Gannon Fodder


The Outfoxed gals are shamed into reporting on Fox's GannonGate coverage. Unfortunately, they were not shamed into telling the truth. Updated!

In an attempt to preserve the notion that Fox has "ignored" the Jeff Gannon "story", the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed cabal) managed to avoid any report whatsoever on Saturday's edition of Fox NewsWatch. When we pointed out their curious silence, tail-wagger ellen rushed into damage-control mode, promising a write-up on the program. A few hours later a hastily-written article appeared, covering only the Gannon segment of the program. Considering that they only addressed about seven minutes of the show, the newspoodles did an exceptional job of falsifying and distorting:
For one thing, they didn't go into the false identity aspect of Gannon/Guckert.

Fabrication Alert!

JIM PINKERTON [NEWSDAY]: Guckert/Gannon getting a pass: I worked at the White House for six years, and I can tell you that to clear somebody in on a false name is, with the Secret Service--
NEIL GABLER: On a daily basis.
PINKERTON: --on a daily, takes an incredible amount of intervention from somebody high up in the White House to do this.
ERIC BURNS: So it wasn't just that somebody overlooked this. Somebody was complicit.
PINKERTON: It's conscious, yes.
That opened the door for Jim Pinkerton, of Newsweek...

Um, Mr Pinkerton has been with Newsday for over a decade. More meticulous reporting from the hounds who "watch Fox so you don't have to".
overall the panel seemed to think Gannon was on a par with bloggers - a member of the new media - and should not be barred from the press corps

Newspoodle Fabrication Alert Part Deux! Why is this statement of what the panel "overall seemed to think" presented with not even a single illustrative quote? Who exactly on the panel expressed the view that Gannon "should not be barred"? Is this just another dog-eared lie? Once again, we will tell you what the newspups don't want you to know:

JANE HALL [AMERICAN UNIVERSITY]: It's hard for me to imagine that this would have happened if the bias were on the other foot....
NEIL GABLER: I think you were unfair when you called him a journalist....
HALL: He was clearly posing questions that fed into their story line about Democrats divorced from reality, soup lines--Rush Limbaugh said, gee that was I line I used. He used it as a White House reporter allegedly. It's different.
GABLER: There are many many journalists, and we know a lot of them, who act like partisan hacks. This guy was a partisan hack. And there's a difference....He worked for a GOP operative. He would not have been credentialed, and was not credentialed by Congress, for precisely that reason....This person should never have been credentialed, was not credentialed by Congress....The White House wanted him there.
PINKERTON: Some investigation should proceed and they should find that out....
BURNS: But the point is, Jane, we have a finite amount of space here, so there have to be some distinctions about who can get in.
HALL: There is actually a serious question of security for the President. If you have that kind of a lapse, and somebody's intervening, that's a serious issue.
CAL THOMAS: I agree with that.

But ellen "reports" that "overall" these commentators "seemed to think" that Gannon "should not be barred". Just who, anywhere in the discussion, said that? Ellen? Bueller? Anyone?

Update: An in-depth article from Men's Wear Daily is more evidence that ellen's description of the panel's viewpoints is fabricated fantasy.

Meanwhile, admitted liar David Brock's Media Matters employs its own variety of in-depth analysis, citing Eric Burns's introductory question, where he referred to Gannon as a "journalist". Burns went on to quote one of Gannon's embarrassingly softball questions, and then turned to Jim Pinkerton:

BURNS: So he did give a clue, Jim, that he certainly wasn't an impartial journalist.

This, of course, suggests the Burns didn't think Gannon was a journalist, or at least an impartial one. But that distinction seems to have been lost on Brock's Brigade. As were all the subsequent comments, questions, and observations in the segment, as detailed above and in the MWD article. Media Matters doesn't tell you about any of the discussion that followed--not a single quote.

posted: Mon - February 28, 2005 at 11:25 AM       j$p  send 

ellen
Once again you have distorted the truth to fit YOUR own purposes.
 
I don't know why you think I was shamed into reporting on this story. I read your comment Sunday night, which is when you made it. Do you think I miraculously managed to tape the show after it had already aired? Likewise, you have no evidence to support that my post was "hastily-written," especially given that you noted it came a few hours later.
 
