It's a Bush conspiracy! It's partisan bias! And if it isn't, the gals from Outfoxed have the answer: Make it so.

The newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed cabal) are on the job early after the first debate. As they take on Fox coverage and expose the rampant Bush-favoritism, we thought of an interesting study in contrasts. How do their comments about what was said compare to the actual transcripts of the broadcast? Do they track, or is one of these things not like the other?

Newshound judy begins her screed with a false characterization:

On Fox and Friends, co-host E.D. Hill turned Bush's halting speech and long pauses during his answers into a virtue, saying Bush really connects to people because he's not perfect. And she said lots of people who live in big cities like speakers who are smoother and slicker, referring to Kerry's performance. Hill was making a cheap appeal to rural voters, relying on hackneyed stereotypes that juxtapose their alleged plain-spokenness against city slickers who can't be trusted.

E.D. HILL: Going back to what you were saying about the ways that they presented themselves, most of the people that you’re going to hear on television are probably from big cities or live in them right now, and I think that they generally do look for the smoother, slicker, more sophisticated person, and go, that person looks better, sounds better. But I do think that it’s interesting, when people have analyzed how the President in the past has been effective in communicating and connecting with people, it is because he is not perfect. And on some level, many people relate to that. So when he pauses, and he’s thinking, and then he goes, people can relate to speaking that way, because they do.

Hill also focused on a post-debate quickie poll that showed viewers thought Kerry won the debate, but they still trusted Bush more on the wars and that the undecideds broke towards him.

We couldn't find any such focusing by Ms Hill, though we did note this comment by co-host Steve Doocy:

STEVE DOOCY: Also last night, after the debate, Gallup did one of those snap polls. And remember, these things are based, driven by emotion, you just saw it, and who do you think did a better job. Gallup says that more people felt that Kerry won the debate, but when asked the question who would handle Iraq better, the President won 51-43. Who was more believable? Bush won, 50-45. Who’s more likeable? Bush had 40, and Kerry had right in the margin. And another poll asked undecided voters after watching that, who would you vote for? 10% said John Kerry now, 12% said George Bush now.

For future reference, E.D. Hill is the one in the middle.

Co-host Brian Kilmeade tried to make moderator Jim Lehrer into an issue, complaining that Lehrer didn't ask Kerry questions that would make him defend his record in the Senate, while Bush had to defend his record as president.

BRIAN KILMEADE: How about this? Do you think there’s any validity to the school of thought that said the President was forced to be on the defensive because it was only his record he was defending?

The newspups' invalid interpretations escalate as they turn to another segment:

When Chris Wallace appeared on Fox and Friends to promote his Sunday show, he seemed like the adult who was trying to calm down a bunch of hyper-active fifth graders....When Kilmeade again complained about the moderator, saying he didn't ask Kerry about his changes in position, Wallace declined to fault Lehrer and said the issue got covered, even if not in a direct question.

KILMEADE: How do you critique Jim Lehrer’s performance and lack of questions to John Kerry about his record?

Wallace also reassured Hill, who was so confused about how viewers could say Kerry won the debate, but undecideds still broke slightly toward Bush. Wallace explained that a 90-minute debate will not erase the opinions people have developed over several weeks or months.

E.D. HILL: Steve was mentioning earlier on that it’s interesting, when you look at the post-debate polls from Bush-Gore, the indication was that Vice-President Gore had won. You look at this and the instant analysis polls are that John Kerry has won. But then he was citing the Gallup Poll that says, it also asks people then who do you plan to vote for now? And the undecideds came away with Bush, I think 12% to Kerry 10%. Not a huge difference, but it was significant that they said Bush lost but more said I’m going to vote for him. Does that sort of make sense?

Next, judy decides to kick it up a notch:

During Fox News Live, Steve Brown, reporting from Tampa, Florida, tried to cast a shadow over Kerry's performance by noting that Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida, said Kerry did not reach out to everyone in Florida. I thought, geez, what's he talking about, did he slight the Cubans or what? Brown only wanted to make the point that some 300,000 homes in Florida were still without power so they didn't get to see the debate. Fox likes to introduce some question about Kerry, a suggestion that there is not something quite right with everything he does. He did well, but he didn't reach everybody he needed to. Sneaky.

What's "sneaky" is changing one little word to justify a full paragraph rant about an imagined slight to Kerry that never occurred:

STEVE BROWN: Recent polls have suggested that President Bush has moved ahead in this particularly key state, with 27 electoral college votes up for grabs, so Kerry might have a chance now, based on last night’s performance, to whittle into that lead, or at least try to whittle into that lead. There is a sobering note, coming from US Sen Bill Nelson, a Democrat from the state of Florida. He says that despite Kerry’s performance last night it did not reach out to everyone, everywhere in the sunshine state. Sen Nelson estimates between 300,000 and 400,000 folks are still without power here in Florida, because of the barrage of hurricanes that they suffered. So the Kerry campaign apparently has some work trying to reach out to those folks as well in this very important swing state.

But the capper is the return of that old standby, first exposed by Howard Kurtz in his review of Outfoxed. Take a reporter's quote of some candidate or public figure, and then falsely claim the reporter himself is editorializing. This time the victim is Jon Scott:

Jon Scott was his old sneaky self while introducing the panels on his show. He introduced Sen. Jon Corzine, D-New Jersey, and Sen. Pete Dominici, R-New Mexico, by flatly saying that Bush's "own best asset is strength." The statement was unnecessary. He did not need to make an editorial statement before asking the guests what they thought.

JON SCOTT: That’s Sen Kerry there on his senate record last night, while the President said his own best asset is strength. Let’s check in with a couple of legislators for their take on how these two did...

So we have a crescendo of falsifications: start with a distortion about rural voters, make a stupid mistake (thinking Doocy is actually E.D. Hill), take a question and claim it's a "complaint", change a word to concoct a "sneaky" trick that didn't exist, and as the grand finale, lie about what Jon Scott said.

How do we score the game of Which of These Is Not Like the Other? As far as the doggies are concerned, none of the "reported" examples of bias here is much like the actual transcripts. But they do get a consolation prize. This newshound article is very much like their others: dishonest.