The Truth HurtsTruth is often the first casualty in the land of the Fox-haters. But no
one is more reluctant to traffic in reality-based facts than the Outfoxed
gals.
And now for some pickings from the Grapevine. The Fox-haters' Grapevine,
that is, where the branches are thick with thorns and the grapes taste decidedly
sour. There are no dogs more obsessed with the Fox than our friends, the
newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed mob). One of their favorite
tricks is to pick out a sentence someone says on Fox, morph that into some sort
of phony policy statement by the entire network, and then trumpet it with a
HeadLie, like
this:
Fox Cheers Knight-Ridder Sale - We Need "Fewer Players" The truth? Hoenig was not a solo guest being interviewed. He was one of a panel of four (five if you count Mr Cavuto). The newsliars don't tell you that, or anything that anybody else said on the subject. If one person in a group of five says something, Presto! "Fox" has spoken. Here's another variation on the theme: Brit Hume Distorts Hillary Clinton's Views on Immigration and Smears Democrats The truth? That night Special Report devoted eight solid minutes to the bills: who was for them, who was against them, and why. The newspoodles skip all that, and cherry-pick one sentence that Brit Hume spoke to kickstart the panel discussion afterward. Dishonest? Of course: it's the newsmutts, after all. But nothing gets them as rabid as Mr Bill O'Reilly: O'Reilly stands poised to rip apart anyone he thinks is speaking against him. Tonight his victim was Jeff Bruce, Dayton Daily News, for an editorial about Judge Connor in Ohio who O'Reilly has decided should be removed from the bench.... He not only showed a photo of Jeff Bruce but also his e-mail address urging people to get in touch with him. Of course now that people know what he looks like and where he works, it would be quite easy to reach out and contact Bruce in a variety of ways. And one of cable's most reliable Fox-loathers was quick to join the echo chamber of outrage: KEITH OLBERMANN: He gave out the email of this man Jeff Bruce on tv on Monday. This stuff's bordering on harassment now. The truth? Jeff Bruce's email address sits right on his paper's website. So does his photograph. So Olbermann once again makes his hatred of Fox more important than journalistic ethics, while the curs (eager to rush to the defense of another serial child rapist) have been caught in another sleazy smear. But wait, there's more: This morning Sean Hannity appeared on FOX & Friends ostensibly to bash immigrants but his real motive was to do damage control after he lost it big time during a call to the Brian Whitman Show on WABC Radio yesterday.... The truth? Hannity said no such thing, and made no "nasty little dig", as the transcript and our clip both demonstrate. The incident so inflamed the bowsers that their dishonesty continued in yet another fraudulent attack: Who Started the Name-Calling, Hannity? Huh? What does that mean, "contract the star"? Don't try to figure it out; it's doggie language. The pups continue: Hannity said that he began the conversation with Baldwin on matters of substance and that Baldwin responded with name-calling. Unfortunately for Hannity, "Dayside" played enough of the exchange to demonstrate that Hannity started the name-calling, referring to Baldwin as a "reckless, irresponsible actor." The truth? The transcript shows the Fox-haters are again barking with forked tongues: HANNITY: Alec, I wanted to give you an official WABC welcome considering you were supposed to come on my program last week and you didn't show up. What happened? BALDWIN: No, I wasn't supposed to come on your program, Sean Hannity. HANNITY: No, actually you were supposed to come on the program because a deal was made with your agent that if you were going to come on with Brian, first you'd come on with me. BALDWIN: I wouldn't dream of coming on your program, Sean Hannity. I'm here with Brian. I'm here with a really talented broadcaster. HANNITY: [Crosstalk] that you are, you don't tell the truth. BALDWIN: Why would I want to come on the show with a no-talent, former construction worker hack like you? So why would the haters lie about this, when anyone can read the transcript and see hound mendacity exposed with a click of the mouse? A good question, but then one must remember that the newsyorkies are not above just making stuff up: Today (March 18, 2006), "Rick and Bubba" appeared on Fox & Friends Weekend. During their appearance on Your World, no mention was made of the fact that News Corp. now "owns" Rick and Bubba... What a deal for News Corp. but what a scam for Fox's viewers. News Corp. promotes one of its properties - "Rick and Bubba" - without telling its audience that it's doing so. Meanwhile, "Rick and Bubba" kiss the ass of their new employer and say all the right things during their appearances. The truth? Rick and Bubba are a radio team, syndicated to stations around the country. News Corp does not "own" them, News Corp is not their "employer", and they are not one of its "properties". "Rick and Bubba" is an independent radio program, syndicated by CRG Media. In other words, the entire newsliar report is based on a false premise. Hardly anything new there. Nothing hurts the Fox-haters and their malevolent cause more than the sunlight of truth. posted: Tue - March 28, 2006 at 04:06 PM j$p send mark Esposito Noone with any kind of ability to think watches Fox News, the most biased channel in television history. The last time I actually watched a segment was when I was trapped in a doctor's office. The three stories I viewed before I turned my head away in disgust were so biased it was ridiculous. Which leads me to believe that Fox News Viewer equals complete