Who's Hubris Is It Anyway?

If you wonder about the credibility of the Outfoxed machine, you will want to know their website's latest piece of sloppy, dishonest "journalism".

The newshounds (another fine product from the people who brought you Outfoxed) think they got the goods on that evil empire, Fox News, once again. They didn't like last night's Hannity & Colmes, where the author of Imperial Hubris, Mr Anonymous, was a guest. After their instinctual kvetching (Hannity's questions were "predictable" and "ridiculous" while Alan Colmes's were "intelligent"), they got to the meat of their complaints:
While researching this book, I discovered that the identity of the Author had been revealed by the Boston Phoenix...Fox chose to maintain the Anonymous charade last night which allowed Hannity to paint him as a disgruntled, money hungry employee. This is a dishonest representation by Fox. It is also an insult to the Fox viewers who may actually have some curiosity, unlike Hannity.

Yes, the sly, sneaky producers at Fox made this guest appear in silhouette when he didn't want to. They prevented him from revealing his name, possibly by threatening to behead him if he did. On its face, it's a preposterous imputation, but what really demolishes the beagles of bias is what they didn't tell their readers.

Mr Anonymous appeared recently on PBS, and they too "chose to maintain the anonymous charade": his identity was not given and his features not shown. And a few hours before he was on Hannity & Colmes, there he was on Hardball. Astonishingly, Hardball too "chose to maintain the anonymous charade" in exactly the same fashion.

Apparently it never occurred to the media mastiffs that this author appears in this fashion because he wants to? Or because his publisher wants it that way. Or the most logical reason, because his CIA employers insist on it? No, it's a "dishonest representation by Fox". Is it really Fox who has been dishonest here?

posted: Fri - July 23, 2004 at 07:14 PM       j$p  send