1/6/09 12:39 PM

Canine Confusion Climbs

It's not easy being a Fox hater. It's quite a chore keeping track of all the distortions and lies, so it's not surprising that sometimes they don't quite get their stories straight. Need we add that we speak of the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed gang)?

They trip themselves up constantly. One of our favorites is the serial interview complaint. What if Fox does two interviews: a (D) and an (R)? Suppose the interviews are conducted in that order? Well, that's a typical Fox trick:

In typical FOX fashion the Republican pro-administration guest had the last word and got to reinforce the White House agenda.
On the other hand, what happens when they give the last word to a Democrat? You guessed it:
It's interesting that democrats give their responses later, after the point has already been made, and viewers don't necessarily come back later. Typical Fox.

The newspoodles have called foul over interviews with Mel Gibson ("chicken"), John McCain ("cowardly"), and Fred Thompson ("chicken"). Why? Because they did one-on-one interviews with Sean Hannity, without Alan Colmes, and that was considering an outrage at the kennel. "Tom Delay Ducks Interview with Alan Colmes!" And yet, when it's Harry Reid who snubs Hannity and speaks only to Alan, all of a sudden the biased bassets have no problem whatsoever with cowardice. No calling of "chicken" here, or mention of him "ducking" an interview with Hannity. In fact, when John Dean avoids Hannity to talk to Alan alone, the mongrels are rapturous, calling it "a welcome change" from having both hosts doing the interview!

And now their latest classic of canine confusion. The whippets are up in arms because Fox actually interviewed people who didn't think Hillary Clinton's "distasteful" RFK comment was as bad as the media have painted it. Scandale!
FOX News conservatives have turned into her most stalwart supporters. Not only did they defend Clinton over her RFK assassination comments, the only thing they found offensive was the Obama camp's reaction.
Now fast forward to less than 12 hours later. The newsmutts are up in arms, because someone on Fox was criticizing Hillary's comment--you know, the one that was "distasteful" just hours earlier:
many segments discussing the horror of not the assassination or the fact that it happened in America but that Clinton dared mention it - even as a calendar reference, which is clearly all it was.... overblown rhetoric and misplaced outrage over her "irresponsible" comment, wilfully ignoring that she was making a reference to a primary season that went into June.... This is another manufactured media flap...
So do you understand now? Heads: Fox is wrong. Tails: Fox is still wrong. When you're dealing with the newshounds, sometimes it appears the left paw doesn't know what the other left paw is doing.

Total hypocrisy from Newswoofs regarding the solo interviews on H&C. I lost count of the number of times my posts on that particular brand of hypocrisy got censored over there.  
"YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!" - Jack Nicholson.
May 27, 2008, 3:15:56 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
Excellent writeup on the hounds' hypocrisies johnny. The best part for you must be that it doesn't take that long to find the double standards- they often use them one sentence after another!  
Logic is lost on the little lapdogs...
May 27, 2008, 6:59:39 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
"lapdogs"... "lapdogs"... I like the sound of that...
May 27, 2008, 7:54:29 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
Indicative of complacency; obedience; mindlessly following their master's command and yipping incessantly at powers much greater than themselves.
May 27, 2008, 8:41:56 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Their inaccuracies are astounding to say the very least...
They want to make valid arguments but their relay of the shows are so full of holes and distortions they cant even begin...
I often see the point they are trying to debate but their glaring mistakes get in the way...
May 27, 2008, 9:42:26 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Two different writers and two different posts about two different Fox shows.
Ellen's piece was not outrage about defence of Clinton,but outrage about the use of the controversy over Clinton's remarks to smear Obama.Included was this gem from Redstate's Erick Erickson:
“How much of that security’s been for show? Early on Obama wanted to have the look of a presidential campaign by having the guys with the wires and limos.”
As if the Secret Service,which decides on the level of protection for Presidential candidates,would participate in using it's agents as window dressing for a campaign.I'm sure they take their duties much more seriously than that.
Chrish's piece is the weaker of the two,and seems to be based on suspicion of anything coming out of Dick Morris's mouth.She wrote
"This is another manufactured media flap that conveniently filled a long boring news weekend. We know this because it is at least the third time she's used the historical reference and yet only now are the pundits in a frenzy."Indeed a mild defence of Clinton.
I will rely on the curiosity of your gentle readers to cover the material for themselves.
BTW,Chrish makes a stunning slap at Olbermann.I'm suprised you didn't post that.Doesn't say a lot for the hive mind view of the left that seems so prominent in some circles,I mean,that someone would criticize a supposed icon of the left.
May 27, 2008, 11:20:51 PM EDT – Like – Reply

