Little More than M-T Bluster


When the Outfoxed gals abandon all principle, the results can be embarrassing. With J$P Video!

When someone always takes a particular position and is quite adamant about it, then all of a sudden reverses herself and heads off in a direction 180 degrees opposite, that's usually a clue that something is afoot. In most cases, you'll find it's not a road-to-Damascus conversion, but merely a hypocritical about-face--a way to embrace a principle du jour for the transient purpose of making a dishonest point.

And speaking of dishonest, that brings us to the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed mob). One of their pet peeves has long been how nothing from Fox can be trusted, particularly the transcripts that appear on foxnews.com. Just ask newspup Marie-Therese:
I would suggest watching the video feed as I frequently find errors and omissions in FOX's partial transcripts...

FOX transcripts are frequently wrong and many times leave our words or misspell them...

As for FOX transcripts, they are frequently incomplete and have errors...I will post my very own transcripts of BOTH interviews, thank you very much.

It's clear: Marie-Therese thinks Fox's transcripts are not to be trusted. They are not a reliable source, and she insists on transcribing things herself. All well and good. But remember that about-face we mentioned?
[John Kasich] interviewed a long-time friend of the judge's, Dennis Devlaming, who had nothing but good things to say about his friend. (You can read the entire interview here.)

What? Is that a link to an FNC transcript? Why would Marie-Therese find these incomplete, error-ridden documents suddenly worthy of respect? M-T says it has to do with Kasich's comments regarding Judge Greer and a campaign contribution from Michael Schiavo's attorney:
KASICH: "You know, when I was in politics, whenever I had something going on that involved somebody, I was always very careful not to take anything from them. But look, that's a matter to question his integrity. You're a stand-up guy for coming on. Judge Greer obviously feels strongly. He's put a lot on the line. And we're just going to have to see how this all works out. Sir, thank you for coming on."

And predictably this drives Marie-Therese into paroxysms of outrage:
With this nasty piece of character assassination, FOX News has fired the first round in what will become another jihad against another member of the judiciary who doesn't agree with the right-wing political puppet-masters at the GOP.

So why is Marie-Therese suddenly treating error-ridden, incomplete, untrustworthy transcripts from the evil Fox as if they were holy writ? Could it be that, contrary to the tail-waggers' slogan, she didn't watch Fox? Did she just read an "incomplete", "frequently wrong" transcript? (A newshound writing up a program she didn't even watch--it wouldn't be the first time.)

So what about that "nasty" statement from Mr Kasich. Did he say what Marie-Therese claims?



KASICH: You know, when I was in politics, whenever I had something going on that involved somebody, I was always very careful not to take anything from them. But look, that's not a matter to question his integrity. You're a stand-up guy for coming on. Judge Greer obviously feels strongly. He's put a lot on the line. And we're just going to have to see how this all works out. Sir, thank you for coming on.

So Mr Kasich specifically said he was not questioning the Judge's character. And the entire point of Marie-Therese's rant can now be seen circling the drain. For once Marie-Therese was right about something (transcripts can have errors)--but her expedient reversal just made her wrong again! If only M-T had the integrity to hold to her long-standing position on transcripts, she would have avoided this embarrassment. But the allure of a cheap shot trumps responsibility, especially in the kennel.

posted: Mon - March 28, 2005 at 06:59 PM       j$p  send 

Mike
Another newshound previously wrote:
> Comment: A disclaimer on Fox's site indicates that the transcript was "edited for clarity." Why does Fox edit its "transcripts?" What good is a "transcript" if it's been edited? Why even call it a "transcript" if it's been edited? 
- "Edited for Clarity," Reported by Melanie at March 25, 2005
 
The target of Marie-Therese's link to the KASICH-DEVLAMING interview ("You can read the entire interview here") starts with the caveat "This is a partial transcript...that has been edited for clarity." 
 
The fine print at the bottom of the transcript gives the actual source: "Transcription Copyright 2005 eMediaMillWorks, Inc."
 
eMediaMillWorks publishes government, financial and international news in an electronic text format. Besides FOX, their "content partners" include CNN, CNBC, CBS, and MSNBC. Their customers include AP, Bloomberg, Financial Times, Reuters, Lexis-Nexis, and Westlaw.
 
Sorry, newshounds, but there is no smoke-filled room with Karl Rove directives on the wall where nefarious FOX employees carefully modify the transcripts before they are published.
March 29, 2005, 2:48:24 PM EST – Like – Reply


Mike
Marie-Therese is at it again. In a post today (Opinion Dynamics V-P: Bush Facing "Perfect Storm of Bad Events"), she quotes Kasich as saying, on the same O'Reilly Factor, "the Congress has the lowest poll ratings they've had, frankly, since I've been there in 1997, shortly after we closed the government.
 
Her comment is: Aha! Kasich admits that the Republicans shut down the Congress in 1997.
 
But her quote from Kasich goes on: "You know about that infamous memo that appeared in the Senate saying this is - Schiavo's good politics for us."
 
I don't have a transcript, but it looks like the continued quote has two parts: (1) "You know about that infamous memo that appeared in the Senate saying this" and (2) "is - Schiavo's good politics for us." This interpretation makes more sense, but deprives her of the acid comment.
 
The truth is that the government did shut down (in 1995, not 1997), but it was because Clinton refused to realize that he had lost Congress and the Republican majority got to run the show. (John Kasich was then the Chairman of the House Budget Committee.)
 
After a showdown, Republicans and Democrats agreed on a final version of a new budget bill, and it passed the House and the Senate. But President Clinton vetoed the bill on December 7, 1995 and the government shut down. As House Majority Leader Dick Army put it, "Then we had the unbelievable circumstance where the president vetoed the bill, shut down the government, and we got credit for it. Why? Because the president never talked about it until the day it passed, and then he only said one thing: 'The Republicans are shutting down the government.'"
 
[Comment: Aha! The newshounds aren't lying at all - they are just incredibly ignorant!]
March 29, 2005, 7:27:28 PM EST – Like – Reply


john t
Deleted for rules violation

Edited By Siteowner
March 29, 2005, 8:34:33 PM EST – Like – Reply


john t
What's the matter Dollar isn't anybody allowed to confront your little puppet Mike?
March 29, 2005, 10:24:59 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Either you didn't read the rules, which wouldn't be very smart, or you did read the rules and deliberately violated them--which wouldn't be very bright either, come to think of it. No personal attacks on other posters permitted. It's simple English; anyone should be able to understand it.
 
And it's more than a little deceptive to run over to the newshounds and cry about how mean J$ deleted your post, without telling them that you violated the rule against personal attacks.
 
Now perhaps you want to address the false article posted by M-T where she relied on transcripts that by her own words were unreliable. And maybe you'd like to comment on the fact that she allows the false article to stand even though it has been proven wrong.
 
Or not.
March 29, 2005, 10:38:19 PM EST – Like – Reply


john t
I'd say your being kind of a hypocrit when you say nobody is allowed to call anybody names. Yet you turn around and call the Newshounds all kinds of names. I know this will be deleted but I just thought I'd call you on this.
March 29, 2005, 10:54:04 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
What names do I call the newshounds? Dishonest? The facts show it. I don't think I've ever called them "lying scum", which was the entire substance of your message directed at Mike. When all you have to offer is name-calling, you SHOULD go running back to the hounds for your crying towel. There you can call names till the cows come home. But our comment threads are for discussing issues, not calling names.
 
Clear now?
March 29, 2005, 11:33:13 PM EST – Like – Reply