johnny dollar's place archive: jan-feb 2008

Oh, those wacky newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed syndicate). It's hard to know what to ridicule more, their ignorance or their dishonesty. The latest entry from Donna makes that decision even tougher.

She is yelping about this morning's Fox & Friends, who discussed talk-show host Bill Cunningham and John McCain's subsequent apology:

They found time to talk about a radical right wing radio host, Bill Cunningham, who was supposed to warm up the crowd for McCain. He did it by calling him Barack 'Hussein' Obama at least three times. Maybe what came next wasn't what the F & F crew expected.... Cunningham was ranting and raving about how McCain should be thanking him and not apologizing for him so he was going to change his vote. Not McCain, Hillary Clinton, "just like Ann Coulter" he said.

Not what the "F&F crew expected"? Cunningham said that yesterday. He wasn't there this morning. There is no "not what they expected" involved in playing a soundbite from the day before.

Then they asked another right wing radio host, Mancow on, not to speak about Bill Cunningham, no, he was on to speak about Nanny cams...

Is this the same Mancow that, according to the biased bassets, strays from the "party line" so much that he "may never be seen on Fox news again"? (That was February 2006, by the way!) That Mancow?

More to the point, how could Fox & Friends "ask another right wing radio host" on? You can't have "another" if you didn't have one in the first place, and as we have already noted, Cunningham wasn't there. Donna fudging the facts? Misleading her credulous readers? Say it isn't so!

They also had an unfair and unbalanced report by not having a Democrat on to give his/her opinions on what this did or didn't do for John McCain.

Worse than fudging facts, this is Another Hound Lie. What about Juan Williams, who is certainly a liberal and supports Democrats? He opined on the McCain controversy this morning on Fox & Friends. Why did Donna leave that out? But wait, there's more! Keli Goff, who worked on Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign and is now an author and pundit, also appeared on F&F this morning, and one of the issues she discussed? Yup, the McCain/Cunningham controversy.

This stuff is not difficult to document. Millions of people saw it with their own eyes, live, on FNC this morning. Yet Donna and the newspoodles lie about it anyhow and think that, maybe this time, they'll get away with it. Insanity defined.

It's been a while since we've posted about the newshounds (another fine product from the Outfoxed mob). Consider this example of their intellectual honesty. Chrish slams Fox for the crime of citing a Rasmussen daily tracking poll:

Ingraham said "the numbers today" (2/14) have Obama with a double-digit lead, and O'Reilly interjected "In a national poll..."... This morning on America's Newsroom Megyn Kelly also talked about a double-difgit [sic] lead, 12 points, in a national poll for Barack Obama and cited Rasmussen.... numerous other polls show a much tighter race, but that doesn't suit the FOX agenda of inciting angst and divisiveness in the Democratic Party... Isn't it odd, how they reported the most extreme numbers they could find, and ignored the rest?

In their very next post, the newspoodles, desperate to attack Fox again, twist themselves into a pretzel. Yes, this time they condemn Fox for not citing the Rasmussen poll with a 12-point lead, and complain that they referenced one of the numerous other polls that show a much tighter race:

Now (again, nationally), Obama is at 49% and Clinton is at 37% [Rasmussen tracking poll].... I know there are hundreds of polls out there but I am positive none of them show that Obama is lagging when compared to even a month ago. I wish Nancy Skinner would henceforth refuse to participate in segments that are designed to do nothing more than plant the thought in the minds of Fox's viewers that Obama is a loser, based on absolutely no factual information whatsoever. It's called P-R-O-P-A-G-A-N-D-A folks.

That kind of instant hypocrisy is in a league of its own. But for a classic of sleazy mendacity this is hard to top:

Watch for FOX to ramp up the coverage on issues of terrorism, Iraq, and illegal imigration in the months leading up to the election... A random and arbitrary report on an illegal immigrant on the FBI's most wanted list copped the front page of the FOXNews website yesterday. and only when one clicked through to the linked article did she find that there was nothing "new" about that "news" item. Reading further, one finds that the suspect made the Most Wanted Listing in March 2005, and the actual crime was committed in 2002!... Knowing FOX and their agenda as we do we can only conclude it was meant to inflame their base. A look at Google News shows them as the only site addressing the issue.

