Maybe It Came from Lucy Ramirez


The Outfoxed gals are proven prevaricators, but would they try to pull a Rather? Updated!

It's hard to believe, after Dan Rather's embarrassment over second-rate forgeries, that anyone could be so brazen as to think they can get away with foisting phony documents on the public. But then again, we're dealing with the newshounds (another fine product from the Outfoxed cabal), so no level of arrogance is beyond possibility.

The tail-waggers have long claimed that they regularly get emails written to the Fox News Channel. Exactly how messages intended for FNC could possibly find their way to the kook kennel (given that there is zero similarity between the email addresses) remains unclear. The gullible, of course, have heretofore never so much as raised an eyebrow over these purported emails, which the curs claim "show how ignorant Fox viewers really are".

But the latest stunt by the newspoodles is so preposterous that, even by hound standards, it hits an 11 on the humbug scale. Newspup chrish has posted what she claims to be an email intended for Sean Hannity. This diatribe is a loopy, over-the-top ramble by an alleged faith-healer, that includes gems such as these:
  • I am very tired of your show Hannity & Colmes portraying we of faith (Brothers Robert H**** and Benny H**** & Myself) who DO HEAL THE SICK as crackpots and rip-offs.
  • George W. Bush is anointed and appointed By God himself, he will lead us to Victory over the ignorant Muslims and anti-Christ like Insurgents.
  • I am Americas Republican Prophet
  • it seems that American Media don't need God anymore they worship the dollar
  • How can you call yourself a real republican?

No, it's not April 1. Chrish did not post this in the section dedicated to satire (the oxymoronic "progressive wit" category). Does anyone with a functioning brain believe this is genuine? Before you answer, here's how the signature block reads:
  • Reverend Barney W**** Americas TRUE Republican Prophet Author & Faith Healer To make a donation please send your gift of Love to: THE **** ****, (address deleted). We now Accept Cash, Checks, Gold, Money orders Cashiers Checks, Stocks, Bonds, Foodstamps and car titles You even get to keep the Car PRAISE GOD!

This is worse than a bad SNL skit. The alleged writer of this email claims to have a radio show, and obviously has internet access. So what does our research assistant, Mr Google, tell us?
  • Item: The phrases "Republican prophet" + "faith healer" did not match any documents.
  • Item: The phrases "Reverend Barney" + "faith healer" gave the same result.
  • Item: The phrase "faith healer" + Barney + radio produced a lot of mentions of The Simpsons but nothing relevant to the purported email.
  • Item: The self-description "Americas Republican Prophet", used in both the body of the "email" and the signature block, has zero references on Google.
  • Item: Several other unique phrases in this email also turned up no relevant results.

In short, we found nothing in several hours of intensive searching that could verify anything about this so-called email. And its semantics also raise questions. For example, the writer makes several simplistic mistakes in punctuation and usage, but then writes that the "media don't need God". Most people say "the media is", or "the media doesn't need". Our mystery writer knew that "media" is a plural noun. Understanding an arcane grammatical point like this, while making obvious mistakes elsewhere, suggests a person of some training who is trying to make herself appear uneducated.

Given the fact that the tail-waggers are deliberately refusing to divulge the real names and email address--if they exist at all--could this be anything other than a transparent fraud? It's time to play Let's Assume. Let's assume, for argument's sake, that it is a fake. Can we tell anything about the identity of the author?
  • Item: The fake email is directed to Sean Hannity. Newshound deborah is the doggie who regularly writes about Mr H.
  • Item: The fake email refers to the show as "Hannity & Colmes", not "Hannity and Colmes". Deborah regularly spells it "Hannity & Colmes".
  • Item: The fake email uses the ampersand (&) four times. Deborah regularly employs the ampersand beyond just referencing the program title (here, here, and here).
  • Item: The fake email omits the apostrophe in "Americas Republican Prophet". Deborah wrote about Young America's Foundation and she omitted the apostrophe. Twice.
  • Item: The fake email uses the word "republican" three times without capitalization. Deborah has done the same (here, here, and here).

We report. You decide.

Update: Newspup chrish has apparently responded to this article:
Just want to reiterate that the personal info has been confirmed, by me, and this is not a fake letter or satire. These are bona fide right-wing whackos [sic].

Repeating the allegation, without any evidence or details, is not, of course, any kind of substantiation. It amounts to saying, "Because I said so. You'll have to take my word." In the case of the newspoodles, with their track record of mendacity, we would prefer a more reliable authority. But if we can play Let's Assume the letter is fake, we can play it the other way too.

Let's assume the email is genuine. What does this tell us about the hounds? Here's an illustrative analogy. Follow: suppose chrish received a letter in her mailbox. It was addressed to her next door neighbor, but the street number was wrong so it came to her by mistake. Our intrepid tail-wagger, however, does not give the letter to her neighbor. Instead she opens the mail, reads it, runs it through the Xerox machine, and gives copies out to everyone on her block. Then she scans it and posts it on the internet for the entire planet to read, all the while ridiculing her neighbor for what the letter-writer said.

