Where's the Rest of Me?


Was Fox News "snookered"? Or is someone posting incomplete, edited quotes to fabricate a phony charge? Read the facts, including the link Atrios didn't want you to see. Updated!

Apparently it was a big deal when blogger "Atrios" revealed his true identity as Duncan Black. We didn't know anything about it until today, when he trumpeted his discovery that Fox News was "snookered again". He complains that nobody is holding Fox to "any standard" and then "quotes" from a foxnews.com story:

[Atrios excerpt of a story at foxnews.com]:
Of course, there were some Kerry supporters in attendance who had no doubts whatever about their candidate. "We're trying to get Comrade Kerry elected and get that capitalist enabler George Bush out of office," said 17-year-old Komoselutes Rob of Communists for Kerry. "Even though he, too, is a capitalist, he supports my socialist values more than President Bush," Rob said, before assuring FOXNews.com that his organization was not a parody group. When asked his thoughts on Washington's policy toward Communist holdout North Korea, Rob said: "The North Koreans are my comrades to a point, and I'm sure they support Comrade Kerry, too."...

This is from the original foxnews.com story:

"We're trying to get Comrade Kerry elected and get that capitalist enabler George Bush out of office," said 17-year-old Komoselutes Rob of Communists for Kerry....

Which of these things is not like the other? The answer in a moment, but first more Atrios insights:
All Fox had to do was click on the "About" link: "Communists for Kerry" is a campaign of the Hellgate Republican Club, a tax exempt non-partisan public advocacy "527" organization that exists for the purpose of; "Informing voters with satire and irony, how political candidates make decisions based on the failed social economic principles of socialism that punish the individual by preventing them from becoming their dream through proven ideas of entrepreneurship and freedom."

So "Communists for Kerry" is a parody group, and Fox News was taken in. At least that's what Mr Atrios wants you to believe. However, the story as published at foxnews.com includes the link to "Communists for Kerry", so that the reader can just click and learn all about them. But in the version Mr Atrios places on his website that link has been cleverly erased. So the gullible readers of his blog will think foxnews.com was either unaware of or hiding the true nature of this group. In fact, Fox put the link right in the foxnews.com story, a link Mr Atrios apparently didn't want you to see.

And for some reason, Mr A doesn't tell you what is in the rest of the foxnews.com story:

"There should have been some advertising, some commercials to generate money for the U.S.A.," said Hugh G. Monument, VII of Billionaires for Bush. The Bush "supporter" extolled the president's virtues — "What I love about Bush is his money, and his ability to make more money" — but also said that he had increased his ketchup intake as a nod to Kerry and his wife, Teresa.

So they also interviewed a representative of a parody site on the other side--and included a link to that parody webpage as well, just as they did with "Communists for Kerry". Why didn't Mr Atrios think that was worthy of mention?

It turns out Mr Atrios (Duncan Black) is actually one of the big cheeses at Media Matters, the site run by self-admitted liar David Brock. Now we know where articles too slippery even for Brock end up.

Updates: The original version of this story excoriated Mr A for not including a link to the foxnews.com story in his article. That was our mistake, not his. The link was there, but somehow we missed it. Our apologies for that error, which we have corrected in the revised version above. It only took a few hours for our friends the newshounds to react to the echo chamber and post their own version of this story. Like Mr Atrios, they too strip out the link in the excerpt they run (did they just lift it from his page?), but the doggies prove to be more honest in that they plainly state in their commentary that the story did contain a link. On the downside, the pups, like Mr Atrios, completely ignore the later paragraphs that deal with the reciprocal parody group "Billionaires for Bush".

The pooches, however, relapse by resurrecting an unsubstantiated claim that Fox News bought advertising on an anti-Dan Rather site. The only evidence they offered was the link on that site that read "sponsored links"--only it now reads simply "links". We suppose it's possible that Fox News and the other four links listed there were all paying to be listed as one-line plain-text URLs, and then they all decided to stop sponsorship at the exact same moment. Something tells us it's more likely that none of the links was sponsored, and the webmaster removed "sponsored" when it was brought to his attention. Think Occam's razor.

Foxnews.com has re-edited the story to clearly identify both groups as "pranksters" so even the humor-impaired will understand it, and adds a postscript where they throw in the towel and concede that the original article did not portray the Kerry organization as a parody group. So did Mr Atrios have a point after all? According to Fox's capitulation, yes. But our complaint concerned Mr Black's selective editing of the article, putting it in the worst possible light by eliminating important context. The correctness of an opinion does not automatically validate any argument made on its behalf. That's our story and we're sticking with it!

posted: Sat - October 2, 2004 at 04:54 PM       j$p  send 

Trackback
Trackback message
Title: Fox Does It Again
Excerpt: You might recall that I ran into some of these Communists for Kerry when I was in NYC for the RNC. If you follow that link and scroll down, you can find my brief description of the encounter as well as a photograph documenting my annoyance, flared no...
Blog name: Three Guys
October 2, 2004, 1:13:25 PM EDT – Like

cmoore
I read the article the minute atrios posted and yes there has always been a link to the original Fox news article on his sight. Of course Fox was snookered, there is really no other conclusion to reach.
 
[personal attacks and name calling edited out by J$]
October 2, 2004, 5:28:28 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
You are correct about the link; we made a mistake on that point, which unlike Dan Rather we immediately admit and correct. But we are not in error about the doctoring of the foxnews article or the selectivity in what parts were conveniently not quoted.
October 2, 2004, 5:30:35 PM EDT – Like – Reply


TAE
Hahaha! "We made a mistake on that point!" And sure, the article was doctored. Yeah, sure Comms for Kerry is not a parody group... wow, are you all really that gullible? Geez.
October 3, 2004, 4:16:39 AM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Who is saying Comms for Kerry is Not a parody group? Perhaps you should read what we wrote before opining...or read more carefully.
October 3, 2004, 9:02:41 AM EDT – Like – Reply


GAP
Why does the phrase "tempest in a teapot" jump immediately to mind here? When you compare this little gaffe to CBS' passionate embrace of OBVIOUSLY FORGED DOCUMENTS with the blatant INTENT to do damage to a sitting president during A TIME OF WAR, this issue evaporates down to a minor giggle inducer. Especially when you look at the two respective news organizations in terms of their post faux pas reactions: CBS tried to DEFEND it's untennable position for ten days, whereas FOX immediately corrected their (innocent) error. Proportion and perspective, people.
October 3, 2004, 9:59:45 AM EDT – Like – Reply


ragingmoderate
keep babbling about Atrios while avoiding the real issue--Fox Hitler News has all the credibility of Pro Wrestling.
October 3, 2004, 10:09:03 AM EDT – Like – Reply


renato
it's no wonder you have to remove personal insults. I'm sure you get a ton of them.
 
Can you see the connection???
October 3, 2004, 10:13:14 AM EDT – Like – Reply


The Anti-Idiotarian Democrat
Editor’s Note:
 
In an version of this article that was published earlier, the Communists for Kerry were portrayed as a group that was supporting John Kerry for president. FOXNews.com’s reporter asked the group’s representative several times whether the group was legitimate and supporting the Democratic candidate, and the spokesman insisted that it was.
 
