A quartet of bogus assertions make it clear that the gals of the Outfoxed mob are still dealing from the bottom of the deck.

They call themselves newshounds, and their website (another fine product of the Outfoxed cabal) reveals that the old dogs are still using old tricks.

In a half-hearted attempt at accuracy, the hounds fill a long article about a recent O'Reilly Factor with a lengthy (some 29 paragraphs!) transcript of what was said. It is hardly verbatim, but close enough for hound work. With these back-and-forth comments being reported in their entirety, note this curious segment:

O'REILLY: "If Bush wants to attack Kerry's record in the Senate that's fine with me...I don't consider those attack ads."
LEVINE: "I agree with you 100%." (Say it isn't so, Daedre!)

Why was this one sentence singled out for editing with the infamous three dots? Do we really have to ask? The actual transcript:

O'REILLY: If Bush wants to criticize Kerry's record in the Senate, that's fine with me. If Kerry wants to criticize Bush's Iraq policy, that's fine. I don't consider those attack ads.
LEVINE: I agree with you 100%.

The newshounds are not very good listeners:

Laurie Dhue reported that Nancy Reagan was supporting GW Bush in the election.... Then she stated that Ron Reagan, spoke at the Democratic Convention, and is "essentially" endorsing John Kerry. After reading Ron Reagan's piece in Esquire, one can say with confidence that Laurie Dhue's "essentially" does not describe Reagan's commitment to electing Kerry. Adding it to that sentence effectively changes the perception of the situation which is a Fox speciality.

Except what Ms Dhue actually said is that Reagan "spoke at the Democratic Convention and essentially endorsed John Kerry". Notice how the newspoodles had to change what she said, and cover it up by putting quotes around just one word? There's a difference between what one says in a magazine article, and describing what one said in a convention speech--a distinction not lost on the associated press, whose story uses words virtually identical to those of Ms Dhue. But lying about what Fox reporters say is a newshounds specialty.

Here's another gem that shows the anti-Fox terriers are still using the same hoary discredited tricks employed in their little home video:

Fox and Friends co-hosts (8:09 a.m. EDT) were discussing Kerry's statement from yesterday at a conference of minority journalists regarding what he would have done had he been sitting in that classroom that day....Steve Doocy gave Bush's inaction his stamp of approval, saying, "It was right that day and it is right this day, as well."

DOOCY: Dan Bartlett, the President's official spokesperson, or chief of communications said that Kerry's response was politics at its worst. He said that President Bush was in front of the children and the country, and did not want to cause any more panic than the attacks themselves--it was right that day, it was right this day as well.

Yes, the same fraudulence that was so big a part of Outfoxed--editing statements by reporters to make it look like they are giving their own opinion--is alive and well. USA Today also reported Bartlett's statement--does that mean they gave the "stamp of approval" too? It seems that if the canines can get even a few people to swallow their drivel, it makes it all worthwhile.

And once again, the pups reveal their ignorance of matters financial:

A guest on Fox and CNBC, between 1:00 and 2:00 p.m. Aug. 6, mouthed exactly the same spin for interpreting the new job numbers. The answer is that the 32,000 jobs reflect a "payroll" number. If you factor in "entrepreneurs," the number is closer to 600,000 new jobs....Don't you wonder how they came up with this? It must be from a republican "Memo" somewhere...

Well, no, we don't wonder how they came up with this. Because the household employment numbers come from the exact same agency that releases the payroll employment numbers. Because these numbers come out every month. Because the increase in household employment is what caused the unemployment rate to drop by .1%. Because the increase in the household employment numbers was also reported by cnn. Wait, that makes three networks that got it. But it's still way beyond the hounds.