If hating Fox is the new internet sport, there are a lot of players. But which one told The Lie of the Week? With J$P Video!

We noticed there was a full moon last night. Perhaps it's mere coincidence that the Fox haters have erupted in full derangement mode. Example: more baying from the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed syndicate). When they're not busy defending Chavez shutting down opposition media, they're attacking Fox based on smears and misinformation. They recycle again the dirty lie about John Gibson and "white babies", and in best echo chamber style parrot another slander that misquotes Gibby on the subject of "knuckle-dragging savages".

Now, when Bob Beckel appeared recently on Hannity & Colmes, there was a brief mention of the brawl he got into over a week earlier. That wasn't enough for newsmutt Ellen, who made up some "facts" and went to town:

FOX News Ignores Attack On Their Own Liberal Commentator, Bob Beckel
“Fair and balanced” FOX News, so sensitive to the free speech rights of conservatives, ignored an attack on those same rights that just happened to belong to a liberal, even though the liberal was FOX News' own contributor, Bob Beckel....there has been no discussion.... One would hope that FOX News’ indifference to attempted intimidation of liberals would have been trumped by sympathy to one of their own.

Well, as readers of this site know, the above is a load of manure. We posted video of one such discussion three days before the newspoodles launched their false attack. What's more, the next morning Beckel was interviewed again--specifically about the brawl--by Judge Napolitano. You'd think responsible writers would welcome an infusion of facts, but not the anti-Fox terriers. Presenting facts to them is like dangling garlic in front of Dracula. We reproduce here the back-and-forth between credulous kennel-dwellers, Fox haters who assert anything they want without any proof, and one commenter speaking truth to bow-wowers:

• Why would [Fox] give a crap about anybody other than the hard-line Republican supporters who blindly follow their propaganda? This incident alone should be enough to point out to the trolls that [Fox] is a pathetic mouthpiece for the Admninistration.
• There are certain events that stand out to me as the most defining indicators of what Fox 'news' is all about. This is easily one of them.
• J$: Do you hounds ever tell the truth? It has been discussed with Beckel on air several times. There's even video posted on this. Your headline should read: Newshounds ignore the facts.
• NH: Please cite back up data to indicate exactly when Hannity and FOX News discussed Bob Beckel on the air. It's easy to come on a website and accuse someone of lying. If you want anyone to believe you, you ought to provide proof.
• J$: I've got a video up of Beckel talking about this incident. The very next day, he interviewed about it again in the morning. I can't speak for when Hannity discussed it, but then your headline doesn't say Hannity ignored it (which he didn't), it says "Fox News" ignored it. I think two separate occasions establishes that Fox News did not "ignore" it, and that it is clearly false to state that there have been "no discussions" about it. If you want to claim that Hannity should have had yet another discussion about it over a week after the incident happened, you're free to make that point. But then again, that isn't what you said. As so often is the case, you went a bridge too far and claimed "Fox News" itelsef had ignored it and never discussed it. Which is obviously false. Note that I didn't accuse anyone of lying. I just pointed out the facts. You suggest I ought to provide proof, but where is your "proof" that Fox News "ignored" the incident and had "no discussions" on it? You are making the charge, the burden of proof is on the accuser, yet you do not provide one scintilla. BTW, when your site claims Fox News ignored this, didn't cover that, never mentioned this, etc, you are almost always wrong (as I have documented over and over and over). Because you make these claims without checking, just as you did this time. So it's clear Fox News did NOT ignore the incident, and did have discussions on it.
• NH: I have watched every single Hannity & Colmes program since Beckel's fight and I do not recall it being discussed. I searched "Beckel" on FOXNews.com and found no result after 5/18/07 which was before the incident. Yet, you insist without offering any proof, that I am lying. Sorry, but I need a bit more evidence than just your say-so. Don't come back here unless you can prove I'm wrong.
• J$: You are very touchy about the lying charge, perhaps because it is a stock in trade of this site to throw around the L-word constantly. Yet I never said any such thing. As for the proof you demand of others (without presenting any of your own) I've already provided it. I told you that I myself have POSTED VIDEO of Beckel discussing this incident on Fox. What's more he was interviewed about it again the next day. That sounds like proof to me. Does that not sound like proof to you? Again, I'm not talking about when H&C discussed it. I'm addressing your headline, and your first paragraph, and assorted other parts of your article where you claim Fox News (not merely H&C) ignored it and never discussed it. I have presented that proof; just look at the video.
• NH: OK, I'm going to change the title of the post and acknowledge that someone found ONE instance of Beckel being discussed on FOX News. Apparently, you have backed off your claim that Hannity discussed it, too. [What claim is that? Could this be Another Hound Lie? --J$] You could have just provided the citation to begin with and I would have corrected my post. But instead, you had to turn it into a major ordeal, accusing me of God knows what, probably as an excuse to cover up your own inaccuracies. [Um, what inaccuracies? Might this be Yet Another Hound Lie?] Whatever the reason, I am sick of your antics. Since you are unable to join in the discussion in any constructive way, I am giving you notice that you are not wanted on this blog and that any further comments from you will be considered harrassment. I will contact your ISP and report you if you come back here, whether under your own name or any other. [Good luck with that! --J$] And, by the way, I am totally open to criticism and corrections [COUGH!! --J$] but not the way you do it which only aims to demean and denigrate. Now scram and go back to your own blog. It's too bad that having only one blog to smear us isn't enough for you but you'll have to learn to live with it.