Does something sound a bit off here? Is this the modus operandi of the newspooches, reading other people's mail and then making it public? Aren't they the great champions of "ethics" and "privacy"? Do they not care that the sender of this email may learn that it has been made public by someone who was never intended to see it? Is their moneybags Jim Gilliam prepared to deal with the legal ramifications of unauthorized publication of someone else's communications?

That's all, of course, assuming that this isn't just a hound variant of My Big Fat Obnoxious Email. The hoax explanation still looks better to us. And after a bit of contemplation, it may start looking better to Gilliam and company too.

posted: Sat - March 26, 2005 at 10:18 PM       j$p  send 

Mike
Reading the comments to the article is very revealing. First, the scare tactics - look out for the children:
 
> Sorry, Greg, but I verified the personal information. It's real. Real scary. And I will tell you this much: these people are in leadership positions in their communities with access to children.
ChrisH
 
Then a striking similarity to Rather's "fake-but-true" reasoning:
 
> Real or not, this is an echo of the oft repeated O'Reilly 'challenge' issued to people he either knows aren't coming on his show or hasn't invited in the first place.
 
and they finally admit that it probably was a hound that wrote it:
 
> Whomever [sic] the writer of that letter is, they're nuttier than a bag of pecans.
> Obviously the person who wrote this letter is very stupid. 
 
BTW, the hounds never tell this new poster that you were banned for presenting the truth through accurate transcripts:
 
> Where has j.$ been throughout the Terri debacle? Strangely silent. Just asking
March 27, 2005, 2:41:35 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
That's rich. If they "verified the personal information" and are worried about "these people" having "access to children", then why the secrecy? Why are they covering up for these menacing predators? They should be making all these secret details are public as possible, for the protection of the community.
 
Unless, of course, it's all made up.
 
Thanks for your comments, and for noticing that the hounds are just as secretive about their banning people for telling the truth. And why not? Again, they seem to have much to hide.
March 27, 2005, 2:53:11 PM EST – Like – Reply


Mike
Although it is too new a field to have solid rules of law, one example of "Cybercrime" is:
 
Email Interception: The act of reading, storing, or intercepting email intended for another person without that person's permission.
 
Just like what is going on here.
March 27, 2005, 10:14:19 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Well, if we were to swallow the story that these emails were all somehow improperly addressed, then the hounds would claim they didn't intercept them. If were to believe that story. However, taking them and making them public...I wonder about that. If I got a letter in my mailbox for my next door neighbor, would I have the right to open it, read it, and publish it on a website? I don't think so.
March 27, 2005, 11:15:23 PM EST – Like – Reply


Deborah
Q. If you are indeed 'the premier independent website for the truth about the Fox News Channel' why is that you have so little traffic? 
 
A. Simple. Because no one reads you.
March 28, 2005, 12:36:05 AM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
You did.
March 28, 2005, 12:48:06 AM EST – Like – Reply


Ellen
FYI, I'm the one who was on gmail duty when that gmail came in. Astounding as it seems to me, we receive several emails a day obviously meant for Fox. Usually, I write back to the sender and give him or her the correct address of Fox. But that one I forwarded to Hannity, Colmes and Comments all @foxnews.com in order to ask them to please post their own email address more prominently.
 
Ask your pals over there if you don't want to take my word for it.
 
Speaking of retractions, I know you are obliged to make one here.
March 28, 2005, 1:35:16 AM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
So, ellen, are you saying that you admit responsibility for making this email public and distributing it to persons other than the intended recipient? And it was chrish who is responsible for publishing it?
 
I'm afraid I have no idea what you are talking about as far as "retractions" is concerned. When I prove the newshounds to be liars I do so with transcripts and audio/video clips. But you and your fellow hounds don't care. Not only do you not retract the lies, you leave the false info in place even when it has been shown to be false.
 
Now perhaps you could explain exactly what it was I have said that is a lie, and your proof. Unlike your site, where you banned me for posting a fact you later conceded was true all along, I won't ban you here (providing you follow the rules). I want you to have the opportunity to point out what needs to be "retracted" and where you have shown your proof.
March 28, 2005, 6:46:02 AM EST – Like – Reply


Nikki
Liberal that I am, I'm afraid I'm going to have to side with johnny dollar here. I, too, googled Rev Barney and got nada. This comes down to, if the email is legit, prove it.
March 28, 2005, 10:07:46 AM EST – Like – Reply


tomaig
I posted this last friday on the hounds' site, in response to scarlet's assertion that the News Hounds "always" use retractions if they're wrong: 
"Really? So all these instances where Johnny Dollar PROVES with video or audio clips that what the 'hounds said was NOT what really occurred...they issue retractions for those? Where? Funny, all I see happening as a result of his repeatedly pointing out errors is that he's been banned. It makes me wonder just what they're afraid of."
----------------------------------
Then, from Charles:
It took me a month and a half of hounding little johnny counterfeit dollar to get him to correct his posting where he completely blew it on who an interview was with!
 