Unfortunately, I have taped over the tape of News Watch so can not go back to the quote about (I think from Cal Thomas) how the White House needs to be current on the new media, bloggers and deal with the question of who is a journalist.
 
You may disagree with my interpretation of the thrust of the panel discussion but why don't you make the entire transcript available so that your readers can judge for themselves rather than just picking out the quotes you feel back up your less-than-neutral position? That's much more relevant to the issue at hand than the rest
February 28, 2005, 2:01:13 PM EST – Like – Reply


ellen
The rest of my comment:
 
You may disagree with my interpretation of the thrust of the panel discussion but why don't you make the entire transcript available so that your readers can judge for themselves rather than just picking out the quotes you feel back up your less-than-neutral position? That's much more relevant to the issue at hand than the rest of the FOX News Watch program which had nothing more on the Gannon story. Why you feel that should have been covered is beyond me.
 
However, while we are on the topic of completeness, perhaps you should take this opportunity to publicly disclose the exact circumstances under which FOX News granted you permission to reproduce their clips. I think that is highly relevant to your entire site. You might also explain why you signed a letter "Mark Koldys, Executive Editor," implying you/he edited someone else's work instead of just writing it yourself.
 
PS You are right about Pinkerton working for Newsday, not Newsweek and I am
February 28, 2005, 2:03:38 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Well, if you can divine from some sort of psychic osmosis what the panel "seemed to think", why can't I have the opinion that you were "shamed"? At least there's some evidence to support my opinion.
 
--Do you think I miraculously managed to tape the show after it had already aired?--
 
No, you taped it but posted nothing until I made my comment. Apparently you admit that is the timeline.
 
As for evidence that it was "hastily-written", I would cite the dumb mistakes (Jim Pinkerton of Newsweek!?) and inaccuracies. But if you're saying that these are not evidence of haste, because they occur in so many newshounds articles, then I would say that you may have a point there.
February 28, 2005, 2:04:07 PM EST – Like – Reply


ellen
The end of my comment:
 
PS You are right about Pinkerton working for Newsday, not Newsweek and I am correcting the post. That's probably more than you can say about your own exaggerations and falsehoods.
February 28, 2005, 2:04:24 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
About that transcript: you make a statement about the "thrust" of the panel discussion without a single supporting quote. I present a lengthy series of quotes from the discussion. So your response is why don't *I* reproduce more of the transcript? I've already supplied WAY more than you did, and you're the one who made the claim, without citing a single sentence to back it up.
 
About permissions: what exactly does that have to do with your misrepresenting what was said on this broadcast? If I didn't have permission to reprint something, then that proves you were right all along? I don't think so. I have at least as much permission as Robert "Xanadu" Greenwald did.
 
--your own exaggerations and falsehoods--
 
Yes, it's so reckless of me actually citing the transcript instead of making up a false description of what was said.
 
--You might also explain why you signed a letter "Mark Koldys, Executive Editor"--
 
Man, you can't even get that right. (Your comment was obviously "hastily-written".) Something else for you to correct.
February 28, 2005, 2:11:18 PM EST – Like – Reply


Anon
Johnny, why don't you post the full transcript so we can make our own judgment? If you're going to call the newshounds out at least give us a bit of your "fair and balanced" nature and post the full transcript?
February 28, 2005, 10:57:44 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Perhaps you should reread my comment above. The newshounds made unsupported statements about the discussion with NO part of the transcript offered as proof. Tell me, anon, have you asked the newshounds to post the transcript so you can make your own judgment about what THEY said?
 
We're just correcting the record here. The allegations and claims were made by the hounds. It's that pesky burden of proof thing--the person levelling the accusation has the burden to prove it. Not the defense.
 
