Here Come the Judge!

What do the Outfoxed gals and Richard Nixon's Watergate tapes have in common? An 18-minute gap!

It is a matter of faith among the loony Fox-haters that the news channel is nothing more than a PR agency for the Grand Old Party. Nowhere is that article of faith more deeply held than in the wacky world of the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed syndicate). There we learn that "it's a propaganda arm of the White House", it broadcasts "raw Republican propaganda", is an "echo chamber for the rich and powerful" where anti-Bush news is "withheld from Fox viewers"

There is a reason why we are documenting these tiresome cliches. It is because they inform, mold, and control the "reporting" that the newspups concoct to fit their purposes. Case in point:
On FNL today (1/3) Brigitte Quinn & David Asman are back, but the emphasis from last week (damage control for the Bush admin) continues unchanged...

Yes, it's another one of nancy's interminable minute-by-minute breakdowns of nearly two hours of Fox News Live. There are the usual brilliant bits of insight (such as noting when someone uses the same phrase that "reactionaries" use), as well as a few head-scratchers (criticizing Fox for not telling viewers that Sky News correspondents reporting on the tsunami are employed by NewsCorp).

But we took a close look at nancy's timeline, and noted a strange anomaly. After tsunami coverage at noon, here are nancy's time stamps for items she reported on in the second hour:
12:13 pm - 12:35 pm - 12:37 pm - 12:43 pm - 12:45 pm - 12:55 pm

The interview at 12:13 pm lasted about 5 minutes. But what happened after that? Did Fox go off the air until 12:35 pm? Why is there a nearly-18-minute gap?

There is a gap because, from the newspooches perspective, there had to be a gap. After a commercial break and a few headlines, the discussion turned to an administration proposal to hold detainees indefinitely, another example of what the hounds consider the GOP war on individual freedom being promoted by FNC. Appearing was Fox's Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano. Aha, a perfect example to repeat some quotable Bush propaganda to prove Fox is a PR agency for the White House! Let's go to the tivo:

NAPOLITANO: The constitution says that the rule of law applies, and the rule of law is, charge them with a crime, bring them before a tribunal, or let them go. We can't go around, in the name of the law, kidnapping people who we believe are bad or have information, and not charge them with a crime.
NAPOLITANO: What the government is saying is, because we don't have enough evidence to charge these people, we want to keep them forever. Hey, the essence of a democracy is the rule of law. The essence of the rule of law is freedom from arbitrary arrest. You can't just grab people off the street because you don't like them or think they're dangerous. You have to have evidence that they did something wrong.

Oops. The Judge's comments don't exactly support the hound talking points about Fox. It seems that, rather than Fox withholding news from its viewers, the cur critics are withholding the truth from their readers. So does anyone doubt why this segment miraculously disappeared from nancy's comprehensive "report"? Or why, despite being asked that question over and over, nancy simply stonewalled and refused to answer? Just another one of those lies of omission that the newshounds find so "handy".

Rosemary Woods couldn't have done it better.

Postscript: In another portion of her meticulously researched article, nancy "reported" on an interview with Michelle Tirado. There were the usual snide comments and unsupported accusations (all part of the tail-waggers' stock-in-trade), but Ms Tirado got wind of their slanders, and posted a blistering comment at the site:

How exactly do you know how much I make on domain names? And why are you reporting that I "sold" the domain to the Canadian Web designer? You're very uninformed.
For the record, I made no money on domain names last year. I lost money. Second, the domain name was donated -- I gave it away. I did not make a cent on it. And on the point that "Asman was eventually annoyed," that is very funny.
Maybe you should have checked the facts before posting. If you were in doubt, I should have been contacted. Obviously, you were only interested in twisting the story to your own needs.
The NY Post did garble the truth -- and I'm not surprised. I never "claimed" to have been victimized by a scam artist. I did not know at that point what the heck was going on. It was the Post that contacted me to inform me that the domain was up on EBAY (after I donated it). Seems like you prefer to garble the truth too.

Ouch. Looks like another triumph of journalistic ethics for the hounds. And it will surprise no one that Ms Tirado's objections have been met with more stonewalling from nancy.

posted: Wed - January 5, 2005 at 05:36 PM       j$p  send