The Outfoxed gals demonstrate a hitherto unknown scientific phenomenon: a direct correlation between barometric pressure and I.Q. With J$P Video!

It's always instructive to view the flips and flops of the Fox haters, primary among them none other than the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed mob). Karl Rove was once the cause du jour, but suddenly it became all Bolton, all the time. Focus shifted to the Roberts nomination, but that didn't last long as Cindy Sheehan became the major talking point. Now it's the hurricane; nothing else is worth reporting:

No more of that silly coverage of the minor problems along the Gulf Coast! Nope, now it's all about the Senate hearing on Judge John Roberts's nomination to be Chief Justice of SCOTUS. Viewers of the last hour of the program were treated to non-stop [sic] coverage of the opening of the hearing...

Imagine that, covering hearings for the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, when there was a hurricane two weeks ago! Of course back then, the newspooches were howling a different tune:

Bill Hemmer's first day as anchor of FNL. Hemmer had the misfortune to arrive on a day when the coverage was wall-to-wall Katrina. Gretchen Carlson co-anchored the last hour of the program, which hardly needed one anchor, let alone two....I'm not kidding. They didn't even bother to read headlines at the "bottom" of the hour.

Well, they never did promise consistency, did they? But then, these people are supposed to be newshounds. How to explain their total lack of news judgment? Or for that matter, the reckless ignorance that dots so many of their "reports". Only at the kennel could you find people who claim to have watched Fox News for over a year blithely talk about reporter Alicia "Acune". Or, in a spectacular display of ignorance, say this:

Craig [sic] Jarrett interviewed Henry Cisnero [sic] today,9/11/05, about the plans for rebuilding New Orleans and the picture he painted was cautious but essentially rosy. Although Cisnero [sic] clearly mentioned... Cisnero [sic] told Jarrett... Cisnero [sic]discussed...

Not only don't they know who Fox reporters are (so much for their slogan), they don't even recognize a former Cabinet secretary! Yeah, they're real newshounds. Perhaps this lack of basic knowledge of current affairs is what's behind the inanity of their trivial attempts at "gotcha" moments. An example:

Bash Democrats, Despite Having No Evidence
...they went to Congressional Correspondent Brian Wilson. He began discussing how important the "group of 14" are to the Roberts confirmation proceedings (the moderate group of Senators that came to an agreement over the filibuster during previous Bush judicial nominees). Wilson stated: "I think the goal of some Democrats will be to try to splinter that group of 14,"... why create such division or insert personal speculation with no evidence, unless there is a clear agenda to simply make Democrats look bad?

How exactly is this "bashing"? Do the newspoodles really doubt that Democrats would like to split the 14 in order to make a filibuster possible? Perhaps they ought to read their own website:

• I don't think we can stop cloture unless some the gang of 14 considers Roberts' elevation as cause for greater concern. I think we should make an issue of everything about which we have concerns, and get the best vote we can.

The Roberts nomination brought us another example of hounds wearing blinders, as they attempt to fabricate a conspiracy over the use of a single word:

Brit Hume: "...Bush acted quickly today..."
Special Report's Brit Hume found a way to alleviate the suffering of the wounded vacationer-in-chief....Hume said "president Bush acted quickly (his emphasis) today to announce his proposal for filling the vacancy on the Supreme Court... A damage control twofer, reminding us that Bush is going to visit the Gulf States (he cares) and he is moving "promptly" on the vacancy...

It's another Fox trick! Say that Bush acted "quickly" to fill the Rehnquist vacancy. See the bias! It's as thick as pea soup!! Of course, they didn't bother to note that filling a Supreme Court vacancy within 48 hours is uncommonly swift. That's not a Murdoch trick, it's factual. A search of Yahoo.news found that Fox was hardly the only news outlet to note this; among the outlets that commented that Bush moved "quickly" or "swiftly" in this case were:

• Newsday
• The Toledo Blade
• The Arizona Daily Sun
• The Los Angeles Times
• The Chicago Sun Times
• The Australian Broadcasting Company
• CBS News
• The Houston Chronicle
• ABC News
• The Washington Post

We will spare you the listing of the other 500+ citations, since they are obviously all part of the Fox Conspiracy! No less insipid is this attempt to fabricate bias out of whole cloth:

Fox Immediately Links LA Power Outage to Terror
...Gibson went to Bret Baier at the Pentagon with this segue: "Meanwhile, a new terror tape has been released with new threats for the US and Australia. A warning from a masked man that Los Angeles, Los Angeles, where the power is out right now, and Melbourne, Australia, are next on the hit list."... I would expect Fox to eventually imply that there might be a link between the outage and Al Qaeda but what was so appalling today was its rapidity. Fox didn't hesitate, it linked the two, literally, within seconds. This is the Fox way of reporting "news" - begin with worst-case-scenario speculation - and let the facts trickle in as they may.

Somebody must be spiking their Alpo. Where exactly is the "speculation" in saying that the lights were out in Los Angeles? They weren't? How exactly was the blackout "linked" to terror? Perhaps it will all become clear if we show you what the curs censored. It's another "lie of omission", as the anti-Fox terriers neglected to mention what John Gibson said right after Bret Baier's report [QuickTime video clip]:



Kennel dwellers note: Gibson goes out of his way to remind viewers that there is no belief at all that the blackout had any relationship to the terror warning. Now why do you suppose the tail-waggers don't tell you this? Could it be because doing so would mean telling the truth? And telling the truth would mean that the entire point of their silly article would gurgle down the drain. The brainlessness of the media mastiffs has accelerated exponentially this hurricane season--as the barometer falls, so does the sanity level of their drivel. No matter how you read it, it's all just blowing in the wind.