This is wrong on so many levels. At the very top of the horrendous Fox article, it reads: "This is part of a regular series that profiles America's most wanted criminals." A regular series? Sure like this, this, this, and this, to cite just a few. Funny that the newsmutts don't tell you that.

In fact, the bowsers did just what they falsely accused Fox of doing. They've never said one word about these profiles, yet when all of a sudden they do, of all the profiles published, they selected one: the one with an illegal immigrant. Perfect: just the thing to inflame their base of Fox haters. And in case you think this was incompetent stupidity rather than deliberate deception, consider that we posted a comment pointing all this out. What happened? There's really no suspense in that question: it was deleted.

Updated! Are the newshounds responsible critics or dishonest deceivers? Here's a challenge that could shed some light on that question.

Just a few weeks ago, newsmutt Donna was incensed. Outraged! Why? Because Fox dared to broadcast a Presidential speech:

Fox Gives Free Commercial For Bush And He Isn't Running
Today on America's Pulse Bush came out and spoke to a group in Chicago with Mayor Richard Daly [sic]. All it turned into was a free speech for Bush that sounded like he was stumping. Was it for him or to help the RNC candidates that are running now? He had no opposition, no one from the Democratic side to have around 20 minutes (the uninterupted time the President had) to speak out about policies.... I'd like to see Fox give a Democrat a 20 minute speech, no questions, with a friendly audience and let them say whatever they want. Nope, can't do that. That might be fair and balanced.

This afternoon, Fox went one better: live coverage of Barack Obama accepting the endorsement of Senator Ted Kennedy. Not just 20 minutes: nearly 30 minutes. No questions. No one from the Republican side to have 30 minutes to speak out about policies. A friendly audience. Letting him say whatever he wants. Precisely what the newspoodles claimed would never happen.


So how about it, Donna? Here's the challenge. Are you going to write a whole article devoted to this coverage? Complete with the headline: Fox Gives Free Commercial for Obama? Are we going to see that article today, or are you going to pretend it never happened? Are you an honest broker, or just a dishonest Fox hater?

We will watch, we will see, we will know.

Update: Gee, what do you know. Here's how Donna described the coverage of the Kennedy endorsement of Obama:

An election alert (it always has to be an alert on Fox News) said that Ted, Patrick and Caroline Kennedy came out to endorse Barack Obama.

See, on Fox "an election alert said" they endorsed Obama. What about the 30 minutes of coverage? You know, that Fox would never do? You know, like the "free commercial for Bush"? Um, not a word. However, Donna did spot a Carl Cameron interview with John McCain which she described as--you guessed it!--a "free advertisement" for John McCain!

Why a "free advertisement"? Because, and we're not making this up, Romney wasn't interviewed too. You see, according to the anti-Fox terriers they have to bring all the candidates on at once or it's a "free advertisement".

Um, Donna, bringing a bunch of candidates in at the same time is not an interview. It's a debate. And if you're so concerned about Romney's view being represented, then why did you say nothing about his interview this morning? Just think, you missed another chance to show your ignorance by calling it a "free advertisement".

Well at least we know how Donna and the biased bassets did on the honesty challenge. They flunked.

The newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed gang) often don't tell the truth. We have documented hundreds of examples. Now, in a stunning reversal, one of their own has called them out for lying--this time not about Fox, but about their own website!

By way of background, there has been trouble brewing lately in the kennel. Comments turned off. Comments turned back on. Then off. Regulars banned. People vowing to quit the site. Some have actually come here (see comment thread) to vent their frustrations. Others have complained on the hound "off-topic forum". To wit:

• Last one off the blog please turn the lights out.
• But what also puzzles me is why are the "regulars" - or what have you, the ones always being threatened with banning by the mods (if not banned, in actuality)?
• Maybe insulting and demeaning customers and subscribers is the way of business nowadays.
• Bill posted facts and kissing NH's moderator's butts isn't going to change that. What was written at Johnny's site is true. If Chrish is oh so upset, she sure doesn't show it by continually posting, with no comments allowed. It is childish.
• I personally don't give a rat's ass if you find it childish.
• I don't think a mass exodus from this blog would be a bad thing. Just to see how long it stays a live [sic] with just Chrish and her little lap dog Uber-Nip...
• I've always had issues with the mods, frankly. This one takes the cake. Ridiculous. They're destroying their own site over one incident.
• As for J$, do consider the fact he has not cut anyone off. I've posted a few times and had no problems. Well, "Fox Fan" did not agree, but that is part of the game.

