Stunning Ignornace by Unprofessional Doofuses

Somebody is making derogatory statements about the Outfoxed gals. And you won't believe who it turns out to be.

Who is making such comments about our friends the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed mob)? Perhaps we will learn the answer to that question as we explore the latest aggregation of falsehoods, hypocrisy, and lies from the Fox-haters' kennel. Of course nancy can always be relied upon to create bias where none exists, and she managed to pull it off again just this morning:
What Trumps Katrina? Bush Landing in Arizona, Of Course!.... The only break in the endless bloviating & video was (surprise, surprise) at 12:31pm (EDT) to show live pix of Air Force One landing at Luke AFB (AZ) & announce that Bush might have a statement later about gas prices. A couple of minutes later, while Phil Keating was reporting from New Orleans, FNL went to split-screen to show video of Bush getting off Air Force One.

Yes, that sneaky Rupert Murdoch. Going and giving live coverage to something like a Presidential trip. He's just trying to promote Bush, don't you know? Anyone can plainly see this is not news; only Fox would put something like this on. But let's check what CNN broadcast during the exact same hour:

KAGAN: I'm going to show you pictures right now that clearly are not along the Gulf Coast. That is President Bush. He is arriving at Luke Air Force Base. That's just to the northwest of Phoenix, Arizona. Sunny there. You can see John McCain there to greet the president. The president, before the storm, Hurricane Katrina, hit the Gulf Coast, did declare an emergency situation to get FEMA and to get the most help possible to folks along the Gulf Coast as Hurricane Katrina hit there.... live pictures once again from Arizona. Luke Air Force Base just to the northwest of Phoenix. President Bush arriving, getting in that limousine.

Is Murdoch now programming CNN? How does nancy explain this? She doesn't, but she does offer this trenchant bit of insight:
They didn't even bother to read headlines at the "bottom" of the hour. Apparently the only other thing that happened of note in the entire world was that Bush landed in Arizona.

We refer readers back to the CNN transcript. As it turns out they too thought Bush's landing was the only other thing of note--for the entire hour. It's too bad nancy doesn't produce CNN's coverage; it would have even fewer viewers than it does now. More evidence of that is her diatribe against Greta van Susteren, which (not surprisingly) begins with a lie:
Friday night (8/26), "On the Record" was all about -- you guessed it -- Natalee Holloway.

It was?

Fox in particular, for its obsession with "missing cute white girls" to the exclusion of other missing persons.... obsessive pandering with one carefully selected victim (white, young, pretty, female)...

Does nancy even watch the program? It doesn't seem so. Or else it's just another lie.
she repeats her earlier assertion -- again without documentation -- that we have an "epidemic" of missing people.... Wrong -- unless you redefine "epidemic" to mean "pretty young white girls/good for ratings.

Of course nancy fails to document her claim that there is no growing epidemic of missing persons. But according to police and victim advocates the nefarious one is wrong again:
  • Missing Persons has become an epidemic in the United States and the numbers continue to grow.
  • The number of missing persons reported to law enforcement has increased from 154, 341 in 1982 to 876,213 in 2000. That is an increase of 468%.... If any other segment of our population were so impacted, we would declare an epidemic.

But the kennel dwellers don't care:
  • Newshounds has never critized [sic] Natalee Holloway

Absurd, as we have demonstrated. And just moments later, another member of the pack jumps in to make our point for us:
  • it's imbicilic [sic] to send your high school aged daughter to a foreign country to get properly drunk and laid... I don't give a rat's ass about this girl

Meanwhile, Melanie claims that "Fox" (The building? The articles of incorporation?) blames "the left" for the Pat Robertson story. And the best way to prove it is to selectively edit someone's statement:
Host Eric Burns began by wondering whether anyone, "on either side," who "advocated assassination, would be pilloried by the press."... It is absurd, but characteristic, of Fox to blamed [sic] the furor on "the left."

Mr Burns didn't "wonder" anything. In case the reader is wondering why Mel's quote is so disjointed, with clumps of words quoted and others paraphrased, the actual text tells the tale:

BURNS: Yeah, but don't you think, Jane, that anybody in the public eye, on either side of any issue, who advocated assassination would be pilloried by the press?

Surprise! Eric Burns wasn't "wondering" if either side would be pilloried, as Mel wants you to believe. He was saying that yes, they would. Why misrepresent his statement? To create a false impression that Fox was "blaming" the left for the furor. Toward the same end, Mel makes sure to not mention other things that were said:

JIM PINKERTON: I think that in Robertson's mind, I believe this, he's 75 years old, he's seeing his name in the paper. As long as they're spelling it right, it pleases him in some way.... He's got some diet product that he's selling. It's like Dr Pat's Diet Powder... He's selling it on the air all the time. It's an interesting issue on the tax side, of whether or not he can use a tax-exempt thing for a for-profit business. He's looking for publicity at all times.
NEAL GABLER: The real story, which is a political story, about whether the Bush Administration had really disavowed this...

Another newspooch who likes to tinker with what people said is the probie, janie:
One question Jerrick posed to the panel was: "How are Democrats (emphasis added) going to take advantage of this situation in Crawford?"

She conflates this into some convoluted argument about Fox accusing the Dems of making money on the Cindy Sheehan situation. Jerrick's actual words:

JERRICK: How are Democrats going to maybe take advantage of this situation in Crawford and the dropping poll numbers, when the big-name Dems, like Hillary Clinton, even John Kerry, Joe Biden out of Delaware, they support the war?

Twisting a question about political tactics into some sort of Murdochian crypto-smear is typical janie. But then so is this:
At every chance made available to Fox, they are discussing whether or not certain musicians or protestors [sic] should be allowed to make statements against the President of the United States, and demanding that groups such as The Dixie Chicks, or films such as Fahrenheit 9/11 be boycotted... Check through the backlog of articles on here and you will see how many people Fox has tried to have boycotted.

