1/6/09 1:05 PM

Newshounds: Both Dishonest and Stupid

It's beyond comprehension that anybody takes their drivel seriously any more. We speak of the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed cabal). When they aren't being dishonest, they are just imbecilic and fatuous.

Newsmutt Chrish is eager to point out an "easily verifiable whopper" from Bill O'Reilly, who said his guest list is balanced between(R)s and (D)s. Oh no, she yelps; people who believe that are being "taken for suckers". Of course Chrish cites an irrefutable source: an O'Reilly hate site!

What Chrish doesn't tell you is how this site does its classifications. First of all, anyone who is a Fox reporter (except for Geraldo, who for some reason gets a pass), is automatically labeled a Republican. So Major Garrett, Dagen McDowell, and a fistful of others all get counted as (R)s. (Just to up the ante a bit, they even count Doocy and Carlson's weekly "culture quiz" segment--that's two more Republicans!) Then the guests are given the same treatment: Rasmussen and Gallup, both independent pollsters, get (R) labels. Liberals Patricia Powell and Christopher Hitchens are deemed Republicans. Plus libertarians and even documented Dems, like Lis Wiehl (feminist writer and longtime Democratic contributor), get slapped with the (R). A bigger pack of lies you haven't seen since Jon Lovitz. Yet the newspoodles trumpet it as fact.

But our pal Chrish isn't just dishonest, she's also boneheaded. Her latest screed ridicules Fox & Friends because they opined that most newspaper endorsements are going to Obama:

As usual, FOX and Friends 10/20/08 just suggested something without any facts or sources to back it up; a little checking reveals that the facts wouldn't have supported their innuendo, so best left unsaid.... Since FOX insists that the mainstream media is far and away liberal, most endorsements are for Democrats. Steve Doocy, who recently contradicted a thorough study of campus politics with his own keen observations, said (twice, for emphasis) "I'd say most of them." Brian Kilmeade named three papers who have endorsed Obama, and said "there seems to be a trend." Well, an MIT study (care to refute that one too?) reports...
Hold it right there. That MIT study covers 1940-2002. How could that possibly have any bearing on Obama's newspaper endorsements? Well, it doesn't. But Chrish is back to make yet another penetrating point:
Additionally, an Indiana University analysis, The Influence of Newspaper Endorsements in Presidential Elections: The Case of 1964, by Robert S. Erikson © 1976 Midwest Political Science Association...
Stop again! 1964? These are studies that refute the notion that Obama has more newspaper endorsements in 2008? Well, they were enough to satisfy the gullible kennel dwellers:
  • If Village Idiot Doocbag had to back up his ridiculous statements beforehand with actual facts, he would be a complete mute.
  • Fox: "Facts? We don't need no stinking facts."
  • That's the kind of insightful, well-researched and detailed analysis I've come to expect from Fox!
  • Facts, Reason, Logic, the Truth, Justice and other similar liberal carp will never shake the Faith of the Faithful who choose to Believe.
Chrish, being the Einstein that she is, seems to believe that you need a "study" from five or ten years ago to see if Obama is really ahead in the endorsement race. Of course, others might just wonder why not try something radically simpler. Like count up the endorsements and see if Doocy and Company were correct. Amazingly, this is being done every day by a whole host of news organizations. To wit:
  • Dallas Morning News: Barack Obama now leads John McCain, 104-32, in the race for newspaper endorsements.
  • Washington Post: Sen. Barack Obama has opened up a massive lead over Sen. John McCain in newspaper endorsements.
  • DemConWatch: Presidential endorsement list.
Surprise! Doocy and Kilmeade: correct. Chrish: wildly wrong! So, the facts "don't support" the claim? There are "no sources" to back up Doocy and Kilmeade, Chrish? Well maybe not, when you don't bother to take five minutes to get the facts before you write such an embarrassing pile of tripe.

One would think Chrish would realize how humiliating it is to pass off her hateful harangue as anything other than the fallacious ramblings of a dunderhead. Alas, the standards aren't quite that high over at the pound. If they were, there would be a retraction and an apology forthcoming. Don't hold your breath: if you're a Fox hater, that dog won't hunt.

