the way Mr. Obama’s handling healthcare reform, while 41% approve.”
So how is that incorrect? Don't expect Julie to provide an answer to that.
Am I looking at the same poll? The Wall Street Journal/NBC poll I saw concluded that 40% believe the plans would worsen the quality of health care, 41% approve of President Obama’s handling of the issue, and 54% are worried that the government will go too far, rather than not do enough, to reform the health care system. However, a combined 60% of respondents say the system needs either a “complete overhaul” or “major reform.” That 60% number would seem to be significant, yes?
Um, why would the 60% number be significant? You said O'Reilly was "wrong" about the government-funded option. So why do you cite numbers on every other possible aspect of the issue except for that? Didn't the WSJ/NBC poll have a question on that topic? Well what do you know, it did, and Julie failed to report it:
Would you favor or oppose creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies? Favor: 43%. Oppose: 47%.
Another question asked if Obama's plan was a good or bad idea: good idea: 36%, bad idea: 42%. Julie says O'Reilly was "incorrect" and "wrong", and this is the poll she cites as her proof?

But wait, there's more. Julie links to an MSNBC article about the poll and then gives this quote:
Those who primarily get their news from FoxNews believe the misinformation about health care reform in far greater numbers than other respondents. For instance, 72 percent of FoxNews watchers believe the illegal immigrant misinformation, 69 percent believe the abortion lie, and 75 percent — three out of every four FoxNews watchers — still believe the 'death panels' nonsense, even though it has been thoroughly, and repeatedly, debunked by the more 'reality-based' media. Oh, and 79 percent of Foxies think health care reform will lead to a 'government takeover' of health care.
The first thing to note here is that the poll says nothing about the ignorance of Fox News watchers because that question was never asked. Respondents were asked:
Let me read you a number of criticisms that town hall protesters have made about the proposed health care plan. For each one, please tell me whether this seems to you to be likely to happen or unlikely to happen.
They weren't asked if the criticisms were true or false, correct or incorrect. They were asked to speculate about what a future healthcare plan might bring. Ms Driscoll and rascals like News Corpse are portraying this like people flunking a current events test, believing things that are "known to be untrue". But the respondents weren't asked what's true or false; they were asked whether they think these things are likely or unlikely--not a question of fact but a matter of opinion. Ironically, one of these so-called "lies" has already been shown to be not a lie at all. The nonpartisan factcheck.org did a thorough analysis and concluded:
As for the House bill as it stands now, it’s a matter of fact that it would allow both a "public plan" and newly subsidized private plans to cover all abortions.
Hmm. Is Julie even a bit chagrined that she called this claim a "lie"? Well, she was just quoting the MSNBC report. But when you go to the MSNBC "first read" piece, the language that Julie quoted isn't there. The phrase "the abortion lie" is never used. So where did this language come from? It would seem logical to credit Ms Driscoll for this embarrassingly false prose. But we poked around a bit and turned up something interesting. It's a blog post, dated August 19th--one day before Julie published her post. And the language there is interesting. Compare what Julie wrote on August 20th (above) with what appeared on The CLog on August 19th:
To no one’s surprise except perhaps their own, those who primarily get their news from FoxNews believe the misinformation about health care reform in far greater numbers than other respondents. For instance, 72 percent of FoxNews watchers believe the illegal immigrant misinformation, 69 percent believe the abortion lie, and 75 percent — three out of every four FoxNews watchers — still believe the “death panels” nonsense, even though it has been thoroughly, and repeatedly, debunked by the more “reality-based” media. Oh, and 79 percent of Foxies think health care reform will lead to a “government takeover” of health care.
Wow. John Grooms's CLog post is word-for-word identical to what Julie posted 24 hours later--including that cringeworthy reference to "the abortion lie". They both use the odd construct of "FoxNews" rather than "Fox News"--but Julie properly writes it as "Fox News" everywhere else in her article. Julie does not link to the CLog post. She gives no attribution whatsoever to the writer whose words she repeated. This takes the concept of the Fox Haters "echo chamber" to an all-new level. Isn't there a word for this sort of thing?

