Plan 9 from Spouter Space

The Outfoxed gals make it up as they go along. "Stupid, stupid earthlings!" With J$P Video!

The furious howling coming from the kennel is a sign that these are agitated times for the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed mob). And when the mongrels get angry, they become even sloppier and more reckless than usual (if that's possible). Disregarding facts, research, or any semblance of journalistic integrity, they just spout off.

For example, there's nefarious nancy, who has found a new gimmick. She decides what the important stories of the day are, and then compares her list with what Fox covers (during one 60-minute segment). Now this might have some shred of validity, were it not for the fact that she picks things like "Indonesia celebrates, laments 60 years of independence" as one of the hour's most important stories--shame on Fox for not covering it!

But the fun really starts when she lists stories that she claims Fox covered but were "not treated as major news elsewhere". Does she have a basis for this, or is she just spouting? Let's look at some of the news items she considers unimportant, and we'll do a search using Yahoo News. The number of entries on Yahoo News will tell us how many other news sources found the stories worth reporting:
  • Asman reported that Coretta Scott Kind [sic] has had a stroke & is in the hospital, in fair condition [136 entries]
  • Asman interviewed Michael Barone (US News & World Report) & Eleanor Clift (Newsweek) about whether HClinton & JMcCain will end up facing each other in 2008 [80 entries]
  • Asman interviewed Carol & Tim Wilson, parents of Kimberly Wilson, about their daughter's death in the "passing-out game" [40 entries]
  • Asman reported that UK police detain 4 terror suspects in Manchester [181 entries]
  • Asman reported that memos that SCOTUS nominee JRoberts wrote "reveal his opinion about Michael Jackson" [177 entries]
  • Asman commented on a "killer tornado caught on tape in WY" [343 entries]

Nancy, remember, decreed that these stories were not treated as major news anywhere except at Fox. Yahoo would seem to disagree with her. (By way of comparison, Indonesia celebrates 60 years had a grand total of two entries.)

Melanie gives us an object lesson in the retroactive spout:
...when Fox reports about Iraq, it opens with a graphic that says, "War on Terror."

It does? How can that be, Melanie? Three weeks ago, you said that Fox was dropping the "War on Terror" banner by "Thursday at the latest". What exactly was the basis for that brilliant prognostication? There was none; it was just spouting. And when flashback spouts become inconvenient, they are ignored. That's why when a commenter asked Melanie to reconcile her statement now with what she said back then, the comment was deleted within minutes.

More ignorant spouting from the probie, who announced a "dramatic and frightening shift":
Ailes will no longer simply be in charge of Fox News, his grasp will now be even more far-reaching and will extend out to all television stations owned by News Corp, the Twentieth Century Fox movie studio, the Fox television network, DirecTV, the New York Post, and other newspapers in Australia and Britain."

Um, sorry, janie, Mr Ailes is taking charge of the Fox television stations. He's not getting control of Fox television, DirecTV, the New York Post, other newspapers, and national weather patterns. Is it asking too much to take a few seconds to learn the facts before spouting off? You might ask Melanie the same question:
I was on a blogcall with Cindy Sheehan last Wednesday. Sunday I heard that neocon spinmeister Byron York...snuck onto the call, uninvited, and then appeared on Meet the Press to bash Sheehan

How exactly did Mr York "sneak" onto the call, "uninvited"? Did he tap the phone lines? Was he up in Rupert Murdoch's secret perch atop the Chrysler Building (you know, where he sends out his ultrahetrodyne gamma waves that control your brain) using UFO technology to hijack the audio signals?

None of the links provided by Melanie has any evidence to support her charge. In fact, none of the links even makes the charge. Could it be that Melanie had no source, she just made it up? Could it be that Mr York simply went to Joe Trippi's website and listened to the call there, where it is freely available for everyone in the world to hear? Good question; one commenter asked Melanie what her source was for this bizarre accusation. The question was never answered, and the comment was deleted within minutes (we sense a pattern here).

Probie janie spouts a beautifully bold headlie:
Bash Howard Dean, Even When He Speaks the Truth
...[Mike] Jerrick began by, once again, bashing DNC chair Howard Dean, despite the legitimacy of his comments.

What did Mr Jerrick say to bash Howard Dean? Janie tells us:
MJ: How about that comment? Lets [sic] start with you Rich. Whoa! What a comment! Just respond to it!

That was bashing? Then janie goes on to educate the readers about Iraqi law:
Under the new Constitution, women's testimony in court would only amount to one-half of that of a man, a woman would no longer have say as to whether her husband can take on a second wife...[etc]

So janie knows what's in the constitution before it's even finished! Please, probie, know what you are talking about before you spout off. Don't follow the bad example of Melanie, who wrote about Brenda Buttner interviewing a woman whose two-year-old daughter was on the no-fly list:
To be certain that Fox's viewers in no way blamed the Bush administration for the fiasco, Buttner's last comment was: "Now, the Transporation [sic] Security Administration says -- basically administers this list -- tells the airlines not to deny boarding to children, so this was an airline issue, it sounds like." It's the Bush administration's responsibility to make this run smoothly, yet leave it to Fox to blame the airlines.

