How do the Outfoxed gals "prove" there is bias at Fox? They cheat.

It's not easy to portray something as slanted when it isn't. Sometimes you have to leave out things; sometimes you have to post false quotes; and sometimes you have to flat out lie. Check out this trifecta of trickery from the newshounds (another fine product from the Outfoxed junta) and decide for youself how well they are doing. Item one:

The anchor, David Asman, in this case (Aug.3, 12:42 p.m.) asked the republican (not democratic) guest (and didn't give him time for a complete response) about Kerry's line concerning "going to war because we HAVE to, not because we WANT to." Anyway, the anchor then goes through a list of recent wars, including Kosovo, saying that these were wars of choice, because "we wanted to - we didn't have to." Three times I have seen this discussion, and the democrat is unprepared, resulting in not giving a thoughtful response, or he's cut off as he was today. The point seems to be to get the idea out there, and not really debate the issue.

ASMAN: ...This would have ruled out Kosovo, Bosnia, and Haiti, three military actions the Senator endorsed. So he's saying now something against what he did?
DOUG HATTAWAY: I don't think so at all. I think what he's talking about is how Bush took us into Iraq. He supported giving Bush authority to go into Iraq, but felt like we needed to build a real coalition so the burdens weren't all on U.S. troops and taxpayers, which is what Bush has done here. Those are good examples you cite of where Democratic administrations have done a good job, and...
CROSSTALK
ASMAN: But those are examples where we went to war not because we wanted to, not because we had to. That's something Senator Kerry says we shouldn't do.
HATTAWAY: Those wars were clearly in US interests. We could go into all the different ways--fighting genocide in Europe has been helpful to us, to have a strong and stable Europe. The point here is Bush is weak as an incumbent in terrorism in a time of war. He's dragged his feet.
ASMAN: Brad [Blakeman], I know you want to get in, and I've got to get you back because we have run out of time...

First, he asked the question of the Democrat, not the Republican. And poor Doug Hattaway wasn't given time for a complete response? He was "cut off" before he could answer? In fact, Hattaway was given not just one, but two chances to answer the question. Each time he rambled off on tangents. (It was the Republican whose chance to answer was cut off--another one of those inconvenient facts that the newshounds love to censor.)

The newspoodles take up a discussion with Michael Feldman (D) and Ed Rogers (R), moderated by Jon Scott:

First, Scott asked Rogers what the GOPs need to do to counter the Dem campaign of the past few days. Rogers ignored the question & immediately attacked THKerry, saying she’s a liability for the Dems...

JON SCOTT: Ed, do the Republican need to sort of activate a campaign or a plan to shift the momentum, or do they just sort of just let things play out through the convention and on into election time?
ED ROGERS: Well, they probably need to do both, but here in the doldrums of summer I don't think you need to do a whole lot. I mean the Democrats have had their day, and the smoke is going to clear.

Rogers ignored the question? Newshounds lie, reputations Die! And later in the same article:

Feldman said she [Teresa Kerry] is an asset, but the Dems would rather focus on issues like Iraq & the economy. FNL bannered this as COUNTERATTACK, altho they certainly hadn’t bannered Rogers’ remarks as ATTACK.

Maybe that's because the entire segment was bannered as "COUNTER ATTACK", since the subject was how the GOP could or should respond to the Democrat convention. It said "COUNTER ATTACK" under the clips that were shown, under Rogers's comments, and under Feldman's comments. I know it must have been difficult for the newshounds to grasp this, since it was only plastered right on the screen in front of them.

Completing the trilogy of mendacity, consider this "analysis":

[Stuart] Varney did a little blurb about the Westin hotel chain sending a "cease and desist" letter to the Bush campaign. Westin claims that a "W" logo on items sold at the George W. Bush store looks too much like the "W" Westin uses as their logo. As Varney spoke, video of several pages of the store website aired. Then came a picture of a bottle of "W Ketchup" and then one of Heinz ketchup....W Ketchup is not sold on the Bush store website. Showing a picture of W Ketchup was entirely inappropriate in a story about items sold on the Bush site. Can you believe the extent to which these folks will go to trash Democrats? They work it into every nook and cranny they can.

STUART VARNEY: Taking on "W". Star Hotels, the operator of the swanky W Hotel Chain, has a bone to pick with G.W. It sent a cease and desist letter to the George W Bush store. It says the campaign's website is offering products with a W that is strikingly similar to their trademark W. Starwood's also taking aim at W Ketchup, viewed as alternative for Republicans who want to take a pass on Heinz...

No, little doggies, this was not "a story about items sold on the Bush site". It was a story about companies getting legal threats from Star Hotels, and those companies were the Bush store and W Ketchup. How it it inappropriate to show a picture of W Ketchup, when the story is about W Ketchup?

Can you believe the extent to which these folks will go to trash Fox? They work it into every nook and cranny they can. And when they can't, they lie.