Missing memos, propaganda, nut jobs, and Adolph Hitler. It's another excursion into johnny dollar's mailbag.

We analyzed Aaron Barnhart's review of Outfoxed, and that resulted in an email exchange with Lee:

The memos featured are not presented as "representative" of anything other than what they are--clear instructions to Fox news staff on how to slant the news. Are there other memos which are are more innocuous? Undoubtedly. So what? The point is that the "carefully picked" memos shouldn't exist at ALL in a "fair and balanced" news operation.

Some memos put news focus on way on a given news day; others put it the other way. There are memos, for example, that didn't show up in OutFoxed: "Let's not overdo the appearances by Kerry's swiftboat mate John O'Neil. While his appearances so far have been OK, he represents one side of the 30 year recollections of what Kerry did, or didn't do, in uniform. Other people have different recollections."

On the dishonest snipping and editing of a Carl Cameron report in Outfoxed, Lee adds:

Since you don't offer an "accurate" transcript of Cameron's report, it's hard to judge.

No it's not. Fox has shown the original, unedited version. But I take it that you would find this sort of editing to be dishonest, no? And a production that would edit in such a deceptive fashion would be of questionable credibility, no?

Lee takes up the video's constant use of Hannity counting down to the election of Bush, while never mentioning that Alan Colmes also does a countdown to the election of Kerry:

Not being a regular Fox News viewer, I have no way of knowing if this is actually true. Since John Kerry has not been the Democratic presidential nominee for very long, I kinda doubt it. But if you are seriously arguing that Alan Colmes is given equal weight and is presented as every bit as credible and authoritative as Sean Hannity, then your powers of observation and analysis are questionable at best.

And you base that on not being a Fox News viewer? OK.

Finally Lee tackles The Great Pauline Cameron Controversy:

Cameron's wife was "hanging out" with her. What do you imagine she was doing if not campaigning?

How about "hanging out with her"? How about asking Pauline Cameron? How about asking Carl Cameron? (Others did, but not Mr Xanadu.) And how about not lying about something being "widely known"?

Have you got footage of Greta van Susteren kissing Kerry's ass the way Cameron does W's?...Unless you have some evidence to support your assertion, don't expect to convince many others. Me, I think the pre-interview footage of Cameron speaks for itself.

I'm not in the business of stealing other peoples' footage; that's Mr Xanadu's department. In his world, the pre-interview footage is all-important, but the interview itself--what actually went out on the air--well, that's so irrelevant that he won't even include it! If the interview itself was such a fawning, ass-kissing softball session, wouldn't that have made great proof for their little video? Obviously if they stole footage of the pre-interview, they stole footage of the interview itself. But somehow, that didn't make it into the final cut. (Perhaps it would have taken too much time to snip and edit like they did with the Cameron report.)

You've offered fairly lame rebuttals (and zero evidence backing them up) to precisely THREE points raised in a 90 minute film. Not quite the demolition you'd apparently like to think. It's really amusing to see partisans of the most ruthlessly efficient, wide-rangingly blatant propaganda machine this nation has ever seen start whining like little girls when they think some of their own techniques are being used against them.

Well, that's as much evidence as the video provided for its thesis that Pauline Cameron was campaigning and it was "widely known". Only I wasn't trying to rebut the little video itself. I was analyzing Mr Barnhart's review of the film. How many devastating points did he raise? Three! He raised the memos (in the video: selectively handpicked), footage of reporters parroting memos (in the video: doctored!), and the clip with Cameron and Bush (in the video: dishonestly characterized and unsubstantiated). OK, maybe not Pulitzer material, but not bad for a day's work.

Another reader was not so hostile to our analysis; about reviewer Aaron Barnhart, Huck writes:

This guy has been extremely biased for years. The last year or two he's been promoting every obscure left-wing documentary that's broadcast on tv. Barnhart promoted a Bush-stole-Florida documentary by left-wing nut job Greg Palast in his column. Then he also gave a big plug to a documentary about that writer (Hatfield I think was his name) who wrote the book about Bush in 2000 alleging that Bush was busted for cocaine--which of, course, turned out to be b.s. He's one of the reasons I don't read the Star anymore.

And finally, Tom gives us some words of support for our adventures in posting at the newspoodles website:

From what I can see after being away a week, you have been having a terrible time of it. Keep a stiff upper lip. The U.S. government is not going to call Fox to task and put it to sleep for a while yet. That'll take a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate. But do know, true justice for Fox and Rupert Murdoch are the firsts on the target list.

That wouldn't surprise me. Isn't one of the first things Hitler did was close down newspapers?

Keep that feedback coming!