johnny dollar's archive march 2010

Read all about it: vintage television, FNC's homophobic "tranny", and more fact-check follies. Prepare for yet another action-packed edition of Fox Haters Week in Review!

Lying with Larry:
With Keith Olbermann on an extended "grief leave", his spot has been filled by Democratic strategist Lawrence O'Donnell. And Larry has had no problem taking over Olby's role as chief basher of all things Fox. He was in rare form on the day after the health care bill was signed, as he chatted with his impartial guest expert (from Media Matters!). Quoth Larry:

And on the day it was signed into law, Megyn Kelly spent about 23 seconds on it.  That was typically of the day‘s coverage over at FOX.

Larry is being more than a tad disingenuous here. While it's true that in her first half-hour Ms Kelly's only mention of the health care law was a brief headline, O'Donnell leaves out the fact that in the 11:00 am-1:00 pm block just prior to Megyn's, health care coverage dominated, with more than an hour and a half of those two hours devoted to the bill, the signing, and the ramifications. So Kelly began her shift by bringing people up to date on other news, and had more health care coverage in her second hour (which Larry ignores).

As for O'Donnell's preposterous allegation that 12 seconds per hour was "typical" of Fox's coverage that day, how gullible does he think we are? That would mean Fox covered it for less than four minutes over 18 hours of broadcasting! Besides the 90 solid minutes noted above, the day was filled with reports, interviews, and analysis on every aspect of the story. Anyone who watched FNC knows all this, but that didn't stop Larry. It's almost as if he were nothing more than a "creepy liar".

Around the Interwebs:
It's funny how reporting becomes "advancing a right-wing smear" when Fox does it. Case in point: an allegation against Bart Stupak involving his health care vote and airport funding. You can read about in the Detroit Free Press, the News, The Hill, and elsewhere. Media Matters is fine with all of that, but when FNC spends all of 45 seconds on the story, relating the allegation and Stupak's response, it suddenly becomes Bret Baier promoting "a right-wing smear". Not surprisingly, MM recycles the same trick again:

Fox advances misleading GOP attack on NLRB nominee Becker... Fox News advanced the attack that Obama nominee Craig Becker would be an "anti-democratic and anti-free speech" member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) because he believed "employers should have no role in union-organizing elections at all." But during a congressional hearing on his nomination, Becker stated that as a board member, he would be bound by law, which includes the "indisputable" right of employers to express views on unionization.

Actually Becker's statement used the phrase "current law", but the first thing to note here is that the "GOP attack" wasn't "misleading" at all. Nobody claimed he wouldn't be bound by the current law, only that these were his expressed opinions--which is true.

And then there's a trickier question: how exactly did "Fox" advance this "misleading GOP attack"? Unlike the previous example which fingered Bret Baier, this time MM uses the vague, generic "Fox" as its villain. Did the Articles of Incorporation advance this "GOP attack"? We assume MM is talking about a person, but if so why so vague? Who actually "advanced" the claim?

The interview segment in question was conducted by Megyn Kelly, so it's obvious that she "advanced" the GOP attack--except that she didn't. She never brought it up or mentioned it. Then maybe it was one of those nasty FNC contributors: Mary Anne Marsh was part of the debate. But no, she didn't bring it up either. The guy who did was Justin Sayfie, not an FNC employee, contributor, or even janitor. Just a guest. Unless MM has proof that one of the FNC stagehands whispered the "GOP attack" to Sayfie before he mentioned it, it would seem that nobody from FNC "advanced" the "GOP attack". It was advanced by--surprise!--a GOP guest as part of a fair and balanced debate.

Speaking of Megyn Kelly, did you know she is a raging homophobe? Just ask Abstraction Reaction, who claim that "Megyn’s homophobia is rearing its ugly head" (when they aren't calling her a "tranny"). Or News Blaze: "Megyn Kelly clearly is homophobic". You might wonder why the homophobic Ms Kelly was part of the NLGJA's 15th annual benefit--as a specially invited guest no less. Neither site addresses that conundrum, neatly avoiding the issue by just not reporting it.