Again, a few seconds of searching the Associated Press reveals that they said the same thing Ms Buttner did (Mel would have you believe it was to keep readers from blaming Bush!):
The Transportation Security Administration, which administers the lists, instructs airlines not to deny boarding to children under 12 or select them for extra security checks even if their names match those on a list.

When this came out in the comments, Melanie did another of her "stealth" rewrites, attempting to shift the focus from the content to the placement:
leave it to Fox to blame the airlines, and to do so in a punctuation mark at the tail end of a segment, so "this was an airline issue" is what Fox viewers are left with.

Only it wasn't at the tail end of the segment. It wasn't what viewers were left with. This is [QuickTime video clip]:

Mike Emmanuel reported that a Crawford resident who lives across from Camp Casey on the road leading to the Bush Ranch fired his shot gun today. Larry Mattladge [sic] said that he was getting ready for duck season. In another shot he told reporters that he was getting frustrated by the growing number of people gathering in front of his property.... So the two incidents were not connected but viewers were led to believe that Mattledge [sic] fired his gun out of frustration.

Debbie didn't even get his quote right: he said dove season, not duck season:

And while deb claims the incidents were not connected, reports from real journalists tell a different story:
He said he fired his gun in preparation for dove-hunting season. When asked whether he had another motive, Mattlage said, "Figure it out for yourself."

Larry Mattlage has had enough. He's tired of all the commotion at the anti-war camp across the road from his ranch house. He wants all the cars out of his ditch, and the anti-war protesters, the pro-war demonstrators and the media to leave....And on Sunday morning, as Cindy Sheehan and a small gathering of other anti-war supporters prepared for a worship service, he stood in his goat pasture and fired a shotgun into the air. "I'm getting ready for dove season," he said when reporters pressed him. "I'm practicing." His message, though, was unmistakable as he talked on. "...I just want them to pack the damn tents and go where they came from."

Our last (and favorite) example of spouting is also from deborah:
Mike Gallagher a favorite Fox pundit and substitute host has really performed way beyond anyone's wildest expectations with the stunt he pulled in Crawford, Texas last night.

Debbie links to an article that claims: "the right-wing group chanted 'we don't care' at the mother who lost her son"

The article cited had to be definitive; it was from an unimpeachable source. The Associated Press? Reuters? The Washington Post? Fox News? Nah, deborah went to a much more reliable authority: The Yellow Dog Blog! Did she check any of the facts? Did she look up the AP reports? Of course not--if you actually check your facts before you publish, then you can't be a spouter!

As it turns out, deb's Great Source was (surprise!) wrong. In fact, the AP reported that Cindy Sheehan wasn't even present for this incident, leaving one to wonder how anyone, let alone a "right wing group", could have shouted anything at her. What's more, the AP makes no mention of the chant "we don't care". Neither does the Sacramento Bee. In fact, we found no actual news source that reports Gallagher's crew chanted this slogan, and no audio or video tape shows it either. But hey, it was on a blog, that's good enough for debbie.

When "the reasonable man" pointed out that her article was factually challenged, the kennel-dwellers rushed to insist that all the legitimate news sources were wrong, and the obscure blogger was right:
just because the AP article doesn't mention that they were chanting it doesn't mean that it didn't have no "proof" that it didn't happen.

Reasonable man's answer perfectly sums up the attitude of the anti-Fox terriers and their dedication to truth and accuracy:
So the standard of proof is prove it didn't happen? The same standard established in the prologue* to Plan 9 From Outer Space?!?

Yes! That is the quintessential crystallization of their entire site. It's a space for spouters to say anything, with no documentation or just some flimsy reference to a radical ideologue with a blog page. And if anyone has doubts, challenge them to prove it didn't happen! Ed Wood Jr would have been proud [QuickTime video clip]:

* Actually, it is the epilogue. --J$

posted: Wed - August 17, 2005 at 11:42 PM       j$p  send 

They do have that deleting comments thing down to a science over there. Makes one wonder why they are so afraid of the truth...
August 18, 2005, 11:06:34 AM EDT – Like – Reply

john t
Dollar, could you please explain where Deborah in the Mattledge(sp?) article said the two incidents were not connected. Or is it just she said dove and not duck?
August 19, 2005, 2:01:31 AM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
JT, I quoted her words and it's even in bold type! I also provide a link to her article, and in case you didn't spot it, here it is again:
She said:
So the two incidents were not connected but viewers were led to believe that Mattledge fired his gun out of frustration. 
Well of course they were led to believe that, because that's what he did, as the various news reports of the incidents clearly demonstrate. Deborah got it wrong.
August 19, 2005, 2:06:52 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Social Networking by Echo