Makin' It Up Is Easy to Do
Were you aware that Fox News Watch hosted a panel of four conservatives? What, you say, you don't recall that? Well, let Julie explain it to you:
conservatives Andrea Tantaros, Jim Pinkerton, Judy Miller and Kirsten Powers (a Greta-style Fox News “Democrat”) a platform to smear and further the right’s agenda on thuggery at healthcare reform town halls, President Obama’s healthcare reform, and the role of the media. I guess Shawn thought a conservative media “expert” (Pinkerton), a conservative discredited journalist (Miller), a neoconic hate-spewing blogger (Tantaros) and a columnist who mainly embraces conservative positions (Powers) were the best folks to talk about all this weighty stuff.
Let's see. Judith Miller is so conservative that she wrote this about Obama:
His decision to announce the drawdown of forces in Iraq at Camp Lejeune while paying tribute to American warriors, to their sacrifices and accomplishments, is the kind of gesture that makes me think my instinct about him is not wrong and my faith not misplaced.
Miller is so conservative she publicly announced her support first for Hillary Clinton and then Barack Obama. And Kirsten Powers, who "mainly embraces conservative positions", as Ms Driscoll claims (without proof)? The same Kirsten Powers who got into a shouting match with Karen Hanretty, who called the arrest of Prof Gates an abuse of power, argues for gays in the military, wants to make illegal aliens citizens, and who has given thousands of dollars to federal candidates--all liberal Democrats? Just where did Julie get the idea that these people are both "conservatives"? She made it up!

By the way, Julie relied on the same poll trickery here as above. To rebut what current polls show about healthcare popularity, she cited a CNN poll...from the middle of last May! What's the matter, couldn't she find any February polls to cite? Then, in a display of either gross ignorance or outright dishonesty, Ms Driscoll pooh-poohs this scientifically-conducted Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, claiming that a CNN QuickVote poll is just as valid:
When asked, “Do you believe healthcare is a fundamental American right whether people can pay for it or not?”, 83% of those polled said “yes,” and 17% said “no.”
But again Julie--who conveniently didn't link to either of these polls--isn't telling the truth. CNN didn't poll anybody; CNN's QuickVote is just an internet survey:
This poll is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole.
Why is Julie misrepresenting a meaningless internet survey as equivalent to a scientific poll? It's hard to believe that she could be this ignorant, but that may be preferable to the alternative: that she's just a liar.

The Loony Bin:
A quick visit to the rocket scientists at oreillysucks, who this week claimed that Bill O'Reilly has never had "an actual health care expert" on to discuss the Obama plan. The next day Mr Bill discussed the issue with Dr. Brian Day, an orthopedic surgeon and former president of the Canadian Medical Association. The sucksters had an answer to that: aaah, he's just a "Canadian quack"! But it's hard to top their outrage over a sports story:
The 3rd case was about a South African woman who won a track race, and Kelly thinks she could be a man. Even though she has a birth certificate that states she is a woman. Ok now, who fricking cares, and how in the hell is this a legal case. This is garbage nobody cares about, even O'Reilly said he does not care at all about that story. Yet they sat there and talked about it for two minutes anyway.
The sucksters tell their readers: "If you want real news, go to the BBC." Do so. You might want to start here.

Lynching Is Fun:
First the backstory: the whippets whipped up a whirlwind of indignation over Glenn Beck's joke about not poisoning Nancy Pelosi. "There's nothing funny" about it! "Joking about such matters shouldn't ever be used!" It's "irresponsible!" And the denizens of the dog pound weighed in:Now keep all that in mind as we explore again the anti-Christian bigotry that continues to fester at the newshounds, mainly thanks to newspooch Priscilla, who looks for any pretext to bring up and/or ridicule the religious preferences of others. A week isn't complete without a helping of such tasteless references, and she didn't disappoint. We got:
  • Good Christian Gretchen Carlson
  • Good Christian Doocy
  • Good Christian Gretchen
  • Good Christian Steve
As if that weren't enough hatred for one article, Prissy decided to go after the show's guest, Mary Allen, whose crime was being the class President of her High School. Gleefully Priscilla sneered that she was a "Christian soldier marching as to war". Even the guests get their faith attacked by the biased bassets. Well, you can only spew this sort of venom for so long until, as the saying goes, hate begets hate. One of the kennel-dwellers came up with a solution to deal with those dangerous Christian Fox Friends:
Take these three stooges out and hang them before it's too late.
Another comment approved for publication by the newspoodle moderators. Shouldn't someone be reported to the police so they can answer for their crimes?

The TPM Countdown Clock
Time is quickly running out, according to the Nostradamuses of Talking Points Memo: there are now just 7 days remaining until Shepard Smith quits Fox News or is fired. Enjoy Shep while you can!

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

UPDATED: Forgot to include a link to the CLog post referenced above; link now added. Also the newshounds on 8/24 removed the comment calling for murder, a comment that only appeared in the first place after they approved it. The removal comes six days after it was first approved and published--and less than 24 hours after we published this post.




