1/18/10 12:28 PM

Fox Haters Week in Review

The truth about FNC's youtube crackdown, plus we expose more falsehoods and lies. In case you haven't guessed, it's today's Fox Haters Week in Review!

Stay the Corpse:
We lead off with a visit to our friends at News Corpse. When a youtube channel that uploaded videos from FNC was suspended for copyright violations, it didn't take long for our pals to charge conspiracy:

Why would Fox do this? It certainly wasn’t because they were upset that their content was being recorded and distributed without their permission. They have not bothered to remove other Fox-owned content posted by sycophantic fans like TheRightScoop, BuckFarack, GlennBeckDailyClips and ConservativeNewMedia. But the liberally-inclined News1news has been shut down.... Clearly this is not a case of protecting intellectual property. The selective nature of Fox’s legal actions prove that they are only interested in squelching liberals.
First, let's get the facts right. Check out the youtube accounts of GlennBeckDailyClips and ConservativeNation. Oops! They're suspended. So much for the "selective nature". Other sites, like ConservativeNewMedia, have removed all Fox videos. Meanwhile, News Corpse wants us all to shed a tear over the closing of the News1news channel:
While Jon’s clips contained no added commentary, they were often segments in which Fox News personnel looked foolish. This was not Jon’s doing. He just posted the unadulterated video and the FoxPods acted naturally.
News1news was not the saintly public service the corpsicles want you to believe. Here's a small inside story. When Shep Smith made a comment about "fair and balanced", websites scrambled to find a video clip. We were contacted by Mediaite and whipped up a clip that segued from the start of the segment with Shannon Bream to the end of the segment with Shep's comment. Mediaite posted that video and properly credited J$P. News1news had been scooped, and didn't care for that at all. So they downloaded our video, slapped their logo on it, and then re-uploaded it to youtube as their own--without any acknowledgment or credit to either Mediaite or J$P.

And then there is the corpse claim that News1news posted "unadulterated video". We're sure they did...sometimes. But the urge to smear FNC is too great for some Fox haters to ignore. Remember the infamous Glenn Beck frog incident? News1news put out a clip that was deliberately cropped. After they show the frog shtick, they continue with Beck saying:
BECK: Forget about the Republicans, because most of them are fake. Forget about the Democrats, because most of them are fake.
At that point the clip abruptly ends. And it was abrupt for a reason. Here's what the News1news "unadulterated video" purposely left out:
BECK: Forget about the Republicans, because most of them are fake. Forget about the Democrats, because most of them are fake. And forget about the frog, because it was fake!
A lot of websites were fooled by this dishonest editing, and we have News1news to thank for it. But the corpsicles overlook all that and proceed to an ignorant diatribe about "free speech":
What Fox is doing here is an unabashed curtailing of speech - THEIR OWN! They are prohibiting the dissemination of information and ideas based solely on political criteria. I wonder if the First Amendment advocates at Fox will now mount a campaign exposing Fox as anti-speech.
Are the news corpse guys really this uninformed about copyright law? Do they actually think owners of property have no say about its use? Here's another bit of inside information. People who post FNC clips to youtube are told that their videos have content owned by a third party. They are given notice that their clips may be challenged or removed. The action taken against News1news shouldn't have surprised anyone. It especially shouldn't have surprised the corpsicles, given that every page on their blog includes a long-winded four-sentence warning about reprinting their copyrighted articles. Funny, they object to Fox News controlling publication of its copyrighted content, but assert the right to control their own.

