Spelunking in the Karl's Bad Caverns

The Outfoxed gals believe in the presumption of innocence. But when it's Karl Rove, their credo is: distort and lie. With J$P Video!

As the Karl Rove controversy continues to simmer, your best bet for pure entertainment is, as always, the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed mob). Where else can you find such a conglomeration of hypocrisy, deceit, and outright lies?

Of course, the media mastiffs are nothing if not fair. They acknowledge the most basic elements of the American judicial system:
Wasn't everybody supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? This guy hadn't even been formally charged yet...

People ARE still innocent until proven guilty in our country, aren't they? Regardless of their guilt or innocence, if they didn't break a law they should not be arrested.

But I find it disturbing for the media to...consider as criminals suspects who have been neither charged nor tried.

But don't jump to conclusions. The quotes noted above show the cur critics will leap to the defense of accused murderers, rapists, and serial killers. The hypocrisy kicks into full gear when the subject is Mr Rove. For example, newsmutt chrish resurrects an old Outfoxed trick to misrepresent Mort Kondracke:
Kondracke, the Fox version of a liberal on the panel, repeats practically verbatim Rove's lawyer's talking points: Rove didn't know her name; he never referred to her by name...

Yes, it's the old standby of imputation (first identified by Howard Kurtz in his Washington Post dissection of Outfoxed)--put a quote in the mouth of a reporter or pundit, and just don't tell people that he was quoting someone else:

KONDRACKE: Well, Karl Rove maintains that he didn't know the woman's name...

And chrish is back to take it up a notch, using the same trick, and this time putting it in bold print to create a classic hound HeadLie:
Carl Cameron: Karl Rove just trying to help reporters get it "right"

Is that what Mr Cameron said? Technically, sort of--but again, the newspoodles don't want you to know that he was, like Mr Kondracke, reporting what someone else had said:

CAMERON: Some [Democrats] want him fired; others wants him suspended with his security clearances revoked....Rove's lawyer maintains that Rove did not use Valerie Plame's name...and that Rove was merely trying to steer reporters off a story that could have been reported inaccurately...

In other words, the headline could just as easily read:

Carl Cameron: Suspend Rove, Revoke His Clearances

One can always rely on deceitful deborah to get it wrong, and as expected she mangles a Fox & Friends discussion:
E.D. Hill Blows "Fair & Balanced" Cover
E.D. Hill was unusually chatty today mentioning to her buddies that she got her DNC talking points this morning describing them as "all Rove all the time".One of her co-hosts asked her how she got the talking points since he didn't see them. Hill told him the talking points were in her morning packet. comment: Now why would the DNC talking points be included in a Fox anchor's morning packet? Very interesting stuff.

HILL: Well I got my DNC talking points this morning, and on those talking points it is all Rove, all the time.
DOOCY: How do you get them? Do they fax them to you?
HILL: They fax them.
WRIGHT: I didn't get any.
HILL: You got them. You just didn't go through your packet as well as I did.

But the bigger question is, what in the Wide World of Sports is her point? E.D. Hill gets DNC talking points in the fax machine, and that proves...what? Don't try to make sense of it. Hound logic.

And then there's the kennel's newest probie, Janie, who has quickly mastered the hound arts of deceit and fabrication:
Huddy addresses the "Democrat's wish", or Karl Rove's involvement in the Valerie Plame case. She spoke with veteran Democrat political consultant Bob Beckel and Brad Blakeman, former advisor to President Bush.

You'll note that Janie is already following the Fox haters' style book: always identify Fox News analysts or contributors when they are Republican, but conveniently leave that [the fact that he's a Fox News employee] out if it's a Democrat (in this case Mr Beckel).
...but as Beckel began making very strong points against Karl Rove, Huddy cuts Beckel off...

Beckel was hogging the interview, talking over Blakeman, who needed Huddy's intervention to get a word in edgewise.
Blakeman responded: "...it happens every day, Bob knows it, because HIS White House's did it as well. Karl Rove did what senior staff do everyday, it was perfectly proper." Huddy then turned to the audience for their feelings on the case, asking if Rove should be punished...She intentionally cuts off Beckel, the Democrat, in order to allow Blakeman to put the Republican spin on the valid points that Beckel made.

Yes, in the "fair and balanced" world of the anti-Fox terriers, the Republican side shouldn't even be heard! After all, it's just spin, while anything the Democrat says is a "valid point". So don't let Blakeman talk.
Beckel was not allowed to give his rebuttal before Huddy turned to the audience...

