3/21/09 11:50 PM

The Return of Stupid Hound Tricks

It's the return of Stupid Hound Tricks, wherein we document the subterfuge, deceit, and outright lying of the ultimate Fox hater website, the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed mob). With no further ado, let's get right to the list.

Stupid Hound Trick: Quote-cropping.
There's no easier way to misrepresent someone than by chopping a quote in half, a technique the newsmutts have mastered. This time it's deceitful Deborah, who writes:

Bill O'Reilly Claims He's Skeptical About Barack Obama... O'Reilly said, "I"m skeptical about Obama." He complained that Obama wants to be president for all the people but wouldn't debate on FOX News because he folded to Moveon funded by George Soros.
The Gullible:
  • Gee, no kidding?! BOR has always been skeptical of Obama
  • Was O'Reilly that skeptical when he was begging Obama to appear on his crappy program?
  • This whole Obama bashing is at its full swing with these radio talk show rejects.
The Reveal:
Deb has hoodwinked her readers once again. That's what happens when you quote half a statement, and leave off the other half. The full quote paints a much different picture:
I'm skeptical, and others here at Fox News are skeptical of Barack Obama, as we should be. We should be skeptical of all the Presidential candidates. That's our job.

Stupid Hound Trick: The Invisible Man
This works by cherry-picking certain people who appeared on a program and leaving out others, to paint a false picture of what was broadcast. And--surprise!--once again it's Deb:
It's been a little more than twenty-four hours since Barack Obama's speech and the non stop attacks on FOX News continue with the same intensity. Today on America's Election HQ with Megyn Kelly and Bill Hemmer clips of Obama condemning Don Imus for his racist remark were introduced to portray Senator Obama as a hypocrite while attacks on his judgment and patriotism remained in the mix. The parade of critics included Jane Hall, Juan Williams, Michael Reagan and Tammy Bruce.... These attacks continue on FOX everyday and the message seeps into everyone's minds.
The Gullible:
  • The slime from [Fox] News just keeps coming.
  • Fox viewers are dying off. Thats one consolation.
  • Fox doesn't want to mention non stop the anniversary of this 5 years of illegal war and the cost in trillions of dollars due to the 935 lies told by the Bush administration... It's easier to keep thier [sic] stupid viewer stupid by bashing Obama non stop.
The Reveal:
Leaving aside that far-right-winger Juan Williams, let's turn to Obama "critic" Jane Hall, who actually stated:
I think that it is sad that a man who tried to transcend race is being dragged into this. I do think that's regrettable. And I don't think he started this conversation.
Quite a searing criticism there. But what else is Deb not telling us? Who was the invisible man? Actually there were two on this program, both speaking in defense of Senator Obama and Rev Wright: Al Sharpton and Rev David Barber:

Why do you suppose Deb didn't want her readers to know about them? Because it might expose her claim of "non stop attacks" as a flat-out lie? Ya think?

Stupid Hound Trick: Blind reviewing.
This is something like using psychic powers. It's best to let you see for yourself, as Melanie begins her smear:
I happened to catch the last few minutes of Studio B w/Shepard Smith today (March 19, 2008) while waiting for Your World w/Neil Cavuto to begin.
We know what you're thinking. She's going to review a show based on the last three minutes? Considering that the newspoodles have admitted to reviewing programs they didn't watch at all, three minutes is at least a step up. In any event, Mel wails over an interview about Frosted Flakes, and ticks off all the important stories that weren't being covered, like the Dow, the economy, the 5th anniversary of Iraq. Then she moves in for the Big Finish:
I suppose it is when so much of the real news points to what a disaster the reign of George W. Bush has been. I imagine segments about Illinois-shaped Frosted Flakes take on real significance when your goal is to make the Republicans look as good as you possibly can. No news is good news.
The Gullible:
  • Fox either doesn't want to remind their viewers about the war or they think their viewers are just too stupid to understand.
  • Don't you think that that time would have been better spent covering something that actually matters?
  • Five years of war - so much to talk about - so little of it discussed on Fox. War, what war?????
  • Unlike [Fox], the fluff is NEVER the main story on CNN nor MSNBC. The fluff is usually last thing reported unless there is some breaking news.
The Reveal: That last one is really insightful. Doesn't reporting something in the last three minutes of the program mean it was "the last thing reported"? We stand in awe of the intellect of the Fox haters. Be that as it may, in truth Mel was just making it up as she went along--she had no idea what was on the other 57 minutes of Studio-B. Like the several segments on election issues, or rising gas prices. Or two of the things she specifically whined about: the Iraq anniversary and the stock market:

Of course, when we posted a comment pointing out how these were covered during the hour, Mel immediately deleted it. That's how much she cares about telling the truth.

