To Tell the Untruth


Those seekers of truth who brought you Outfoxed are doing what they do best: faking quotes and telling lies.

The blogosphere has accomplished some significant things over the past week. But every rose bush has its thorns, and the binary blacktop still has its specialists in untruth. Case in point: the newshounds (another fine product from the Outfoxed cabal).

Newshound deborah (whose reports often show a surfeit of, shall we say, imagination) took umbrage with Sean Hannity again:
Hannity got right to the point blaming the Kerry campaign of feeding the memos to Dan Rather after forging them which is a pretty serious accusation. "Earlier, Kerry aides raised the exact point the memos seemed to address. CBS got it from the Kerry people."

Yes, it's another phony quote! Why use the real words when you can rewrite what somebody says and stick quotation marks around it to impress the gullible? To wit:

HANNITY: I found in Saturday's edition of the Dallas Morning News a very interesting quote. It said, "Earlier this year, Kerry aides raised the exact point the memos seemed to address." Now, if the Kerry aides raised it earlier in the year, and then Dan Rather said never before seen, that at least has the very strong potential of being the source of this story, meaning CBS got it from the Kerry people, and I can't confirm this, but certainly that leads in that direction, doesn't it, that very quote?

Deborah's creative writing (of other people's words) continues:
Towards the end of the segment Hannity addressed Bozell, "You want Dan Rather's suspension. He should step down from covering political events."...Talking about Dan Rather's suspension for his lack of journalistic integrity, sounds pretty lame, coming from someone like Hannity.

Unless, of course, Hannity didn't say what he's quoted as saying:

HANNITY: Very quickly, we only have 30 seconds. You want Dan Rather suspended?
BRENT BOZELL: Look, I'm not one of these guys throwing grenades, saying he should be fired. But I think he's lost all credibility until this is cleared up. There's got to be an independent investigation, not CBS investigating it. He's got to step down from covering political events because no one's going to believe anything CBS has to say about the world of politics.

A clue for deborah: Bozell is the one with a beard.

But our newspoodle isn't content to falsify what Sean Hannity said; she also attributes untrue statements to Alan Colmes:
Alan Colmes raised the point that Killian's secretary said that she wasn't sure if the memos were forged but she felt the content was correct.

COLMES: Sean mentioned that the former secretary for Killian, who died in 1984, said, well, I would've written that but I didn't type it. But she said the substance of the memos are true. She believes that the memos are fake, but what they said probably represents the truth.

Meanwhile, a few entries away, another newspup, "nancy", is trying desperately to reach the same level of dishonesty as deborah:
Quinn interviewed Sig Rogich about the presidential campaign in swing states (11:14 am EDT). Quinn introduced Rogich as a "former presidential media advisor", & both Quinn & Rogich addressed the issue from the GOP point of view for the next 4 minutes....Quinn didn't disclose to viewers that Rogich was a Pioneer (donated $100,000 or more) in the Bush 2000 campaign & is a Ranger (donated $200,000 or more) in the Bush 2004 campaign... This one interview alone pretty much answers the "is Fox News 'fair & balanced'?" question, & answers it with a resounding NO.

That sneaky Fox News, putting forward a "former presidential media advisor" and not telling their viewers that he was a Republican! But that's only if you assume that the introduction quoted by nancy is true. (Do you sense a pattern developing?) To wit:

BRIGITTE QUINN: We're joined this morning by Presidential Media Advisor for the first President Bush, Sig Rogich.

As an amusing postscript: the comments to nancy's article strayed far afield from the subject matter, as is the practice at that site. At one point, the discussion veers to why doesn't Fox ever report poll numbers that are negative for Bush? (Aside from the fact that there haven't been any lately!) Yet another anti-Fox terrier ("eleanor") chimes in:
  • It could be that Fox reported a Bush decline sometime but I doubt that there was ever an in-depth discussion. In general, Fox's poll reporting can be summed up as, "Here's the good news about Bush and the bad news about Kerry."

A quick search of articles on the doggies' site itself reveals multiple examples to prove that statement false, but we took particular pleasure in pointing out one written by the self-same "eleanor":
He asked Coulter why, if George Bush is so great and doing such a wonderful job, are his poll numbers so low and sinking? I expected her to start barking that it was the liberal media's fault but she appeared absolutely flummoxed. After a pause, she said she didn't want to discuss the polls. Then, under further prodding by Colmes' recitation of some recent poll numbers, she said lamely that polls should be discussed by pollsters.

If we knew what a "petard" was, we could talk about eleanor hoisting herself on one.

posted: Wed - September 15, 2004 at 12:50 AM       j$p  send 
|