We would be remiss if we failed to note another bit of brilliance from the News Corpse coffin. They chortled with glee when contributor Marc Lamont Hill was fired by FNC because "they certainly couldn’t tolerate the presence of an intelligent, articulate, black man". (Race card? Check!) But then a funny thing happened...Dr Hill reappeared on Fox as a guest on The O'Reilly Factor. Uh oh, that made the corpse analysis look, um, stupid and wrong. So they concocted a new attack:
So Rupert Murdoch lied when he told his shareholders that Hill was fired. Hmmm. Lies from Fox World? Who woulda thunk it?
How utterly fatuous can they get? Dr Hill himself says he was fired. Is he lying too? Does the Corpse cabal really believe that anyone who appears on FNC instantly becomes a hired contributor? That would make Brian Ross, George Stephanopoulos, and hundreds of other guests all paid empoyees of Fox News. This kind of brainless idiocy isn't unique in the Fox haters echo chamber, but it acquires a special level of lunacy thanks to the Einsteins at News Corpse.

Around the Interwebs
A Reason article on Glenn Beck can't seem to make up its mind whether it is an objective analysis or a slyly worded hit piece. The latter characterization is thanks to another go-round with an old claim:
A week later, he started investigating the rumor that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was building concentration camps around the country. When that didn’t pan out, he set about exposing the secret communist artwork adorning Rockefeller Plaza...He couldn’t sell FEMA death camps because the facts weren’t there to back the story up.
Meanwhile another blog lies that Beck spent "an entire week" of his show discussing the "possibility" of FEMA camps. How many times do we have to explain this? Glenn Beck has done not one, not two, but three segments--not about the "possibility" of FEMA concentration camps, but debunking them as a crazy internet conspiracy theory. You can see all three here. Will this ever die?

The worldwide web also brings us this fascinating claim about Fort Hood coverage from a Pakistani news source:
While Pakistani leading TV channels have voluntarily devised a code of ethics, America lags behind. Fox News's Shepherd Smith just could not resist the temptation to give away the identity of the alleged killer. Throwing journalistic ethics to the winds, Smith did not hold his tongue.... Every American anchor and his guests thereafter latched on like leeches to the name Nidal Malik Hasan.
What a story. And completely backwards. Shepard Smith was anchoring while other news agencies were naming the killer based on leaked information. Fox News and Smith refused for hours to name the killer until the information was confirmed by the military--even though CNN, (MS)NBC, ABC, and the AP had already done so. That made Fox the last major media source to broadcast the information. The truth is the exact opposite of what the Pakistani paper claims.

And a hat-tip to The Random Blog for catching Media Matters in another bit of disinformation. They attack Fox Nation for "promoting" some incendiary comments by Rep Foxx about "Obamacare". But wait. The comments were newsworthy. All Fox Nation did was link to an article by Politico. And in fact the same comments were aired on C-SPAN, and highlighted in a post at Think Progress. But Media Matters ignores them and oddly chooses Fox to single out for criticism. As blogger Chris Golas points out:
[Fox] covers it, they are "promoting" it and if they don't they can be accused of NOT covering it and it shows another example of pro-GOP "bias".

Shaggy Dog Stories:
No FHWiR would be complete without a a visit to the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed syndicate). And there is much to choose from. A "guest blogger" blows the lid off a burning issue on everyone's mind:
Will Fox News Mock Passivity of Fort Hood Soldiers The Way It Did Va Tech Shooting Victims?
Ah, a trip down mammary lane. To back up this claim, gb offers several examples: a piece at National Review Online, a column from Real Clear Politics, and compilation of quotes from Media Matters. Oddly, not one of these is from any Fox News broadcast.

So our "guest blogger" pulls her trump card: a comment from Mark Steyn. But this lone example was simply an opinion from someone being interviewed. Is gb claiming that every comment from an interviewee represents the corporate opinion of Fox News? Even the tail-waggers aren't deluded enough to think that will fly. So they juice up the claim by calling Steyn "Fox News contributor Mark Steyn". But this too is more dog droppings. Steyn is not a "Fox News contributor". Never was. Where did the mongrels get the idea that he is? They made it up! After all this obfuscation and falsification, the actual number of instances gb cites to back up her allegation? Zero.

