Rice-a-Roni Phony


A day with Condi Rice, and an evening with Hannity, drive the splenetic Outfoxed gals to manufacture evidence. As if they needed an excuse.

The closer we get to the inauguration, the more growling can be heard from the kennels of the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed syndicate). And as they grow increasingly apoplectic, their "reports" become even sloppier and more fictitious, as the duplicitous dogs tell us that Fox (despite hours of live, commercial-free coverage) is trying to "coverup" the Condoleeza Rice hearings. Hey, that's what nancy says:
[Jane Skinner] interviewed 2 members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Bill Nelson (D-FL) & Lincoln Chafee (R-RI). ... [Bill] Nelson said "of course it's fair" & pointed out that the questions were asked "in the contect [sic] of all the misinformation we got" when Congress was asked to vote on whether to go to war in Iraq. He said that he "brought up more examples" of such misinformation today.

Phony quote:

NELSON: And I brought up another example of that today...

Catch that? A single example is aggrandized by the pooches into "more examples".
Before he could list those examples, Skinner interjected...

Blatant falsehood:

NELSON: ...I brought up another example of that today, when we were told about unmanned aerial vehicles that never materialized. And worse, we were not told that there was a dispute in the intelligence community over the veracity of that information.

Obviously Nelson not only was able to list his one example, but expounded on it further, with no Skinner injection.
Skinner commented that there were "lots of questions about truth" & "will she [Rice] be a counterweight." Nelson said "It's important to have checks & balances"...

Only Nelson was not responding to the counterweight question:

SKINNER: Are you looking, and are other Senators looking, for Dr Rice really to be a counterweight to the Defense Department as Colin Powell was, and will she be that?
NELSON: Well I want to answer your other question first, and that is it is important in a democracy that you have checks and balances...

Nelson specifically pointed out he was answering an earlier question about the confirmation process, but newspoodle nancy just takes the answer and applies it to whatever question she feels like. Keep this classic distortion technique in mind, as it will play a role in another bit of doggie doctoring:
Hannity Accuses Rolling Stone of Christian Bigotry
Rolling Stone Magazine decided not to publish an ad for The Bible claiming they have an unwritten rule not to accept religious advertisements.Hannity was quick to accuse Rolling Stone of Christian bigotry...

A prototypical newspooch fabrication. Even the headline is false.
but Zandervan [sic] Publishing didn't agree.

Zandervan? That can't be right. Wait, in the next sentence deborah changes it to "Vandervan" (perhaps confusing it with Van der Valk?). It's hardly a surprise that a site that considers the birth of Christ to be "nonsense" would not have heard of Zondervan Publishing, but how hard can it be to, like, look it up?
Paul Cannitti [sic] was almost shocked at the idea of litigation saying "Frankly we haven't made a big fuss."

Oh man, who is Paul Cannitti? Does she mean Paul Caminiti? Again, it takes, what, 20 seconds to Google his name? Assuming that you are incapable of copying it off the screen where it sat through much of the interview in nice, big letters. And--surprise!--that's not what Mr Caminiti, or Mr Cannitti, said in his, or their, reply:

HANNITY: Do you want to challenge Rolling Stone, perhaps even take them to court?
CAMINITI: I think being on this show tonight is a challenge, and frankly, we would be happy to go back into negotiation with them. We've actually said that we would be willing to change some copy. We're not going to water down our message....

So he wasn't "shocked" at the idea of litigation, and he didn't reply by saying "Frankly we haven't made a big fuss." So where did deborah get that quote from? She lifted from several minutes later, where it was an answer to a completely different question posed by Alan Colmes! And they accuse Fox of bias.
The guest seemed surprised by Hannity's blatant accusation...

Again with that phony "accusation" that Hannity was supposed to have leveled. News alert: he made no such accusation.

HANNITY: Can I ask, do you think this is about Christian bigotry?
CAMINITI: I'm not sure if it's about Christian bigotry as much as maybe it is about naivete.

That's it? That's the Big Accusation that merited an entire article and a bold-type headline? The asking of a question? Did Hannity go on to assert that it was bigotry? No. Did he mention Christian bigotry anywhere else in the interview? No. He asked one simple question. Hound logic strikes again. And again, it strikes out.

posted: Wed - January 19, 2005 at 03:47 PM       j$p  send 
|