Looks like Fox News was snookered by Atrios too.
October 3, 2004, 10:14:58 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Daveed
Typical Bushie.
 
Up is down, left is right, delusion is fantasy.
 
Forget Atrios. The reporter didn't bother to do what the rest of us did: click the damn link.
 
And the reporter's editor(s) let it pass, too.
 
I'm a journalist, and anyone who cares about credibility should be screaming at Fox to clean up its act. It has shown it is willing to believe any damn fool thing that is negative about (insert Democrat name here).
 
Its coverage is slanted. Any content analysis (and the independent Pew Center analysis works for me) shows that in story selection and use of descriptive language, Fox News saves the sweet stuff for the GOP.
 
They are whores. 
 
I will support Fox News the day they strip away the phony and ironic "fair and balanced" label and embrace what they are -- a powerful advocate for one side.
October 3, 2004, 10:21:09 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Not Dumb
I think the blog ad for W Ketchup would have been a clue...
October 3, 2004, 10:22:16 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Thumb
Proportion and perspective, people.
 
 
That's right people. One supposition was supported by multiple eyewitnesses and corroborated by undisputed (undisputed by the White House even) historical events and the other was simply an invention of a news org that earlier in the same day had run (briefly) a front-page article with wholly invented quotes.
 
You're right, one was obviously an innocent error and one was a blatant INTENT to do damage. I guess to understand which is which you have to determine which of the two orgs regularly coordinates with (and is run by an ex-high level operative of) which party.
 
Anything jump immediately to mind here?
October 3, 2004, 10:23:00 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Ashamed to be a former journal
Faux is to the news business what Enron was to the energy business.
October 3, 2004, 10:23:58 AM EDT – Like – Reply


ewww
Johnny, I hardly want to know ya.
October 3, 2004, 10:25:19 AM EDT – Like – Reply


bcf
You really distort the facts Johnny. Congratulations, you may have a future with Fox. 
 
Atrios made reference to the link. None of his regular readers was mislead. And his point is that the Billionaires for Bush group was clearly identified by Fox as Democratic parody whereas Communists for Kerry was not. 
 
The Fox article was written so that regular readers of Fox could conclude that Democrats were engaging in parody to mock the President and that communists supported Kerry. 
 
You can snort that Democrats are humor impaired except for the fact that equally humor impaired and brain impaired right-wing nuts can already be found earnestly spouting that "communists are for Kerry" lie just like they are out there spewing the Cameron-induced made up manicure story. And wasn't that Fox's goal in the first place?
October 3, 2004, 10:25:42 AM EDT – Like – Reply


hi
Your whole argument here is now down the tubes. Fox clearly states that they thought the group was legitimate. 
Which means they were presenting Communists for Kerry as a legitimate group (when any idiot should be able to tell it's a parody-- without clicking the "about" link). If Atrios had given them a fuller quotation for balance, it wouldn't have shown that Fox was presenting them as a parody group, it would have been just more evidence of what colossal idiots the folks at FOXNEWS are.
October 3, 2004, 10:25:47 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Sanity isn't Hannity
War Against Truth award for this site.
 
Good use of deflection, lies, distortion, angry blank rhetoric, attacking the messenger-avoiding the message, insults, arrogance, and alibi-excuse-coverup.
 
Definately a Fox News future or perhaps a stint at Cheney-burton in your future.
October 3, 2004, 10:34:47 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Barndog
Fox - again thinking AFTER reporting the story. I had a right-leaner Marine Bro send that site to me a week or so ago. First thing I did was investigate the origin of the website. 
 
I'm no computer scientist (like my wife), but I have been working with computers since 1979 in the Marines. It's not too hard to determine where things come from, just as it isn't that hard to figure out where people stand with regards to political affiliation. 
 
Application of critical thinking and critical reading techniques is something a good majority of America has no clue about.
October 3, 2004, 10:41:09 AM EDT – Like – Reply


jimmiraybob
Damn johnny I feel your pain. Don't ya just hate it when those galdarned libs insist on all those facts and figures and paying attention to detail and all dat kinda thing? Just frosts my shorts to see another perfectly good and well crafted whine go down the drain because of those leftist's petty insistence on integrity!
 
Don't be discouraged. Keep up the good work. Remember, it's not what you say, it's that you remain strong and resolute when you repeat it.
October 3, 2004, 10:41:09 AM EDT – Like – Reply


rea
"So did Mr Atrios have a point after all? We might have said yes if he had represented the article in a straightforward way and if his complaint had simply been that it was unclear. Instead his presentation of the story was misleading, and he fulminated about 'standards' and 'snookering'."
 
Let me get ths straight. You now concede (because Fox has conceded) that the original story was defective, because it presented a parody in a way that could be mistaken for a serious news story. But you fault Atrios for treating the parody as if it was a serious news story? Okay . . .
October 3, 2004, 10:44:48 AM EDT – Like – Reply


hi
Proportion and perspective, people.
 
You're on crack. CBS got conned with some bad documents and tried to cover their @$. FOX, in the last two days, has allowed a "poor attempt at humor" by their "senior political correspondent" covering the Kerry campaign to appear as a news story, and then this. Either the folks at FOX keep making incredibly idiotic screw-ups, or they are now running a humor site, or they're just throwing stuff out there on the theory that some people will be dumb enough to believe it and the rest won't hold them to any standard of journalistic competency. 
 
And sure enough, here you are.
October 3, 2004, 10:45:11 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Nathaniel Dogg
Bitter much? Oh well. Enjoy the temporary bump in traffic you get from having a link up on Atrios' blog.
 
14:59 and counting...
October 3, 2004, 10:46:32 AM EDT – Like – Reply


InsultComicDog
Either Fox News was taken in or they are comfortable making stuff up.
 
Either way it makes them no better than Dan Rather who they relentlessly have criticized.
October 3, 2004, 10:51:41 AM EDT – Like – Reply


weinerdog43
Sorry Johnny, but you can't defend the indefensible. Fox lied. Their little remaining credibility down the drain.
October 3, 2004, 10:52:08 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Windhorse
In the original article Fox made it clear that the "Billionaires for Bush" person they talked to was not a real supporter by putting "supporter" in quotes to show irony. And for most people, "billionaires" has a mostly benign connotation taken by itself anyway, whereas Communists...not so much.
Does veryone here know that Fox buried a story against Monsanto, an advertiser who was secretly putting growth hormones in milk, and then won a court case in which they argued their "right to lie" in the news? They argued they have NO responsibility to tell the truth to their viewers. And one would take such a news organization seriously why?
To compare Fox with any other news organization for objectivity is the height of absurdity. Their own internal memos show they strive for bias. Ten minutes of evaluating virtually any given story shows it...as in a few weeks ago "anchor" and apparent expert climatologist Linda Vester showing her audience that global warming is obviously not occ
October 3, 2004, 10:54:57 AM EDT – Like – Reply


jimmiraybob
"Either the folks at FOX keep making incredibly idiotic screw-ups, or they are now running a humor site, or they're just throwing stuff out there on the theory that some people will be dumb enough to believe it and the rest won't hold them to any standard of journalistic competency." 
 
hi @ 10.03.04 - 10:50 am 
 
hi, I thought that your comment above sounded familiar and have made a few modifications:
 
"Either the folks at THE BUSH WHITEHOUSE keep making incredibly idiotic screw-ups, or they are now running a humor CAMPAIGN, or they're just throwing stuff out there on the theory that some people will be dumb enough to believe it and the rest won't hold them to any standard of PRESIDENTIAL competency." 
 
