7/7/09 9:15 AM

Fox Haters Week in Review

Eric Boehlert, Media Matters, and anti-Fox fanatics beware. It's the latest edition of Fox Haters Week in Review!

Boehlert's Boehlony
We've had cause to call out Eric Boehlert before. Given his falsehoods about FNC's tsunami coverage, or his manufactured smear of Glenn Beck, Boehlert has a history of serving his own special brand of Boehlony. And we're delighted to say he's at it again:

Fox News finally discovers FOIA...
I just get the feeling that during the Bush years Fox News didn't bother with FOIA's because Fox News reporters didn't need--didn't want--any additional information from the GOP administration. They were completely satisfied accepting the handouts. But with Obama in the WH, suddenly the Fox News team gets all Woodward-and-Bernstein and files FOIA requests!
The only problem with this is that the "Fox News team" began filing its recent series of FOIA's in 2008. We haven't confirmed this, but we're pretty sure that was the Bush administration. And it was still the Bush administration when FBN filed suit to enforce compliance. But let's go back even further and check 2001-2005 to see how Fox "didn't bother with" FOIAs:
CBS News had 32; Fox News 22; and NBC News 21. Yet it seems significant that Fox--labeled by some as "Bush News Central" actually outfiled the presumably liberal New York Times, while CNN (once labeled "Clinton News Network") made only 11 FOIA inquiries.
So Eric's latest Fox attack is just more Boehlony. One could call it that, or one could call it by its more common name: lying.

Ellen's Innuendos
When it comes to the unsubstantiated attack, the smear by insinnuendo, there are few more prolific than Ellen "Queen Bee" Brodsky, doyenne of the newshounds. Week after week she cranks out the slanders, often encapsulated in one of her trademark headlines, like this one:
Glenn Beck Protests Too Much: I Am Not A Racist
The thrust of this bit of Pulitzer-worthy analysis is the notion that if someone is accused of being a racist, they shouldn't deny it because that's just more proof of racism! Before you try to wrap your head around that MENSA-level logic, you should be aware that the "I am not a racist" part of the headline is a lie. Yes, an entire article based on something Beck didn't say! But this week's crown jewel of Ellenuendo is all about Sarah Palin and the White House Correspondents Dinner:
The question I'd been wondering about: why was Sarah Palin going to the White House Correspondents Dinner (before she canceled, due to flooding in her state)?
Is Ms Brodsky serious? Did she really find it puzzling that a sitting Governor and former candidate for Vice-President would attend the dinner? She didn't wonder about Ellen Burstyn, Alicia Keys, or Ludacris? She didn't wonder about the Governor of Pennsylvania, only the Governor of Alaska?
It turns out she was invited by Fox News...It's hard not to see this as a deliberate effort by Fox to boost her political profile...
You mean like NBC was "boosting" Ed Rendell? And Newsweek was boosting Eric Cantor and Steny Hoyer? The same way CBS was "boosting" Gov Corzine?
Even worse, AP neglected to report Fox's invitation.
Horrors! Of course when you read the AP's story, they didn't report anyone else's invitations either.
So how many Democrats did the "fair and balanced" network invite to the dinner?
Ah, ask the question but don't give the facts, even though they are readily available. FNC invited Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and even a Libertarian. Ellen won't tell you that. We just did.

Media Matters. Truth? Not So Much.
Eric Boehlert's dishonest libel described above was--surprise!--published by David Brock's Media Matters. But these Fox haters had more up their sleeve this week:
Fox & Friends ignores hedge fund's statement to push disputed claim Fox & Friends...repeatedly discussed allegations that the Obama administration threatened Perella Weinberg, a hedge fund invested in Chrysler, without noting that Perella Weinberg itself has denied the allegation.... But in asking Shuster whether he would investigate the allegations, Carlson did not point out, as Doocy did the day before, that Perella Weinberg has denied the allegation that it was pressured.
Sounds pretty convincing the way the Brocksters spin it. But "spin" is a benign term for what they're trying to pull here. Yes the claim is "disputed"...by the White House. But not by Perella Weinberg. Because PW's statement does not deny that they were pressured:
Suggestions have been made that the Perella Weinberg Partners Xerion Fund changed its stance on the Chrysler restructuring due to pressure from White House officials. This is incorrect. The decision to accept and support the proposed deal was made by the Xerion Fund after reflecting carefully on the statement of the President when announcing Chrysler’s bankruptcy filing.
You can read the entire statement here, from top to bottom, and you will not find any denial from PW that there was pressure. The statement is silent about the alleged threats, and only says that pressure wasn't the reason for their decision. In fact, additional corroboration of the threats emerged this week, but in an astounding, shocking development, Media Matters made no mention of it. Maybe they'll include it when they post their retraction.

