Around the Interwebs

If you had any doubt about the consuming obsession with Fox News that drives the mavens at Media Matters, then a look over the things they’ve been reduced to writing about should make things clear. There is nothing too trivial for the MMers to turn into a post:

• Kilmeade jokes when his teleprompter misfires
• Beck opines on Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark
• Guest says Massachusetts more Communist than China
• Megyn Kelly cannot be fired at will
• Beck saw Spider-Man for a second time

Yet with all the above stories breaking and developing at breakneck speed, Media Matters found time to post about a news story on foxnews.com that dared to quote a conservative analyst. So Sean Easter went into high gear and tracked down this guy’s website, and commenced to pick apart his analysis of NPR, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the like. What Mark Browning wrote:

At first glance, this distribution of funds seems to confirm that public radio's support does not come in large amounts from the direct allocation of tax moneys. After all, 5.6% is not a gigantic portion of the budget, is it? But let's look more closely. That 10.1% that comes from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is 99% provided by -- you guessed it -- the federal government.

Easter responded:

99 percent of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's budget comes from the federal government? That would come as news to the authors of the Fox article that cites Browning's estimate, seeing as how they report that only 13 percent of CPB's budget is federally funded.

Was it too much trouble for Mr Easter to just look at the CPB budget? Of total revenues of $422 million, how much was funding from the feds? $420 million, with the remaining $2 million from accrued interest. Even if we don’t count the interest, their federal funding comes to 96%, not 13%.

At Crooks & Liars, Dave Neiwert was quick to promote the charges of an Arizona shooting victim that Beck, Palin, etc were responsible for the attack, adding:

Cue the right-wing waaaaaahmbulance. I wonder if Megyn Kelly or Bill O'Reilly will bring [Eric] Fuller on Fox to browbeat him as they did Sheriff Dupnik for expressing the same view.

(Though he eagerly touted Fuller’s logical analysis, Neiwert has yet to put up a post about Fuller’s subsequent arrest and mental health referral for himself making death threats.) Here is an excellent example of Fox hater lying, combining two techniques for maximum effect on the credulous. First, dismiss Megyn Kelly’s interview of Dupnik as ‘browbeating’ without reason or evidence--and make sure not to include it in the post or even link to it, lest someone actually see it for themselves. We invite you to watch Megyn interview Dupnik and decide for yourself if she was browbeating the poor, defenseless Sheriff.

Smear, part deux: Neiwert not only slammed Megyn for ‘browbeating’ the Sheriff over expressing his views about the cause of shooting, but he attacked Bill O’Reilly for the same thing. And this is really interesting, because, well, Bill O’Reilly hasn’t interviewed Sheriff Dupnik since the shootings. At all. And yet Neiwert criticizes Mr Bill for ‘browbeating’ the man--in an interview that never happened!

It wasn’t that long ago when Neiwert was denying the existence of dozens of interviews that plainly took place, and now he’s trashing O’Reilly for an interview Neiwert made up out of whole cloth. Dave lied about Jon Scott and Megyn Kelly, and his delusional claim about FNC analysts on the AZ immigration bill proved to be utter fantasy. Is it any wonder that he could invent a wholly fictional O’Reilly interview? Either Neiwert is a serial liar, or he should stop writing posts based on lucid dreaming.

Research? Shmeesearch!

Of course the newshounds got in on the game of exploiting the Tucson tragedy for their own purposes. Ellen Brodsky proved to be particularly ham-fisted in complaining that a panel reacting to the President’s speech (with overwhelmingly positive comments) was nonetheless imbalanced:

The Fox News panel assembled to critique it – a panel that did not include a single Democrat or liberal – found only its length to criticize.

Sorry, Brodsky, but Chris Wallace is a registered Democrat. This has been known for years, but Ellen isn’t big on research. If you doubt that, then here’s another Brodsky bombardment:

Hannity And McGuirk “Forget” About Violent Comments At Palin Rallies As They Continue To Attack The Left...Hannity and Imus producer Bernard McGuirk had a bout of amnesia about the kind of violent comments made at Sarah Palin rallies as they sallied forth to suggest that the left was likely to do violence to her.

What were these ‘violent’ comments Brodsky cites?

Well, let's refresh their memory because we remember, even if they'd rather forget. There were shouts of Kill him! and "Treason!" and "Terrorist!" about Obama.

Is it a ‘violent comment’ to call someone a terrorist? As it turns out we don’t have to address that question, because Brodsky’s link contains nothing whatsoever about anyone shouting ‘terrorist’ at a Palin rally. Perhaps Ellen thinks accusing someone of ‘treason’ is an incitement to violence. (Hint to Brodsky: it isn’t.) We’ll play along with and offer up these additional examples:

• Convicted traitor and FOX News Analyst, Oliver North
• Traitor Robert Novak Says He’s Not Sorry He Outed Valerie Plame
• Admitted Traitor David Horowitz Accuses UCSC Of Being Too Un-American
• Kasich Leaks National Security Secrets – Is This Treason?
• Bob Novak, the traitor who published Valerie Plame’s identity
• Karl-baby [Rove] may need a little help from the highest court as he appeals his way through a variety of convictions from perjury to treason.

