Tainting the Pool

There's a reason why the writings of the Outfoxed gals are so very, very selective.

There's a tactic used by slick attorneys when they want to slant public opinion in their favor: tainting the jury pool. Put out a lot of nonsense, distortions, and lies, let them seep into the general populace, and sit back and watch. The lies circulate, get repeated, and become conventional wisdom. And the attorney deposits his retainer.

But it's not just sleazy lawyers who try to taint the pool of public opinion. It's also a consistent tactic of the Fox haters. And the more outrageously false the drivel they put out, the better. And that, naturally, brings us to the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed syndicate).

Sometimes tainting the pool is simply a matter of putting up a headLie (a false headline). Since most people who see headlines don't read what's underneath, it's a handy tool for tainting. Just ask newsmutt Melanie, who writes:
Neil Cavuto Continues the Radical Right's Call for Assassinations

Definitely a splashy attention-grabber that would make the National Enquirer proud. But take the time to read through the text, and it turns out Cavuto made no such call. In talking to Alexander Haig about Syria, he asked a question:

CAVUTO: You have the problem in Iran, you have the problem with Syria. Would we be better off with [Syria's president Bashar al-] Assad dead?

That's Cavuto calling for assassinations?!? No, that's just tainting the pool. (Maybe Melanie was confusing Cavuto with that fine journalist, George Stephanopoulos.)

But this type of flummery is not too effective, because anyone who reads on will spot the flimflam in short order. So the anti-Fox terriers have refined pool tainting into a fine art, using a variant of the invisible man technique. In this variation, the newsliars make a charge or a claim. It is invariably dishonest or untrue, but they can't let their credulous readers know that. So they just ignore anything else that disproves what they said. The gullible will never suspect that they've been tainted by professionals of prevarication.

Item: it's an article of dogma for the hounds that Fox News is a propaganda arm for the White House. To make it more specific, they suggest that no liberal criticism of Supreme Court nominee Miers is allowed. So what happens when Susan Turnbull, Vice-Chair of the DNC, shows up and says:

TURNBULL: I think what's really important is what does this woman stand for? All we know about her right now is that she is a friend, a close dear friend of George W. Bush. We don't know what she stands for on the issues...

How did the newshounds report this? Simple. They didn't. Bill Clinton appeared with Greta van Susteren on October 5 and discussed the Miers nomination. How did the anti-Fox terriers cover that? They ignored it. After all, you can't taint the pool if you tell the truth about what actually airs.

Item: the newspooches launched an attack on Fox's coverage of the New Orleans police beating. They claimed that FNC refuses to tell the victim's side of the story--naturally, a charge that is a tissue of distortions and lies. Just hours after probie janie did her tainting duty with a write-up about Dayside, Fox ran an interview with the victim. Not reported by the hounds. Then, on the very next edition of Dayside, they brought on the victim and his attorney and interviewed him live, on-air, about what happened to him. This was the lead segment on the program.

What's a pool tainter to do? Janie came through for the propagandists: her write-up of that second program completely omitted any mention of the victim's appearance! An appearance that just a day earlier she insisted would never be permitted on Fox.

A few hours later, the man was interviewed yet again, on Studio B:

The newshounds write up that program, but their article leaves out the fact that the man was interviewed. Their initial charge tainted the pool, and they were going to let their lies do their dirty work for them, regardless of the truth.

Item: deborah writes:
Susan Estrich, Fox News Contributor, has written a book about Hillary Clinton, A Case For Hillary. Last night she appeared on Heartland to discuss the recent problems for the Republicans with Rich Kalen [sic] and her new book was quickly mentioned and shown at the start of the segment. Later in the show, Col Buzz Patterson had a full segment to talk about the Bill Clinton allegations in Louis Freeh's new book, My FBI comment: Why wouldn't Estrich be given a full segment to discuss her new book especially since it was published by Regan Books a News Corp company.

So now mean old Fox is discriminating against one of its own employees. Deborah notes:
It's possible that the book hasn't actually come out yet...

Well, duh!
...It will be interesting to see if these books get fair & balanced coverage.

It would be interesting to see, if the mongrels permitted their gullible followers to see it. But the whole point of tainting the pool is to put out the allegation, and then censor anything that doesn't agree with it. Thus, when the book actually hits store shelves, Susan Estrich is all over FNC. Two examples: she appears on Fox & Friends promoting her book:

What do the curs have to say about it? Nothing. It's as if it never happened.

And she appears on Hannity & Colmes touting her tome.

What do the hounds have to say about that? They write up the program, but their summary makes no mention whatsoever of Ms Estrich's appearance!

What an elegantly simple, effective technique for tainting the pool. Posit a lie, then keep anything that counters it from reaching the eyes of their credulous readers. So a handful of desperate housewives sit at their computers barking "Fox is biased"--while they use the most disreputable, unethical propaganda tricks to slant, lie, and distort the truth. This may not be news, but it is reality.

posted: Thu - October 13, 2005 at 06:34 PM       j$p  send 

I wish I knew Johnny's email address. I am a frequent opposing viewpoint on Newshounds.com, and I posted a qoute from this article on their site. It was deleted after a couple of posts from the Snoozehounds. I logged in as a different snoozehound member, and posted it again. Deleted. Next, I used a proxy switching program since my IP was banned to inundate their off-topic forums with the article, all of which were deleted as they found them. How great is that- I talked smack to the crap-loving Newshounds many times since.
October 18, 2005, 12:20:45 AM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
I used to have the email address up on the site but somehow it got lost in one of the revisions. You can email me at johnnydollarATmindspring.com (you know what to do with the AT to make it work).
Deleting and banning is nothing new. I just heard from a poster who has been banned there a half dozen times at least; problem is the bans seem to dissipate after a while and he can get in again. He caught them in another lie tonight and called them on it. After the usual illogical and off-point attempts to rebut him he tried to post a response, and presto! he was banned yet again.
I'll probably do an article on it; I should be getting some video clips shortly that will put another nail in the coffin that is newspoodle credibility.
October 18, 2005, 12:37:06 AM EDT – Like – Reply

I've been banned dozens of times, but just keep making up new users by giving myself new gmail addresses and utilizing proxy jumping software to avoid the IP banning. I've had my user deleted, dozens of posts deleted, and endures News Hounds brainless barrages of banter to no end to try to show the Snooze fans the errors in their ways. Just yesterday I found your site, and after perusing it, I have nothing to say but GOOD JOB!!! Please, please don't quit refuting these fringe groups who seek nothing more than to push their fringe agendas. Your input is more valuable to America than you may know.
October 18, 2005, 3:18:59 PM EDT – Like – Reply