The Loony Bin
There are just not enough Fox haters websites around that bring us the sophisticated, carefully reasoned analysis that is a hallmark of oreillysucks.com. One can only think of the scholarly prose of Edward R Murrow or David Brinkley when the sucksters write of O'Reilly:
Why should I care about some list they have in England. The answer, I don't. And I would guess 99% of Americans do not care either.... Earth to O'Jackass, nobody cares about what happens in England, this is America, report on what happens here moron.
But then this is the site that offered this gem of trenchant commentary:
The last segment was the culture quiz, with two more Republicans. Steve Doocy and Martha McCallum. It's two Republicans who work for FOX taking a lame culture quiz.... Only Republicans get to take the culture quiz, no Democrat, or so-called Democrat has even taken it.
Of course they provide no documentation that either of them is a Republican, because to the sucksters if a guest isn't a known liberal Democrat he's automatically a Republican. Based on what? Nothing. They make it up! So we find them repeating the lie that Lis Wiehl is a Republican, and coming up with a new "Republican" for their list: Jim Angle, whose 30-year journalistic career included working for ABC News, CNN, and 18 years at NPR. Also this week, Juan Williams magically changed parties because "no real Democrat would ever agree with O'Reilly".

In an audacious example of prevarication, the sucksters claimed that the story of pressure on Perella Weinberg was made up by Matt Drudge!
It's all lies started by Drudge. And only right-wing idiots are reporting it, so of course O'Reilly helped spread the lie.... The Obama administration denies it happened, and the law firm put out a statement saying it never happened.
Of course the sucksters are merely parroting the lies of Media Matters on that last point, and while we could list all the "right-wing idiots" reporting this story (like ABC News, CNBC, etc), you can check that out for yourself. Needless to say, the Drudge thing is also a lie. The story began at WJR radio in Detroit. But wait, there's more from sucks central:
In O'Reilly [sic] world only Democrats put out spin, which is ridiculous, and shows that he is a biased right-wing fraud of a journalist.
O'REILLY: Right-wing spin. That is the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo.
The sucksters continue:
He told them all of what they said was left-wing spin. Which is something O'Reilly never ever does with Republican guests. Not once has O'Reilly ever told a Republican guest that what they just said was nothing but right-wing spin.... not once has O'Reilly ever said to any of them that what they said was nothing but right-wing spin, never, not one time.
They make it too easy:
CLIFFORD MAY: ...the most important thing to understand, it seems to me is this. Saddam Hussein was himself a weapon of mass destruction.
O'REILLY: No, that's baloney. That is right-wing spin. And a guy as smart as you, I don't want to hear you say that.
MAY: No, no, no, no.
O'REILLY: I don't want to hear you say that right-wing talking point business.
Oreillysucks.com: serving lies to the Fox haters echo chamber 24/7. And, it's one of the top five blogs recommended by Ellen Brodsky and the newshounds.

Spot something you'd like to see in the next Fox Haters Week in Review? Send us an email.

i read about fox news FOIA at mm, but was curious about it, thanks now i know the truth
about sarah palin, i debated with NH about this -the funny thing-PALIN NEVER SHOWED UP!!! I watched so i know
more facts ( i also had posters tell me, NH dont care what the rest of the media does, just fox news-cause thats the purpose of the site-so fox news: bad, rest of media: pass)
oreillysucks: steve thinks everyone is a republican. he thinks dems are really republicans in wolf clothing.
$: another slam dunk-let the attacks start
(so predictable)
May 10, 2009, 4:47:55 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Cheesy Potatoes
If the culture quiz is so lame then why is that person commenting on it?
May 10, 2009, 7:33:04 PM EDT – Like – Reply