Funny, they can post errant nonsense, fabricated quotes, and outright lies. We've exposed hundreds of their errata, right here on this site. They have the track record for dishonesty, not us. We have already posted WAY more quotes than they did. But you don't ask the unreliable hounds to back up their charges, you ask US to do even more of their work for them. Sorry. They have the burden to present evidence that can back up their charges. They won't. Because they can't.
February 28, 2005, 11:18:18 PM EST – Like – Reply


Anon
Johnny you're not correcting anything by running a he said/she said site. There is no us in your team Johnny you're just one person why do you refer to yourself as a multiple person. Come now Johnny be the bigger man and post a full transcript you've done it on other posts why wouldn't you do it this time? Don't make yourself appear as partisan as you claim they are. Please show that you're fair and balanced.
February 28, 2005, 11:31:27 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
We do two kinds of posts. Instant transcripts are just that: full transcripts for reference and research purposes. And corrections: where we pick apart the errors and falsehoods spread about Fox and prove them wrong.
 
This post falls into the second category. The newshounds posted an inaccurate description of a program without backing it up. We countered what they said (e.g. the false identity was not brought up) with quotes that show otherwise (it was). So it's their cred that's on the line. The ball's in their court. Not only can they not return it, they won't even swing.
February 28, 2005, 11:52:51 PM EST – Like – Reply


Anon
So in order to fully discredit them wouldn't you find it best to post a full transcript to put a nail in the coffin? Unless there's a contradiction in the transcript I would see no reason why you wouldn't.
March 1, 2005, 12:26:16 AM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Gee, wouldn't you think in order to discredit Fox News that the hounds would have posted a full transcript, or even one quote, to back up their false and inaccurate claims? Unless there's a contradiction in the transcript I would see no reason why they wouldn't. Why don't you ask them to back up their unsubstantiated falsehoods?
 
Fully discredit the newshounds? Mission accomplished.
 
They claim Guckert's false identity was never mentioned. False.
 
They claim the panel didn't think Gannon should be banned. False again. Not one person said any such thing.
 
You act as if this is something new, that there's actually some reason to believe what the hounds print is true. Their record says otherwise, of which this is merely the latest sordid installment.
March 1, 2005, 1:42:32 AM EST – Like – Reply


WonderWarthog
Hi Ellen. How's your lawsuit against me for harassment going?
March 1, 2005, 2:29:31 PM EST – Like – Reply


Anon
I didn't see any real discrediting there, you're asking us to take your word why not just give us a full transcript? Unless you like to slant things like you claim they do
March 1, 2005, 8:04:31 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
My word has been proven correct time after time. And the hounds have been proven wrong time after time. I posted proof of what I claimed. They did not. And when I post something, I'm not going to listen to people who say, no, you need to post more, more quotes, more transcript, but don't seem to think the hounds need to post ANY quotes, ANY evidence to back up their falsehoods. That's an endless circle.
 
It's not I asking you to take my word--it's the hounds who are asking you to take THEIR word. They give NO evidence to back up their falsehoods. Ask yourself why.
 
I don't trust people who keep asking for more quotes, more transcript, but make no such request of the hounds, who posted NO evidence. THAT kind of a double standard makes your agenda perfectly clear.
March 1, 2005, 10:06:59 PM EST – Like – Reply


btitan
first time on your site johnny$. i understand why you spend so much time trying so hard to discredit the newshounds. it does kind of sound like you are threatened by them though. i mean you run a site trying to expose "lies" on a site that shows lies on fox. hey if i loved fox, i would make a similar site myself. the newshounds ladies do an awesome job, and so far, besides some minor spelling or punctuation errors, i have found nothing wrong on it. here is some advice. since you do not want to do the work yourself, why dont you just post a link to where the reader can see the transcript themself and let them decide for themselves. that would require little to no work on your part. what do you say?
March 3, 2005, 3:20:13 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
How can their site show lies on Fox if their site lies about what is ON Fox? I don't know any entry I've done solely to complain about spelling or punctuation (even though it is often atrocious). I focus on falsehoods, doctored quotes, fabrications, and lies. If you find nothing wrong with that, then you'll be right at home with the tail-waggers.
March 3, 2005, 4:42:57 PM EST – Like – Reply


