Facts go out the window when the Outfoxed gals play reporter. But hey, it's close enough for Salon!

When Eric Boehlert, our friend over at Salon who doesn’t answer emails, was digging for dirt on the Fox News Channel, where did he turn? Of course to the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed mob). We have spent months documenting just how reckless Mr Boehlert’s Big Source is with the facts, and in recent days the newspups have been very obliging by continuing to provide proliferate evidence of their “accuracy”:

It's Torture Listening to Asman Justifying Torture....Asman asked "Is it clear that he [Gonzalez] wrote the memos?" & Cameron said "Yes, he wrote the memo"...

The wording of Asman’s question has been altered, as well as Cameron’s response:

CAMERON: He wrote some of the memos...

Asman offered the excuse of "as a practical matter" Gonzalez was right.

Says who? Not Asman.

CAMERON: Even Democrats admit that as a legal matter, Gonzalez was right. But as a practical matter...

A newspooch trifecta: misidentify the speaker, attribute an opinion to him that is actually a report of someone else’s view, and falsify the quotation (reversing its meaning 180 degrees)--all in one sentence! Things aren’t much better when it comes to the number one Business Block in all of cable news:

Ozanian voted for the high end stores that cater to the wealthy because they are the ones with the money now because of Bush's tax cuts....Ozanian shot back that this trend will only improve because Bush is going to cut their taxes even more.

But Ozanian didn’t claim that the wealthy were “the ones” with money or that Bush intended to cut “their taxes” even more. He was making an entirely different point, that the wealthy get more money back with tax rate reductions because they are paying more taxes in the first place:

OZANIAN: Mr Bush is going to cut tax further, which will help the higher income earners even more because they’re paying more.

Interestingly enough, not one panel member, including Forbes, denounced his claim.

Why should they denounce what is true? And Forbes? Forbes wasn’t even on the panel. But wait, there’s more:

...kinda makes Gonzales sound like a "flip-flopper" to me, but you sure as heck won't hear that term used against anyone on Bush's side on the FOX News Channel.

Says who?

ALAN COLMES: I thought the Vice-President contradicted himself again tonight--at one point he says I never said there was a link between Saddam and 9/11, and he contradicted himself again talking about Al Qaeda which we know is subtext for basically saying 9/11 and Al Qaeda do have a link. So again I think they call Kerry and Edwards flip-floppers; he did it himself in tonight’s debate.

Exposing the “bias” of Fox NewsWatch, the most balanced media analysis program on television, the tail-waggers step in it again:

Panelist Jim Pinkerton from Newsday says that he visited four countries, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and England....Blatant anti-France propaganda, as you would expect to find on FOX. No counter or discussion to this dig at France from any of the three other panelists (Jane Hall of American University, syndicated columnist Cal Thomas, media writer Neal Gabler) or the host.

Um, possibly because of all the panelists, Jim Pinkerton was the one who was, like, in France to judge their tsunami coverage. Perhaps the newspooches jetted off to Gay Paree themselves so they can attest that Mr Pinkerton’s comments were “propaganda”, but the other members of the panel weren’t there. Jim Pinkerton was. And then we get to the Armstrong Williams kerfuffle:

Eric Burns and all the other panelists agreed that this was deplorable, while also jokingly remarking that they wouldn't mind getting some moola too.

Says who? Exactly one panelist joked that he was willing to be bought off, and that was the “thoughtful, progressive” Neil Gabler. So who are “they”?

...no really harsh observations were made against the White House for their part in initiating this bribe to Williams.

Says who?

JANE HALL: I don’t understand this. It just, I think it is just one more instance of people saying let’s manipulate the media one more time. Let’s do videos that look like they’re videos but they’re really government videos. It’s the same thing.
NEIL GABLER: This is becoming a trend in this administration. On Friday the Government Accountability Office challenged the Drug Enforcement Agency for also dispensing false television promos to stations as if they were real news stories.

Then the conversation turned to Gore’s eagerly anticipated television news venture, and a program that will elevate the tone of cable journalism to new heights. It is called That’s F*%#ed Up:

Burns outright deemed the first show nothing more than a "show for ranters."

ERIC BURNS: What you do in this show, Jim, is you say, something bothers you. Well that’s all blank-blanked up, and here’s why I’m upset. It’s a show for ranters.

And the complaint here is, what? It’s not a show for ranters?

The 2nd show was explained to be a sort of video blog where citizens get on the air and do their own reports. Panelist Jim Pinkerton immediately put down Gore...

JIM PINKERTON: [Gore] is not the guy to reinvent the genre of television news. Something tells me that the news values of getting the story, being accurate, and so on, are more valuable than just letting people rant and rave.

Eric Burns, chimed in with the jibe "Bore rhymes with Gore."

Says who? Mr Burns said nothing of the sort. Perhaps the newspoodles meant the guy with the mustache:

CAL THOMAS: Gore rhymes with bore, and that will be the first review: Bore TV.

(Note that the newspoodles can’t even get this four-word quote correct.)

The bias against Gore was pretty evident all around.

There doggies might have made an infinitesmal point about bias if in fact the moderator had made the statement. But in fact it was made by a member of the panel, who is there to (would you believe it?) give opinions! As for the bias against Gore being evident “all around”--says who?

JANE HALL: Wait a minute. This seems to me a contradiction. Some of the stuff that was described in this sounded like a page out of Jim Pinkerton’s ideas about breaking down the media and young people and all that. Some of it sounds very interesting.
BURNS: Very democratic; access to everyone.

And just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water:

At 11:37am Brigitte Quinn showed "new video by an Indian tourist" & said the US "has thrown a lot of money" into disaster relief, but "is our generosity winning over any critics?"

Says who?

QUINN: New video shot by an Indian tourist with a different view of the killer tsunami hitting India's coast. This tourist was one of about 800 people on a rock memorial about 500 yards off India's southern tip. They were all wondering why the ferry wasn't coming to take them back to shore. The earthquake had already happened but nobody realized that the danger was lying ahead. They saw the water levels recede and expose the sea bed, and some tourists even considered walking back. But then the huge wave started coming; the tourists were eventually rescued by smaller boats.

Where’s the quote cited by the tail-waggers? The truth is Quinn said no such thing. Rick Folbaum came close--unfortunately, he was not talking about expenditures for “relief aid”. He was talking about sending the military to the scene of the tsunami, saying the US has “sent a lot of troops and has thrown a lot of money into the disaster effort”.

Again they misidentify who said what. Another “Says Who?” moment from Mr Boehlert’s Big Source. And of course, endless fulminating about how repulsive it was for Quinn--err, make that Folbaum--to even ask the question. As if it hasn’t been asked 89 times by other news organizations, e.g.:

MARK SHIELDS: Reporting on this situation is CNN's Senior Asia Correspondent Mike Chinoy. He joins us now from Banda Aceh, Indonesia. Mike, by coming to the rescue in Indonesia are the United States and the west earning any gratitude from the world's largest Muslim nation?

It was only the first question Shields asked!

So the newspups repeatedly mischaracterize discussions, misquote speakers, and then attribute the quotes to the wrong people. One might say that if they can’t even accurately post whom quotes are from on their pitiful little blog, we have a real problem with the accuracy of all of their posts. Of course we would hesitate to use such strong language--but are more than willing to throw it back at those who do.