More distortions and falsehoods from the Outfoxed rat pack: invisible men, a wife who isn't, and more!

The newshounds who play at media criticism continue to rack up embarrassing flubs at an alarming rate. This third installment brings to an even dozen our quick takes on some of their errata.

In this article, which curiously seems to be titled ".", the anti-Fox terriers seek to demonstrate how unbalanced Hannity & Colmes is:

At 9:00pm (EDT), Sean Hannity led off with an interview with Rudy Giuliani (a member of the GOP “Truth Squad” camped out in Boston). This gave Giuliani a chance to hit the GOP themes du jour, including phrases straight from this morning’s GOP email -- “consistency”, “stay the course” & “stick with it” -- while comparing Bush to Churchill! As if that weren’t hilarious enough, Hannity continued to repeat the misinformation that “Edwards is the 4th most liberal Senator” -- go here to see why that is misleading at best, downright false at worst. At 9:10pm (EDT), Hannity interviewed former Senator Gary Hart...

By now we're used to the pups describing interviews with Hannity and Alan Colmes as if the latter had the day off; of course it was an interview by both hosts. But even more revealing is that the Gary Hart interview didn't begin at 9:10, it began at 9:13. How can this be? Simple, that's when the interview with Democrat Ed Rendell concluded. Ed Rendell? He was there? It turns out Rudy got five minutes, then Rendell got five minutes (what the stupidly gullible viewers of Fox have been duped into believing is balance). But Rendell's appearance is erased by the newshounds; if Alan Colmes was the first invisible man, Ed Rendell was the second.

But there was yet another disappearing guest on Fox & Friends:

Rich Lowry said the speech was "forcefully delivered." E.D. asked if the speech should "cause the republicans to worry." Rich said the "bounce" would be 5 or 6 points, and Kerry helped himself. Also, "He looks like a president of the United States, not someone who would perform CPR on a hamster." Mary Matalin started her critique with "it was well delivered,... Overall, the Fox friends did their duty and put out the republican response of the day...

But it turns out they also did their duty and put out the Democrat talking points as well. That's why Bill Richardson and Susan Estrich were there. Wait a minute, Susan Estrich was there? I don't see any mention of that in the summary. Well, you see, Rich Lowry wasn't on by himself; he was paired with Estrich. Now why do you suppose the "newshounds" don't want you to know that? Another guest rendered invisible, and by strange, unusual coincidence it just happens to be another Democrat.

In this entry regarding Hannity & Colmes one finds perhaps the most farcical charge ever published by the mangy curs:

Also, throughout the hour, the ticker keeps moving on the bottom of the screen with messages that support the Republican viewpoint.

Amazing how the hounds found GOP propaganda in the news ticker while this blatant bit of partisanship has gone unnoticed by every newspaper writer and media critic reviewing the coverage! A few examples: "The kidnappers freed an Iraqi hostage." "Sealed court filing in Kobi Bryant Case..." "specifics of possible mission are up in the air..." "110-mph tornado touches down in New Jersey". Really partisan stuff, isn't it? Since "throughout" means "in and through all parts" or "during the entire time or extent", the items noted above are by themselves proof that the mongrels' statement is a lie.

And what would a day be at the Outfoxed hacienda without another broadside in the jihad against Carl Cameron?

Fox political reporter "Campaign" Carl Cameron, whose wife worked for the Bush campaign in 2000, threw his usual Kerry-barbs into his supposedly fair and balanced campaign report. Nothing too overtly partisan, just enough to give a bad impression of Kerry. And make the wife feel good.

The newspoodles cite "oozing confidence" as one of the "barbs", and object to describing the two candidates as "identically clad" (they weren't?). And then there's the yorkies' obsession with Cameron's spouse ("and make the wife feel good"), which is not only none of their business ("Wives Are Off Limits", remember?) but also more than a little aberrant. Because, as has been made clear in this newspaper article (among others), it's not his wife, it's his former wife. Apparently getting a divorce isn't enough for the flea bags. What more do they want, for him to take her out, shoot her, and bury her in a landfill? Is that what it would take for them to just get over it?