All of which brings us to the just announced new comments policy:

ALL comments must be on topic and civil. Any flames, name-calling, etc., from anyone, will be deleted on sight... News Hounds provides an Off Topic Forum where you can debate in whatever way you like on whatever subject you like, free of interference from us.

Free of interference? Well sure, unless you do the unthinkable: refer to The Site That Must Not Be Named:

• But I see the link I gave to Dollar's site that shows where NChomsky and some other former NH's are bitching about this site has been deleted. So much for the "free of interference". Posted by: john t

Yes, that's right. The newshounds announce a new comments policy, promise their readers a free-fire zone without interference, and then promptly put the lie to their own statement. And in the best bit of irony this site of O'Henry, they get called on it by one of their own.

Updated! They're up to their old tricks again. We're talking about the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed syndicate). Sometimes their duplicity is laughable in its transparency. The truth becomes fungible, ever-changing in order to achieve their goal to smear Fox News.

Recall Michael Vick? When the story first broke, Michelle Malkin dared to hesitate before declaring him ready for the lynch mob, and the newsmutts were outraged:

Malkin chose to side with Michael Vick and attack PETA simply because it's erroneously labeled a left wing organization.... I didn't get the impression that Malkin cared about dogs too much. Anyone who likes dogs even slightly has to be disgusted and infuriated by this situation. Even if Michael Vick claims he never visted his own property and knew nothing about the atrocities, he still deserves to face consequences.

Just three days later, when Megyn Kelly dared to suggest (accurately) that the case against him was strong, the Fox haters had to find a way to smear her, even if it meant completely reversing their position of just 72 hours earlier:

Kelly has evidently decided that her superior legal judgment once again obviates the necessity to wait for a trial to arrive at a verdict. But in the Michael Vick case, it’s a guilty verdict... This post is not about Vick or whether he is guilty or innocent but about the way that FOX News and Megyn Kelly thumb their nose at our legal system.

Pretty dramatic turnaround eh? Such acrobatics are required when you are a Fox hater. Just ask Mike Huckabee. Three days ago, the newspoodles bemoaned how FNC kept fawning over Huckabee, saying the coverage was "kind, glowing even, with little attention paid to his extremist positions". Of course this comes after insisting Fox was "smearing" Huckabee, was "scared" of Huckabee, and keeps " attacking " him. So which is it? It doesn't matter. Reality is malleable in the kennel.

But you can only stretch reality so much before it snaps completely into a bald-faced untruth. For that we turn to Chrish, a veritable Old Faithful of falsehoods and lies. This time she focuses on a report about administration "lies" regarding Iraq, asserting that foxnews.com "apparently not finding it worthy of the bytes required to even report it". She added that "the only reference to the study on the FOX website was a few paragraphs ("Crying Wolf?") on the "Special Report" Grapevine", then moved in for the kill:

So we are to believe that the 600+ outlets that published articles about the study are the liberal media, and FOX, a major "news" network who didn't report the news, is the sole "fair and balanced" source. In other words, NOT reporting the news when it is detrimental to your cause is not bias, reporting news regardless of its political impact IS.

As is so often the case, there is only one thing wrong with this latest newspooch scoop: it ain't true. The full-page report on this story is sitting right there on foxnews.com, where it has been for nearly a day and a half. In fact, there was a link to it in our right hand column for most of yesterday (Jan 23) since it was one of the top headlines distributed in the foxnews.com RSS feed. And today, over 30 hours after the story broke, and nearly 12 hours after Chrish insisted that foxnews.com spiked the report, it's still a headline on the website. It's moved down the list since yesterday as new stories came in, but there it is:


Don't bother trying to tell the biased bassets what you think of this latest smear job. For this entry they've removed the ability to post comments. Of course you could email them, but, unlike comments, emails are not public. Very convenient.

Update: After this article caught the mastiffs in yet another whopper, Chrish moved quickly into damage control mode. Her new post admits that foxnews.com did report the story (but no apology, and no correction to the earlier post that got it wrong). But she brushes aside all her falsehoods because the story was "buried" by foxnews.com. Err, make that "dismissed, ignored, buried".

