Ritual Purification of the Echo ChamberThere will be no dissent. There will be no questioning of authority. The
Outfoxed gals have spoken. Updated!
Sometimes even the smallest comment, the most genteel remark, can create
a firestorm. Some people just don't like to be challenged, questioned, or in any
way disagreed with. The intellectual approach is to engage in civilized debate
and discussion. Or...you have the newshounds (another fine product of the
Outfoxed mob).
It all began with a small distortion, rather routine for the anti-Fox terriers: Anyone who watches even five minutes of Fox News knows that Fox flashes lots of banners at the bottom of the screen, above the rolling news strip which is ever-present. When guests are speaking, their name appears there, then their affiliation, then maybe highlights from their bio and the address of their website, and often quotes from what they just said. In the case of Melinda Pierce? Nothing. No name. No Sierra Club. No web address. No bits and pieces from her bio. No quotes from what she just said. The bottom of the screen was blank. I think Melinda Pierce just got a big "screw you" from Fox News. But Melanie's mountain, on closer inspection, turns out to be even less than the legendary molehill. The "ever-present" banners, which provide bios of the speaker, the title of the segment, factoids, and other miscellaneous data, were not just missing for Ms Pierce's interview. They were missing for the entire A block of the program! No banners under Cavuto, or the reporters, or during the news reports that ran before Ms Pierce. But don't take our word for it, see for yourself: 
The astute reader will note that Melanie presented the missing banners as if they were unique to Ms Pierce's interview, thereby permitting her to frame it as a Fox conspiracy to "diss" her. But the informational banners, out of commission for the first block of the program, were functioning again after the first commercial break: 
We pointed out the flaw in Melanie's reasoning; this is the literal text of the comment we posted: If you wanted to be 'fair and balanced', you might have mentioned that those banners were off the screen for the entire A block of the program, not just her interview. You will omit that salient fact and call it a diss, but I would conclude it was a technical glitch. That was really some mean-spirited, blistering, insulting comment! At least that is how tail-wagger Melanie took it: J$: That's a lie. At 4:06 p.m. ET, during Pierce's interview, a banner which said: "What do you think? Cavuto@FoxNews.com," appeared on screen for seven seconds. Now I'm banning you, again! That was a lie? Here is the "banner" that Melanie referenced: 
If we "lied", then Melanie did too, when she claimed "the bottom of the screen was blank". But obviously she was referring to the customized informational banners, described by her as giving the name, web site, bio information etc.--not "what do you think?", which is a pre-prepared standard super that they can throw up any time during the program. This is why our comment (and Melanie's too, for that matter) referred to "those banners"--the ones she described in her article. ("Those banners" does not mean the same thing as "any banners".) So in a stunning display of desperation and dishonesty, Melanie levels a phony accusation of lying, then quickly institutes a ban so the victim has no right of reply. The echo-chamber has been stained by dissenting opinions. It must be kept pure at all costs. What follows is the verbatim text of our email to Melanie. In the unlikely event that any of the newspups displays sufficient courage or honor to address our message, that response will appear in this space. Ban me if you will, but I told the truth and did not lie. It is interesting that you call me a liar and then prevent me from defending myself. Update: No, we haven't heard any response from the anti-Fox terriers, but Melanie has updated her original article to include this information: One of our loyal readers pointed out to me that there were no banners during the entire first block of Your World w/Neil Cavuto. While one banner appeared at 4:06 p.m. which read: "What to Do You Think? Cavuto@FoxNews.com," the reader tells me that flashing that banner requires a separate "system" from flashing the kind of banners I talk about in this post. Maybe a "system was down." I don't know, but I do know that the lack of banners, this time, was not particular to the segment featuring Ms. Pierce. Um, isn't that what we posted in the first place? And got us banned? And what we sent in our email that was never acknowledged, let alone answered? We wonder, who is the "loyal reader" that sent Melanie this astonishing information? Is it a coincidence that the alleged