idiot. And, by the way, where do you get off putting Media Matters under the disinformation column? Oh, I forget, as someone who actually views Fox News as I assume you are YOU HAVE LOST THE ABILITY TO DETERMINE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FACT AND FICTION. Like I said, Fox News Viewer = complete idiot. March 29, 2006, 2:02:21 PM EST – Like – Reply johnny dollar That's the kind of comments we like (and the kind that the haters invariably come up with). Full of specifics, documentation, and reasoned argument. March 29, 2006, 3:04:47 PM EST – Like – Reply OverHere According to the Newsmutts, News Corp. owns a piece of every guest they bring on, and they fail to disclose it. I've called them on it a number of times in the past which almost always leads to a newly edited version of the story being posted. Then they "apologize" to the entirely wrong party once they realize they are caught dead in the water... Yet their sheep continue to blindly follow them... right off the edge of the cliff... April 1, 2006, 8:55:54 AM EST – Like – Reply Carter I agree with your first point, if it was one guest, to say "fox news" said it is misleading. but I have seen evidence that most of the other guests maintained the same thing. is this correct, i would be interested inknowing. would also be interested in seeing that "eight minutes" that you refer to. I'm not sure if democrats are against cracking down against immigration or not (that seems like a bit of a sweeping overgeneralization, frankly, your point notwithstanding --really depends on how it was clarified in those eight minutes. frankly, I think this is probably one of those instances where a good case could be made against democrats without distorting much, but that is simpoy opinion. not sure you get the point about jeff Bruce. yes, the paragraph you recite is a bit overblown, I agree with you, but the main point is the inappropriateness of making something personal, which Oreilly did, merely because he disagreed with the person. it seems that you missed that entirely. by the way, I'm curious, when you say "comments that violate the rules," do you, like O'reilly, mean mere mention of the name "olberman"? I mention this only to make the point about OReilly, consistent with the one above, about overzealous control, agree or disagree with it. but it allows for his points to be gotten across on his shows (which I don't watch any more, because guests are allowed to speak when they present "debate" that OReilly likes, and not when they address much more difficult to address "debate." a lot of this is not immediately apparent to viewers (not to mention behind the scenes, or how Oreilly attakcs guests who refuse his inviation to come on the show, as if it is the center of the universe,while atacking others (david brock of media matters, for instance) whom despite constant attacks, and their request, he won't have on the show). lastly, with respect to the larger, and more important issue, it also seems to me that with about 500 different examples a day of fox bias, it is easy to find a few that don't make their points well. you may not like this organization, but media matters, for example, referenced above, has documented 1000's of such cases, if not 10's of 10000's. sometimes they may have overlooked something, or mislead, but often it is pretty accurate (check it out). o reilly has likened them to traitors (which is disgusting because they have a right to speak and their points are usually far more accurate and less distortive than oreilly, and they back it up) and worse, merely because they tend liberal (not as liberal as he tends conservative) and, just as you attempt to do, their duty to see that the media remain accurate. know why he calls them that? because they make a lot of excellent points, and back them up. hard to address. April 12, 2006, 5:01:00 PM EDT – Like – Reply johnny dollar > I have seen evidence that most of the other guests maintained the same thing. What does that mean? Evidence? There is no need for "evidence". There's what they said. What people say ABOUT what they said is not evidence of anything other than those people's opinions. > would also be interested in seeing that "eight minutes" that you refer to Well, I don't have an infinite video archive of Fox News. If the newshounds had been honest and reported on that 8 minutes, and if they had done something really out of character (report on it accurately) then you might have an idea of what was covered. > when you say "comments that violate the rules," do you, like O'reilly, mean mere mention of the name "olberman"? Well, the rules are spelled out. There's a link so you can read them. How you could possibly ask this question when this article mentions Olbermann, and our latest has his name in the headline, is puzzling. > media matters, for example, referenced above, has documented 1000's of such cases, if not 10's of 10000's. Media Matters is not always accurate. And more to the point, when they are technically correct, they are selective. Like the newshounds, they will point out so-and-so said this on Fox, but make no mention of when some other so-and-so said the opposite. If all you read in the NY Times was William Safire's column, you'd be convinced the Times was a right-wing propaganda sheet. Same principle. (That's just one of their tricks.) > o reilly has likened them to traitors I never said Mr Bill doesn't go over the top himself at times. But that doesn't mean that he's always wrong. Everybody makes mistakes, even me! April 12, 2006, 5:19:00 PM EDT – Like – Reply |
Quick Links
About johnnydollar.us
This site includes J$P posts from 2004-2007. For current posts please direct your attention to johnnydollar.us.
Contact Us
j$p categories
Search J$P
Archives
|