anything to slam oreilly cheesy
May 10, 2009, 7:45:33 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Good piece, Johnny!
The Boehlert statement is especially representative for what passes as "thinking" in these circles.  
Boehlert didn't feel that he needed to actually research his statement before making it. He already has FNC screwed, glued, and tattooed, and certainly his audience isn't going to question the accusation.
Unfortunately for him, the charge is one that is objectively verifiable. THAT goes to show you that Boehlert should confine his charges to the more nebulous sorts of slanders easily seen on boards such as the NH Mains.
With those sorts of smears, you can blithely state with impunity that conservative men want to keep women barefoot and pregnant, or that Christian conservatives hope to usher in a theocracy.  
With this low-rent crap, you know that the whole discussion will be lost in utter subjectivity, should anyone question your intellectual honesty or the number of your brain cells.
Keep it to the mindless slurs, Mr. Boehlert, rather than rattling off objectively verifiable accusations, that when proved to be false, show you to be so cynically hardened in your presumptions and your hatred, as to render you an utterly useless source of information and analysis, in the first place.
You still may not fool all the people, all the time, Boehlert, but at least you won't embarrass your fans.
May 10, 2009, 7:51:31 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
Johnny, you get a gold star for this level of debunking. Blackflon deserves a star too for bringing some of the NH lies to light over the course of the week in the comments.  
Do the O'Reilly Sucks people even know that they are skewered here again and again? More importantly, why did you put a picture of the face transplant woman next to "Ellen's innuendos"?
May 10, 2009, 8:20:37 PM EDT – Like – Reply

I thought Olbermann was olbsessed with Bill, forget that!
OS has him beat! Loved this one.....
"And I have some insight for people who do not know O'Reilly as well as I do."
What's he do? Drive around Hemstead, Long Island? Hang out at the Seven-Eleven? Pick through O'Reilly's trash? Does he touch the tv screen when O'Reilly's on and use Telepathy to read O'Reilly's inner thoughts?
We have a much simpler name for guys like him in da hood.
Kook. And a pretty funny one at that. Perfect for 'Ellen's Farm.'
May 10, 2009, 9:09:24 PM EDT – Like – Reply

"More importantly, why did you put a picture of the face transplant woman next to "Ellen's innuendos"?
Fox Fan | Homepage | 05.10.09 - 8:25 pm | # "
I think you're a bit upside down on this.
Johnny had a lovely picture of Ellen a few days ago that Ellen demanded he remove b/c of it was a copyrighted picture given to her by her beloved sister and I assume had great sentimental value to Ellen that she wanted to keep in the family, so to speak.
Being the great guy and gentleman that he is he accomodated her by using a picture that no doubt Ellen is much happier with.
Of course Johnny wants to show his generousity and please Ellen by displaying it sometimes in more prominent spots.
May 10, 2009, 9:15:07 PM EDT – Like – Reply

I will never get over how extremely truth challenged the Fox Haters are, and I'll never quite comprehend exactly how lacking in critical thinking skills EB is.
Great job again Johnny.
May 10, 2009, 9:25:22 PM EDT – Like – Reply

I'm thinking that Pres. Obama should be among the Fox Haters this week.
What can you say about the current culture where a president openly acknowledges that he was simultaneously the professional subject of media coverage while being their darling. Acknowledges THIS in order to get a another hit in at FNC!
What can you say about TVNewser and the media in general, thinking that this acknowledgment is hilarious rather than being deeply embarrassing and concerning.
It used to astound me that the media, in attempt to claim some sort of balance in the industry despite near monolithic liberalism, would actually argue that their entire 4th Estate is subject to corporate control of its content.
Their defense seemed to be "Sure, we're liberal, but we're corporate sell-out and compromised liberals, so it all balances out in the end..."
Nowadays, they don't even offer up THAT self-discrediting defense. Now, they're only too glad to be so freely considered to be in the Administration's pocket, that they're used as a means to slap the president's perceived critics!
May 10, 2009, 9:33:38 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Being the great guy and gentleman that he is he accomodated her by using a picture that no doubt Ellen is much happier with.
Of course Johnny wants to show his generousity and please Ellen by displaying it sometimes in more prominent spots.
Grammie | 05.10.09 - 9:20 pm | #  
It was nice of J$ to post a picture of a younger Ellen. Better for Ellen that J$ post a picture of Ellen during her college days rather than the photo of her at her college class 50th reunion.
May 10, 2009, 9:36:19 PM EDT – Like – Reply

