Resign!


The Outfoxed gals are caught yet again doctoring quotes. Isn't that supposed to be grounds for resignation?

It's all the rage these days: call on someone to resign because you say they misquoted someone. Of course that doesn't apply if you're Al Franken, and it's never applicable if you're one of the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed syndicate).

For the latest example of double-standard hypocrisy, we have only to turn to--whom else?--tail-wagger nancy. You can always count on her for inaccurate quotes, but it's not enough to just be wrong. Nancy has to doctor what was said in order to change its meaning to fit her false charges:
Quinn interviewed Bruce Reed (Dem, DLC) & Pete DuPont (GOP, former Gov of DE). Both guests hit all the RNC talking points, with DuPont...only slightly edging out Reed ("the President has achieved bipartisan" blahblahblah, Dems "desperately need" blahblahblah) in nauseating sycophancy.

Nancy would have you believe that Mr Reed parroted "RNC talking points". And one way to do that is to quote (inaccurately) five words and censor the rest of the sentence. But we will tell you what nancy doesn't want you to know--what Mr Reed really said:

REED: The White House has finally achieved some bipartisan common ground here in Washington: Republicans are as scared of Bush's Social Security plans as Democrats.

Whoa! How "sycophantic" is that? Is that part of the RNC "talking points" that Reed was supposedly spewing? Is that as dishonest and shameless an editing job as can possibly be imagined? But nancy's not done yet. She continues to type with forked fingers as she claims both guests supported the proposal:
Comment: this is what passes for "Fair & Balanced" on FNL. Why not have a *real* Dem or progressive who actually opposes Bush's SocSecScam...

Once again, the truth about what Mr Reed said:

REED: Most members went home to their districts this past recess and it turns out that voters they talked to don't like the idea of borrowing trillions of dollars now to make Social Security's problems worse later. So, I've been in the White House when people thought that it was a communications problem. Usually when the White House has a communications problem, the real problem is with what they're selling.

According to nancy, Mr Reed was just spouting RNC talking points and didn't oppose the plan. But then, nancy doesn't tell the truth. Just like the hatchet-job she did on Brigitte Quinn and David Asman, shamelessly rearranging sentences they spoke to alter the meaning of what they said.

Meanwhile, the newspoodles post article after article (after article) in a preposterous campaign for Brit Hume to "resign". His crime? They claim he "shamelessly rearranged sentences" from FDR "to falsely [sic] imply" support for the Social Security plan.

We'll borrow some of the newspups' language from those articles to make the salient point: when nancy publishes her manufactured quotes as accurate representations of what was said, she shows herself to be a shill for the left-wing Democrats, not a purveyor of truthful reporting. Shamelessly rearranging sentences from Asman and Quinn to falsify what they said, and distorting and misrepresenting Reed's positions and statements, is inexcusable. Contact the newshounds to express your outrage at their hypocrisy. We call on nancy to resign for shilling for the opponents of Social Security reform, and for lying to the American public.

posted: Thu - March 3, 2005 at 04:30 PM       j$p  send 

Mike AKA WonderWarthog
I watch Brigitte Quinn and David Asman every morning, then I check Newshounds. There is seldom any similarity with what I just watched.
 
No matter what topics were presented on Fox and distorted in the Newshounds article, the comments quickly turn into anti-Bush ranting. Further, the language used by the regular commentors is consistently gross and childish - belying their claimed high level of intellect.
 
I tried to reason with them but received the same ridiculous responses until they finally kicked me off for good for not agreeing with them (by brute force, apparently - I came back with a new IP each time so they must have blocked my ISP completely).
March 3, 2005, 6:13:26 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
It appears from my unsuccessful attempts today that I have joined that illustrious club as well.
March 3, 2005, 6:56:04 PM EST – Like – Reply


Mike AKA BrainlessTroll
I don't think the menopausal matriarchs who call themselves "dogs" like you.
March 4, 2005, 2:36:30 AM EST – Like – Reply


Mike AKA BrainlessTroll
Keep up the good work, Johnny $. We truly intelligent people - on the winning side - are watching and following your site. The followers of the "dogs" seem to relate the number of comments to the quality of the comments - but just look at their postings by such idiots as "Kent Brockman." I don't see his kind of juvenile ranting here.
March 4, 2005, 3:06:19 AM EST – Like – Reply


Scott
I gotta think though if I was someone who really did think that FNC needed to be exposed somehow, I'd be embarassed and pissed off that these ladies are botching so many of their reports day after day. I mean it's one thing to insert your own opinion about content, but at least get the damn content right!
March 4, 2005, 12:32:56 PM EST – Like – Reply


rt
"I tried to reason with them but received the same ridiculous responses until they finally kicked me off for good for not agreeing with them "
 
This must be a common tatic for those girls. Ellen did it to me for telling a poster that he was being dis-respectful to a member of our military for the following post:
 
"Okay. Just so long as you don't expect to get your butt kissed.....And as long as you don't think that I am alive, free, and able to breathe and speak because of you."
 
His post is still there. I was "Deleted for irrelevance."
 
This was in the Story : Babe Watch, Fox news-style.
June 29, 2005, 11:59:38 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Grumpy Eric
rt,
 
I'm still waiting to get banned by the female dogs. Donna has already deleted all my posts from one of her "reports". "reasonable man" and "truth" were also expunged. Our crime? Pointing out the irrelevancy and unsupported nature of Donna's report. J$ says "reasonable man" is now completely banned. His posts were eminently reasonable, civil, and on-topic. 
 
So, there must be more rules than they're publishing. Like "you MUST first buy into whatever we're selling before participating in the bashing".
 
I added a comment to one of Deborah's threads at where I cast my opinion that the newshound's site should adopt the slogan "We Distort, You Deride".
 
Some poor, sheltered fellow going by "objectivist james" followed up my post with the thought that site was the home of the lowest of the lowlifes. Obviously he's never dared to dip into the Democratic Underground .
August 2, 2005, 2:07:00 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Grumpy Eric
hmmmm? Lost the URL. Format handling ate it?
 
Trying again:
 
"... one of Deborah's threads at..."
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/07/25/oreilly_names_terrorist_helpers_traitors.php
August 2, 2005, 2:09:14 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Milla Kette
I was sending Olberman a comment about his idiotic babble, I read your post and followed the link. Excellent blog! I'd be honored if you consider puting the link to my group in your site!
February 16, 2006, 3:06:22 PM EST – Like – Reply