I'm sorry, Johnny, but you're simply being dishonest. Anyone who watches The O'Reilly Factor knows O'Reilly stacks his guest list with REpublicans.
Case in point, his Thursday Culture War segment. Both women are Republicans. One is Crowley, a well known Republican columnist, and the other is a Republican political consultant.
Feel free to somehow provide documentation proving otherwise. Because I am unaware of any segments on the O'Reilly Factor in which two liberals are brought on to discuss issues regularly.
By the way, how can you even expect to be taken serious at this point? When you have guys like Greg Gutfeld openly admitting that Fox "goes after" Obama onesidedly, and then tries to justify it by saying the rest of the media doesn't.
Well guess what? That's still bias.
October 20, 2008, 7:31:08 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
If you are going to accuse me of being dishonest, then please point to what I wrote that is dishonest. If I'm wrong, I'll apologize. If you can't do so, then you should.
October 20, 2008, 7:37:35 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Johnny: Let me save time. Janet will not be able to point out what she thinks you said that is dishonest. And she will NOT apologize.
October 20, 2008, 7:46:30 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
Speaking of dishonest Janet, have you read johnny's review of Chrish's discredited scratchings? It's the article you commented on here.
Perhaps before falsely accusing the wrong person of dishonesty you should clean your own nasty closet.
October 20, 2008, 8:31:08 PM EDT – Like – Reply

J$ - Once again showing that the Newshounds are either idiots, liars, or idiotic liars. Then if that isn't enough fun, you bring out a newshound supporter who knows how to make accusations, but not how to back up those accusations. A bright flash followed by a loud "duh".
There is no show on cable news primetime that does a better job at presenting both the right and left point of view than BOR. No doubt why its the number one show on the number one cable news network.
October 20, 2008, 9:32:35 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Janet has no proof? Shocker!
October 21, 2008, 12:52:33 AM EDT – Like – Reply

I love the fact that people tend to miss the facts, i.e. when orielly and other say "we asked so and so to come on the show, and the declined" hmmmm. sometimes it's really impossible to have two opposing views, when the other side declines to come on.
October 21, 2008, 1:28:26 PM EDT – Like – Reply

the point of the post was GUESTS ONLY (thats why he doesnt say anything about reporters)  
you called the oreilly site the newhounds got its info "hate" how excatly? if the site watches oreilly then exposes the lies/falsehoods/distorations?? its like olbermannwatch (just switch the names) by doing the samething
by that logic: Olbermannwatch is a hate site against Keith and this site is a newshounds hate site-cause ALL THREE do the same thing!! they watch someone/something-they report it via the web-also OW calls keith: fat ass, man on fan,liar, bathtub boy
so how excatly is this site, newshounds,oreilly-sucks.com and OW any different-when they do the exact same thing but with different targets??
October 21, 2008, 8:53:22 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
I'm sorry but you are very mistaken. He counts each and every Fox reporter (except Geraldo), including Major Garret, Degan MacDowell, Liz Claman, etc etc as a "Republican guest". That's the biggest reason why his stats are so phony. That and calling people who are clearly Democrats "Republcians" just to pump up his fallacious results.
> site the newhounds got its info "hate" how excatly? if the site watches oreilly then exposes the lies/falsehoods/distorations??
I thought I just made that clear. The site newshounds got its phony info from lied about the (R)/(D) balance on O'Reilly, by calling Democrats Republicans, by calling Libertarians Republicans, by calling reporters Republicans, by calling independent pollsters Republicans...by calling everybody they felt like Republicans and then announcing the result of their impartial "study". A study that is nothing more than a steaming pile of rhetorical manure.
> fat ass, man on fan,liar,
Keith called Roger Ailes "Fat Ass". He called John Gibson "Bathtub head". He called Rick Santorum "Man on Dog". He called O'Reilly "liar". EVERY one of those names applied to Olbermann are names that Olby has applied to the targets of HIS hate. We only toss back at him the names that he himself uses.
October 21, 2008, 8:59:40 PM EDT – Like – Reply

you didnt answer my question about how the 4 sites are different-and memory serves oreilly is the one that keeps saying dont point to bad behavior with bad behavior-and here is the link to the "hate site"
so your readers can decide
October 21, 2008, 9:10:45 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Well I was too busy correcting all your false statements to bother with your rather obvious question.
of course the four sites are different. O'Reilly Sucks is a hate site. As I just demonstrated, they lie and distort to smear O'reilly. Newshounds is a hate site. They fabricate, distort, and lie to smear Fox (hundreds of examples irrefutably documented here).
J$P is a site about cable news and Fox that does the opposite of what those two sites do. Rather than smear and spout lies, we expose the lies of others. We've nailed everyone from Media Matters and Think Progress to Salon.com to MyDD to Keith Olbermann. And of course, those hundreds of lies told by the newshounds. Each lie documented with transcripts, audio, and video. There's a big difference between sites that routinely lie and fabricate and smear, and a site that tells the truth, as this one does.
Correcting lies and exposing the truth is what this site is all about. That in and of itself drives the newsmutts crazy, but then that tells you something about what they do, doesn't it?
Thank you for your comment.
October 21, 2008, 9:19:22 PM EDT – Like – Reply