Oh, there's someone else who also has called Kelly "homophobic": none other than Ellen Brodsky, leader of the newshounds pack (ETA: or else then guest-blogger Julie). By an odd coincidence, nothing at her site either about the NLGJA benefit. Shocker.

The Other JD:
There is an old maxim that we have all heard: practice what you preach. Newshound Julie Driscoll excoriated Laura Ingraham for being "narrow-minded": emphasizing points that support her arguments while ignoring facts that go against them. But then Julie goes and says this:

Ingraham must not have been Googling much lately, either, because she ignored polls which indicate public support for healthcare reform has increased since the bill was signed, and made the claim, "Most people don't like it, they don't want it, and they want it repealed." In fact, a recent USA Today/Gallup poll showed just the opposite -- since the signing of the healthcare reform bill, 48% approve and 40% disapprove. Just because something's on Ingraham's wish list doesn't make it true.

The one poll cited by Julie (which carried a disclaimer from Gallup about its "additional bias or error") does indeed exist. But guess what? In order to get to that poll, Julie had to skip over four more recent polls and ignore seven others--all of which went the other way! Doesn't it sound like Julie's been "ignoring polls" that don't agree with her "wishlist"?

At least Ms Driscoll didn't call Laura Ingraham a liar. She reserved that for Ann Coulter, so she could blast Bill O'Reilly for "giving a pass" to all her "lies":

Coulter adopted victim status and opined, ". . . I have a very strong case with the Human Rights Commission here in Canada for the letter that was sent to me by that Provost at University of Ottawa informing me that I might be committing a hate speech crime before I'd ever set foot in the country. That was publicized to at last half a dozen people . . . ." Yes, as Huffington Post reported, ". . . a private letter to her that was mysteriously leaked to Coulter-friendly venues like the National Post, Canada's most conservative national newspaper and to newsmax.com, the website that bills itself somewhat wordily as 'the leading independent online news site with a conservative perspective.'" How many lies can Coulter tell -- and how many times will O'Reilly give her a pass while she tells them?

Not to be technical, but what's the lie that O'Reilly let slide? That she got a letter? That it came before she set foot in the country? That it was made public? We may be a trifle old-fashioned on this point, but we still believe the first requirement of a lie is that it be not true.

Comedy of Errors:
One of the things the newspooches take pride in is their unfailing devotion to accuracy and truth. Because their leader, Ellen Brodsky, instills in each of them the same rigorous dedication to factual backup that has marked her writing over the years. And the results of this admirable discipline are again on display at the dog pound. Priscilla tells us about Jason Mattera, "who writes for Michelle Malkin’s blog, Hot Air". Only Hot Air is owned not by Malkin but by Salem Communications. Another tail-wagger blasts a headline:

Fox Only Cable News Network Not Carrying Obama's Speech At Interior Department

But the linked source does not make that claim, mainly because it ain't true. If only these mongrels had followed the example of rigorous fact-checker Ellen Brodsky, who devotes an entire post to the scandalous trickery of Fox changing the wording of someone else's article:

Fox Nation linked to an article from the Daily Caller called "IRS looking to hire thousands of tax agents to enforce health care laws" and changed the title to make it more inflammatory: "IRS Hiring Thousands of Armed Tax Agents to Enforce Obamacare?" (my empahsis) [sic] The original Daily Caller article said nothing about agents being armed to enforce the law.... Fox Nation took the first three paragraphs of The Daily Caller's article verbatim, except for one addition: Fox changed the sentence, "Republican lawmakers estimate the legislation will require the hiring of many thousands of new tax enforcement agents" to "Republican lawmakers estimate the legislation will require the hiring of many thousands of new (and armed) (my emphasis) tax enforcement agents".... Shame on them! You can contact Fox Nation about these tactics here.

There's no question that the articles are different, but a thought occurred to us: how does Ellen know that Fox changed the wording? Isn't it possible that it wasn't Fox who changed the wording but rather the Daily Caller? Oh details, details. Brodsky says it was Fox and that's that. Shame on them!