olby sucks
BTW,Chrish makes a stunning slap at Olbermann.
I'm dying to see this......do tell.
May 28, 2008, 1:42:16 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Will Devaroe
I don't see what your problem is with Newshounds. It's a good site. Some of the posters are very good, with well-reasoned and interesting points. Some of the posters are idiots with nothing to offer. How is that different from this site? Ignore the idiots with nothing to offer, and everything is fine.
May 28, 2008, 8:24:11 AM EDT – Like – Reply

I somehow stumbled across the NH site several months ago. At first I, as a Fox fan, was offended: then, amused by the numbers of people who could criticize something they knew nothing about. However, in the interest of fairness, I began fact checking everything they wrote. I was not surprised to find many, many inaccuricies from both the posters and the commentors. If you want to hate Fox, by all means, hate Fox. Just, please, be adult enough to know what it is you are hating and not be led by the nose by people who do it "so you don't have to."
May 28, 2008, 9:47:42 AM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
> I don't see what your problem is with Newshounds
To put it in a phrase: they don't tell the truth.
May 28, 2008, 10:07:44 AM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Just now they have a post up making fun of H&C for reporting the story of Oprah's ratings going down possibly as a result of her Obama support. The mutts ridicule the story as nonsense, the commenters claim it's like the National Enquirer. Nobody bothers to tell anyone that the source for the story was yesterday's New York Times. How silly and empty the hound hypocrisy becomes when that one fact is allowed to be known.
May 28, 2008, 11:58:51 AM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar | Homepage | 05.28.08 - 12:03 pm |
Now the NYT covers a lot of stories.I've never done a count,but I would guess several hundred on your typical day.
So Fox,with much more limited space/time for stories,chooses to cover Oprah's ratings as relates to the Obama endorsement,on Fox and Friends (I saw this),again on Hannity,and heaven knows how many mentions throughout the day.
So the question remains,with such a limit on the number of stories they can cover,why would Fox decide to cover this at least twice?
May 28, 2008, 12:29:29 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
That's your question. My question is why the hounds are ridiculing Fox for even mentioning the story ("Fox News Suggests..."), promoting the notion that you'd only find this in the National Enquirer, when in fact it was a story in yesterday's NYT? "Ellen", who also just recently discovered that "stagehand" is a racial slur, sneers at Hannity citing Oprah's message board comments. Of course, that is what the NY Times cited in its article. But we don't see headlines saying "New York Times suggests..."
Needless to say, the same story was done on CNN and MSNBC as well. Just like the origin in the NYT, the hounds don't tell you that either. And the credulous lemmings believe them!
May 28, 2008, 12:34:16 PM EDT – Like – Reply

olby sucks
So the question remains,with such a limit on the number of stories they can cover,why would Fox decide to cover this at least twice?
notveryhow | 05.28.08 - 12:34 pm | #  
What would you say if they spiked the story? Just curious..
May 28, 2008, 12:39:32 PM EDT – Like – Reply

nvh, the opposite is true. A 24 hour cable news channel has far more ability to cover every possible political story or connection to a political story. In fact one of the problems with cable news is that seem to flail around looking for stuff to fill up air time.
A daily newspaper, with the constrictions of a daily deadline and column inches, would have to much more selective of the stories they cover.
May 28, 2008, 1:30:37 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Will Devaroe
Well, I understand now. Everything to do with FNC is good, decent, pure, just, right, professional, and anything other than FNC is bad, impure, unjust, wrong and sleazy. What a very simple world some inhabit.
May 28, 2008, 2:27:51 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Are you sure you're just understanding things "now", Will?
Isn't this the same simplified world you've always placed us in?
May 28, 2008, 4:42:30 PM EDT – Like – Reply

olby sucks
I think "will" had a memory lapse, forgive him, Cecelia.
May 28, 2008, 6:21:47 PM EDT – Like – Reply