Loyal Reader's alleged email only allegedly arrived in Melanie's mailbox after we published this piece? Why do we suspect that Loyal Reader is a Deep Throat-style literary device? Why do we think that maybe Loyal Reader was invented to distract from the fact that, just hours earlier, Melanie banned us from the site for pointing out what she now concedes was correct all along? Just asking. posted: Wed - March 9, 2005 at 07:45 PM j$p send Mike The power to "ban" any form of dissent is all they have "left" (pun intended). March 9, 2005, 11:06:09 PM EST – Like – Reply Scott J$, I would say this is a clear sign that the gals are feeling a tad vulnerable and, dare I say, accountable, for the "inaccuracies" they're posting. If they weren't feeling the least bit culpable then they would simply debate you and prove you wrong. They love insulting "trolls" and back-patting each other for every witty "neocon" comment but when faced with empirical evidence showing the many errors in their work they either chalk it up to "nit picking" or, in your case, just ban the offender for daring to point it out. Private blog, ban away - but it shows that they are using their "power" from a position of weakness. March 10, 2005, 11:43:53 AM EST – Like – Reply Mike I checked their most recent post, "Gibson: Bomb a Democracy 'With Clean Conscience'," and found that the newshounds have ethnicly cleansed their following to the point that they are down to the most loyal: "Wes Powell" "Scarlet, PbD" "anisha" "TB" "Jeff"" "Sagra" the fabulous "Kent Brockman" and a new one, "mcsweet," who contributed the astute political observation: "the more stupidly malicious and/ or conservative they are, the more hairspray they use." March 10, 2005, 2:21:00 PM EST – Like – Reply johnny dollar But Mike, don't you understand? They can't have their delicate eyes assaulted with sentences that dare to disagree with them. That's the whole point of an ECHO-chamber! March 10, 2005, 3:14:47 PM EST – Like – Reply Mike BTW, I think John Edwards is living proof that excessive use of hairspray is not a conservative trait. March 10, 2005, 3:40:51 PM EST – Like – Reply johnny dollar This comment moved from another thread: Newshound Marie Therese just posted a surprisingly positive piece on Shepard Smith's kind comments about Dan Rather's tenure as CBS anchor. The first three comments were also supportive and complimentary to Shep for his professional courtesy -- but by the fourth comment "Jeff" couldn't take it any more and said it was actually a two-faced "bitch-slap" and that FOX helped to "fuel" Dan Rather's troubles. Jeff then took the obligatory "slap" at the Republicans: "So we have polite words on one hand and insults on the other. Kinda like this administration." True to form, "Scarlet, PbD" jumped in next with a conspiracy theory: Shep is just saying nice things because he wants Dan Rather's job! (They have to toe the newshounds line to prevent being banned - the nice comments about Shep border on blasphemy and couldn't last long.) --originally posted by Mike March 10, 2005, 7:14:37 PM EST – Like – Reply tomaig Maybe one of you folks knows...what the hell is the "PbD" thing? I've suggested it has soemthing to do with their lead-like senses of humor or proportion but no NewsHound regular has ever provided a straight answer. March 11, 2005, 2:38:30 PM EST – Like – Reply Mike One of the posts on newshounds suggests that PbD means "Pure Blooded Democrat" - but another post suggets that it means "PUSHY BROAD Democrat." March 11, 2005, 3:20:49 PM EST – Like – Reply Rotwang Hmmm. Johnny. Mike. tomaig. And Scott. Not exactly the Manhattan White Pages of readership over here, either. In fact, I think this site now officially qualifies as "performance art." March 12, 2005, 1:08:56 AM EST – Like – Reply johnny dollar Actually, it officially qualifies as truth telling, where the lies and doctored quotes of people who shamelessly rearrange sentencs and post fake quotations are exposed for all clear-minded people to see. Not quite as pithy, but it's accurate. March 12, 2005, 1:13:39 AM EST – Like – Reply Bill Johnny, Have you ever banned anyone from your blog? March 18, 2005, 5:03:59 PM EST – Like – Reply johnny dollar One person who was spamming multiple identical messages into multiple off-topic threads was banned. Usually this question gets asked once every month or two. Now it comes up twice in a week. Hmmmmmmmm. March 18, 2005, 5:12:22 PM EST – Like – Reply Bill Hmmm.... I read those comments, and feel that all were topical, and made it clear that you had ignored a reported error for several weeks. You can dish it out, but clearly can't take it. Looking forward to becoming the second banned person... March 18, 2005, 5:15:05 PM EST – Like – Reply johnny dollar You are