ramjet-formerly vstol
"Keep it to the mindless slurs, ____________, rather than rattling off objectively verifiable accusations, that when proved to be false, show you to be so cynically hardened in your presumptions and your hatred, as to render you an utterly useless source of information and analysis, in the first place." perfect template provided by Cecelia.
May 10, 2009, 10:30:22 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Nice job Johnny.
But here's what I'd really like to know... what has been the reaction from these various sites when confronted with such irrefutable evidence?
I know they like to shout down ideas that disagree with them... but most of this seems pretty cut and dry: They say XYZ, but there's proof that's false.
So have you gotten any response? Has anyone else seen a response?
May 10, 2009, 10:54:54 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Actually, my slurs aren't mindless, r-fv, I gave them some thought...
May 10, 2009, 11:05:13 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
INB, I rarely hear anything back from the sites. They either don't know or don't care about being exposed. There was one time however...
This post has an update from the oreillysucks site. In the post I proved them 100% absolutely wrong in their claim that O'Reilly didn't correct a mistake he made. I actually emailed the site to point out their error and suggested they do a correction. Their email back is contained in the update at the bottom of the post.
That really says it all.
May 10, 2009, 11:44:20 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Well, I am just SHOCKED!
Well, no... not really.
But I just don't get it. I really don't. I'd like to dismiss this all as political ideology run amok, but that doesn't seem to fit it either. Knowingly deceiving (and let's not mince words here, flat out lying) about something, even when there is clear evidence presented.
If this was an "opinion versus fact" issue, I could give them the benefit of the doubt... but this isn't. This is a "he said XYZ" which is something that can be either proven or disproven. And the willingness and want to fabricate and defend despite contrary evidence is mind boggling to me... because, really... what is there to be gained by this? What is their goal, and why do they feel that (overt) lies will help their cause? Is it pathological? MUST they lie to feel better about themselves? Do they feel that negative information, even falsely negative, will somehow increase their ranks so the ends justify the means? Are they that diluted?
They (and I'm sure there are the very same "they" on the right) would prove to be an interesting psychological study. Although, I do believe that most of them recognize their (let's say) "unorthodox approach to reality," and that's why they hide amongst the willing believers, and the softball interviewers.
I just don't understand how they sleep at night believing they've done something good. If their child, son or daughter, saw their work... the fruits of their effort, and said, "But that's not true, and we know it's not true," Would they look them in the eye and say, "Yes, but it's okay... I'm a liar, but my lies are good." Could they really do that? Man... I just don't understand it.
May 11, 2009, 12:39:37 AM EDT – Like – Reply

You don't slur, either people or your speech, and "mindless" is not something I would ever associate with you.
May 11, 2009, 1:22:26 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Wow, a dent (really a hole) in MEDIA MATTERS' over advertised (and self-promoted) armor of integrity.
I am glad to see it is well documented and OBVIOUS. A dose of hypocrisy is also a pleasure. MM is so self-rightous about people backing their claims with facts...Now we see Mr. Boehlert and his friends are no better than those they claim commit journalistic malpractice.
May 11, 2009, 6:14:40 AM EDT – Like – Reply

I'm relieved to hear that R, because I thought maybe I'd offended you.
May 11, 2009, 6:25:35 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Here's an example of the sort idiotic smear merchant behavior that Mr. Boehlert should practice, rather than venturing into the deeper waters of objective data and/or rational analysis.
Of course this sort of dreck says more about the person who puts it out, than it does about the person they're smearing, but that won't bother (or even occur to) some audiences:
From some shameless moron named Julie at NH:
"In case some of you don't know, Britain's Home Secretary, Jackie Smith, has issued a sort of black list of people who can't enter the country, consisting of people who practice “hate speech.” One who made the list was far right-wing hate-monger, Michael Savage – and, I guess since the list didn't include Janeane Garofalo, Keith Olbermann, or Sean Penn (but included one of the right-wing dispensers of red meat to the faithful), Bill O'Reilly seems to suddenly think bias is bad."
May 11, 2009, 11:11:11 AM EDT – Like – Reply