can you point to more than one example of how oreilly-sucks.com distorts and lies?? you say the site does but i havent seen any examples of it-just one its easy to check since the site only has new posts once a day (maybe twice) and i havent seen anything about it except monday 10-20
October 21, 2008, 9:34:00 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
I just exposed them and you want more examples? I don't write to order and I have enough to do without taking requests. But I will keep an eye on them. If I happen to spot another example of their lying that strikes my fancy, I'll write it up. But that site is not at the top of my monitoring list.They got into my last piece mainly because newshounds cited them.
October 21, 2008, 9:50:15 PM EDT – Like – Reply

so how can you say they lie and distort-WHEN YOU DONT EVEN GO TO THE SITE???????????? and you only have one example and that was because of the N.Hs?? you criticze others for doing the samething!!! i will be looking for the other examples
October 21, 2008, 10:00:51 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
I say they lie because I caught them lying. That usually does the trick for me. I just glanced at the site: it's more an elect Obama site than anything else. Wading thru all the partisan crap I did spot more lies. They claimLaura's show on Fox bombed and was cancelled after a week or so.
Two lies: the show had strong ratings so it didn't bomb. It ran for 3 weeks not one. And it wasn't cancelled. It was announced from the start that it would last 3 weeks.
Oh sorry, that's not 2 lies. It's three .
October 21, 2008, 10:10:39 PM EDT – Like – Reply

ok-i'm on the site-where is the laura ingrahm post? its not anywhere on the homepage-the only posts i see are reviews of the shows and others
October 21, 2008, 10:17:41 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
I'm starting to wonder what you're up to when you make statements that it's not on the homepage when it very clearly and plainly is. I don't have time for trollish games.
October 21, 2008, 10:35:59 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
Chris is just mad because the websites that he's followed and believed all these years have been lying to him the whole time and you prove it, J$.
I'd be angry too if I suddenly realized that I was a brainwashed tool. Fortunately I can decide for myself what to believe regardless of the propaganda spewed at us all from both sides.
October 21, 2008, 10:47:00 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Keith Olbermann Talks About Hannity's Relationship With White Supremacist
Reported by Ellen - Wed 12:14 AM
Yup, it's about time. And, for the record, I had nothing to do with it, as far as I know... meaning I have written Countdown about it but not recently and, of course, someone from the show could have found it on our blog.
Ellen | Homepage | 10.22.08 - 12:31 am | #  
Hannity is running for which office?
October 22, 2008, 1:04:08 AM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
I wonder if Olby will mention Russert's relationship with Hal Turner as well. As long as Turner's word is all it takes to make the claim true...
October 22, 2008, 1:14:17 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Ouch, Johnny how low can you go. Tim Russert is dead.
October 22, 2008, 6:50:26 AM EDT – Like – Reply

I admit that I have not looked at the oreilly sucks site for a year or more. But I do know that the last time I looked, only people with liberal views were allowed to post. So that makes them just as bad as newshounds. They lie to their mindless followers, then shut out anyone who dares to speak the truth.
October 22, 2008, 8:59:52 AM EDT – Like – Reply

i'll admit i was WRONG- i'm not a mindless follower though-i make up my own mind on things-i dont believe everything newshounds say, or oreilly-sucks.com says
October 22, 2008, 11:54:53 AM EDT – Like – Reply

No Tess, Johnny did the right thing; he does NOT take Hal seriously.
Conversely, using the ravings of a madman to defame and smear somone is really low. That is what NH does, and it's probably what you do as well.
October 22, 2008, 1:49:46 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
Good for you, Chris, for not being an indoctrinated NH. You do know that one of their ex-moderators admitted that the mods there all impresonate several people to drive up numbers right? Lame site, lame writers, lame commenters.
October 22, 2008, 6:29:46 PM EDT – Like – Reply

foxfan,i didnt know that
October 22, 2008, 7:25:36 PM EDT – Like – Reply

blue lotus
Chris, the reason you didn't know that is because it's an outright lie. How pathetic. Fox fan, you are either a liar or were lied to.
October 22, 2008, 7:50:27 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
Name: Bill Corcoran
You won't find many good words for him over at the pound anymore. He used to be the token male mod there, liked and respects by the mutts for his far-out criticisms of FNC (many of which were debunked here).
There was a personality conflict between him and the other mods and he came here to explain. The dirty laundry got aired and he retired to create his own site.
History, gotta love it.
October 22, 2008, 8:12:56 PM EDT – Like – Reply