Lying Ears


Fabricated quotes. Dishonest editing. Invisible men. Two articles from the Outfoxed gals prove to be a guidebook to guile. With J$P Audio!

Nancy is fast becoming our new favorite of the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed cabal). Her "beat" is Fox News Live, and nancy's daily rundowns are always a highlight of our afternoon fiction reading. Lately (perhaps to avoid the meticulous detailing of all her errors and fabricated quotes) her posts have shrunk to a fraction of their former length. But her tactics haven't changed:
[Brigitte] Quinn then asked about world reaction to Bush’s speech, gratuitously adding comments about moments “where there was not a dry eye in the house” & calling ink-stained fingers a “symbol of the Bush preemptive doctrine” & a “vindication of it.”

QUINN: I also wonder how other nations are reacting, if they saw it, to that moment last night in the State of the Union, where there was not a dry eye in the house, or certainly among any of the viewers. The Iraqi woman who voted, embracing the woman who lost a son essentially for the fight for that woman's freedom, it really was a stunning moment. I wonder, Mr Ambassador, if I think some people might see that sort of as this symbol of the bush pre-emptive doctrine and a vindication of it?

Brigitte Quinn said nothing at all about ink-stained fingers, although guest Robert Jordan did--another dishonest use of imputation. And she didn't ask how other nations reacted to the speech, but rather how they reacted to the embrace--which makes the embrace not a "gratuitous comment" at all but the actual object of her question. A modified slice-and-dice.
Jordan diplomatically [comment: no pun intended -- he is, after all, a former Ambassador] said that “some editorials have been very complimentary” & also waxed rhapsodic about the “symbolism” of fingers diipped [sic] in ink.

JORDAN: I think that's right. We've even seen some editorials out of Saudi Arabian newspapers that have been very complimentary of what the President has done, and of the Democratic elections in Iraq.
Let's get some more info about Jordan, shall we? He served as US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia from Oct 2001 to Oct 2003; he was appointed by Bush....Jordan has also been Bush's personal lawyer....There's more background on some of Jordan's other activities at Return of the Warblog.

Nancy goes on and on about all of Jordan's insidious ties to George Bush, as if all this were some sort of journalistic coup, akin to uncovering Watergate. Unfortunately, Fox splashed Mr Jordan's evil connections right on the screen:


So what’s “Fair & Balanced” about this interview? Not much.

And the point here is, what? To interview Jordan is some sort of crime against journalism? Is the New Rule that Republicans should not be interviewed? Nobody should be permitted on air unless nancy declares them to be unbiased? Fox should not talk to anyone to the right of Dennis Kucinich?

The problem certainly can't be that this is an example of Fox bias, can it? If that is nancy's point, then she is being more than a little deceptive. Because she says nothing about the subsequent interview, on the same topic, with James O'Brien, a protege of Madeline Albright who worked in the Clinton administration. One would think nancy would be incensed that Fox would interview someone who actually had ties to Bill Clinton. After all, what's so "fair and balanced" about that interview? For that matter, what's so fair and balanced, nancy, about not even telling your readers that it aired? (Another use of the invisible man technique.)

But sometimes nancy's eagerness to smear anything and everything on Fox borders on dementia:
At 11:06am (ET) Greg Burke in Rome reported that Pope John Paul II continues to improve. Burke said, in a tone of voice that was both cynical & sneering, "We don't know how much faith to put" in Vatican announcements about the Pope's health...Why is okay to diss the Catholic Church?

1. Pay attention to where the alleged quote ends and nancy's own wording begins. And B. Compare the words following nancy's counterfeit quote with what was actually said.

BURKE: Well the Vatican does say the situation was stabilizing. Just a short statement you know, we always don't know whether, how much faith to have in those. But the good thing is that the Pope appears in public a lot...

So we learn that Burke was not talking about "Vatican announcements", but rather about "short statements". A small fabrication from the tail-waggers, but essential to support the frame of the day: the "cynical and sneering" tone of Greg Burke's report. What better way to expose nancy's dishonest slander than to let you, dear reader, hear it for yourself.

So who are you to believe, the newspooches or your own lying ears?

posted: Fri - February 4, 2005 at 06:21 PM       j$p  send 
|