Gadfly in the Ointment


Take the Outfoxed gals, mix in a generous helping of sloppy research, add a wildly inaccurate lefty "news source", and you have a recipe for another hound humiliation.

Do you think the US is stingy with its foreign aid? That is clearly the view of the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed syndicate), and they have gone out of their way to do everything but blame George Bush for existence of tsunamis.

But who says you can't teach an old hound new tricks? Perhaps they were inspired by Keith Olbermann's habit of lifting erroneous reports from inaccurate internet blog entries when they came up with this gem about the UN calling us "stingy":
...there's an excellent expose posted by The Gadflyer which shows how the alleged quote was originally fabricated by the Washington Times & instantly picked up by the GOP echo chamber & repeated by the usual suspects.

The Gadflyer identifies itself as "unabashedly progressive". No kidding. One look at their "board of advisors" makes their lefty tilt immediately obvious. Yet aren't the newspups the people who complain that Fox News is so horribly partisan that it can't be trusted as a news source? Why are they citing an agenda-driven blog from a gaggle of losing politicos? Anyhow, gadfly Joshua Holland's expose of the Washington Times is nothing if not foaming-at-the-mouth rabid:
It's still surprising to catch an American newspaper--even an ideological rag like the Washington Times--blatantly fabricating a story out of whole cloth. But that's just what Bill Sammon did in today's edition. His headline reads: 'U.N. official slams U.S. as 'stingy' over aid.'

"His" headline? Does Mr Holland really believe that reporters get to write the headlines that appear over their articles?
Sun Myung Moon's little newspaper infects the mainstream discourse disproportionately to its daily circulation of about 100,000. Today's article is a good example. I read the story last night and then awoke this morning to C-Span's popular call-in show, "The Washington Journal," leading off with a generous excerpt from Sammon's libel....By afternoon, even "liberal" NPR had picked up on the theme...So, too, did CNN's "Tonight with Lou Dobbs" later in the day...

There's just one problem with Mr Gadfly's provocative hypothesis. It isn't true! The Washington Times did not print a story that eventually found its way to CNN. In fact, the truth is exactly 180 degrees opposite: CNN reported the story, long before Bill Sammon's article rolled off the presses.

On Dec 27 (one day before the Times story) CNN published a report under the headline: "U.N.: U.S., others 'stingy' on relief aid'. (Note how similar CNN's headline is to the Washington Times headline Mr Gadfly condemns.) Yahoo News [scroll down] documents the date and hour (2:45 PM) that CNN posted this article, as well as a near-identical story a few hours later from India Daily under the headline "U.N.: U.S., others 'stingy' on foreign aid". (The next day CNN rewrote the headline, undoubtedly out of concern that they had unleashed a torrent of bad publicity for Ted Turner's favorite international organization.)

Both the CNN and India Times articles include this quote (you know, the one Mr Gadfly said was "fabricated" by the Washington Times a day later):
In a news conference at U.N. headquarters in New York, Egeland called for a major international response -- and went so far as to call the U.S. government and others "stingy" on foreign aid in general.

Even though CNN reported this story long before Bill Sammon did, Mr Gadfly knows better--it's still all the fault of the Washington Times:
the leading UN-basher and a publication that's not unduly burdened by those pesky facts.

It appears that the people who are truly not burdened by "pesky facts" are the sloppy researchers at that "unabashedly progressive" blog, and the newspooches who, without even an attempt at the merest modicum of fact-checking, swallow whatever they read from partisan hacks.

posted: Thu - December 30, 2004 at 01:25 PM       j$p  send 

john t
J$,
Why can't you come up with a creative blog where you discuss things instead of trashing a successful blog like the Newshounds. It's very pitiful that you have to go to another blog and nitpick them (most of the time falsely) to even have your own blog.
December 30, 2004, 10:38:11 PM EST – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
The newshounds is a successful blog? I suppose, if success is defined by making things up, fabricating quotes, and lying. I think the idea of a blog that acts as a fact-checker of a gaggle of irresponsible wannabees is a creative idea myself, but then that's just me.
 
Why don't you take the J$P challenge? You say most of my criticisms are false. Not a few, not some, but Most. OK, prove it.
December 30, 2004, 11:18:59 PM EST – Like – Reply

john t
You say you have a creative blog and state "that's just me". You are certainly right. I have visited this site a couple times and haven't seen anyone commenting. This will be my last time on here. You probably send alot of people to the Newshounds site.
December 31, 2004, 12:01:51 AM EST – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
I didn't think you could point out all (or any!) of those "false" criticisms of mine, and it looks like I was correct. And after spending over an hour looking for them too. Why does it not surprise me that this will be your last time here?
December 31, 2004, 12:27:13 AM EST – Like – Reply

2down6togo
I think sending people to the Newshounds site is kinda the idea. Folks come here to get the truth, then go to the dawgs site for a little laugh, at least thats how it works for me.
December 31, 2004, 11:01:31 AM EST – Like – Reply

joshua holland
You proved my point. 
 
The CNN post (which I can't find on the page you linked to) says "U.S, others..." and the India Daily headline also indicates that Egeland's comments were not specifically aimed at the United States, and correctly reports that the criticism was of foreign aid in general, not the tsunami response.
 
You claim to have a 'gotcha' with:
 
"Both the CNN and India Times articles include this quote (you know, the one Mr Gadfly said was "fabricated" by the Washington Times a day later):
In a news conference at U.N. headquarters in New York, Egeland called for a major international response -- and went so far as to call the U.S. government and others "stingy" on foreign aid in general.
 
Even though CNN reported this story long before Bill Sammon did, Mr Gadfly knows better--it's still all the fault of the Washington Times."
 
Nice try, but no. The quote you cite correctly specifies "foreign aid in general." Sammon's quote was: "U.N. Undersecre
January 3, 2005, 9:00:14 PM EST – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
You need to learn to write more compactly or your comments are going to get cut off, as they are above. The fact remains, the "stingy" quote was first published by CNN, not the Washington Times. And CNN's headline (since you seem to think headlines are as important as the story itself) specifically said: "U.S., others 'stingy' on relief aid". All of this long before that right-wing rag published its story. You can see the Yahoo News listing here.
 
If your point is that by focusing on the US rather than "US and others" Sammon "fabricated" a quote "out of whole cloth", then you don't have a leg to stand on (he simply chose to focus on the US aspect). If I'm missing your point please restate it, in fewer words so that you don't get cut off.
January 3, 2005, 9:34:29 PM EST – Like – Reply