Yeah, that's what I thought.
October 3, 2004, 10:58:46 AM EDT – Like – Reply


hi
And what's with all this repetition of Atrios' real name? Atrios revealed that he was working for MMFA before he revealed his "secret identity." He's been running the site the same way since before he got that gig. And it should be pretty obvious to anybody that MMFA didn't go out to recruit a "recovering economist," they went out to recruit the internet's most notable then-anonymous media watchdog. You're being ridiculously misleading. 
 
Your attack on Brock is similarly misleading. The guy's not just some "admitted liar," he's a guy who spent years of his life lying to further your agenda, and now that he's turned his back on that, and is trying to make amends for the damage he's done, you're trying to smear him with the things he did for you so that his work can be carried on by other people.
October 3, 2004, 11:01:29 AM EDT – Like – Reply


MC
Fox news wasn't "snookered" by Communists for Kerry and Carl Cameron didn't write a story with fabricated quotes from John Kerry due to "fatigue".
 
This is what they do, in concert with the rest of the Vast Right Wing Propaganda Machine (Drudge, Limbaugh, NBC news, WSJ, WT, etc....)
 
They just throw all the mud they can and push whatever sticks (has legs).
 
The only difference is now, thanks to the rapidly growing Vast Left Wing Anti-Propaganda Machine (Air America Radio, Media Matters,Moveon and ACT, Salon and all the bloggers) they aren't getting away with it anymore.
 
The pendulum is swinging back Johnny Dollar. The only question is whether it comes back far enough by Nov 2.
 
If it doesn't, I suspect even the Johnny Dollars' of the world might live to regret their support of this miserable failure.
 
Later JD, much......
 
MC
October 3, 2004, 11:02:05 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Your pal Steve
So Johnnie let me get this straight ... you argued that Fox was im the clear because they included a link to the site ... but Atrios was wrong even though he included a link to the Fox story which included a link to the site?
 
Using your reasoning (such as it is) the two should be exactly equal. If Fox was providing adequate information for readers to make their own judgments, so was Atrios. 
 
It's all moot anyway, since Fox's correction makes it clear they though the CFK site was legit, which blows your entire argument out of the water.
October 3, 2004, 11:02:05 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Euthydemos
Faux News is actually one of the funnier political satire sites out there. I have them bookmarked right next to The Onion. Actually, The Onion has a higher credibility level.
October 3, 2004, 11:04:44 AM EDT – Like – Reply


loser
Hey, moron, here's the point: they CLARIFY in the original article that "Communists for Kerry" isn't a parody group by asking the dude being interviewed. In other words, DUHHHH. All they had to do was leave that out and the wink, wink, nudge nudge would have been fine.
 
The "Billionaires for Bush" is about as obvious satire as it gets, no need for clarification and none given.
October 3, 2004, 11:06:44 AM EDT – Like – Reply


ElBow
My name is Elmer. I am befuddled. 
 
Don't do this to me.
 
Please.
October 3, 2004, 11:18:05 AM EDT – Like – Reply


stranger
Geez, they'll give anybody a blog nowadays.
October 3, 2004, 11:21:29 AM EDT – Like – Reply


dave
Go ahead - delete me.
October 3, 2004, 11:21:53 AM EDT – Like – Reply


garth
Comedy!
"Some dude made fun of Fox because their reporters are so politicized they can't fact-check the simplest of stories! I know, I'll make fun of them by saying it's not as bad as CBS! Hmm...now I'll say something about moral relativism...wait, maybe later..."
October 3, 2004, 11:22:34 AM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
"you argued that Fox was im the clear because they included a link to the site ... but Atrios was wrong even though he included a link to the Fox story which included a link to the site?"
 
I argued that if Fox included the link in their story, then when quoting the story that quote should include the link, just as it appeared on the page. Why take the link out? To do so misrepresents how the story originally appeared, just as leaving out the section of "Billionaires for Bush" gives a skewed impression of the story.
 
I never said Fox was "in the clear", and I never argued that Fox was "in the clear". The point of the entire article was to critique an excerpting that did not represent the original as fairly as it should have.
October 3, 2004, 11:23:27 AM EDT – Like – Reply


TAE
Jonny, son, look at Fox's disclaimer in the article:
 
In an version of this article ...FOXNews.com’s reporter asked the group’s representative several times whether the group was legitimate and supporting the Democratic candidate, and the spokesman insisted that it was
 
and look at Comms for Kerry disclaimer:
"Communists for Kerry" is a campaign of the Hellgate Republican Club, a tax exempt non-partisan;
 
...
Communists For Kerry is separate and distinct from the Communist party of America and any of its organization. None of it's members are members of any communist organizations.
 
(continued in next window)
October 3, 2004, 11:23:48 AM EDT – Like – Reply


TAE
continued...
 
OK, let's break it down for ya, buddy. First of all, how can a group that has "Republican" in the title (Hellgate Republican Club) say they are non-partisan? Hmmm.... there's a dichotomy in spin, if ever there was one.
 
Second, 
If this "parody" group said in the Fox disclaimer that they did in fact and deed support Kerry, while their disclaimer says that no one in the group actually supports the Communist agenda... well, why I think they in fact are not real communists who support Kerry!
If there's one thing about the Billionaires... when they are asked directly who they support, they take off their masks and let you know truthfully, in your face, who they support. If Comms for Kerry is going to ultimately lie about it, and then Fox ain't gonna check it out further... then who, dear one, becomes the fool in the end?
October 3, 2004, 11:24:19 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Ronjazz
Johnny doesn't apologize, that's not the wingnut way. It's the "I didn't do it" division of the "Don't Blame Me" party, a spinoff of the "personal responsibility" party, which has ceased to exist. Now that you have destroyed the Republican party and any claim it had to America's hearts and minds, what are you going to name your new one? How about "Hitler gave up too easily" or "Give me slavery or give me debt"? And still no response to the subject of the not-yet-proven fraudulent CBS memos, Our Leader's fast and loose way with the truth. Bush makes Clinton look like Washington.
October 3, 2004, 11:29:27 AM EDT – Like – Reply


TAE
Sorry, Jonny, didn't mean to post that so many times. I kept getting a "1000 character unless upgrade message" so I cut the message down and put it into two postings that turned into many.
 
