Post-Papal Deception


The latest from the Outfoxed gals makes one wonder: just how brainless do they think people are?

Now that all that coverage of John Paul II is no longer soiling their orthicon tubes, the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed mob) have returned to sneer and smear. And as always, nancy is good for a passel of distortions and deceits:
Folbaum interviewed Dr Murray Cohen ("bioterrorism analyst") re research scientist Singh Meena, accused of stealing 8 vials of "TB organism" which Folbaum characterized as a potential bioterrorism weapon.

It's another use of imputation, a subtle form of lie where you attribute an opinion to someone whose only crime was reporting the news:

FOLBAUM: But more importantly, Meena's boss said the organism could be turned into a potential bioterrorism weapon.
When Cohen pointed out that "what this guy stole are not dangerous pathogens" & there are much more likely scenarios than the bioterror ploy (1-petty thief/corporate spy; 2-disgruntled employee; 3-careless innocent error), Folbaum was annoyed...

Cohen didn't "point it out", he was answering Folbaum's question (which somehow nancy just forgot to mention in her "report"):

FOLBAUM: What might the motive have been? What did he want this stuff for? Because it wasn't only the vials; it was also some computer discs as well.
COHEN: In these kinds of cases, typically, you've got three different excuses or reasons...

And if you're wondering why Folbaum would be "annoyed" that someone answered his question, you're not alone. Nancy just made it up. But there's more chicanery from nefarious nancy:
Following a clip of Tom DeLay ("arrogant out-of-control judiciary") Folbaum opined that his comments are "apparently generating some backlash"...

Um, let's see if we understand this. It is an "opinion" that DeLay's comments are "apparently generating some backlash"? But "Folbaum was annoyed" is not opinion, but simply fact? Don't try to sort that out; it's hound logic.
Folbaum said that Culverson was scheduled to participate in this segment but was unavailable, & he hoped to be able to interview him separately later (this did not happen in the remaining part of this program).

Even this is false. He never said anything about interviewing Culverson separately, since Culverson was supposed to appear with Bell but didn't make it to the studio in time:

FOLBAUM: Joining us now is Chris Bell, former Democratic Congressman from Texas, and John Culverson, a Republican Congressman also from Texas...

Just how he could interview him in the last remaining program block, when they had already promo'd an interview on the Royal Wedding for that segment, is something only nancy can explain.
Folbaum fell back on the victim ploy, noting that Bell is a Dem, claiming that DeLay is a "lightning rod" & that "liberals" are out to get DeLay.

FOLBAUM: Tom DeLay is a lightning rod. Liberals absolutely hate this guy.

We trust even the semantically challenged recognize that nancy's pseudo paraphrase does not mean the same thing as what Folbaum actually said. But that's the beauty of only quoting one word from a sentence!
Folbaum said the NYTimes & WaPo "run editorials slamming this guy" & whined that it's "not fair."

FOLBAUM: They can just hammer away at somebody. A lot of times it's just not fair.

See? You can change the meaning of what somebody said even if you quote two whole words from a sentence.
Folbaum tried to imply that DeLay still has support, at least in his home state & district, but Bell said a recent poll by the Houston Chronicle showed only 30% support for DeLay in his own district...

FOLBAUM: Well it's the people of the 22nd District in Texas who really have to focus, and who will have the final say whether or not Tom DeLay gets to keep his job. Are you going to take a guess here, make a prediction?

So where is Folbaum implying that DeLay still has support in his home district, and in Texas? Don't bother trying to find it in Folbaum's words. Once again, nancy made it up. But she still has one final flourish:
Just one example of FNL's bias -- by using non-neutral words like "vulnerable" & "lightning rod" to describe DeLay, Folbaum tries to imply that DeLay is a victim of groundless accusations.

Yes, the terms "vulnerable" and "lightning rod" are tricky "wordage" that demonstrate "bias". Nobody else would use such terms in regard to Tom DeLay, would they, nancy?

Among the potential Democratic challengers:...Former Rep. Nick Lampson...."He's vulnerable, and he brought it on himself," Lampson said. (San Francisco Chronicle)

A Houston Chronicle poll last week showed DeLay's support slipping in the district, and many Democrats think DeLay may be vulnerable.

DeLay didn’t help himself. He made himself look vulnerable ... (MSNBC)

And how about the phrase, "lightning rod"?

...a bid by DeLay's foes to crank up scrutiny of the Texas Republican, a lightning rod for critics of his party's conservative agenda. (Boston Globe)

Tom DeLay has invoked God, diverted attention from his own ethical woes and again become a lightning rod... (Reuters)

And there are plenty more where those came from.

So these phrases, that according to nancy show Fox News "bias", in fact have been regularly applied to Mr DeLay by such far-right propaganda outfits as Reuters, the Boston Globe, MSNBC, and the Democrat who wants to run against DeLay!

We realize that the sheeple who dote on every falsehood propounded by the newswussies are gullible in the extreme. But really, how stoopid does nancy think they are?

posted: Sat - April 9, 2005 at 11:24 PM       j$p  send 
|