Richard
So Newsdope......will it be all a joke or total spin on more lies you told.....whats this week reason for the lies?
August 23, 2009, 10:11:42 PM EDT – Like – Reply


ashley
Wow, that Julie piece is clearly plagiarism. When I was my masters program, if I had pulled some crap like that, I would certainly have been expelled. That is clear and absolute plagiarism.
 
Great job as usual with the entire piece Johnny, the end of the weekend use to suck....until FHWiR began making their Sunday evening pieces.
August 23, 2009, 10:26:59 PM EDT – Like – Reply


ZoneDaiatlas
Johny $, I'm saddened that Julie Banderas is getting married in 6 days.... = (
August 23, 2009, 11:13:44 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Blackflon
The Hideous Heinous Hens of Houndland are getting very sloppy with their work.
 
Lies. Distortions. Old polls. Plagiarism. Christian bashing. Bigotry, Racism. Lack of proof for questionable statements.
 
And Miss Julie has the gall to question a FREAKING picture.
 
I fully expect the crickets to begin chirping when the Lovely Loonies are asked to explain their falsehoods.
 
And so it goes.
August 24, 2009, 8:23:16 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
I see, there's Julie's plagiarism. I'd call her a dumb ##### - but that would be unfair to female dogs!

Edited By Siteowner
August 24, 2009, 10:32:43 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Damail
Looks like they finally removed the death threat. Thank heaven you were able to screen-freeze - or whatever the term is.
August 24, 2009, 10:36:16 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Yes, first the mods approved it. Then--six days later--the mods erased it. Six days after it was first approved and published, but less than 24 hours after this FHWiR appeared.
August 24, 2009, 10:55:07 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
I'd like to address this canard that Julie got from MSNBC and purloined from the Creative Loafing blog, about FNC viewers being more "misinformed" than other cable viewers.
 
Rather than being misinformed, FNC viewers have been allowed exposure to all sides of the argument, in the way you don't see on the other cable outlets when it comes to the Obama Administration.
 
I can't imagine there being a bill, a policy, a Constitutional amendment, that would effect change in a conservative direction WITHOUT there being speculation about what was the long term goal of such efforts.
 
This speculation would occur no matter the actual language of the bill or what it would initially effect.
 
Can you imagine any attempt to limit abortion... perhaps solely on the basis of trimester, where MSNBC didn't raise doubts all day long that the ultimate goal of such legislation was to do away with abortion? This would be the PRIMARY topic on CNN and MSNBC, DESPITE the ACTUAL language contained in the bill.
 
No matter how ardently any conservative insisted that this hypothetical bill did not "do away with the right to abortion" and that this was not in the cards, the MAJORITY of MSNBC viewers (and MSNBC staff) would insist that this was indeed the intention of such legislation.
 
Would THAT speculation be termed "misinformation"?  
 
Would people who voiced that belief in a poll be called ignorant and propagandized?
 
Is it out of the realm of reason to believe that a single payer system is an ultimate liberal goal? Or that such rationing might lead to panels that did determine the cost vs the efficacy of continued treatment?
 
Is it crazy to believe that there is a goal that undocumented workers be included in such a plan, when MANY Democrats find a "right" to drivers licenses, food stamps, and social security cards for this group.
 
I think we know the answer to that. And I think we know too, that this disingenuous attempt to pejoratively label people who look behind the initial thrust of legislation and see the long range intent, is UTTERLY one-sided, unfair, and smugly opportunistic.
 
But then, CNN and MSNBC (especially) has gone out of their way to smear any citizen who has bucked up against the current administration.  
 
In the face of such opposition and such speculation based upon KNOWN goals and KNOWN patterns, being one-sided, unfair, and smugly opportunistic is the only recourse they have.
August 25, 2009, 6:38:59 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Ashley
Johnny - please go to the storage room and dust off yet another CoTW award for Cecelia. Thanks.
August 25, 2009, 6:48:27 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
As an example that perhaps those idiotic FNC watchers aren't too entirely kooky when it comes to panels devoted to the cost vs efficacy of treatment, read this interview with Pres. Obama in May.
 
It's a good interview and I am open-minded to many of his statements, but there was this:
 
THE PRESIDENT: So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?
 
I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.
 
So how do you — how do we deal with it?
 
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now."
 
http://tinyurl.com/lhw6s3
August 25, 2009, 7:05:52 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Johnny, is there some sort of award you could give on this site for being kind, funny, and supportive?
 
I think Ashley would merit it everyday.
August 25, 2009, 7:08:14 PM EDT – Like – Reply