Newshound's Lament: 'Shame on Me'
Now Brodsky may not know this because Media Matters didn’t tell her, but O’Reilly didn’t ‘just know’ that anarchists were involved. He got the facts before making his claim, and in this case his sources include the mayor of Vancouver and the police chief:
O'Reilly announced that “far-left loons” had taken to the streets. He never explained how he knew their politics – was any polling done? Or does O’Reilly just “know” who did it? The answer seems to be the latter because he continued by saying, “As you may know, Vancouver’s a very permissive town, similar to San Francisco and there’s a hard-core anarchist group that lives there. They are responsible for the carnage. It had nothing to do with the game.”
Oops. Well, don’t tell any of that to Ellen. She did cite a source: one AP article she found on foxnews.com:
Roving bands of anarchists and troublemakers bent on havoc set fires, broke windows and whipped up booze-fueled mobs to create the worst riot in Vancouver’s history, Mayor Gregor Robertson said Thursday. The mayor said there was no advance warning of the strategy, which caught police and city officials off guard, and may force them to take a different approach to security plans for large public gatherings in the future.
It’s funny, the very article cited by Brodsky quotes the police chief thusly:
It’s funny, FoxNews.com had nothing about the politics of anyone involved in the Vancouver riots in its AP article on the subject – other than to quote the mayor who said the inciters were “organized hoodlums bent on creating chaos.”
Hmm. Anarchists, equipped with goggles and gasoline--yet Brodsky claims the article said ‘nothing’ other than calling them ‘organized hoodlums’. That just might be Another Hound Lie.
Chu called those who incited the riot "criminals and anarchists and officers identified some in the crowd as the same people who smashed windows and caused trouble through the same streets the day after the 2010 Winter Olympics opened. "These were people who came equipped with masks, goggles and gasoline," Chu said. "They had a plan.”
But let’s face it: creative fiction is nothing new for Ellen Brodsky. Here’s another of her claims:
It should surprise no one that the Politico article says nothing whatsoever about ‘Beck and Hannity’s Fox shows’; it was about talk radio. In fact, the word ‘Fox’ never even appears in the article. That’s just another Brodsky Lie. [Correction: this particular lie is not from Ellen Brodsky but rather from ‘Priscilla’, about whom we will hear more shortly. Our apologies for the error. --J$] Recently Ellen fell for an internet hoax and gleefully reported how the News Corp building ticker was ‘hacked’. Of course it hadn’t been hacked at all, yet even though moveon.org (one of the newspoodle’s own recommended links!) admitted the hoax, Brodsky has yet to correct or retract her false claim. Shame on her.
Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck (as well as hate radio jocks Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh) have been engaging in a little "quid pro quo" with conservative groups who get their messages and their organizations endorsed, on Beck's and Hannity's Fox shows, in return for a little "scarole" that goes to the distribution companies for the shows of the aforementioned personalities. "Politico" has an interesting article which details how...
And then there’s the Anthony Weiner situation, presciently dismissed weeks ago by Ellen as ‘inconsequential’ and ‘a hacking or a prank’ (Weiner’s very own talking points!). Eventually circumstances prompted her to allege this:
Now just what in the wide world of sports is Brodsky talking about? Did she miss Tamara Holder’s appearances defending the Weiner? In fact, as Brodsky was posting her fatuously ignorant claim, Alan Colmes was engaged in his latest passionate Weiner advocacy. You’d almost think that the newsmutts really don’t watch Fox at all, but no...Brodsky insists that they do. Ergo, they just lie about it. Shameful.
I'm sure just about every Fox News Democrat (except maybe Juan Williams who did a terrific job pushing back the other night) will be patting him or herself on the back for their even-handedness - and probably getting props from their conservative colleagues - as they wring their hands over Weiner.
Don’t get the idea that dishonesty and ignorance are exclusive to Ellen. There’s ‘Aunty Em’...or maybe ‘Uncle Jon’ or ‘Cousin Itt’--pseudonyms are so convenient for hiding one’s identity (and lack of credentials). AE/UJ has discovered Twitter, and you almost hear the giggling as she boasts (incorrectly, of course) that she’s following every Fox News personality ‘including Sean Hannity’s Hair’. Now The Hair is not Sean Hannity, and his profile clearly states that his tweets are not the opinions of Sean Hannity, but hey, why let that confuse AE/UJ? Maybe she thinks Chris Matthews’s Leg is really Chris Matthews. Be that as it may, AE/UJ is all atwitter about Fox News Weiner tweets:
What was so interesting about it? The same FNC twitter account also tweeted a piece on why Weiner should not resign. Funny AE/UJ doesn’t mention that. Lie of omission, perhaps? In truth, AE/UJ should learn how automated twitter accounts work. They crank out a tweet every time something is posted on a given website. So there’s nothing ‘interesting’ about which tweets get sent out; it’s all automatic. Duh.
It was also interesting that Fox News tweeted an opinion piece by Andrea Tantaros.
I don’t recall ever hearing Fox News demanding a resignation from Republican David Vitter.