Mike AKA WonderWarthog AKA Bra
i understand why you spend so much time trying so hard to discredit the newshounds. it does kind of sound like you are threatened by them though
-btitan
=======================
Noone with any intelligence is "threatened" by the Newshounds. The Newshounds misrepresent Fox news coverage and stifle any dissent to their narrow views. The Newshounds thrive on the disappointment of the Left Wing over Bush's victories.
March 4, 2005, 2:31:25 AM EST – Like – Reply


Anon
Apparently Johnny feels threatened otherwise his site wouldn't be dedicated mostly to 80% newshound stuff. Why doesn't Johnny spend more time on the other blogs besides Newshounds that "misrepresent fox"? With your lack of posts in many different sections on their boards, your lack of omission simply means they hit more times than they miss. Wouldn't it mean that since you are a fan of the "omission" ideology?
 
Agenda? Do you feel threatened or something Johnny? Why do you get defensive? If I had never heard of the newshounds and asked you these same questions would you still complain like you are?
March 16, 2005, 11:53:11 AM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Well Anon, you have a lie in your very first sentence. (Can't you read the "statistics" at the bottom of every page?)
 
You'll have to ask the newspoodles about my "lack of posts" there. Since banning me from just some topics, to deleting my posts on other topics, they have now set it up so I can't post there at all.
 
I guess that tells us who feels threatened, doesn't it?
March 16, 2005, 12:33:47 PM EST – Like – Reply


Anon
There's no lie there Johnny I said dedicated mostly to 80% you seem to have a problem with interpretation? I was giving you a general number just the point that you had to respond to it shows you care enough about the newshounds that you have to dispute a general statement. Johnny if your site wasn't about mostly newshound debunking why would you be busy on their site posting comments? I've checked the earlier dates on their site and just before the last week when you were banned for your off topic posts, which I read, you posted sporadically. If your site isnt strictly dedicated to newshounds as you say then you will have defeated your own argument. If you rarely talk about them then apparently you find less things they get wrong than the things they get right. Johnny you cant have this both ways.
 
Hmm recall reading posts about certain newshounds being banned from posting on your site arent you playing the little hypocrite there?
 
Now Johnny for your negative spin how mu
March 16, 2005, 7:27:27 PM EST – Like – Reply


Anon
Now Johnny for your negative spin how much of your "slanders & lies" topic did you dedicate to the newshounds?
March 16, 2005, 7:28:06 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
1. The site is neither "mostly" nor "80%" about the newshounds. That's the first lie.
 
B. I was not banned for off-topic posts. I was banned for embarrassing them by pointing out their fraudulent, doctored quotes and other distortions. That's the second lie.
 
III. What newshound has ever been banned from this site? Name names, please. This is, of course, the third lie. Only one person (not a newshound) was banned here, and that was for spamming identical messages into multiple off-topic threads.
 
4. The percentage of the 'slanders and lies' devoted to the newspoodles is precisely proportional to the number of slanders and lies they tell. Do the math.
March 16, 2005, 7:46:44 PM EST – Like – Reply


Anon
Claim that you were "B. I was not banned for off-topic posts. I was banned for embarrassing them by pointing out their fraudulent, doctored quotes and other distortions. That's the second lie." all you want Johnny i've read your postings and most of them detract from the original topic. You choose to mislead other readers just as much as you claim they do. I've read the "embarrasment" stuff that you post and its basically you doing one-liners of "No, you're wrong." without any actual proof. When asked for a full transcript you spit back your deluded logic. Once again I ask you if I never had heard of newshounds would you have responded the same exact way?
 
As for this "III. What newshound has ever been banned from this site? Name names, please. This is, of course, the third lie. Only one person (not a newshound) was banned here, and that was for spamming identical messages into multiple off-topic threads."
 
Tell me Johnny Dollar how can it be a lie if you just admit
March 18, 2005, 12:08:29 AM EST – Like – Reply


Anon
Tell me Johnny Dollar how can it be a lie if you just admitted to banning a newshound?
 
the slanders and lies section is your biggest section and you dedicate almost all of it to the newshounds so there you go over 50% which counts as mostly or in bushspeak a mandate. So no lie there. Even with your slanders and lies section you show you miss more than you actually hit with all the postings subjects they have on their site. Its okay though how does it feel knowing you've sold out to defend trash tv?
March 18, 2005, 12:13:35 AM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
It's typical of deceitful trolls that they cannot reason, do math, or read.
 