That's General Will to you, Private...
May 28, 2008, 7:00:41 PM EDT – Like – Reply

So the NYT covered Oprahs ratings.Was it in the style section,or the front page.
"In fact one of the problems with cable news is that seem to flail around looking for stuff to fill up air time."
This morning on F&F,Mr Doocy,in commenting on Scott McClellan's book,repeated 3 times that the publisher of Mr McClellans book,Public Affairs, also published George Soros.This must be an example of filling up the time,to repeat this tidbit during the 6,7 and 8 o'clock segments.If he needed more script,he could also mention that Public Affairs also published the Starr report.They also had Dan Bartlett and Ari Fleischer on to comment,and as you can imagine,they said basically the same thing.(no credibility,disgruntled,why didn't he speak up when he was there)
But seriously,the space restrictions may be significant to a small local paper,but the NYT runs to what,60-80 pages.And the Sunday Times can be used as a counterweight on a childs see-saw.
That is one of the drawbacks of TV news of any stripe.They cover so little ground,and it certainly doesn't help if they repeat the same story multiple times.I can read 4-500 WPM,if someone spoke that fast they'd be incomprehensible.
May 29, 2008, 3:23:27 PM EDT – Like – Reply

olby sucks
.(no credibility,disgruntled,why didn't he speak up when he was there)
All valid points.
May 29, 2008, 3:50:24 PM EDT – Like – Reply

olby sucks
"Well, why, all of a sudden, if he had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he's raising these grave concerns that he claims he had. And I think you
have to look at some of the facts. One, he is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book and he certainly wants to go out there and promote that book. Certainly let's look at the politics of it. His best buddy is Rand Beers, who is the principal foreign policy advisor to Senator Kerry's campaign. The Kerry campaign went out and immediately put these comments up on their website that Mr. Clarke made."  
--- Scott McClellan ... White House press briefing
May 29, 2008, 3:51:29 PM EDT – Like – Reply

olby sucks
The "He" is Richard Clarke.
May 29, 2008, 3:52:39 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
> So the NYT covered Oprahs ratings.Was it in the style section,or the front page.
What difference does it make, and why you are so desperate to try to defend the newsmutts on this? It was a major article in the business section of the paper, and I'll even give you the link:
Every point raised in the brief discussion on H&C came from that article. So much for the pooches' deceptive "Fox News Suggests..." headline.  
I take it that should resolve the Great Oprah Obama Controversy.
May 29, 2008, 4:12:20 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Lucette Proctor
When I was 6 I ate the last lignonberry tarte we were saving for my father. When my siblings and I were confronted by our housekeeper, I denied it. All of his were punished be being denied sweets for a fortnight's time. When I was 9 I confessed. This lingered heavy on me. I imagine the same is true with Mr McClellan. He had lived with lies as long as he could stand it. The good and decent moral sorts around Bush will all come to this, while the morally bankrupt cowards like Cheney, Perino, Rice, Rove, Rumsfeld and Bush himself will continue to lie and deny. Bartlett will come around at some point, maybe 3-5 years down the road. This is all subject to an addiction analysis. How much better, how much more admirable would it have been had Betty Ford, by example, not taken to downing pain-killers with booze, but how admirable is it that she took hold of her life, made herself accountable and helped others? The prodigal has returned and good and decent people are rejoicing even as Perino is whining.
May 29, 2008, 4:27:23 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Thank you for that touching bit of nostalgia. But I remind everyone that Scott McClellan and his book are only relevant here as regards cable news coverage of same.
May 29, 2008, 4:31:54 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Lucette Proctor
Of course, I have defined the camps. As the bristling beligerent WH sends out the jack-booted thugs, the Murdochers will disparage and assault McClellan (I can already hear Hannity switching into his soprano shrill, modulating to his pitiful contralto) while the legitimate media will at least acknowledge the possibility that a person might desire to and can purge the impurities from his body and his soul.
May 29, 2008, 4:45:01 PM EDT – Like – Reply