Janie, Janie, Janie. Even if you are a newspooch [albeit a probie], it's not nice to lie [QuickTime movie clip; allow file time to load]:

Not only did Beckel get a rebuttal, he got an additional question before Huddy turned to the audience and ended the segment. He got both the first and last words, and most of the ones in between as well. But to the newsmutts, a fair and balanced debate is just another opportunity to distort and lie--the kind of opportunity they never let pass.

posted: Wed - July 13, 2005 at 11:12 AM       j$p  send 

jay davis PsD
question for you...you clearly have lies in your statements here buddy. you claim that Janie only identified the Republican as a Republican but not the Democrat as a Democrat...here is Janie's post straight from the site buddy...
"Later in the show, Huddy addresses the "Democrat's wish", or Karl Rove's involvement in the Valerie Plame case. She spoke with veteran Democrat political consultant Bob Beckel and Brad Blakeman, former advisor to President Bush."
do you see how it clearly says that Bob Beckel is a "veteran Democrat political consultant"? that identifies him as a Democrat. try again.
July 13, 2005, 12:14:26 PM EDT – Like – Reply

jay davis PsD
another mistake you made...
you say that chrish misrepresented Kondracke. you say this was done by putting "a quote in the mouth of a reporter or pundit, and just dont tell people that he was quoting someone else".
well before the comments were quoted by Kondracke, clearly right above it, chrish states that these words are from Rove's lawyer. clearly chrish is telling the reader that these comments are the same as Rove's lawyer. try again...for the second time.
July 13, 2005, 12:22:32 PM EDT – Like – Reply

jay davis PsD
no hatred in my posts...you will find that i have been respectful to all right wingers i have encountered at newshounds...more so then they have been to me...including yourself when i have posted under other names. will you address what i have put here, or will you just do what you you used to do and resort to name calling, or deleting my posts...?
July 13, 2005, 12:24:43 PM EDT – Like – Reply

jay, chrish's statement was that Kondracke HIMSELF was putting forth as fact that Rove didn't know Valerie Plame's name. Kondracke's statement was that KARL ROVE maintains he didn't know her name. It's a subtle difference, yes, but it does change the substance of his comments.
I'm still confused by the whole E.D. Hill/DNC talking points thing. The DNC faxes them to every news organization every morning. But this "blows the fair & balanced cover?" Aspirin, please!
July 13, 2005, 1:00:45 PM EDT – Like – Reply

jay davis PsD
and it also states that in the post as well. the post clearly says two paragraphs down the exchange between Brit and Kondracke. in that exchange, it shows what Kondracke said about all we know is what Rove's lawyer tells us. if his information is from Rove's lawyer, who speaks for Rove in this case...i mean everything is not spelled out perfectly for you but if you read further instead of stopping right there, you get the story of what was said. i still dont buy what J$ is trying to get at on that one. that is all i am saying.
July 13, 2005, 2:00:11 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
sorry Jay, what I SAID was that Janie did not identify Bob Beckel (a Democrat) as a Fox News analyst/contributor. I've tried to make the wording more clear. The hounds make a big deal of noting when a Republican is a Fox News employee, but they conveniently neglect to mention that point when it's a democrat. All to further their false impression of all these Fox employees being Republicans. Best way to leave that impression? Just don't tell people when it's a Democrat that they also work for Fox News.
As for chrish, she claimed that Kondracke just repeated Rove lawyer's talking points verbatim--leaving the impression that Kondracke was putting them forward as his opinion. In fact, Kondracke SPECIFICALLY SAID this is what Rove's side is putting forward. chrish doesn't tell you that, to leave the impression that Kondracke was offering his own opinion.
You can justify it if you like, but it's SOP for the hounds to take someone who reports what a third party said, and then imply that what the reporter reported is somehow his personal opinion. It's an old trick, first used in Outfoxed, exposed by Howard Kurtz, and practiced to this day by the hounds.
Of course, sometimes they just lie outright, like Janie's falsehoods about the Beckel interview.
July 13, 2005, 2:10:22 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Jimmy Jumps
The below comment does not sound like, and I would hope you didnt post this on the Newshounds site on a thread dealing with dead pets. Please clarify if you did or didnt. 
"Nancy, Ellen, Scarlet, PbD lunatics, and the rest of the liberal Outfoxed crew who constantly lie about the Fox News:
If you guys want an independent truth about Fox News Channel just check my website: http://johnnydollar.us/2004a/index.html
Fox News - Fair & balance
Posted by: Johnny $ (Guest) on Jul 13th, 2005 10:36 am "
July 13, 2005, 2:52:58 PM EDT – Like – Reply