Sorry for the mishap.
October 3, 2004, 11:31:45 AM EDT – Like – Reply


sc
Hey, if Fox admitted it was wrong and taken in by the parody group, so should you. Simple.
October 3, 2004, 11:31:47 AM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
TAE: No apology needed. I nuked the duplicate extra copies.
 
sc: I wasn't taken in by the parody group, because I knew all about them as soon as I clicked the link in the foxnews.com story. I already admitted that, according to Fox's position, Atrios was correct. But of course, my article was not about who was correct, but rather whether Atrios engaged in some "spinning" of his own in how he represented the article on his website.
October 3, 2004, 11:35:39 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Californian
Three updates, each backpedaling further than before.
 
Ha ha.
October 3, 2004, 11:37:26 AM EDT – Like – Reply


TAE
Wow, you are busy this morning taking out people responses that you don't like, aren't you? I wonder how long this one will remain.
October 3, 2004, 11:46:52 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Kevin Hayden
I'm at a loss why Duncan would send thousands of hits and free publicity your way. There's far more pleasurable fantasies on the internet.
October 3, 2004, 11:47:22 AM EDT – Like – Reply


TAE
Wow, you are busy this morning taking out people responses that you don't like, aren't you? I wonder how long this one will remain.
 
Sorry, didn't see the one you left.
 
Not a problem, Sorry again. It feels good to apologize for mistakes.
October 3, 2004, 11:48:20 AM EDT – Like – Reply


et alia
I hope you're getting paid well for this. Seriously. If you spread lies and disinformation, you risk exposure, and subsequent loss of reputation and self-esteem. Only a fool--and a damned big one at that--would do it for free.
 
More power to you if your getting that paycheck. If not, get some therapy for your compulsive need for humiliation.
October 3, 2004, 11:55:42 AM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
I'll be happy to correct any lies you can point out that I spread. Heck, I'll even apologize!
October 3, 2004, 11:58:48 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Evan
Why do you guys give little johnny so much attention? 
 
Save your keystrokes for where they matter... send your letters to where they matter...
 
evan
October 3, 2004, 12:03:52 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Albaz
Hell no, Evan, I am enjoying reading the comments. Let Johnny Dollar get his hits... the comments are great fun. Obviously there is no one who takes him seriously. .
October 3, 2004, 12:48:58 PM EDT – Like – Reply


jeebs
wait a minute... 
 
Fox viewers can READ? 
 
huh...who'da thunk it?
October 3, 2004, 12:49:54 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Roman Berry
Wow! Wingnuts with Macs. Who knew?
 
Off of Faux Newz to address one of your other comments for a sec, Johnny. Before you get too comfortable with the whole "forged documents" thing you really need to remember three things:
 
1. Lt. Col Killian's secretary said that the information about Bush in the documents was accurate. They just weren't the ones she typed. (Re-creations.)
 
2. It turns out that the documents really were likely typed (Bush Memo Font Study), not produced on a word processor and most certainly not produced with Times New Roman in MS Word.
 
3. The documents were not the basis for the story. That Bush skipped out on his service is not in doubt. That he received special treatment is not in doubt. That he was a "fortunate son" who had help getting a guard slot so someone else could go to Vietnam and fight in that era's needless war is not in doubt.
October 3, 2004, 12:53:27 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Roman Berry
Oh yeah, Atrios was right. Fox, as they have admitted on their own web site, was snookered. Again. Maybe you should follow their lead and withdraw your discredited rebuttal entirely. Doubt you will.
October 3, 2004, 12:56:42 PM EDT – Like – Reply


shamanic
I linked to the article from Eschaton. I found it to be quite long, in online edition terms (most of the papers would have cut a story that long into two pages), and feel that Atrios presented his complaint fairly. 
 
As I was reading the Communists for Kerry part, I was wondering why they hadn't included any mention of Billionaires for Bush. Of course, BfB did get a mention--in the last couple of paragraphs, where it was clearly identified as a parody group. I have to wonder how many page views got that far.
 
What is it you think Atrios did wrong again? He didn't quote all three paragraphs in full, just the comments from the Kerry "supporter"? I'm with the poster who said "enjoy your traffic spike". Stop whining, it makes you look bad.
October 3, 2004, 1:00:39 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
No Roman, we don't withdraw articles and pretend like they were never there. Of course, I don't believe that changes the point I made about how the original article was edited by Mr A, but you are free to disagree. That's what comment threads are all about!
October 3, 2004, 1:01:14 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
shamanic, I believe my article explains where I think Atrios fell short. He didn't have to quote the entire "Billionaires for Bush" section, but he could have acknowledged it, as well as acknowledging that the story had embedded links to both groups. I just think that omitting these aspects made the story seem worse than it may have been. If that's a whine, then pass the cheese.
October 3, 2004, 1:03:48 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Helen Highwater
The correctness of an opinion does not automatically validate any argument made on its behalf. That's our story and we're sticking with it!
 
Let's assume your opinion on this IS correct. Your argument for it is STILL invalid - from your own logic above!
 
Sounds like the opposite of "it‘s one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong." 
 
I argued that if Fox included the link in their story, then when quoting the story that quote should include the link, just as it appeared on the page. Why take the link out?
 
Maybe he "cut-and-pasted" which doesn't automatically preserve hyperlinks? Also, if people are too lazy to click the original article . . . well, that's the type of person that might need to make correction after correction after spouting off and WE ALL KNOW how much credibility we should give to their arguments - regardless of the correctness of their opinion (see above).
October 3, 2004, 1:07:35 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
"Maybe he "cut-and-pasted" which doesn't automatically preserve hyperlinks?"
 
it does for me, but even if it doesn't he could put it back in, or at least mention that the link was there.
October 3, 2004, 1:12:52 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Old Hat
Jesus, you got bitchslapped like a punk in this thread, johnny. How about you stop blogging and embarrassing yourself?
October 3, 2004, 1:13:01 PM EDT – Like – Reply


idiot savant
Something else that wasn't mentioned on this site, there was another line that was later removed from the original article. 
 
Just after the bit about "The North Koreans are my comrades" (where Johnny Dollar cut off his quotation) was a line saying something to the effect of "the Kerry campaign did not confirm or deny if they accepted the group's endorsement". Not only did this suggest that Communists for Kerry was a group that actually supports Kerry, but it implied that Kerry might accept their 'support'. Very slimy.
 
The suggestions that Fox "mistakenly" thought this group was legit are pretty hard to swallow. You really think they included the link to the CfK website without even looking at it? How innocently naive of Fox. It seems far more likely that they knew full well that this was a parody group, but decided to use it anyway as a smear against Kerry. Until someone (Atrios) called BS.
October 3, 2004, 1:13:08 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
It would seem more likely to me that if they knew it was a parody group but wanted to use it as a smear, they wouldn't have included the link at all. But that's just me.
October 3, 2004, 1:15:43 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Erik
Editor’s Note:
 
In an version of this article that was published earlier, the Communists for Kerry were portrayed as a group that was supporting John Kerry for president. FOXNews.com’s reporter asked the group’s representative several times whether the group was legitimate and supporting the Democratic candidate, and the spokesman insisted that it was. Communists for Kerry is, in fact, a parody group.
October 3, 2004, 1:16:15 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Erik
JD
 
Just admit you are wrong and apologize. Foxnews.com admitted they were wrong. You defended them. That means you are wrong. Admit it and apologize. State the correction on your website that you were wrong in defendeing them.
October 3, 2004, 1:19:03 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Erik
Update III: Foxnews.com has re-edited the story to clearly identify both groups as "pranksters" so even the humor-impaired will understand it, and adds a postscript where they throw in the towel and concede that the original article did not portray the Kerry organization as a parody group. So did Mr Atrios have a point after all? According to Fox's capitulation, yes. But our complaint concerned Mr Black's selective editing of the article, putting it in the worst possible light by eliminating important context. The correctness of an opinion does not automatically validate any argument made on its behalf. That's our story and we're sticking with it!
October 3, 2004, 1:21:01 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Erik
All of update three is a lie. You say Foxnews.com has re-edited the story to clearly identify both groups as "pranksters" so even the humor-impaired will understand it, and adds a postscript where they throw in the towel and concede that the original article did not portray the Kerry organization as a parody group."
 
