180 Degrees of Separation

The great intellects behind Outfoxed are quick to call people liars. But what do they do when they get something absolutely, positively wrong?

When Bill O'Reilly referenced an edit in the trailer to Outfoxed, the newshounds (another fine product from the deep thinkers who brought you Outfoxed) immediately assumed he was talking about the video itself, and promptly headlined "Ain't No Way Around it. O'Reilly's a Liar". We have already documented the facts about their dubious allegations, but what happens when the hounds themselves get something wrong?

Let's examine the case of Ken Starr, interviewed on Fox over the weekend. The anti-Fox terriers are in full distemper mode from the get-go, noting in their opening paragraph that Starr's composure was "frightening". Yes, short of an M Night Shyamalan movie, there's nothing to put a good scare into people like composure.

Then comes the good part:
If Janet Reno had fired him, he would have been relieved. He claimed it was Reno who extended the investigation, without his recommendation. He was just the victim of the Attorney General's call for his service to the country. A reasonable man forced to do such unpleasant work. comment; I always suspected that Starr had unrelated issues with Clinton. The fact that they both went to Georgetown is revealing. Bill Clinton's success at such a competetive school must have been difficult for Starr to swallow.

It's always interesting to see amateur pop psychologists render their diagnoses on people they've never even met. The newspups, who rail about "baseless charges", have no compunction about using them for their own partisan purposes. But the key portion of their diatribe regards what they claim Starr said about Reno extending the investigation "without his recommendation". Did Starr really say that? Let's go to the Tivo; Cal Thomas asks if Janet Reno gave him encouragement during the investigation:

STARR: Well, encouragement in an indirect sense in that she kept expanding the investigation, with our approbation. I mean, I'm not saying Janet Reno did something that we didn't suggest was wise. I think in retrospect it was unwise...

So the media mastiffs take what Ken Starr said and reverse it 180 degrees to read the exact opposite! Just six minutes after their article appeared, we posted a correction at their site with what Mr Starr actually said. Did the newshounds concede they were wrong? No. They stonewalled. Based on what they wrote, what the transcript actually shows, and their refusal to admit error and post a correction, what do you think their article represents? A simple error? Or a deliberate lie?

posted: Wed - August 11, 2004 at 01:58 PM       j$p  send