Such ‘violent’ comments! As you might have guessed, these all came from newshound articles, many of them by Brodsky herself! How odd she’s had a bout of amnesia about the kind of ‘violent’ comments made on her own site, comments that have been sitting there for years, ‘inciting’ people!

What about the shouts of ‘Kill him’? Ellen’s link goes to a Dana Milbank column about a Palin rally in Clearwater. But there’s one slight problem:

The Secret Service investigated that allegation and found no indication that "kill him" was ever said, or if it had been said, that the remark had been directed at Obama.... Listening to tapes of that rally, the Secret Service heard "tell him" or "tell them," but agents never heard "kill him," Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

Oops. There’s that crack Brodsky research again. Another of her links finds one more ‘example’ of ‘Kill him’, this time at a Palin rally in Scranton. The facts:

Secret Service says "Kill him" allegation unfounded
The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled “kill him” when presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s name was mentioned during Tuesday’s Sarah Palin rally are unfounded.... Agent Bill Slavoski said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers and not one heard the comment. “I was baffled,” he said after reading the report in Wednesday’s Times-Tribune.... Slavoski said more than 20 non-security agents were interviewed Wednesday, from news media to ordinary citizens in attendance at the rally for the Republican vice presidential candidate held at the Riverfront Sports Complex. He said Singleton was the only one to say he heard someone yell “kill him.” “We have yet to find someone to back up the story,” Slavoski said. “We had people all over and we have yet to find anyone who said they heard it.”

So, whom are you going to believe? Ellen Brodsky or the United States Secret Service? In another Ellen exposition you can read Brodsky claiming Sarah Palin got her ‘flag etiquette wrong’ in the facebook video taped in her home:

While she may have thought that the backdrop of a U.S. flag next to the fireplace of her home television studio (courtesy of Fox News) made her look presidential, anyone who knows flag etiquette knows that the tableau only served to underscore her ignorance. While Palin sat with the flag behind her left shoulder, it should have been to her right.

Ellen backed up her claim with this example of thorough Brodsky research:

Now, the staffed flag should always be placed to the right of the speaker (observer’s left) without regard to a platform or floor level.

Good catch by Brodsky on this one...except that Ellen gave an answer while omitting the question it was a reply to:

What should be the position of the flag when displayed from a staff in a church, public auditorium or other public meeting place, whether indoors or outdoors, on platform, or on the floor at ground level?

Was Sarah Palin’s flag in a church, auditorium, or public meeting place? No. Does this provision say anything about where the flag should be in her living room? No. Brodsky ‘research’ strikes (out) again.

Meanwhile, Priscilla objected when Jared Loughner was described as a left-wing pot smoker, because it’s a ‘description found on Alex Jones’ website and others’. This is supposed to make you think it’s something wacky and unreliable, which is why Prissy doesn’t mention all the respectable sources that reported these comments from a former friend of Loughner’s. In fact, the kennel’s very own john t popped up at Mediaite, apparently convinced by Priscilla’s dissembling that the comments were phony:

• JT: How about Sean Hannity callin [sic] the shooter a “pot smoking liberal”. That’s probably just fine with you isn’t it?
• Seeing 2012: Hey John, Sean was quoting people who actually knew the guy
• JT: And you’re a dmaned [sic] liar.

Bright fellow, that john t.

We would be remiss if we didn’t note Priscilla’s latest spew of anti-Christian bigotry, dripping with vitriol, and with at least one flat-out falsehood:

Fox "News," despite the religious diversity of American, utilizes the services of only one member of the clergy - a Roman Catholic priest, Father Jonathan Morris.

That will come as a surprise to Kelly Wright--and to the millions who saw him perform a wedding ceremony on the air just last month! But the crowning touch of Prissy’s vomitus has to be the claim that Martha MacCallum was ‘pimping’ the late Pope John Paul II, essentially analogizing the deceased Pontiff to a prostitute. Sick, even for Brodsky’s bowsers.

Finally, when it comes to bigotry we know we can always count on the rabid mutts to permit and encourage racial slurs at Juan Williams. It’s like Old Faithful or Pavlov’s dog:

• It’s good to see Tom...er I mean Juan settling in to his role as Fox resident house negro.
• Lawn Jockey Juan will dance to whatever tune Bildo or Jabba the Ailes plays.

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

Tags: mediamatters, newshounds, crooks