Another lie. As noted above, it was a headline on the politics page for a day and a half. What's more, foxnews.com published a second story the next day. And then there's this:


How can a report that is one of the day's most-read stories possibly have been "buried"? It couldn't. It's just another hound lie.

Yesterday we posted the comments of Frank Luntz, who argued that Ron Paul supporters were hurting their candidate's cause. The youtube Ron Paul community erupted, and hundreds of comments were posted within just 24 hours. Amidst all the messages whose sole purpose was to comment on Mr Luntz's alleged wig, or his weight, or just send a familiar expletive his way, there were others that dealt in what apparently passes for "substance". We present here some of our favorites:

• Ron Paul supporters are just a bit more educated on how We The People have been getting raped by this government and how the media has [sic] been covering up this crime. That's why you see the anger.
• There are crazy people in the world. We can't stop them from claiming to support Ron Paul.
• Do we live in bizzaro world or something? How can anyone even believe this stuff?
• Luntz .... you manipulative bastard. You and Fox were made for each other.
• Tarring and feathering British tax collectors probably turned a lot of "swing"-Revolutionaries off in New Hampshire, too, back in the 1700's.
• I am a Ron Paul supporter and I also agree with Mr. Luntz on that two point of violence/aggressive behavior drives people away and is not becoming and that Paul should have been included in the debate.
• You have just been Frank-ed and manipulated! Use your brain! Do not listen to what that piece of [expletive deleted] is telling you!
• Please tell other people what to do and how to behave so that you will show your true love of fascism.
• Anyone can look up your name and see you are a jew trying to discredit Ron Paul.... you Jew troll....go back to israel. And you wonder why you peopke [sic] have been kicked out of every decent country in the world.
• There is a very strong possibility that the people who started that snowball throwing and other negative acts like it could be associated with another political candidate and are doing these things intentionally to make the true Ron Paul supporters look like a bunch of hostile idiots.... It is known that the CIA infiltrated the Hippie movement during the 60's and make the revolutionist thinkers look bad.
• I could write a book on this subject since I've had much experience in leading the revolution that brought down a dictator! This is just a try to seduce the more moderate base of the RP supporters! Man, I can't believe some people just wrote that they agree with the most despicable ANIMAL, Frank, that mass media has ever seen! Is it this easy to change your thinking people? WOW!
• Now, what the bastard is trying to pull off here is "pussyfication" of some voters, meaning, manipulating their reason and cutting off their BALLS so they lose the courage to speak for themselves!
• I'm sure if you could go back and hear some of the angry words spoken by Founding Fathers and the Colonists towards the king and the banksters in England, you'd find alot of "ugliness" in their words.
• Frank Luntz is going down.
• This country liberated itself from England by smashing windows with boxes and dumping tea into the sea, not by sucking up to propagandists.
• Hey Frank If I was [sic] there for the Hannity chasing alot [sic] more snow balls would found their mark. I think those people where [sic] quite restrained. Tell you what Fox, its [sic] getting ugly for you people right now.
• For all we know George Bush could be putting up this crap about Ron Paul being Racist and having racist supporters.
• Luntz is telling us to shut the [expletive deleted] up and leave him alone to weave his lies. He's a fraud and braking [sic] the law by being part of the Fox and other media cartel that is trying to undermine our elections.
• OBAMA AND RON PAUL WERE CHEATED IN NH!! There was CONFIRMED voter fraud!! DEMAND A RECOUNT,NOW!!! [sic] Their [sic] stealing our elections AGAIN!!
• You are such a hypocrite Frank. Don't you dare pretend to be fair [sic] reporter. You are scum.
• Why is Frank not in jail?
• Hung for treason is a better question.
• someone throw a bagel at that fat subhuman.
• When they put you in a concentration camp, chip you and beat up your mom for cause [sic] she has some character left, maybe you will thank those who tried to stop it before it was too too late.
• Ron Paul has fought this battle for 31 years. Time to stand at his side as he goes up against these war mongering murderers!
• When will we start killing these [expletive deleted].
• frank luntz= arrogant zionist jew
• Terrorism is the price of empire. If we do not wish to pay it, we must give up the empire.
• If the american people are smart they should send only neocons and jews people [sic] who are responsible for the war in Iraq to war...
• This is our country we are talking about? What is wrong with a little damn passion for once?
• Im [sic] not even from the US but somebody has to speak out against the bias that surrounds the fox network and the zionist jews that control the media, Ron Paul is aware of them and does not want to follow them, for that he is ridiculed in a very bad way...
• Oh,those [sic] terrible Ron Paul supporters called that poor Hannity man an [expletive deleted].All [sic] because hes [sic] paid to lie to the american public.There [sic] was a time in america,when [sic] people the [sic] hannity,and [sic] luntz,were [sic] tarred,and [sic] feathered(literally)But [sic sic sic] thats not plitically [sic] correct(anymore)Yes,Ron [sic sic sic sic] Paul supporters,you [sic] should wait untill [sic] after your [sic] forced to have a national I.D. card,your [sic] children forced to die for (your?) country,and [sic] after H.R.1955 is passed to get indignent. [sic]