It didn't take much research to get to the truth. The first clue might be the URL to the Caller's piece, which reads: dailycaller.com/2010/03/22/irs-looking-to-hiring-thousands-of-armed-tax-agents-to-enforce-health-care-laws. Now why would "armed" be in the URL? Could it be that was part of the original article title? Ya think? If reading an URL is too much trouble for Brodsky, then you know doing the Google is going to be out of the question. Because that will turn up all the other sites who quote and link to The Daily Caller writing about "many thousands of new (and armed)" agents.

Without even the most rudimentary sort of verification, Ellen Brodsky writes an erroneous screed, then wants her gullible readers to complain to Fox Nation over something they plainly didn't do. Given her insistence on accuracy, we can be sure Brodsky will post a prominent apology to Fox Nation for her false story. Any day now.

TV or Not TV?
That is the question. What follows is not a "lie of the week", and probably not a lie at all. But it is amusingly demonstrative of the punctilious fact-checking of Ellen Brodsky and her brood. Ellen writes:

Beck, in his serious, hushed voice, beside his fake TV, acknowledged how chipper he was in the face of the passage of the bill.

Of course, Brodsky wouldn't claim Beck's tv was "fake" without proof, right? Well, she does cite evidence: the word of a newsmutt guest blogger! Nothing like going straight to an authoritative source! See for yourself:

It’s Glenda’s newest prop. One really has to compliment the prop department for its creation because it’s almost perfect. It’s an old-timey tee vee, just like the one I used to watch when I was a kid.... Beck’s old-timey tee vee is the perfect lens through which to view and understand everything you need to know about The Beckinator. That’s because the old-timey tee vee is a fake!!! It’s as phony as 3-dollar bill or, if you will, a Glenn Beck frog demonstration. The clue? Beck’s old-timey tee vee is only 6 to 8 inches deep, an impossibility for a tee vee from the ‘50s, which used vacuum picture tubes and were almost two feet deep. Just another phony prop to make another phony point about…what exactly?

Yikes, where to begin? How about the image that appears on Beck's "fake" TV?

If you watch the set closely, you'll notice that the vertical is stretched, and the vertical linearity is a little off, the top of the picture seems a bit squashed. As we all know this can be a common problem with tube b&w sets. Unlike many "color conversions" you see being used as props on TV shows, the CRT appears to fit the curvature of the bezel perfectly. Usually prop TV's that have been color converted have a cheap, squared off modern CRT and chassis jerry-rigged into an old cabinet, and they never look quite right due to the differences between the size and shape of the modern CRT and the bezel. Also, the set appears to be tuned to Channel 3. They're probably using an RF modulator to send video to the set from a computer, probably via the s-video out on a PC's video card.

But the cabinet has to be two feet deep! Um, sorry, but no:

Actually, I've seen one of these sets in person and they really are that shallow. GE marketed the designer series as being thin and compact.

How can that be? A guest blogger says it's a phony, cooked up by "the prop department", and that's that! Right? Ask the person who owns one:

The TV is a GE Coaxial. It is an unusually thin set for it's time The chassis is the original chassis.We have rented it out many many times.... Here is a link to a photo of the actual set....Yes it absolutely is a real set...It uses a regular 21" 110 deg tube, the cabinet is thin but the metal back has a bump to accommodate the tube.

Do you know what happened at the beginning of the very program Ellen claims to have seen? Beck banged the top of the set to demonstrate how the image fluttered--proving it's a vacuum tube set and not a prop. Despite that, Brodsky insists it's a "fake" on the say so of a guest blogger--two people who don't know what they're talking about, and neither lifts a finger to determine the truth. As someone once wrote:

Mistakes can add up over time to present a picture of the care and detail (or lack thereof) with which an organization "runs its ship." I believe a lack of attention to detail portends a lack of attention in other areas.

Indeed. It's precisely what made the newsmutts what they are today: a joke.

Spot something you'd like to see in the next Fox Haters Week in Review? Send us an email! fox news nh hp