not on the fast track to being banned, even as you tell a lie: "you had ignored a reported error for several weeks". The truth is that: 1. The error was falsely described as a mistake in a transcript (it was not) B. The error was never identified (as part of a juvenile "can you find it?" ploy). Kind of hard to do anything OTHER than ignore an error when nobody will tell you where it is, isn't it? March 18, 2005, 5:18:25 PM EST – Like – Reply Bill I did not tell a lie. Wasn't the error posted to your site on the page where the error occured? Did you ever once inquire as to the error? And from what I recall, the "can you find it" game was due to your starting the "find it yourself" game in the fisrt place. March 18, 2005, 5:22:33 PM EST – Like – Reply Bill Didn't you ban another person for using "Faux" in one of his posts? Remember, you can't bury ANYTHING in the Internet... March 18, 2005, 5:26:56 PM EST – Like – Reply johnny dollar The error was posted on multiple pages, not just one. (Hence, comment spamming, Not Permitted Here.) We started no "game", certainly not with someone who lied about where the error was, just to make it impossible to find. Nobody was banned that I can recall for using the F-word in a post. We just delete such posts. Multiple, deliberate violations, particularly when a part of spam, could qualify however. So if you're looking for a way to get banned, knock yourself out. March 18, 2005, 5:35:07 PM EST – Like – Reply Bill Not looking to be banned, but I am pretty certain you also banned TomPaineInTheButt in addition to Charles. He came back to NewsHounds witha copy and paste of the message where you banned him. Charles had to hound (all puns intended) you for weeks to get you to even acknowledge the error where you incorrectly attributed a transcript to the wrong person. You had started the "can you find it game" weeks earlier when you refused to give him a link to a source, telling him to find it himself. Just making sure your readers know you too ban people for the flimsiest of reasons... This is my last post... but be aware that when you erase this exchange, you will be no better than what you accuse the NewsHounds of doing. A PDF has been made and will be shared with the Hounds for our eternal enjoyment. March 18, 2005, 5:45:25 PM EST – Like – Reply johnny dollar I still don't recall banning Tom P. If there's a copy of my alleged banning message I'd like to see it. I just ran a Google search of all the newshounds pages and found no such copy and paste of where he was banned by J$P. So I'm curious as to exactly where this copy-paste message is. Or whether this is just another houndian smear. --Charles had to hound (all puns intended) you for weeks to get you to even acknowledge the error where you incorrectly attributed a transcript to the wrong person.-- I acknowledged it immediately when he stopped claiming it was an error in one of my self-produced transcripts and finally told the truth about what it was. In the meantime he was posting the same childish message all over the site, clogging up the threads. If you think that is the flimsiest of reasons to ban someone, then I trust you will be clamoring for the newshounds to reinstate my posting privileges over there. I have never pulled a trollish stunt like that one. March 18, 2005, 6:02:12 PM EST – Like – Reply Bill Hmmm... I was just able to Google TomPaine's posting and found it right way. Keep in mind, there might be "similar pages". Are you sure Charles said the error was in one of your self-produced transcripts, instead of saying there was a "transcript error"? Attributing a transcript to the wrong person is clearly an error! And he didn't post it "all over the site". Hyperbole at best. At least he finally got your attention. March 18, 2005, 6:27:03 PM EST – Like – Reply johnny dollar OK I found it. I did not ban TomPaine. I do not know why he was unable to post and I figured he did not reply to my question because he had no answer (which might still have been the case). I wish he had emailed so I could have worked with haloscan to fix the problem. But I certainly did not, and never would, ban someone for making a statement "this transcript is not accurate"--it's too much fun to ask them for specifics and watch them fumble for an answer. --At least he finally got your attention.-- That's a dishonest comment. "Charles" had my attention from his very first post, and you know it. After repeated spamming, and repeated warnings from me, he wore out his welcome. A banning richly deserved. March 18, 2005, 6:50:28 PM EST – Like – Reply |
Quick Links
About johnnydollar.us
This site includes J$P posts from 2004-2007. For current posts please direct your attention to johnnydollar.us.
Contact Us
j$p categories
Search J$P
Archives
|