There have been a lot of strange rumblings lately from the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed cabal). From insisting that Cavuto was doing a Sunday live two-hour special that never existed, to claiming that the candidates on Sunday night's GOP forum were not in the Fox studio, but at "a table constructed by FOX News outside", their misinformation has been amusing if not particularly significant.

But the mutts have been furiously rushing to the defense of Ron Paul, despite his racist background and associations with white supremecists. Apparently the fact that Hal Turner has endorsed Paul has only increased their sycophantic slobbering over this dubious candidate, to the point where they now claim that the eeevil Fox is taking Associated Press reports and deliberately editing Ron Paul's name out of them! No, we're not making this up:

FOX News anti-Ron Paul bias shows itself again... This is amazing. First, the International Herald Tribune reported "Don't forget Wyoming.... Candidates have paid little attention to the state, though. Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul have passed through since September. Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain have not."

FOXNews.com ("You Decide," roflol) edited it to report " Don’t forget about Wyoming.... Candidates have paid little attention to the state, though. Only Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter have passed through since September."

Now don't get the idea that the newspoodles did any independent reporting on this. Are you kidding? They didn't even do any independent checking! They took the word of a blogger and used that to claim the Fox "edited" the AP report. Sourcing so thin as to be nonexistent, but that was enough for the kennel-dwellers:

• Wow, that is, well, amazing.
• Discriminating against Paul is a huge error on Fox's part.
• Fox is losing this fight against Ron Paul, and they are bringing themselves down in their attempt.
• The last shred of Fox's credibilty has flown out the window.
• How can you defend a network that edits out certain names from AP news stories????
• There is no longer any pretext of fairness in journalisim. It's all spin and manipulation.
• Let the AP know that Fox is editing copyrighted materials....

Of course all this is just more fulimating over something that isn't true. Look at the AP's own report, or the AP report in The Guardian:

Only Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter have passed through since September.

The exact same wording as appears on the Fox website! That's because Fox didn't edit Ron Paul out of the AP report. He wasn't there in the first place! Neither the newspoodles nor the ignorant blogger who started all this bothered to check the AP itself. If they had, they might have learned that AP issues multiple versions of stories, sometimes dozens. They get updated, corrected, and expanded over and over again. Fox, The Guardian, and USA Daily all got the same version. IHT ran a different, later version.

The claim that Fox "edited" Ron Paul out of an AP article? Blatantly false. Now will the biased bassets issue an apology, or just a correction? (Very rhetorical question!)

Thanks to reader Damian G. for tipping us to this latest bit of Fox hater misinformation.

We sometimes forget the valuable service provided by the newshounds. Who else would document the savage, vituperative attacks on Hillary Clinton that permeate the Fox News airwaves? The ones that other sites, like Think Progress, Media Matters, etc., are covering up and refusing to report. We thank Donna for catching that fiendish character assassin Steve Doocy in another outrageous pummeling of Senator Clinton:

Steve Doocy From Fox & Friends Asks If Hillary Is A Piece Of Livestock?... Hillary was making a joke, Doocy was putting her down... it's easy street for the Republicans, it's making fun of Democrats. Typical Fox reporting.

The kennel-dwellers were rightfully incensed over this callous outburst:

• The livestock on FnF are the three braying asses that host the show.
• Fox news attacking the way Hillary looks or acts. ... nothing new.
• Nothing scares a right winger more than a powerful woman or a minority.
• I would compare Kilmeade and Doocy to horse manure but I don't want to insult the horse manure.
• FOX disgusts me. I hope that when Hillary wins she passes a law to ban that network.It's Nazi Propaganda at it's [sic] worst!