I also note that the counterfeiter has made a false accusation against Deborah that he was taken to task for on his site, and instead of correcting his post, he instead insists he was correct in saying that Deborah had claimed a Faux talking head had made a comment, when she clearly had not.
 
Posted by: Charles at March 25, 2005 04:16 PM
----------------------------------
Then, this bit of incoherence from Dee, whom I had initially called on her assertion that this mysterious "GOP Schiavo Talking-Points" memo was obtained as a result of an FOIA request:
 
"I'm trying to find the report that I had found and here somewhere on the web that involved the AP in the process. Because the one I had read came from a friend of mine computer that has full access to Lexis/Nexis. Now if I had know you the most innaccurate troll among us was going to challenge me on it, which by the way I also was one of the ones that challenged Jonny 2cents and it seems he doesn't ever want to go into that discussion again, I would have made a copy of it. Id din't think it would be so critical for you to have it.
 
So right now I'm trying if I can find it somewhere on the www. And pardon me for not responding sooner but I had decided to take a nap when I got back from the Pittsburch Airport this morning and posted.
 
And since your so interested in condemning me today, here's something for you. I'm a Roman Catholic who had sausage with her eggs at breakfast on Good Friday, and I did it right in front of my Roman Catholic Parents. "GASP" OH MY GOD
 
Posted by: Dee Pb.D at March 25, 2005 06:31 PM
-----------------------------------
I guess she thought that last bit would shock me, or something...
March 28, 2005, 11:44:35 AM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Umm, FOIA requests take weeks, if not months, to fulfill. It is factually impossible for the "GOP" Talking Points memo about Schiavo to have come to light via a FOIA request.
 
Also, if it were a GOP internal memo, it couldn't have been obtained via a FOIA request. To my knowledge, there is no FOIA for political parties, only for government publications.
 
And yeah, I'm still waiting for the retractions myself. I've linked some of the most recent, most egregious examples in the right column. All proven lies, none retracted or corrected. But then, these ARE the people who brought us Outfoxed.
 
PS: I'd comment on that bit from "Charles", but it's so jumbled, William Safire couldn't diagram THAT sentence.
March 28, 2005, 11:51:36 AM EST – Like – Reply


Mike
> A. Simple. Because no one reads you.
 
I think this post proves otherwise. Using newshound standards, it appears that Deborah can be classified as a "troll" and this post got to her. (When I was allowed to comment on their site, I found it very easy to rile them up.)
 
There are so few comments here because there is really nothing to say - the information is correct, and we winners don't need to constantly console ourselves with anti-Demo feel-good drivel.
 
BTW, I have seen several other sites that point to transcripts here as reference material ("J$ has the transcripts up" etc.)
March 28, 2005, 1:41:44 PM EST – Like – Reply


Ira
>There are so few comments here >because there is really nothing to >say - the information is correct, >and we winners don't need to >constantly console ourselves with >anti-Demo feel-good drivel.
 
Mike: Mega-dittos! (he-he-he)
March 28, 2005, 7:42:18 PM EST – Like – Reply


Ms. Tery
So...how do you reconcile your accusations of Newshounds "foisting phony documents on the public" with the Bush Administration's now-revealed practice, panned by the Government Accountability Office (among others), of issuing video "news releases" that are little more than shameless propaganda masquerading as news? Is what is good for the gander not good for the geese, or vice versa? Or do you feel there should be one set of rules for those whose viewpoints you agree with, and another for those you reject?
 
This site has become funnier than ever as the months have passed. All the folks banned from Newshounds talking to one another in one big echo chamber where the sound is deafening, if incomprehensible.
 
Go on - ban me. Badge of honor.
 
Ms. Tery
March 30, 2005, 4:10:15 AM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Sounds to me like the echo chamber is the site that bans people who dare to disagree. Bans people who point out the falsehoods and lies. Now THAT'S an echo chamber!
 
Sorry Ms Tery, but we don't ban people for disagreeing. You haven't broken the rules, so we let you have your say. Unlike the newspoodles, who banned me for posting a FACT that a few hours later, the banner admitted was correct all along.
 
Now THAT'S responsibility, doggie-style.
March 30, 2005, 8:52:46 AM EST – Like – Reply


Mike
> ...the Bush Administration's now-revealed practice, panned by the Government Accountability Office (among others), of issuing video "news releases" that are little more than shameless propaganda masquerading as news?
 
Sounds more like a Bush-basher's personal opinion than a provable "now-revealed" fact.
 
The newshounds misquotes are provable, documented facts. That's the difference.
March 31, 2005, 1:45:49 PM EST – Like – Reply