Fox clearly states in the Editor notes that they believed that Communists for Kerry are who they are.
October 3, 2004, 1:23:04 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
1. Fox DID re-edit the story.
 
b. They DO identify both groups as pranksters.
 
III. Now even the humor-impaired WILL understand it.
 
4. Beware of personal attacks.
October 3, 2004, 1:25:53 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Erik
"III. Now even the humor-impaired WILL understand it."
 
It wasn't meant to be humrous. As stated by Fox. 
 
Editor’s Note:
 
In an version of this article that was published earlier, the Communists for Kerry were portrayed as a group that was supporting John Kerry for president. FOXNews.com’s reporter asked the group’s representative several times whether the group was legitimate and supporting the Democratic candidate, and the spokesman insisted that it was. Communists for Kerry is, in fact, a parody group.
October 3, 2004, 1:28:10 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Charles Foster Kane
Yawn. "The correctness of an opinion does not automatically validate any argument made on its behalf." Glad to see someone went to college. But you should know that it also doesn't validate the fact that you aren't a tool
October 3, 2004, 1:28:16 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Personal attacks and name-calling are not permitted here. This is not newshounds. Discussion will be civil and issue-oriented or messages will be deleted and repeat offenders will be banned.
October 3, 2004, 1:30:24 PM EDT – Like – Reply


HungChad
Atrios was so right that it must just make your stomach churn. You are so lacking in any sort of objectivity that you can't even concede when Fox admits its mistake. Pitiful, really.
October 3, 2004, 1:31:20 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Erik
These weren't your original arguments either. Don't try and revise history. Your original argument was that Fox knew that CFK were a prank group and the article IN IT's ENTIRETY supported your claim. That Atrios and the news hounds took the article out of context. Fox has admitted that they did not know that CFK were a prank group and didn't properly research the group, Now admit that you are wrong.
October 3, 2004, 1:31:37 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Erik
Why does johnny run and hide? Will he answer my questions?
October 3, 2004, 1:32:52 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
"Your original argument was that Fox knew that CFK were a prank group"
 
My original argument was that the article was not properly characterized. Where did I write that Fox knew this was a prank group? Why would I claim to know what Fox thought? I'm not The Amazing Kreskin!
October 3, 2004, 1:34:29 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Erik
This is clearly not the case according to Fox, the people you continue to try and defend. So now you can post that you are wrong and Fox was wrong and everyone else is right.
 
I consistently beat you johnny by using your own words against you.
October 3, 2004, 1:41:33 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Erik
"Your original argument was that Fox knew that CFK were a prank group"
 
My original argument was that the article was not properly characterized. Where did I write that Fox knew this was a prank group? Why would I claim to know what Fox thought? I'm not The Amazing Kreskin!
 
Erasing my comments will not help you win the argument. You obviously read what I just wrote and know that your own words prove you wrong in this post
October 3, 2004, 1:43:10 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
In case you missed it I already posted that Fox had to issue a correction. Do I have to post it every five minutes or what?
 
I will continue to erase your comments when they contain personal attacks and name calling. And if you continue violating the rules of this forum you will be banned. Just a word of friendly advice!
October 3, 2004, 1:43:47 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Erik
"So they(MEANING FOX) also interviewed a representative of a parody site(MEANING BFB) on the other side(MEANING CFK WAS A PARODY SITE AGAINST KERRY)--and included a link to that parody webpage as well, just as they did with "Communists for Kerry". Why didn't Mr Atrios think that was worthy of mention?"
 
This according to Fox is not the case. You are wrong, admit it.
October 3, 2004, 1:44:57 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Erik
There are no personal attacks. Just admit you are wrong.
October 3, 2004, 1:45:50 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Erik
You said this: My original argument was that the article was not properly characterized. Where did I write that Fox knew this was a prank group? Why would I claim to know what Fox thought? I'm not The Amazing Kreskin!
 
I showed you above where you wrote that Fox knew this was a prank group.
October 3, 2004, 1:47:03 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
I don't get it. What "according to Fox is not the case"? That they interviewed BfB? That they included a link to BfB? That it was a parody site?
October 3, 2004, 1:47:45 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Erik
Can you just admit that you are wrong?
October 3, 2004, 1:48:00 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Erik
Don't play ignorant Johnny.
 
The editor's note clealy states that Fox was wrong.
 
Editor’s Note:
 
In an version of this article that was published earlier, the Communists for Kerry were portrayed as a group that was supporting John Kerry for president. FOXNews.com’s reporter asked the group’s representative several times whether the group was legitimate and supporting the Democratic candidate, and the spokesman insisted that it was. Communists for Kerry is, in fact, a parody group.
October 3, 2004, 1:49:13 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Erik
You're making yourself look more and more like a tool. It would have been easy to defend your position without Fox's retraction of the storty. No one would be here now because they couldn't prove it. But the people you are trying to defend admitted they are wrong. The problem is you won't.
October 3, 2004, 1:50:59 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Gerald
No one is saying that Fox knew C4K was a parody and tried to pass it off as real. The complaint is that they didn't do the minimum to ensure the legitimacy of their story. The thought is that maybe, just maybe, they didn't care, since it made Kerry look bad.
Two Cheney-ups in two days, both with the effects of making Kerry look bad (if they hadn't been caught)? Coincidence or just sloppiness?
October 3, 2004, 1:52:00 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Erik
It's funny that you are going to hide behind the "profanity, personal attacks, or that are off-topic will be removed" defense to try and run and hide from the fact that your are wrong. I can pull up plenty of comments from you from the news hounds that fit in this category. Just admit you are wrong and put the post up clearly staing that fact.
October 3, 2004, 1:53:10 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Spydie
All this chatter over Johnny Dollar's apparent "missing link" claim?
 
I am going back to where there is real news.
October 3, 2004, 1:53:34 PM EDT – Like – Reply


lost_horizon
of course you said Fox knew: 
 
Wasn't that your main point?:
 
"So "Communists for Kerry" is a parody group, and Fox News was taken in. At least that's what Mr Atrios wants you to believe."/i>
 
(this is what you accused Atrios of indignantly)
 
"However, the story as published at foxnews.com includes the link to "Communists for Kerry", so that the reader can just click and learn all about them"
 
(this is your proof that Fox knew)
 
do yourself a favour: stop digging! It's no joy to watch somebody making an utter fool of himself.
October 3, 2004, 1:54:25 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
"No one is saying that Fox knew C4K was a parody and tried to pass it off as real"
 
Well, somebody did say that upthread around 1:18 pm.
October 3, 2004, 1:54:59 PM EDT – Like – Reply


bitter mastermind
When you try to defend a network that's full of bull, you get the horns.
 