Each one of these is a shopworn, oft-used fraud employed by the biased bassets to bamboozle the credulous kennel-dwellers. The fact that the newsmutts believe they can continue to lie about broadcasts seen by millions of people and expect to get away with it, well, that might be the stupidest hound trick of them all.

Vince P
Politics by children.
Our ancesters must be crying at how low these idiots are.
March 20, 2008, 6:43:16 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Sandra C
I an so glad that this issue is finally coming to light and being spoken about.
We have been monotoring FOX the programs with each host and news reporter you can see the severe change in all even the ones that usually were never assigned to make political comments. It seemes that they are reading all on the same page.
The rant on Hannity is more evident than ever O'Reilly we all agree is on the personal agenda at this time always was and even Greta that doesn't usually spend that much time on politics is doing just that.  
Yesterday some extremely important events took place but this was not important to FOX it was hardly touched. We will continue to watch these clows being puppet stringed.One note some of the Hillary supporters that we deal with are concerned of back lash in regards to Fox because they are going to much at rant and they might be blamed.  
These days you want to know some real news you must turn to other networks, but keep on monotoring Fox
March 20, 2008, 7:36:02 AM EDT – Like – Reply

On The Mark
The semi-literate ranting above notwithstanding, I would like your take on what appears to me to be a change FNC is undergoing which, again, appears to me to be a bit more than the usual network evolution.  
More-and-more, I find O'Reilly, Hannity and Sustern to be nothing more than self-sustaining shock jocks, with Hannity considerably cruder in his mastery of the art than the others. As with most shock jocks, O'Reilly and Sustern do offer, at times, perhaps rarer times than in the past, tidbits of value. Hannity has not provided anything of value in so long that he scarcely warrants mention.
As this prime time cluster devolves into some low brow bread and circuses phenomenon (also happening at other cable networks, MSNBC, in particular), I am beginning to sense some change in the "newsier" portions of the network's offerings. Certainly, there are personnel changes and more changes seemingly coming. Are we beginning to see the final push to real news respectability? Don't take offense at that question. You realize, very clearly I suspect, that many people view or have viewed FNC as nothing more than Republican lapdogs, strutting around the show rings to further Republican causes and candidates. That is an overly simplistic view, I know, but I have tended to see FNC as far, far too closely allied with the Bush Administration, virtually embedded. You can well argue that substantively, that is not the case, but I don't know if you can argue the image and perception issue. So, the genesis of the question, I suppose, is: Is FNC using the end of the Bush Administration as an opportunity to repair or recast, perhaps more appropriately, its image if not change its substance?
I hope that is happening. I do not use FNC to define baseline news, and I doubt I will even with a change. It is merely a different perspective, an enhancement, a balance for me. I suspect if I am correct about this change, I will find FNC a much improved product.
I will note that "opportunity to recast" is a bit cynical. Personally, I probably can't cast off my own cynical perspective. Whatever happens in the election, however, the parties, the definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" are undergoing some significant redefinition. Well overdue .... It would seem logical that news organizations, particularly those identified, rightly on wrongly, with a party and a philosophy, will undergo change as well. Perhaps, the Hannity's, Olbermann's and Dobb's will move beyond the pale, while the middle, still dappled, will take on greater breadth, depth and legitimacy.
March 20, 2008, 9:14:13 AM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
You want me to respond to your claim that FNC is "virtually embedded" with the Bush administration, when just yesterday you posted that you watch the channel so infrequently you can't identify who the anchors are? What then is your claim based on?
I believe a few days ago you made another claim: that FNC had ignored "the Bush economy". I asked you to elaborate and back that up. All I got in reply was crickets. If you watch FNC as rarely as you claim, that would explain your silence.
FNC has no need to "recast" itself because its coverage has always been fair and its opinion programs have always presented a wide range of viewpoints. The "perception" about FNC is in large part a fiction sustained by liars like the newshounds.
March 20, 2008, 10:10:57 AM EDT – Like – Reply