But Donna did not post video of this hit piece--without video the savage nature of this smear cannot be fully appreciated. Since this site is dedicated to the truth about FNC, we will correct that oversight and expose the hatred and vitriol for all to see [QuickTime video]:



But that astonishing clip is just the beginning. Prepare to be shocked as Donna pulls back the curtain on another barbarous villification of Clinton, this time from the venomous Gretchen Carlson:

It was not a casual and laughing matter... Gretchen Carlson interviewed Terry McCauliffe [sic] ... Gretchen got a dig in about Sen Clinton having babysitters, buses and snow shovels given out to help people to get out to vote. McCauliffe [sic] turned the diss around and said that they just wanted to make sure that everyone who wanted to caucus got a chance to caucus.... He turned her digs around and made them positive.

And the denizens of the dog pound erupted in righteous anger:

• he handled the Fiends very nicely and that's a lesson for all democrats who are interviewed on that fascist kid's show.
• I'm surprised that McCauliffe [sic] was able to say so much on Fox.... No doubt she got a write-up from her bosses and a warning to get nastier next time.
• Gretchen tries to come across as a Polly Purebread; but she's really a nasty right wing bitch.

Once again for some reason the newshounds overlooked the video clip. An exchange this rancorous deserves to be seen in all its malevolent glory, if for no other reason than to demonstrate how brilliantly McAuliffe takes Carlson's poisonous question and cleverly turns it around [QuickTime video]:



PS: We overlooked one key comment from a regular of the pound:

• McCauliffe [sic] won't be on Fox for a long time - if ever. - claudo | 01.02.08 - 11:43 am

After yesterday's Gretchen Carlson interview, Terry McAuliffe appeared on Hannity & Colmes. Followed by a taped interview for On the Record. Today: another live interview on Studio B with Shepard Smith. Thanks for the insights, claudo!

It's that time again, when we scour the J$P archives for the biggest lies of 2007. We documented and debunked close to 100 of them this past year alone, and the task of selecting the most dishonest, outrageous, and downright laughable of them was, as always, a challenge. But we persevered, and we now present the "winners": The Top Ten Lies of 2007.

#10 - Including something from Media Matters on these year-end lists has almost become a tradition, and luckily David Brock's site did not let us down. It would be tempting to select Paul Waldman's Today Show appearance--after all, how often do you catch someone lying on national television? But their smear of John Gibson is our #10: it found its way onto MSNBC and demonstrates how easy it is to assassinate someone's character when you aren't constrained by the truth.

#9 - Speaking of MSNBC, you know that we cannot overlook Keith Olbermann . We won't repeat what is already on Olby's Top Ten Lies of 2007. Unique to the J$P list: KO snarking at Fox for something that proved to be a product of Keith's imagination, and our #9: Keith slamming O'Reilly for, well, something O'Reilly never said.

#8 - Our friends at the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed syndicate) provide us with more fodder than any other source. They are most amusing, however, when they get on their high horse and then let loose with a niagara of misinformation, falsehoods, and outright fictions, all the while criticizing Fox (for getting the facts correct). It happened when Donna's understanding of climatology proved to be more than a little cloudy, but the classic example makes the list at #8: you will look long and hard before you find a more confused and arrogantly wrong-headed obloquy.

#7 - If you think those last examples are an embarrassment, then prepare for a whole new level in humiliation. Look past the dazzling illiteracy and go straight to the substance: a series of bald-faced lies about the Hillary hostage coverage that show the newshounds for what they are.

#6 - Fox Didn't Cover... Always a treat, because when the newsmutts make the claim, it's like a DNA marker for fabrication. Let's see, Fox didn't cover a Democratic debate, Brit Hume didn't mention some aspect of the NIE, FNC ignored a truck bombing in Iraq, Fox didn't give time to opponents of war with Iran... Any one of these can be #6. You pick 'em.

#5 - Sometimes the newspoodles get worked up over the most trivial matters, and it's always entertaining when they are wildly, but insistently, wrong. There was Priscilla's off-the-wall assertion that Fox's male anchors have to wear flag lapel pins to show their subservience to "management". Melanie obsessed about a "misidentification" of Joe Lieberman that only took place in her imagination. But the one that wins the #5 slot is Donna's hobbyhorse about how Fox refuses to call Hillary Clinton "Senator". No surprise, both her specific claims and general accusation proved to be falsehoods.