Poor kid.
October 3, 2004, 1:55:16 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
"of course you said Fox knew: Wasn't that your main point?"
 
No.
October 3, 2004, 1:55:56 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Erik
Pay attention or go take your ritalin. Don't run from my line of questioning.
October 3, 2004, 1:56:50 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Erik
Johnny, why are you afraid of me?
October 3, 2004, 1:57:42 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Gerald
OK, so "most of us" aren't saying Fox knew it was a parody group. Now that we have that out of the way, can you address something (anything?) from my post besides a small mistake?
October 3, 2004, 1:58:14 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Erik
I'm waiting Johnny.
October 3, 2004, 1:59:27 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Gerald, I agree with your point that based on their correction, they didn't do enough research before posting the original story. The rest of your post is your opinion, and you're entitled to it.
October 3, 2004, 2:02:41 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Erik
So that makes you wrong in defending them. Because you said that anyone that didn't know CFK was a parody was "humor-impaired". Fox proved you wrong when they admitted that they were duped. You still won't admit that you were wrong in defending them and the article as accurately being a parody. So admit that you are wrong.
October 3, 2004, 2:06:12 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Erik
Come on johnny answer the question.
October 3, 2004, 2:08:37 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Erik
Come on johnny admit that you are wrong. You'll be a better man for it. No one will ridicule you for admitting the err in your ways.
October 3, 2004, 2:11:05 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Erik
Don't take this as an insult. But you are obviously a teenager. Because an adult would have admitted they were wrong.
October 3, 2004, 2:12:58 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Fielding Mellish
So, to sum up.. the link at Atrios' page always existed, the group really was a parody, and Fox News was really suckered, thus invalidating almost all of your original points.
 
Somehow, though, a technical point about Atrios' quote is the real outrage.
 
Highly reminiscent of the recent CBS controversy. Make enough smoke to obscure the point that all of the substantive accusations being discussed are true.
-
October 3, 2004, 2:13:31 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
I'm going to try this once more, very s-l-o-w-l-y.
 
My article is a criticism of selective quoting. I did not say the foxnews story was perfect, or accurate, or flawless. I merely suggested that when people quote from it they do so fairly and in context. Clear now?
October 3, 2004, 2:14:45 PM EDT – Like – Reply


LeftCenter
I'm amazed that your site exists solely to defend Fox News.
 
Your ilk has been thriving for years by calling any "non-conservative" media "the liberal media."
 
Now with the advent of truely liberal media, other sources like NPR, NewsHour and the New York Times must seem quite moderate, even to you.
 
Yes, things have gotten pretty ugly, but you guys started it, and you will probably regret soon (if you don't already).
October 3, 2004, 2:15:00 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Erik
But the technical point about the missing BFB quote doesn't prove any of Johnny's points. As I stated above. They actually prove that Johnny is wrong. Johnny just won't admit that he is wrong for defending Fox and the article as accurately portraying CFK as a parody. Johnny is just burying himself with the little dignity he has left.
October 3, 2004, 2:16:59 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Gen JC Christian, patriot
I hate it when Frenchmen like Atrios bend a good, God fearing, patriotic organ of Our Glorious Leader like Fox over the back of a sofa and then violate it repeatedly with their their mighty instruments of accountability. It makes me angry, and for some reason, I find it stangely exciting. That's how I know that it is the Deceiver's work.
 
I like the cut of your jib, Johnny Dollar, and I'd like to invite you over to the compound to see my extensive collection of gladiator movies.
October 3, 2004, 2:20:29 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Erik
I merely suggested that when people quote from it they do so fairly and in context. Clear now?
 
No, that is a lie johnny. You said that "Mr A doesn't tell you what is in the rest of the foxnews.com story:
...So they also interviewed a representative of a parody site on the other side--and included a link to that parody webpage as well, just as they did with "Communists for Kerry"."
 
This is false. And Fox admits that they did not know that CFK was a parody site as you suggest. Quit lying and admit you are wrong.
October 3, 2004, 2:22:26 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Erik, even sites that allow all kinds of personal name-calling draw the line at accusing people of being a liar. This is your final warning. No more personal attacks.
October 3, 2004, 2:24:22 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Erik
You're own words are doing you in Johnny.
October 3, 2004, 2:24:37 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Melinda
This entire post should be deleted. What a shameful waste of electrons. By post, I mean website, and I also think you should apologize to all electrons for the diservice this site does to them.
October 3, 2004, 2:27:42 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Erik
Johnny you can't take the heat then close your site down. You consistently call the newshounds liars and much worse. They haven't kicked you off there site. Am I making too much sense that you don't want the others reading this thread to see that you are a fraud. Am I allowed to say that Comrade Johnny? Just admit that you are wrong. And your weak defense if all revisionist history to cover up the fact that Fox sold you down the river after you defended them and the article as being a parody.
October 3, 2004, 2:28:25 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
I hereby apologize to all electrons. And to show how fair and balanced I am, I further apologize to those protons and any squishy neutrons out there as well!
October 3, 2004, 2:29:11 PM EDT – Like – Reply


patriotboy
Johnny,
 
Atrios never edits comments or bans someone for calling him a liar. He only bans someone for trying to destroy a thread by posting the same thing 30 times in a row or trying to break haloscan by posting a 100 character string.
 
Why do you feel the need to be so controlling?
October 3, 2004, 2:30:04 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
"You consistently call the newshounds liars and much worse"
 
What's worse? Double-dog liars?
October 3, 2004, 2:30:11 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Erik
Comeon Johnny don't run and hide form me. Admit you are wrong and put up the post.
October 3, 2004, 2:30:33 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
"Atrios never edits comments or bans someone for calling him a liar"
 
Good for him.
 
"He only bans someone for trying to destroy a thread by posting the same thing 30 times in a row"
 
Now he may have a point there...
October 3, 2004, 2:31:10 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Erik
No that would have been noted earlie up thread. But you, comrade Johnny, erased that post of mine. Don't play these people for fools hear. You know the profanity that you post on newshounds.com. And never do they threaten to ban you fromt he site. But me calling a liar scares you that much. Just admit you're wrong. And put up the post. The truth shall set you free. You'll feel better for it. You must feel really horrible trying to defend a lie.
October 3, 2004, 2:33:37 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
" You know the profanity that you post on newshounds.com."
 
Well all these fine people don't. Why don't you link to some of the "profanity" I post there?
October 3, 2004, 2:35:04 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Erik
Johnny you should be banned from your own message board for consistently getting off topic.
October 3, 2004, 2:35:36 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
I'm not sure how that would work. I'll have to look into it.
October 3, 2004, 2:36:09 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Protons for Truth
Neutrons are nothing and electrons are highly overated (no matter what those no-account lightbulbs say).
October 3, 2004, 2:37:26 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Fielding Mellish
Your claim seems to be that by omitting a link (which was not omitted), Atrios' sin was more egregious than that of Fox, which presented the group as a real organization, but included the link.
 
