With Every Snip of the Shears

The shears in this case are purely rhetorical. But they snip just as efficiently when the newshounds use them to doctor quotes. And there’s the catch that exposes another dishonest smear. UPDATED!
We happened to spot a tweet from the Queen Bee of the newshounds, and it reads thusly:

  • O'Reilly still pushing the myth of fed govt paying $16 for a muffin.

That didn’t sound right to us, so we took a look to see what Ellen Brodsky was up to this time:

O’Reilly Still Pushing The Myth Of The Government’s $16 Muffin...“It’s happened before: We all remember the $16 muffin,” O’Reilly said gravely. Correction: Bill O’Reilly remembers the muffin. We remember that PolitiFact ruled that allegation “mostly false” because the $16 muffin included other charges.

But there’s a catch. What is Sharia Ellen trying to pull this time? How about that old hound standby, selective editing? Brodsky’s quote cuts O’Reilly off in mid-sentence, as soon as he says ‘muffin’. What is Ellen trying to hide from her gullible readers? This:

O’REILLY: We all remember the $16 muffin, which was actually a $16 continental breakfast which was worth about $2.50.

So was O’Reilly still pushing the myth of a $16 muffin? No. Ellen Brodsky lied. Didn’t O’Reilly come right out and say that the $16 included other charges? Yes, only Brodsky removed that part of the sentence. A classic lie of omission. Amazing that Ellen Brodsky thinks she can get away with such blatant dishonesty when all you have to do is watch the video sitting right there on her own website to catch her red-handed:

Politifact ruled as they did because this story was originally reported as a $16 muffin. But they seem to agree with O’Reilly’s take about the extravagant cost, noting that even with the meeting space being contributed by the hotel ‘a $16 breakfast is no bargain’. Which was exactly’s Bill’s point, and why Ellen doctored his quote: to conceal it from her readers.

Brodsky goes on to complain about O’Reilly not mentioning the cost of the wars, an unfortunate bit of timing given his referencing that precise thing tonight. But if all proceeds according to plan, that’s something else Ellen will erase with another snip of the rhetorical shears. Because at Brodsky’s dog pound, more lies are always ahead.

UPDATE! Shortly after this post appeared, Ellen Brodsky herself launched an immediate rebuttal...on twitter. And she laid out her defense with precise, geometric logic:

  • @johnnydollar01 creepy obsession with me continues: 2 posts about me in one day - with photos of me. #JohnnyDollarCyberStalker
  • @johnnydollar01 won't answer whether he's paid to write about me or just personally obsessed. Creepy either way. #JohnnyDollarCyberStalker

Earlier she tweeted her rebuttal to our post about her smear of Janice Dean:

  • @johnnydollar01 creepy obsession with me is creepier than ever. Why does this guy hang on my every utterance? tinyurl.com/8xnbk9j
  • @johnnydollar01 What is the reason for posting photos of me on your blog?
  • @johnnydollar01 What is the reason for posting photos of me on your blog? @janicedeanfox
  • @johnnydollar01 creepy obsession w/me: distort my post abt @janicedeanfox then attack me for what I didn't say. tinyurl.com/8xnbk9j

We suspect this ‘obsessed stalker’ line of argument ad hominem personal attacks is something Ellen has in a macro, because you can also see it here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here...well, you get the idea. Say, is there some irony in this somewhere? Ya think?

Despite all her sputtering and fuming at your humble blog correspondent, Ellen Brodsky did nothing to correct or apologize for her lie about Bill O’Reilly...a lie perpetrated by a really nasty bit of selective editing. Say, that reminds us, do you recall when Brodsky was celebrating a lawsuit from Shirley Sherrod against Andrew Breitbart? We do. That’s just one of dozens of newspoodle fulminations over the horrors of selective editing...which, you know, is exactly what Sharia Ellen did to Bill O’Reilly. Um, would this be even more irony? We report, you decide.

It was only when someone dared to enter the dog pound and call out Ellen in the comments to her ‘muffin’ post that Brodsky worked up the courage to relent and admit that she slimed Bill O’Reilly:

When I watched this segment, I missed O'Reilly saying that the $16 muffin "was actually a $16 continental breakfast that was worth about $2.50.”

Oh yeah, it was an accidental omission as she transcribed verbatim half of a sentence but somehow missed the second half—the part that proves the entire premise of her article (as stated in its headline) to be a lie. Oh, and the video she watched? It had the part about the continental breakfast right up on the screen as O’Reilly spoke. How exactly did Brodsky miss that? Did she do all this with her eyes closed?

But Ellen Brodsky wasn’t through. She had a few words for the brave soul who posted the comment exposing her trickery:

  • I just re-watched it to see if I made a mistake and yes, I did. You, however, are being banned. Not because I don’t allow opposing views. You’ll see lots of them here. But, like your creepy cyberstalker pal, Johnny Dollar, you seem more interested in making the discussion about me or News Hounds than in having a valid discussion. Good riddance.

Hahaahaaaa! How dare you point out the lies of Ellen Brodsky? Purge him! He’s banned from the Queen’s presence. Off with his head! Now who’s the fairest of them all?

Nothing could possibly encapsulate more clearly the aversion Brodsky and her newshounds have to fairness, honesty, and truth than banning people who expose their smears. The Fox haters echo chamber must be kept pure! Because at the diseased dog pound of the newsmutts, more lies will always be ahead.
blog comments powered by Disqus