If the people over at NewsHounds are so brilliant and intellectual, why are they all fooled by the obviously phony johnny $? 
Maybe they have they same problem interpreting real news?
July 13, 2005, 2:53:23 PM EDT – Like – Reply

jay davis PsD
thanks for the clarification there. i was wrong in my interpretation.
Janie did not say whether either one of them was a Fox employee...
after reading ChrisH's statement, i understand what you are describing, however after reading and hearing the entire interview, and without bias from either side, it would kind of be impossible to not get the impression that that was his (Kondracke) opinion as well.
mistakes are made and nobody is excusing them...however they are made by both.
July 13, 2005, 2:58:41 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
I don't know who the phony J$ is over there. I posted a message (my first on their forum) to let them know it ain't me. Hey, at least I know the slogan is "fair and balanceD"!!
July 13, 2005, 3:30:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Jimmy Jumps
Thanks for the reply. I couldnt imagine it was you. The posters at the Newshounds, seem to be more concerned with starting threads regarding paranoid conspiricy theories about who certain posters are or are not, than actually discussing the truth.
I've noticed that even when a poster or Newshound posts something that is factually incorrect, the other posters all rally around trying to validate the incorrect information. Sad! Thanks for having an alternative site.
July 13, 2005, 3:48:33 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Amen Jimmy!! That's what bothers me most about them. They demand PROOF from anyone who makes a comment that disagrees with their stance, but if a Newshound says something it's automatically taken as gospel truth. If they want to revolve their lives around their hatred for FOX that's their business, but they go to such lengths to lie and twist what is actually presented, it makes me sick.
July 13, 2005, 4:35:28 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Kid Hobo
Um... SLLamp, you'll have to excuse my interruption, but I posted a 'factoid' over at NH and they pretty much slammed me for not backing it up. And I'm a bleedin' liberal. Your ascertion that 'facts' stated to discredit Fox or the administration are automatically taken for Gospel is wrong. Sorry buddy... but if you need proof ask Ebonius who got banned for stating fact and opinions for 'our' side that wern't exactly up to par.
July 14, 2005, 11:12:42 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Kid, are you one of the Newshounds? Re-read my comment please.
July 14, 2005, 12:15:41 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Jimmy Jumps
Kid Hobo
Are you referring to your copy and paste of the WSJ article? If you are, you had to notice that some of the people didnt even take the time to read your complete post and just attacked you for posting what they percieved as just a 'contrary' view.
Ebonious was totally "out of line" by ANYONE'S standards, his post were hate filled with completely off the wall bizarre rhetoric, advocating violence. Using him as an example of Newshounds 'fairness' is rather extreme.
I wasnt talking about being a troll and going to a site just to taunt and flame. I was talking about when certain posters just simply made a factual mistake (no big deal) and the other posters actually attempted to defend the 'honest mistake' by trying to say it was true and 'mocking' anyone who tried to correct the inaccurate statement.
We all make mistakes, my 'bitch' was the intractabilty of certain Newshound poster to own up to it and move on.
BTW: How can you justify people who even AFTER Johnny Dollar was honorable to go to the Newshounds site and say he WASN'T the one who made innapropriate posts on certain threads, a poster followed up with:
"I'd suggest you control your minions.
If someone was spamming MY site, i'd be pissed and stop them as it would be counterproductive to me."
"But really, I don't care if it's YOU, your mother, a friend or your cat. Fucking stop it. It's so annoying."
What a close-minded, internet illiterate, person, and this person is considered a regular.
July 14, 2005, 12:24:42 PM EDT – Like – Reply

I wasnt talking about being a troll and going to a site just to taunt and flame. I was talking about when certain posters just simply made a factual mistake (no big deal) and the other posters actually attempted to defend the 'honest mistake' by trying to say it was true and 'mocking' anyone who tried to correct the inaccurate statement.
Exactly Jimmy. Along these lines, the same "regular" you quoted above cursed out someone asking for clarification on the whole Vodafone/Vivendi thing. Forget that the commenter was right, and was very respectful, all of a sudden the issue of who owns who (the whole point of the initial story) became "minutiae" and the commenter was told to f*** off.
July 14, 2005, 1:29:47 PM EDT – Like – Reply