Ellen Brodsky tells us that Judge Napolitano "stops one step of advocating insurrection": i.e. he wants a constitutional convention, lower taxes, and other legal and political notions. Silly us, we thought that you'd have to do a lot more than that to be "one step" from the violent overthrow of the US government. Another "guest blogger" goes off on a weird tangent and, apropos of nothing, spews that the Shrine of the Little Flower in suburban Detroit is really a shrine dedicated to 1930s radio priest Father Coughlin. And all along we thought "The Little Flower" was actually Saint Thérèse of Lisieux. Meanwhile, if it's preposterous HeadLies that interest you, consider Priscilla's "Chickenhawk Brian Kilmeade Won’t Share His Foxhole With A Muslim". It's a baseless smear, recasting Kilmeade's words into something he didn't say. But the real fun here is Prissy's definition of "chickenhawk" (the newspooches are educational haters--they even give etymologies of their name-calling). Yes, by Priscilla's denotation, the leading chickenhawk in the USA is Barack Obama!

But it always seems to come back to Brodsky. There is nothing more humiliating (or amusing, depending on where you stand) than seeing a self-righteous fabulist pile on the scorn over a mistake...that isn't a mistake. Ellen takes this week's cake as she excoriates the "misinforming" on Fox:
[William] Bennett wasn’t done misinforming, “What bothers me is the Army, is the military… General Casey this week said, ‘This was a horrible thing that happened let's hope that diversity is not a casualty. Because if diversity in the military is a casualty, that will be a worse tragedy than this.’” That’s not at all what General Casey said. He said, “I'm concerned that this increased speculation could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And I've asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that. It would be a shame -- as great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well.” It’s very telling that Bennett would twist Casey’s words to make a desire for diversity sound so terrible. Bennett continued to scorn Casey for what he did not say: “A worse tragedy? The loss of some diversity will be a worse tragedy than the loss of innocent people?” Hannity, who should know better, agreed, “Yeah.”
That's not what Casey said?!? A simple check of the transcript or video turns up the truth:
CASEY: And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse.
Whoops. Looks like it's Brodsky who's doing the misinforming. Considering how widely Casey's actual words were reported (over 1400 citations on Google), do you think Ellen's "mistake" was actually Another Hound Lie? Of course Brodsky may publish a correction and an apology. But if she doesn't, you'll know the answer to that question.

Finally, Priscilla slams Fox for a guest's "homophobic", "bigoted" reference to Barney Frank as "the dancing queen". We don't condone the comment. But then again we don't condone the newshounds' hypocrisy either: slamming Fox for a comment made by a guest, deeming it "bigoted" and "homophobic", all the while allowing such comments on their own site:

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

Ellen, the unrepentant congenital liar, has done it again. She shows the world how her hate for anything or anyone Fox is all consuming,
She, along with her Hideous, Henious Hens of Houndland, is by far the biggest bigot and lying sack of dog squeeze to hit the internet.
November 15, 2009, 6:14:33 PM EST – Like – Reply

Thanks for the hat tip. What I also pointed out is that it was a lose-lose for Fox.
They cover it: they lose (as we saw when MM went after them)
They don't cover it: they lose (protecting Rep. Foxx)
Another well done post. I saw Shep mention how they weren't going to say the accused name because it wasn't confirmed yet and you can't take back a mistake like that (or something like it)
November 15, 2009, 6:59:52 PM EST – Like – Reply

"That is, the possibility of the American people finally waking up and THINKING FOR THEMSELVES--that is, the American people considering the VERY LIKELY possibility that 9/11/01 might have been AN INSIDE JOB!"
The above is a post on Newshounds, regarding the trial of KSM. From Rich S a regular there.
Shows the mindset and the idiocy of the posters and moderators at Newsies.
And try to post a rebuke-it won't happen.
November 16, 2009, 9:28:07 AM EST – Like – Reply

"Finally, Priscilla slams Fox for a guest's "homophobic", "bigoted" reference to Barney Frank as "the dancing queen"."
I wonder if the guest actually said "Banking Queen"?
Rush has a parody, by Paul Shanklin, of Frank based on the song "Dancing Queen" with Frank singing b/c of his huge role in all the financial scandals and collapses?
The graphics of his mouth on this video are kinda freaky IMO but this video does have the sing a long lyrics that is the icing on the cake.
November 16, 2009, 5:49:44 PM EST – Like – Reply