We did check through their backlog, and what do you suppose we found?
  • New Site Advocates Boycott of FOX News Advertisers... "By funding Fox News, these companies enabled it to spread the ignorance..."
  • I think we should boycott Fox advertisers.
  • Note the names of all the companies you see advertising on Fox. Make a list. Email each company and ask them to remove their advertising from Fox.
  • A consumer boycott is an effective and peaceful way to stage a protest.... It should be viewed as a worthwhile practice regardless of your political disposition.
  • Just where are the newshounds concerning a formal internet boycott site?
  • Major Tom (and others interested in contacting Fox advertisers), Click on the "What You Can Do" Link on the right side of this blog, near the top, under "Current Issues and Events." We have a list of contact information. Go for it!

Hypocrisy, thy name is newshounds. But the newsmutts have been called worse. Here is chrish:
The LA Times reports that featured Fox News contributor John Loftus incorrectly identified a La Hambra, CA, home as that of a terrorist.

Of course, the LA Times did not report that Mr Loftus was a "Fox News contributor", but the kennel-dwellers had a different bone to pick:
  • A writer for an elementary school newspaper would be more professional than ANY Fox news people. After all, the doofus named Loftus apparently didn't check -- their is no city in California named "La Hambra". There is La Habra.

Pretty strong stuff. Of course the LA Times doesn't say "La Hambra". Neither did Mr Loftus, as the transcript of the segment makes clear. You guessed it: the "unprofessional doofus" who didn't bother to check was...chrish herself! Her own sloppy blunder was pounced on by the gullible, and their assessment of her stands. (Her stealth rewrite of the article to correct the mistake merely confirms it stemmed not from Fox or Mr Loftus, but from her own ignorance.) But wait, she has more to say:
According to, John Kasich hosted the segment on Heartland July 30

Really? makes no such statement. Where exactly does this "fact" come from? The dwellers want to know:
  • The LA Times article and the victims' statements put the incident on August 7. No Heartland guest and topics list is available for that date as of this post.

Of course not. Because it didn't take place on Mr Kasich's program. Perhaps if chrish had read our report before spouting, she might have gotten her facts right. But while it's bad enough to be considered an "unprofessional doofus" by your readers, how much worse is it to be ridiculed by your own colleagues? Ellen writes about the stupidity of Sean Hannity for referring to an Iraqi Constitution:
Hannity's stunning ignorance about what our troops are doing in Iraq. He told Coulter "We have an Iraqi Constitution now."...We don't.

One wonders how poor janie feels about ellen's harsh words. Because it was she who, ten days earlier, wrote on the newshounds site itself that not only was there an Iraqi Constitution, but she even knew what was in it:
Under the new Constitution, women's testimony in court would only amount to one-half of that of a man...

So janie's remarks reflected "stunning ignorance"--according to ellen. And who are we to disagree? We encourage the hounds to keep ridiculing their own statements. We love it when they do our work for us.

posted: Mon - August 29, 2005 at 05:01 PM       j$p  send 

Well done, as always, johnny!!!
August 29, 2005, 6:10:29 PM EDT – Like – Reply

They're stumbling all over themselves, and their "troll problem" is getting much worse!
(tee hee)
August 29, 2005, 7:20:06 PM EDT – Like – Reply

BTW, on Fox News Watch, Jim Pinkerton actually mentioned the Newshounds website as a group that monitors every word said.
I'm sorry he gave them any recognition.
August 29, 2005, 7:44:17 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Ira, I thought the same at first, but then I thought maybe if more people know about them they will check the Web site out and see what drivel it is. It might turn out to be a good thing that he gave them a mention.
Janie commended me the other day for "remaining civil" in a discussion about Judge Roberts even though I held an opposing viewpoint and started whining about how people who disagree with them often just get nasty and call them names. As if their devotees don't get vicious with people who disagree... please!!
August 29, 2005, 7:49:24 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Newshound alert:
One of their faithful just blamed the hurricane damage on Bush, complete with a newspaper article to back it up:
"The disaster in New Orleans is the DIRECT result of electing incompetent, stupid ideologues into the White House."
August 31, 2005, 12:58:48 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Once again, you have misinterpreted and mischaracterized the nature of our blog. Frankly, it's a shame that you have to be snarky all the time because if you were willing to engage in honest discussion, it might benefit all sides.
For the record, I do believe that Janie was right when she spoke of an Iraqi Constitution. She knew that it had not yet been ratified. I'm not so sure that was the case with Sean Hannity, though.
As for the troll problem, our "stumbling all over each other" and others finding out our drivel, your total visits are STILL LOWER than we receive in any given month.
Dream on.
November 2, 2005, 3:34:06 AM EST – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
If I have "mischaracterized" your blog, then why don't you point out the factual errors or "mischaracterization" that back up your charge? Some examples, please. If you have any.
So as far as the Iraqi Constitution is concerned, there was one when Janie said so, a few days later when Hannity said so there wasn't one, and now there is one again. Can you say, "hypocrisy"?
Our total visits are open and available for all to see. We don't keep our hit count secret so that we can claim any number we want and nobody can verify it. It's called openness and honesty. (Just as we don't ban you or anyone else from posting here as long as you don't violate the rules. Which is more than I can say for your little echo chamber.)
And I thought, from reading your blog, that popularity was irrelevant. I've read over and over that it means nothing that FNC has by far the most viewers of any news channel. If that's the case, then what do your purported stats prove? By your own words, nothing.
November 2, 2005, 10:18:08 AM EST – Like – Reply