One can reasonably conclude from Fox's actions that they either knew the group was a parody and chose to hide it behind a link that readers might or might not click on, in which case they are guilty of partisanship, or they did not know, in which case they were suckered and were guilty of lazy journalism.
 
Atrios runs an admittedly partisan blog, Fox repeatedly claims to be a straight news organization. How is Fox exonerated by any of this?
 
What if I published an article quoting someone accusing you of murder, fraud, and other misdeeds without disputation but included a link which said the accusation was from a parodist? Wouldn't you characterize that as dishonesty?
-
October 3, 2004, 2:40:17 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Erik
The moment Fox posted there correction and editor's note you were in trouble. The problem is you chose the hard way and tried to revise your position. If you were a real man you would have admitted your overzelaousness in defending Fox and stated that you were wrong. The lies keep building up and now you have no credibility. Just admit that you were wrong, post a correction, and everyone can be on there way.
October 3, 2004, 2:40:25 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
"What if I published an article quoting someone accusing you of murder, fraud, and other misdeeds without disputation but included a link which said the accusation was from a parodist? Wouldn't you characterize that as dishonesty?"
 
Well, murder is a bit of a leap from what was in the article.
 
"How is Fox exonerated by any of this?"
 
Beats me. What makes you think they are?
October 3, 2004, 2:43:07 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Strange Currencies
David Brock called.
 
He wants to put you on payroll.
October 3, 2004, 2:43:12 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Erik
Johnny is dodging the questions again. Running scared?
October 3, 2004, 2:46:20 PM EDT – Like – Reply


GAP
Laughing:// I can't BELIEVE someone actually posted that the Killian memos might still be vindicated. You aren't referring to David Hailey's "analysis", are you?
 
[url]http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12909_David_Haileys_Analysis_is_a_Fraud[/url]
 
And someone cited the octogenarian secretary who said the memos were FAKE, but the charges were true?
 
Well, since the website is a joke, but the charges are true, I guess I could point out that commies really ARE for Kerry.
 
[url]http://nkzone.typepad.com/nkzone/2004/02/north_koreans_c.html[/url]
 
Nice spike, huh Johnnie?
 
Ta-ta. /Laughing
October 3, 2004, 2:47:36 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Erik
Put up the post Johnny. Be a man.
October 3, 2004, 2:54:34 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Erik
Don't run and hide. You got no balls johnny.
October 3, 2004, 2:56:27 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Kay
Johnny,
 
you said
 
That is so completely lame.
 
You just don't get it, kid.
 
Why did they have to re-edit a story if their reporter was in possession of the website link in the first place?
 
Either nobody at FOX looked at the website BEFORE they ran the original story or they delibrately had "a little fun" too and decided to see how far the story would go before readers started clicking the link.
 
Can you not understand why that is a problem?
 
Imagine the details of this story were different. Suppose it had been CBS News. Suppose the reporter had been Dan Rather. Suppose the group had been "Nazis for Bush" but that all circumstances were the same and that CBS News online had run the story and the re-edit in exactly the way that FOX ran this one. 
 
Do you think you would have found that funny?
 
"Humor" impaired my left foot.
October 3, 2004, 2:57:14 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Kay
Drat. Haloscan strikes again, I forgot how it strikes out copy text at times.
 
Johnny, What I quoted you saying was, "Fox DID re-edit the story."
October 3, 2004, 3:00:33 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Erik
I see johnny the communist is deleting posts still. You need to revaluate your life.
October 3, 2004, 3:05:18 PM EDT – Like – Reply


knuckledragger
You can take your "story" and stick it, alright. Maybe you should look for a job in DC, I hear they will be needing lots of packers and movers in January...
October 3, 2004, 3:18:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Richard
The link was there. It was always there. You said it was not. 
 
The story was not portrayed as parody and it was placed on the FOX news site. Go figure?
 
Watch FOX GOP'ers..its good for you. Do not read, explore or demand independent ideas. They are all bad. Denounce intellectualism as it’s a horrible thing. And do not go to a church that does not support political conservatism as God would not be in that house.
 
Vote for W and be sure to enlist,
Richard
October 3, 2004, 3:18:33 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Martin Heldt
"So did Mr Atrios have a point after all? We might have said yes if he had represented the article in a straightforward way and if his complaint had simply been that it was unclear. Instead his presentation of the story was misleading, and he fulminated about 'standards' and 'snookering'."
 
Atrios' representation of the article (as it was then posted) was on target.
 
It appears that Johnny Dollar is the one misrepresenting others. Perhaps Johnny was suckered by the subsequent FOX edits.
October 3, 2004, 3:25:17 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Tim B.
Wow, that foot in your mouth sure tastes good doesn't it?
 
Maybe it's time to start listening to people like Atrios who are smarter than you. Might rub off on you, and it looks like you could benefit from that.
October 3, 2004, 4:35:15 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Far North
OK, just in case my last post gets deleted, I'll try it again:
 
Jeez, Johnny, this whole episode makes you look bad.
October 3, 2004, 4:35:36 PM EDT – Like – Reply


blakey
"""putting it in the worst possible light by eliminating important context""""
 
Like...you guys and Republican organ Fox "News", for example, never do that! I think someone on your side also likes to say "I don't do nuance". Who was that? 
 
Hey, was there any context to the
"global test" quote your guy's using
to attack Kerry? What words did
Kerry say right before he used the word "sensitive" that Cheny likes to make fun of? Huh? How many times did Bush use the same word, in the 
same context that very same day? Huh? They didn't tell you? You mean, they left out "important context"? Huh?
 
Seems to me that from the top of your party ticket all the way down to lower blogovia you guys are all about ripping quotes out of context.
October 3, 2004, 4:42:28 PM EDT – Like – Reply


freelove
Does little Johnny Dollar have some Atrios blog envy going on? Little Johnny some blogs are just born more naturally endowed than others. It's not your fault you have a tiny little blog.
October 3, 2004, 4:44:49 PM EDT – Like – Reply


mercury
Hey, thanks for being big enough to admit that Atrios was right all along, and that you guys made the boo-boo. 
 
Some say that rightwingers are ignorant, blindly faithful lemmings clinging desperately to the tattered clothes of an idiot President, resistant to any form of logic or intelligent debate. 
 
Some believe that they've totally lost sight of the forest for the trees, and are frightened now to admit that they could have been wrong, and been taken in by a political machine that is totally corrupt and morally bankrupt. A machine that cares nothing for its supporters -- well maybe the rich ones. 
 
I don't necessarily think those things are true.
 
Well, okay, most of them are.
October 3, 2004, 4:49:54 PM EDT – Like – Reply


drew
"It would seem more likely to me that if they knew it was a parody group but wanted to use it as a smear, they wouldn't have included the link at all. But that's just me."
 