--without any actual proof--
 
Yeah, like the newshounds post "actual proof" for their lies. Like they put up audio and video clips, don't they? Like they haven't been caught in hundreds of falsehoods (and still counting!).
 
--how can it be a lie if you just admitted to banning a newshound?--
 
What I wrote: Only one person (not a newshound) was banned here.
 
Get that part? NOT a newshound? Reading Is Fundamental.
 
So slanders & lies is over 50%? 135 out of 276 is "over 50%"? Back to Sesame Street, pal.
March 18, 2005, 1:15:28 AM EST – Like – Reply


Guest
aww did I upset poor wittle johnny dollar?
 
So Johnny you never banned the person bringing up the CBC special "Fifth 
Estate?" You seem to shy away from that guy every time he posts about it. 
Johnny your biggest section is slanders and lies. Your transcripts and 
media are not original content and are taken from copyrighted material. 
Your own original thoughts consist mostly of attacking the newshounds. Do 
you not understand your own obsession? 
 
The video clips and audio clips you put up are illegal did you get express 
written permission from fox to even have it? Should I count the violations? 
 
You expect people to actually believe you when you post drudge as a source 
of information? 
 
So wait your reason for not posting actual proof in your comments on newshounds is because 
they dont? Having a discussion with you is like winning a medal in the special olympics.
March 18, 2005, 1:11:57 PM EST – Like – Reply


Anon
So as for your original content it is dedicated mostly to the newshounds.
March 18, 2005, 1:12:56 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
--The video clips and audio clips you put up are illegal--
 
I was under the impression that the Great Legal Minds behind Outfoxed determined that it was not illegal to use video and audio clips.
 
--your original content it is dedicated mostly to the newshounds--
 
So let's see. First you say the site is 80% about the hounds (a lie that also gets posted at the hound site, but gets lost in the shuffle there--one more lie amidst all the hounds postings is like throwing another grain of sand into the Sahara Desert).
 
Then you say "mostly to 80%", whatever that means. Another backtrack: it morphs into "over 50%". Then, finally, backed into a corner you stop lying. 
 
As the Prez might say, getting the truth out of you is "hard work".
 
PS: Still waiting for you to produce the name of the "newshound" who was banned from this site. Are you going to backtrack from this lie too, or just stonewall?
March 18, 2005, 1:43:49 PM EST – Like – Reply


Anon
Wasnt his name charles or something? Actually Johnny a lie is something one would knowingly do when I made those statements they were a broadranging generalization. I was generalizing and threw 80% out randomly. Then again Johnny if you actually took apart your original material you would find a majority of it is relating to the outfoxed girls and newshounds. Most of your slanders and lies section is dedicated to them. This is your main category for original content. Your transcripts and media sections dont count as they are actually "borrowed" copyrighted material. So what I said was actually true. You dedicate most of your time to their site and to them.
 
Weren't the great minds at outfoxed getting sued over their use of clips from fox?
 
As for stonewalling Johnny, why were you scared enough that you had to ban me today?
March 19, 2005, 2:12:22 AM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
-- I was generalizing and threw 80% out randomly.--
 
Well you were only wrong by a factor of nearly 100%. I suppose it is theoretically possible that you just made a bad guess, but that would presume that you never looked at the site to see what the actual distribution of articles was. Possible but highly unlikely.
 
--Your transcripts and media sections dont count--
 
Well sure, you can say McDonalds Happy Meals are 80% salad (because the meat, bread, and potatoes don't count). Sounds like fuzzy math.
 
--Weren't the great minds at outfoxed getting sued over their use of clips from fox?--
 
Sez who?
 
--why were you scared enough that you had to ban me today?--
 
Huh?!? I have no idea what you are talking about. Why should I ban you? Has someone put paranoia juice in the drinking water?
 
(I did delete your following message because it was egregiously off-topic.)
March 19, 2005, 11:05:06 AM EST – Like – Reply