On The Mark
I don't think such a hostile response was in order, but I never disown anyone for simply having an abrasive personality.  
I rather clearly said that the embedded question was my perception. I get that perception from the shows I most often watch, Hume (once a week, perhaps), Beltway Boys (virtually every week), which I think most people would agree are among FNC's most balanced programs, with the possible exception of Smith, who I find acceptable but not preferable to other offerings. Even on these more balanced shows you have Hume who invariably gives a pro-Bush perspective and Barnes who has been a loyal and unabashed Bushie. Now, perhaps we're not classifying either as news shows. Hume's arguably is while Boys' certainly is not. But, in your rush to attack, you missed the key point I was raising. Is a change afoot? Secondarily, if so, is that change the result of an internal dynamic or simply the natural evolution from Bush? If you don't care to answer those questions, that's fine. But, don't lump me in with the Newshound crew. I am not as willing as you to label them liars, but they are silly and amateurish. I don't find any worthy objective met by their site, no noble mission.
Briefly, as I have hit on this before, I have never understood the problem with simply saying FNC has a conservative slant, nor do I have a problem with saying MSNBC has a moderate, progressive or liberal one. I don't think this means facts are ignored or altered, it simply means that the natural human thought process makes some facts more important, more interesting than others. That is reflected in placement, prominence, time allocation, intonation, follow-up and related pieces. In numerous other ways, as well. You almost act as if my perception that FNC has a conservative slant means that I am saying FNC is fundamentally dishonest or flawed. That is decidedly not the case. If FNC was just a series of news readers of wire service reports, it would add nothing to our offerings. It's value is not in its upholding some unattainable and largely meaningless standard of objectivity, it is in the way it packages and presents the facts. It is my job as a news consumer to analyze and to discern what I read and watch. I am not willing to cede that right and responsbility to FNC, MSNBC, NPR, PBS or the Times of London.
March 20, 2008, 11:32:58 AM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
> I rather clearly said that the embedded question was my perception.
And you're entitled to it. I just happen to think it's wrong, and not based on fact.
> Is a change afoot?  
Change is always afoot. Gibson replaced by a political news show as an example. If you're saying that there is some "natural evolution from Bush" (the assumption being that there was some original linkage with Bush) then I think what you're seeing is news that reflects the change in the country. The news today is not as generally favorable to the GOP as it was say five years ago. The coverage reflects that fact.
Your point about story choice, time allocation, etc is entirely valid. News judgment is subjective and every cable channel makes different decisions in this area. FNC's are different from the other channels just as those of the Detroit News are different from the Free Press. The difference is part of why people prefer a given news channel, though a larger reason is a much simpler one: they like the people better.
March 20, 2008, 11:41:04 AM EDT – Like – Reply

If there is a change at FNC it is because there is an election under way. All the little stuff is being reported that in other times would not but for a few lines in the headlines or something like that. What I keep coming to is BOR, Hannity and even Gretta are not news programs, they are opinion shows, even then they have both liberal and conservatives guests and even Hannity has Colms as a host. I just can't understand why people cann't get it.
MSNBS is another animal, their opionion show host are often put out there as news people.
March 20, 2008, 12:05:54 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Vince P
I remember reading last year that Ailes sent a letter to everyone...  
he expects all on-air talent to behave as if the company was at start-up launch stage. I think it said anyone not willing to be creative and perhaps even reinventive doesn't have a place in the company.
Maybe that policy is now being actualzied ?
March 20, 2008, 7:48:12 PM EDT – Like – Reply

On the Mark
I hadn't heard that, Vince. Most interesting ....
March 20, 2008, 9:42:53 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
Entertaining exchange, johnny and OTM. I doubt most would understand the local paper political comparison, however...  
/Detroit area resident
March 20, 2008, 10:45:10 PM EDT – Like – Reply