What a horrible argument. If you were defending a murder suspect, I'm sure you would offer something along the lines of, "If he wanted to kill him, he would've shot him in the head". 
 
You ams a genius...
October 3, 2004, 5:03:43 PM EDT – Like – Reply


cupidisascupiddoes
Looks like Fox is trying really hard to rehabilitate CBS into looking like a credible news source. Heck, why not just forward Fox News traffic directly to the Onion?
October 3, 2004, 5:18:08 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Fielding Mellish
"What if I published an article quoting someone accusing you of murder, fraud, and other misdeeds without disputation but included a link which said the accusation was from a parodist? Wouldn't you characterize that as dishonesty?"
 
Well, murder is a bit of a leap from what was in the article.
 
SOP, eh? Don't answer the question, just pluck one word out and address that. Well, let me rephrase a bit then:
 
What if I published an article quoting someone accusing you of following communist idealogy and collusion with North Korea without disputation but included a link which once clicked on said the accusation was from a parodist? Wouldn't you characterize that as dishonesty?
 
Perhaps this is a close enough analogy for you to answer my question. Cheers.
-
October 3, 2004, 5:57:21 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Jeebus of America
You have GOT to be kidding, Johnny. Right? You're joking? I HAVE to assume that your site is a parody of right wing intelligence. Right? Tell me you're a parody, Johnny. Please?
 
I think I'll go and read a REAL right wing intellectual web site, J.C. Christian, Patriot. He speaks the truth.
October 3, 2004, 6:00:19 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
"What if I published an article..."
 
If it was your intent to be dishonest, sure. Isn't that obvious?
October 3, 2004, 6:00:42 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Herostratus
What I don't get is... why doesn't Fox News just be more open about who they are?
 
There's a long and honorable tradition of partisan media in this country. The early newspapers were all highly partisan.
 
As newspapers (and networks) became big business, they generally toned that down a lot (but not entirely) at least in the news sections, so as not to alienate potential customers.
 
But there's no law it has to be that way. There's nothing wrong with Fox News being what it is, 
 
It's just that the "Fair And Balanced" slogan is annoying, when they're not -- and not trying to be -- wishy-washy centrists. 
 
Their slogan should be "News From The Right Side" or "News With A Conservate Perspective" or something like that. I would respect them a lot more then.
October 3, 2004, 6:33:48 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Doctorem
Update IV: I am a total moron
October 3, 2004, 6:46:17 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Charlotte Beavers
Why on Earth would anyone waste time defending FOX? Johnny, there are much more worthwhile causes out there. Help defend those who cannot defend themselves - volunteer at the humane society, or a homeless shelter, or a women's shelter. You'll feel much better about yourself, I assure you.
October 3, 2004, 6:46:25 PM EDT – Like – Reply


J
Score: Atrios 1
Littlejohnypenny 0
October 3, 2004, 7:04:33 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Ottnott
shorter johnny dollar:
 
atreeos kant spel
October 3, 2004, 7:16:15 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Charles
On September 21, 2004, I notified you that you had a glaring error in one of your so-called trasncripts. You have repetedly been advised of such error, yet continue to fail to correct the transcript.
 
Then when taken to task for it, you delete my posts. Shame on you...
October 3, 2004, 7:54:19 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Charles
johnny wrote:
 
"But our complaint concerned Mr Black's selective editing of the article, putting it in the worst possible light by eliminating important context."
 
Kinda like your selective editing?
 
You snipped the hell out of a CNN story in:
 
http://www.newshounds.us/2004/07/20/today_bergermania.php
 
You left out the entire rebuttal by Berger's attorney!
 
Johnny, we can't take you at your word. You post only PART of the story, then criticize others for doing so. Can you say hypocrite???
October 3, 2004, 8:20:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Kirk
"We're trying to get Comrade Kerry elected and get that capitalist enabler George Bush out of office," said 17-year-old Komoselutes Rob of Communists for Kerry..."
 
Link cleverly erased... again!
 
Come on. Who are you kidding here?
 
You should also update yet another time to point out that Atrios got his job at MMFA because of his long running blog. You're either reading something into this that isn't there or just being dishonest. I can't say which.
 
Why all the spin and distortion for Fox News? Surely they can't be beyond criticism? What's the point? Does Fox News need to be defended?
October 3, 2004, 8:37:46 PM EDT – Like – Reply


mdhatter
Why are you holding a private citizen to professional journalism standards and letting professional journalists off the hook?
 
[personal attack edited by J$]
October 3, 2004, 8:40:26 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
"You snipped the hell out of a CNN story"
 
Charles, As You Well Know, that CNN story was cited to show that CNN did report the "socks" incident, since other posters claimed CNN never reported it. I wasn't claiming the story was correct, just that it had been reported by CNN. So Lanny Davis's (not Sandy Berger's) denial was irrelevant--it didn't change the fact that CNN reported the socks incident, and the entire link was given. So don't distort, and from now on please keep your comments on-topic.
October 3, 2004, 9:11:43 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Mick
Your only tiny chance at having a point would be if the original Fox article had identified the Communists for Kerry guy as a Kerry "supporter", in quotes, the way it did the Billionaires for Bush guy. It didn't, and you don't.
Oh, and by the way, the Iraqi oil production still isn't paying for the reconstruction that isn't taking place, in case you're keeping score at home.
October 3, 2004, 9:51:32 PM EDT – Like – Reply


MT
This is the least-informed "blog" I have ever laid eyes on.
October 4, 2004, 12:38:24 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Rob
Does it count as a personal attack if I question a) your ability to reason and b) your willingness to suspend your disbelief? If so, consider me punted.
October 4, 2004, 1:55:53 AM EDT – Like – Reply


GAP
"This is the least-informed "blog" I have ever laid eyes on.
 
MT"
 
You really need to get out more. There are some exquisitely bad blogs out there. Excruciatingly uninformed and abjectly delusional. Drop in to DU or Daily Kos sometime. I'd visit them more often, but the wounds still haven't healed from the last time I split my sides laughing at them. They are "the wrong blogs in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong ideology". I absolutely adore them.
 
Abhor. Abhor them.
October 4, 2004, 2:42:43 AM EDT – Like – Reply


torgeaux
Uh, did you miss the original story? In it, Fox correctly identified the Billionaires for Bush as a parody group actually for Kerry, but made no similar note for the communists. That, combined with their later mea culpa ends the discussion of this issue for me. Oh, and Atrios did not mislead, so far as I can tell. He linked, and he also didn't selectively quote. At least he didn't report something that was patently false (like say, "incorrectly" reporting that Atrios edited out a link?).
October 4, 2004, 8:36:53 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Martina
Johnny Dollar's coming unhinged.
 
What's next? Have you got any serious weaponry to unleash? Or are you going to keep focussing on Campaign Carl's insights on manicures and the sloppy biased journalism at Fox? OH! Kerry cheated by bringing a cheat sheet to the podium!!! Oh...nevermind.
http://tinyurl.com/524rm
 
The defenders of the right keep stomping through the minefield of their own gaffes looking for a fight with Kerry. Fools!
October 4, 2004, 7:17:39 PM EDT – Like – Reply