Those gals from Outfoxed are using half-truths, falsehoods, and distortions to smear Fox News. And yes, Francisco Franco is still dead.

When dealing with the irresponsible blather of the newshounds (another fine product from the Outfoxed mob), one soon learns that nothing one reads there is exactly as it seems. Three entries showcase the techniques used by the tail-waggers to lie, cheat, and steal--metaphorically speaking.

Perry Mason Not Losing Any Sleep
The US consulate in Saudi Arabia is attacked, and the newspups spring into action. Well, after their celebratory bottle of champagne. With the fervor of a Mark Geragos, Miss Melanie erupts in anger over the fact that analysts on Fox had the nerve to try to pin another attack on those poor, misunderstood scapegoats, Al Qaeda:

There isn't much doubt as to the identity of the perpetrators of today's attack on the U.S. Consulate in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, at least according to reports on Dayside...[Greg] Burke said "a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia" (who Burke does not name) "says it certainly has all the hallmarks of an Al Qaeda operation." Linda Vester interviewed Mansoor Ijaz...and he thinks there is a "high probability that the people who conducted this attack are in fact part of the Zarkawi [Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi] network in Iraq...Again, only hours after the attack, Fox seems to have this all wrapped up. It was Al Qaeda, most likely the al-Zarkawi branch of Al Qaeda. That was easy, wasn't it?

If Melanie insists on acting as pro bono defense counsel for Bin Laden and Zarqawi, perhaps she could explain who should have been suspected, aside from her "clients". Maybe she is planning one of those 11th-hour courtroom surprises, when the guilty party is suddenly exposed, completely exonerating the innocent Al Qaeda freedom-fighters. Unfortunately for Melanie, the last act of her little drama has a different ending:

Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda claimed the attack on the US consulate in Jeddah, dealing a blow to the Saudi government's attempts to wipe out Islamic militants behind a wave of terror strikes.

Melanie is going to have to retool her closing argument. Unless, of course, she simply ignores the fact that the people she is defending have already fessed up to the crime. Yeah, that's the ticket. Nary an explanatory peep from Melanie since that news broke.

Catch Me If You Can
Newspoodle deborah managed to find something she didn't like on The Big Story Weekend Edition:

In her sultry voice, [Rita Cosby] asked military analyst Aaron Cohen what kind of weapons the soldiers were using...Mr. Cohen launched into a detailed explanation of the weaponry they used...

Mr Cohen's "detailed explanation" lasted 32 seconds.

Was Rita Cosby’s show trying to make war a turn on? Rather than talking about the dangers involved with such a mission or the cost to civilians, she was highlighting the exciting weaponry they were using.

tr.v. high-light: 1. To make prominent; emphasize

Of course deb knows the meaning of highlight. And perhaps that's why this "report" is so duplicitous. This discussion of weaponry took a grand total of 32 seconds. Deborah ignores the other 59 minutes and 28 seconds of the broadcast, where many issues, including "the cost to civilians" and "dangers", were explored in depth. And she ups the ante of deceit with the phrase "rather than", leading the reader to believe the other aspects were not discussed at all! Of course they were, just not during the 32 seconds selected by deborah. Judging a broadcast from less than 1% of its total content is a bit of con artistry even Frank Abagnale would envy.

And Now You Know the Rest of the Story
Melanie may not be a lawyer, but she plays one on the internet, again donning the barrister's wig to play defense attorney, this time for OPEC:

Fox viewers are also supposed to hate OPEC. Neil Cavuto opened the segment this way: "Oh is that sOPEC? The oil cartel rolling, and I mean rolling in the dough, and OPEC ready to roll in still more of that dough at our expense, and very soon."...Then, introducing guest Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute, Cavuto said: "So, do we trust them?"...Taylor said "OPEC is a profit maximizing cartel (COMMENT: What corporation isn't?). They're trying to make as many dollars as they possibly can" in the oil markets....Cavuto and Taylor continued their discussion, but you get the gist. The message: If you suffer from high gas or oil prices, it's OPEC's fault, not Bush's, not our government's, not ours as a nation for our failure to conserve or address our oil dependence. It's OPEC's fault so let's turn our anger toward them.

Contrary to counselor Melanie's argumentation, no, we don't get the gist. There's a reason Melanie stops quoting Cavuto and Taylor, and just blows off the rest of the interview by saying the discussion "continued". Perhaps this is why:

CAVUTO: The demand alone, many argue, OPEC or no OPEC, would keep prices relatively high.
TAYLOR: Well demand is very high. It's at a record pace right now...You're right, demand is driving this market, not supply constraints. Nobody in OPEC is holding any oil back at the moment, and so for the time being it's as if we don't have a cartel.

How exactly does this exchange fit with the "gist" Melanie was touting? Why didn't this make it into her "report"? Don't bother raising this issue with lawyer Melanie. We did so and heard nothing back but the sound of crickets. Possibly she is away, preparing new defenses for the innocent Al Qaeda terrorists.