May 11, 2009, 11:55:04 AM EDT – Like – Reply

I wasn't very clear with my original: "Keep it to the mindless slurs, ____________, rather than rattling off objectively verifiable accusations, that when proved to be false, show you to be so cynically hardened in your presumptions and your hatred, as to render you an utterly useless source of information and analysis, in the first place." perfect template provided by Cecelia.
That is a PERFECT template to fill in the blank with the FHotD (insert the FOX Hater of the Day).
And I definitely should have included your pithy close, "You still may not fool all the people, all the time, _________, but at least you won't embarrass your fans."-Cecelia | 05.10.09 - 7:56 pm
May 11, 2009, 12:04:22 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Thanks for your kind reassurance and for appreciating my comment, Ramjet!
May 11, 2009, 12:39:20 PM EDT – Like – Reply

cee | 05.11.09 - 6:19 am | # "
Great idea, Cee!
A toast to great man demands a great libation so I am hoisting a Grey Goose on the rocks to the rocking Johnny!   
Hip hip hooray!
May 11, 2009, 1:34:46 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Thank you so much!
May 11, 2009, 1:36:48 PM EDT – Like – Reply

A toast to great man demands a great libation so I am hoisting a Grey Goose on the rocks to the rocking Johnny!  
Hip hip hooray!
Grammie | 05.11.09 - 1:39 pm | #  
I agree wholeheartedly, but the best I can do at the moment is to hoist a cup of hazelnut flavored coffee, black and unsweetened.
May 11, 2009, 1:52:14 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Olby Sucks
I agree wholeheartedly, but the best I can do at the moment is to hoist a cup of hazelnut flavored coffee, black and unsweetened.
Ashley | 05.11.09 - 1:57 pm | #  
Os raises glass of milk, toasts Johnny.....
May 11, 2009, 2:57:09 PM EDT – Like – Reply

I only have pepsi but good work johnny
May 11, 2009, 3:20:47 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Best I can do is to lift a spoonful of leftover potato soup.
To you, Johnny!
May 11, 2009, 3:43:53 PM EDT – Like – Reply

I just found a baby bottle lying on the street, apparently tossed out of a moving car. So I guess that someone we know from NH will not be able to raise their drink to toast you today Johnny.
May 11, 2009, 4:05:39 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Olby Sucks
Would it be safe to say the "Johnny Dollar" thread on newshounds/liars was taken down due to the fact it backfired, big time?
May 11, 2009, 4:46:23 PM EDT – Like – Reply

the old is gone, but a new one is there, locked by ellen, the gatekeeper. so who knows how that one will turn out to be. i'm sure dissent wont be allowed.
May 11, 2009, 5:33:26 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Here's an issue I don't see discussed very much. This may not be the proper forum for it, but it may be.
Cable news, and to a greater extent, the blogosphere, is rampant with inaccurate reporting that validates the Lenin adage, "A lie told often enough becomes the truth."
What I see, or in reality don't see, is a strong condemnation, the holding accountable or demands for retractions by the leadership, or the rank and file that share the same political affiliations as those in the media who engage in false or misleading reporting on "the opposition."
During one of john t's prevarications when I took him to task for making false statements about me, he countered with something along the lines of, "You're always calling for people at NH to be accurate, why don't you hold J$ to the same standard?"
My response was that I actually hold J$ to a HIGHER standard than those at the kennel. It has been my experience that those who make honesty the foundation of their behavior, want to know if they've made a mistake, are the first to admit their mistakes and are prompt in offering a correction. Those, however, who place promoting an agenda ahead of honesty, not so much.
Imagine the effect that supporters of cable news pundits or bloggers demanding accurate reporting and corrections of mistakes would have. Imagine the effect of those on one side of an issue holding accountable the equivocators on their own side.
I propose that a study of examples of this attribute would reveal an interesting pattern.
May 12, 2009, 2:14:28 AM EDT – Like – Reply

"THAT goes to show you that Boehlert should confine his charges to the more nebulous sorts of slanders easily seen on boards such as the NH Mains."
-Right on, Cecelia. Boehlert could learn a thing or two from his worshipper Keith Olbermann, who is usually careful to keep his slanders vague, and thus, "safe" from solid rebuttal. This is because Keith-O knows that "[f]acts often get in the way of a good rant," as Democratic Senator Ben Nelson recently said of KO, et al.
I love when Boehlert messes up. He's a snide, self-righteous SOB who makes a living trashing and embarrassing others for journalistic output that isn't sufficiently left-wing, while assuming an air of infallibility for himself. Well, I'm glad to see more proof that it ain't so.
May 12, 2009, 2:34:24 AM EDT – Like – Reply