Duh, I forgot the link:
November 16, 2009, 6:17:39 PM EST – Like – Reply

considering the VERY LIKELY possibility that 9/11/01 might have been AN INSIDE JOB!"
The above is a post on Newshounds, regarding the trial of KSM. From Rich S a regular there.
Anonymous | 11.16.09 - 9:33 am | #  
Eight years later and there is still is close to zero factual evidence to support that theory, "VERY LIKELY" is not very likely.
November 16, 2009, 6:41:17 PM EST – Like – Reply

Almost forgot to mention: On one of Newswoofs' Beck threads this past weekend, one of their first commenters said Glenn Beck's parents should have aborted him. Hey Ellen, how did that slip past your "kind, smart and capable" moderators?
November 17, 2009, 10:43:36 PM EST – Like – Reply

why would you compare a comment by a fox news guest that millions of people watch and hear on TV to a comment on a small blog that not even as close to as many people would view? apples and oranges.
November 22, 2009, 7:54:58 PM EST – Like – Reply

and its interesting that you claim the accounts of GlennBeckDailyClips and ConservatieNation have been suspended... however, when NewsCorpse published the aforementioned article, those youtube accounts had NOT been suspended yet. somehow, J$ failed to mention that fact. hmmm.
November 22, 2009, 8:07:26 PM EST – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
1. If you're claiming that a comment only becomes bigoted when a lot of people hear it, but is perfectly acceptable with fewer people listening, then I'm sorry to disagree. If it's a bigoted comment, it's a bigoted comment. Period. Even if nobody is listening.
B. You seem to overlook that News Corpse failed to mention that fact. They have a new thing out now where you can update posts with new information. Yet even after the other sites were suspended he chose not to report that. All I did was provide the additional information he kept from his readers.
November 22, 2009, 8:18:47 PM EST – Like – Reply

* well, let me just point out its not less bigoted if its on a blog. its, obviously, unacceptable no matter who or where it comes from. i just think its disingenuous for you to compare something on television to some random posting on a blog.
* actually, NewsCorpse did mention that. It wasnt in the initial article he published (nor did he update the the article), but in the comments section of the article, he mentioned:
"Dollar pointed out that one of the users I cited has been suspended and he calls me a liar for saying otherwise. However, that account was not suspended until long after I wrote my article. And Dollar doesn’t acknowledge that the other users I cited are indeed still up and running, Fox clips and all."
if you had looked at the NewsCorpse article again, you would know this.
November 22, 2009, 8:49:35 PM EST – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Of course he mentioned it...AFTER I called him on it.
And if you had read today's post, you would know that I did look at the NC article again. And you would know that I responded to his comments. So please try to know what you are talking about before you suggest that I didn't look at his article again. K?
November 22, 2009, 8:54:42 PM EST – Like – Reply

well, hes not going to mention it BEFORE you call him out on it. you claimed those users' accounts were suspended when they werent suspended however long after News Corpse made his post. the concept of a timeline is fairly simply to figure out.
November 22, 2009, 9:29:16 PM EST – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Why isn't he going to mention it unless I call him out on it? Other sites did. Huffington Post did. Gawker did. They didn't need me to shame them into it.
The other accounts went down less than 24 hours after the first one. All those other sites could report it and do updates, but NC couldn't mention it until I called them on it? Could that be because they didn't want to mention it? I don't know, but it's odd how little NC cared about giving their readers the whole story.
November 22, 2009, 9:38:02 PM EST – Like – Reply

When Newsdope decides J$ is right, he will then just say it was all a joke just like last time he was caught telling BS as facts.
Newsdope just doesnt understand TV News so why should he understand truth any better.
November 23, 2009, 1:04:31 AM EST – Like – Reply