Who are these people that AE/UJ describes as ‘Fox Newsers’? They include Sean Hannity’s Hair, Ann Coulter, Andrew Breitbart... Yup, none of these is a ‘Fox Newser’. AE/UJ is either lying or hopelessly ignorant. And either would be a crying shame.
But it was on the Fox Newsers Twitter feeds where many showed their true colors, resorting to using up the very last of their “dick jokes.”
AE/UJ tells us (based on allegations regurgitated from Media Matters) that Glenn Beck claims Obama is creating a ‘secret, private army’ of mail carriers. Of course when you watch the video (also recycled from MM) it turns out that Beck never said Obama proposed anything about mail carriers; a labor leader did. Oh, and Beck didn’t claim it was a ‘private army’ either. Shame on you AE/UJ, whoever you are. But then maybe AE/UJ didn’t bother to watch the video (you know, like newshounds don’t really watch Fox). Perhaps her job is just to serve as a repeater for Media Matters: when they post something, she just rewrites it, adds some trademark newspooch ignorance, and reposts it. So MM posts, then AE/UJ posts. MM posts, AE/UJ posts. MM posts, AE/UJ posts. MM posts, AE/UJ posts. Lather, rinse, repeat. No need to ‘watch Fox’ at all...let Media Matters do it!
Ah but we don’t want to overlook our favorite bigoted basset. Here’s ‘Priscilla’ yelping about a website that named the ’20 Hottest Conservative Women’:
Once again, is it ignorance or is it lying? Ann Coulter does not work for Fox and never has (she worked for MSNBC). S.E. Cupp is not a ‘Fox hottie’; neither are Hannah Giles, Lila Rose, or Dana Loesch (none of them has ever worked for Fox). ‘Priscilla’ continues:
The Fox hotties are #19, the exotic "anchor baby" Michelle Malkin in a fetching tight red dress; #13, Ann Coulter showing some tanned thigh over dominatrix black boots; #12 S.E. Cupp with a tasteful suit and society pearls; #7 Laura Ingraham who, OMG, is not wearing her great, big Christian cross bling!; #5, "prostitute" Hannah Giles; #4 Mary Katharine Ham in a seductive, strapless teal number; #2, the virginal Lila Rose (uh, doesn't hotness imply dirty thoughts which don't jive with Lila's Catholicism -oh, right, if it leads to breeding, it's all good; and #1 (who is now officially on CNN but has been on Fox) Dana Loesch doing some kind of railroad grunge thing.
Um, sorry Prissy. The comments are closed because you linked to the wrong article. You linked to one that’s over a year old! Comments are not closed on the current 2011 article. We know how hard it is to tell one year from another (even though the article you linked to says ‘2010 Edition’ right in the headline!), so we’ll do your research for you again and provide you with the correct link. Now you can write this one up and lie about more ‘Fox hotties’ who aren’t. Oh, and speaking of lying:
BTW, the comments are now closed so I guess things got really “hot.”
Their only brunette? Well yeah, if you don’t count Lauren Green, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Catherine Herridge, Reena Ninan, Jeanine Pirro...well, you get the idea. How about Uma Pemmaraju, who anchors news every weekend from the Washington Bureau? And let’s not forget Harris Faulker, who anchors The Fox Report (she is the one who replaced Julie Banderas in that role). Is it believable that people who actually do watch Fox could possibly think that Julie Banderas is the ‘only brunette’ at FNC? That sounds a lot more like someone who doesn’t watch Fox and has no idea who’s on their air. Or does watch and lies about it. Either way, it’s shameful.
...the Aryan, blonde Fox "News" network. (Their only brunette, who was also their only Hispanic female anchor, the lovely Julie Banderas has been banished to peripheral news and replaced by an aging blonde).
Finally, it’s no surprise to see ‘Priscilla’ taking a page from the Brodsky don’t-correct, don’t-retract playbook. For this we set the wayback machine to February 20, where we find Prissy attacking Fox News for reporting a story about doctors handing out phony sick notes--a story so obviously fake that Prissy couldn’t resist exposing it:
So much has happened since Priscilla’s exposé. In fact, much happened before she wrote it--like Fox News capturing a doctor on video giving a sick note to an FNC producer! Then CNN confirmed the story. The Wisconsin Medical Society condemned doctors who were handing out sick notes and launched an investigation. More recently the Wisconsin State Journal reported on penalties, including loss of pay and leadership positions, to be meted out to the doctors who handed out phony sick notes. So is ‘Priscilla’ still skeptical? Must be, because she has not updated, corrected, or retracted her post. We don’t have to tell you if that’s shameful. ‘Priscilla’ says it is:
Color me skeptical; but I don't think that real doctors would risk their professional credentials and prestige by admitting to handing out fake doctors notes at a union rally. (If Dr. Shropshire's name is being used, without his permission, things could get really interesting.) If it were street theater, it was amusing - as a way to push a political agenda, it was disturbing....
...If this turns out to be legit, well shame on me.