Let Slipping Dogs Lie

Are the Outfoxed gals simply incompetent and sloppy? Or do they knowingly post falsehoods? The truth is in here. With J$P Audio!

It's regarded as a definitive source by the solons at Salon. It is cited by the gullible as an accurate commentary on the broadcasts of Fox News Channel. But we never ceased to be amazed at how often the newshounds (another fine service from the fanatics who brought you Outfoxed) mangle facts and distort quotes.

But are these just careless slip-ups, or purposeful prevarications? Let's look at two examples served up by the pooches in the past 24 hours, starting with another long-winded Fox New Live rundown from nancy:
David Asman interviewed Stuart Taylor (National Journal) & John Flannery (former Special Counsel to Congress)....Flannery said that "Scalia's the pick".

FLANNERY: I don't think Thomas is or has been a contender in this, and I don't mean this with any disrespect to Thomas. I think the likely contender is Scalia.

Of course, he never said "Scalia's the pick". The fact that nancy put it in quotes was a dead giveaway.
Asman asked what might happen if "Ted Kennedy & others" try to hold up the nomination...the now-obligatory bash at Kennedy. Has anyone ever tracked whether Asman routinely refers to other Senators simply by name, without the title?

Well, someone has tracked whether Asman referred to Kennedy by name, without the title, as falsely claimed by nancy:

ASMAN: But if they put up a stink, if Senator Kennedy and others say no matter who he picks we're going to fight this out, what happens then?

After that fictional bit of fabricated nonsense, nancy continues:
At 12:01pm Kelly Wright reported on a story in the Washington Post...Wright read extensively from an official Pentagon statement...

Two sentences.
...showing a clip of Jane Harman (D-CA).

Who also got two sentences. So shouldn't it have been called an "extensive" clip?
Asman apologized for interrupting to go to Bush speaking by phone to a "March for Life" anti-choice rally. FNL audioi [sic] of course included the hysterically cheering throng (Halleljuah!" [sic])...[it] certainly doesn't merit inclusion on a "hard news" program, except as a nod to the radicals. Isn't it funny how FNL audio seems to auto-filter only protesters?]

Isn't it even funnier that the exact same feed, both audio and video, appeared simultaneously on CNN? Isn't it hilarious that they both most likely got the feed from C-SPAN? And isn't it positively uproarious that by nancy's standards neither C-SPAN nor CNN qualify as "hard news"? But there are more slip-ups to document:
Saying the SSB "takes on tasks" the CIA can't or won't do, at 12:11pm Asman interviewed Reps Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) & Clay Shaw (R-FL)....Sanchez noted that...it's important to know not who's leaking but whether these special units are operating against the law.

Only Sanchez said it was important to know:

SANCHEZ: It's not only important to know who's leaking information out of the Pentagon but whether these special intel forces are in fact, according to law...
[Asman] stated categorically that the "first order of business is finding out" who leaked...

Wow, he didn't just say it, he stated it "categorically". Only he didn't:

ASMAN: Isn't the first order of business to find out who at the Pentagon is leaking this secret stuff to the press?

Ah, an old favorite. Take a question and call it a statement, this time embellished with a special doggie flourish: "categorical". But when it comes to old newspoodle standbys, nothing beats the hoary old gimmick of imputation (first exposed by Howard Kurtz) and deborah gives us an archetypical example in Views from the Have Mores:
During a discussion about the Social Security dismantling, Elizabeth MacDonald commenting on anyone expressing opposition to the plan said, " If you oppose your're [sic] going to lose at the polls. Am I supposed to to go to Prada and see if they have size 9 jack boots?"

Aha! Ms MacDonald thinks people who oppose the SS plan are going to lose at the polls. But there's one slight problem here: deborah was using the dishonest imputation technique. Someone makes a statement, then the newspups edit it to reverse the meaning and impute to the speaker a viewpoint they did not express. Compare with what Ms MacDonald actually said:

MacDONALD: What else is going on, though, is the administration is trying to silence opposition, and has said if you oppose us, you will lose at the polls....It's just ridiculous.

So MacDonald wasn't saying that people who oppose the plan will lose at the polls. She was saying the exact opposite, characterizing the position of the administration, one she strenuously disagrees with!

But that matters not to the fabricators in the kennels, who are so desperate that they falsify MacDonald's sentiments just to make a cheap, dishonest point. We posted Ms MacDonald's true words at the site, and even the rabid regulars realized they had been duped:
I would say anytime you slice and dice a quote and present it as being the originator's own thoughts, when in fact she was referring to someone else's statements, is losing the "meaning" of the quote. You can argue semantics (minutia) all day but it still boils down to shoddy work.

You might have earned your $ today johnny. I can't wait to see what comes from deborah.

Deborah did respond, in typical hound fashion:
I choose to treat you the way I would be treated on your website. Have a fine dy [sic].

And she proceeded to erase all the corrections from the page!

If there was any doubt whether deborah's falsifications were unintentional or deliberate, this would seem to settle the question. She knows that her information is false, that the entire thrust of her article is bogus, and that she has slandered Elizabeth McDonald by attributing to her sentiments that she does hold. But deborah erases the truth, and lets the falsehoods stand, uncorrected.

This is not inadvertent; this is not unpremeditated; this is not a mere slip. This is a false statement deliberately being presented as true. One can engage in all sorts of philosophical debates about bloggers who took money, who disclosed it, who didn't disclose it, etc. But light years beyond any such ethical quibbles, in a universe all their own, are the bloggers who out and out lie.

posted: Mon - January 24, 2005 at 07:16 PM       j$p  send