Classic hound logic. But it pales next to a falsehood specifically aimed at a respected journalist. For that we turn to the Eyes Guys--the anti-Fox site with the unknown, anonymous authors. It's so secret that even the domain registration is private. They attack Adam Housley who has been covering the assault on press freedom in Venezuela. (There often seems to be an anti-free-speech strain among many of the Fox haters.) They make their share of ridiculous assertions, but these reeds are too thin even for Fox haters, so the Eyes Guys decided to kick it up a notch:

Housley appears to contradict himself regarding getting threatened at rallies yet Neil overlooks this lapse

This was apparently the most important point of the article, since the Eyes Guys put it in bold type. Yet they don't bother to quote this supposed "contradiction". That might just be because there wasn't any! They made it up!! We actually asked them to specify where there was any contradiction in Housley's report, and were told:

Housely's [sic] contradiction is picked up by Barron so it's impossible for even you to miss. It regards him being threatened by the crowds. Is he threatened by both or one side? He ignores Barron's question in his counter-rant so that ambiguity never gets cleared up.

Because Barron was ignorant of the facts, he was confused. But what excuse do the Eyes Guys have? The video clearly shows there was no contradiction about where Housley was threatened. If you haven't seen it, here it is again [QuickTime video]:



We'll spell it out for the Fox haters so it's perfectly clear:

HOUSLEY: I just came from a Chavista rally where I had people threaten me.... We've been down here showing both sides. We've been to both Chavista rallies. There were two. We've been to both. Excuse me, excuse me, let me finish. There have been two since we've been here the week. We have been to both. No other network in the US has been to both. We've been to both. We've been threatened at both. We have not been threatened here. So we've been to both rallies...
BARRON [talking over]: I thought you said you were threatened at both....
HOUSLEY: You have not been watching Fox News because we have been to both rallies for the Chavistas, and all the rallies here.

Barron was so uninformed that he didn't know there were two pro-Chavez rallies, the two rallies Housley was threatened at. The Eyes Guys, eager to discredit Fox and Housley, take up Barron's ignorance and make it their own, using it to smear the reporter with a phony, nonexistent "contradiction". The Eyes Guys either didn't pay attention to what Housley said and just automatically sided with Barron for political reasons, or they deliberately lied about a "contradiction" that isn't there.

If it's the former, then their "standards" are pretty shabby, not exactly a rarity among Fox haters. If it's the latter, then they're just another cabal of liars. We'll watch for their retraction and apology to Adam Housley. If he doesn't get one, it would seem safe to say we've found our Lie of the Week.