"why you are so desperate to try to defend the newsmutts on this?"
I don't know.Maybe because it seems to piss you off.
I asked about the NYT because I didn't know.It seemed unlikely that the paper would put something as minor as Oprah on the front page.I was just wondering.I can't get home delivery of NYT,and I didn't have a chance to pick one up.
I don't know what kind of deadline pressure the NH people are under,but often I see weak stories being posted while more important topics are missed.(Doocy,at 6,7 and 8 saying 'McClellan's publisher publishes George Soros,and the publisher tweaked the book...' Is this important?Is it important enough to say it every hour?) They also post often about Hannity and O'reilly,who are as predictable as a hounds stomach and often as loud,and unimportant.
May 29, 2008, 4:59:10 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
> I don't know.Maybe because it seems to piss you off.
I enjoy honest debate. Apparently you do not. Thank you for your comment.
May 29, 2008, 5:05:18 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Oh,come on. If we were discussing this in a bar,I'd say the same thing.And you'd say,"F-you,and the horse you rode in on".Then we'd continue the conversation.
May 29, 2008, 5:17:22 PM EDT – Like – Reply

olby sucks
(I can already hear Hannity switching into his soprano shrill,
Can't wait!
May 29, 2008, 5:44:43 PM EDT – Like – Reply

"while the legitimate media will at least acknowledge the possibility that a person might desire to and can purge the impurities from his body and his soul."
Now if only the "legitimate" media would require him to back up his claims instead of allowing yet another guy to spew the typical liberal talking points that they've allowed to go unchallenged for 7 years now.
May 31, 2008, 2:30:00 AM EDT – Like – Reply

This is the first time I have visited this site. Some things I have noticed notveryhow, and if you are honest you can't disagree:  
Unlike the Newshound site I have not seen you once called a troll, nor have I seen other posters hurl insult after insult at you because you express a divergent opinion. I have not noticed that your comments have been edited or deleted simply because moderator does not like your opinion. This again is different from the Newshound site. Here the host says I welcome honest debate. At the Newshound site the host (namely Ellen) says "I can't debate you."
Yep, I haven't been here very long, but I am already noticing some marked differences between this site and the Newshound site. Most of what I have seen is not very flattering to Newshounds . . . but it is the truth. The truth (or honest debate) is something for which the folks at Newshounds seem to have little tolerance for.
June 1, 2008, 12:13:30 AM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Welcome aboard, danny. If you want a laugh, and have hours and hours with nothing else to do, just type newshounds in our search box, and be amazed as the tricks and lies they've pulled over the years.
You are correct. We don't permit name-calling of other posters, we enforce rules for reasons of civility, and we don't delete people for expfressing a different point of view. One of the biggest differences between how we run things and how the hounds operate.
June 1, 2008, 12:16:34 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Hi danny.. thanks for the compliments
June 1, 2008, 12:18:37 AM EDT – Like – Reply

olby sucks
Ironically, this was posted today in the pound....
"you will get more "free Speech" here than a comparative Conservative site..
Solitaire | 05.31.08 - 10:06 pm | # "
"We all know who this sockpuppet is. It's the same stupid troll who is too stupid to know what free speech actually means.
Visitor55 | 05.31.08 - 10:06 pm | #"
"I wonder how long it will take this idiot to realize that his drivel is being deleted.
FrankC | 05.31.08 - 11:11 pm | #"  
Free speech, tell us another lie, Ellen, Mellisa, Deborah, Prissy, etc.....
June 1, 2008, 12:36:48 AM EDT – Like – Reply

FrankC is the biggest imbecile there. And that's saying somethig.
June 1, 2008, 12:41:42 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Is there any way to create a counter comment forum for each article in Newhounds. . . one where a poster could feel free to be critical without being personally attacked or edited or deleted? I know that would be really hard to do. However, it would be funny if the counter fourm would draw more posters (and more good discussion) than the comments for the article.
June 1, 2008, 12:57:08 AM EDT – Like – Reply

BTW: Framk T. gets my vote as one of the worst.
June 1, 2008, 12:58:21 AM EDT – Like – Reply