#4 - Almost as deranged as the examples directly above is the claim from the biased bassets that the story of Jessica Lynch was "not well publicized" and Fox was "trying to keep it that way". Sure enough, the anti-Fox terriers didn't tell the truth. The same can also be said of their attempt to smear Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade, but making up statements from them out of whole cloth takes hound skullduggery to another level. That's #4.

#3 - We've had our run-ins with Salon.com in the past, and to be fair their writer Alex Koppelman gets props for correcting an error on at least one occasion. But we had to award the #3 position to his piece on FNC's Democratic contributors, rife with errors, spin, and highly selective (and therefore deceptive) journalism.

#2 - The "grass roots" movement to prevent Fox News from hosting any Democratic Presidential debates has been fueled by dishonorable, mendacious agit-prop of the most reprehensible kind. Case in point is #2 on our countdown: the risible falsehoods and outright lies propagated by MyDD and Chris Bowers.

And finally, here it is, the #1 lie of 2007. This one we spotted at newshounds, but it quickly spread through the Fox haters echo chamber. And a semi-prominent newschannel lifted it from the blue blogs and repeated it over their air. (Yes, it was MSNBC.) The picture to the right is the lie. How can a picture be a lie? See for yourself why it has earned the title of #1 Lie of 2007.

Best wishes for a great New Year from johnny dollar's place!

See also: 2007's Top Ten Videos
2007's Top Ten Audios

In response to our article, Ellen of the newshounds posted a comment claiming that their site had "severed all ties" with guest-blogger Bill Corcoran. Mr Corcoran subsequently posted a reply to Ellen giving his side of the story, but because of the limitations of haloscan comments, his statement was only partially published.

Mr Corcoran has sent an email completing his comments with the part that did not get published, so we will here present his side of the story in its entirety, and in his own words:

Johnny: I've read all the comments, especially those from Ellen at Newshounds, and I feel it is now time to set the record straight. 


I was not FIRED. I QUIT.


The problems started several months ago when I wrote to Rachel Sklar of the Huffington Post to tell her I thought she had been used as a guest on "Fox News Watch." Ms. Sklar told me I could write her ONLY if I had a news tip for her. Then Ellen, my arch enemy at Newshounds, jumped in to the rescue of Rachel Sklar and supposedly talked to her and told her they were thinking of firing me.


I continued to post a guest post every Sunday morning on Newshounds, and on Dec. 16 and Dec. 23 my guest post pulled in over 1,150 comments each. That is a record for Newhounds post which usually average about 50 to 100 comments.


The problem that caused me to QUIT was when I could not get into the comments section of my own post on Newshounds. I kept getting a message that read: "Banned by webmaster. Your comment will not be posted." I wrote countless letters to Newshounds, and to my editor Marie Therese, asking why I was "BANNED" from my own post on Newshounds, but I could still go on any other Newshounds post and make comments.


I was told by Ellen it was an AOL problem. I called AOL and they assured me they had nothing to do with blocking me from my own guest blog. I was told it was a computer gltich by Marie Therese and yet when I asked why I couldn't post on my own guest blog, but I had no problem with posting comments on any other Newshounds post, they failed to answer me. I did everything they told me to do. I shutdown my computer. Restarted it and stood on my head, but still I was getting the message: "Banned by webmaster. Your comments will not be posted."

I tried writing Haloscan who monitors the Newshounds site, but because I was not an official Newshound staffer I was told by Haloscan they could not comment on my complaint. I asked Marie Therese and Ellen to look into the Haloscan situations, and they said they would but I heard nothing except getting a letter from another NewsHound lady, Deborah, saying it was most likely a computer glitch. I wrote back saying I could accept the glitch excuse, by why was I BANNED ONLY from my own post but none of the other Newshounds posts. It didn't make any sense to me then, and still doesn't.

Then miraculously last week I suddenly was able to post on my own post from December 23. My post from Dec. 23 can be found here: My post from Dec. 23 is: http://tinyurl.com/237qk3 on News Hounds and the whopping 1,156 comments posted to my post as can be seen here: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/newshounds/13542/.

However as soon as I was able to get back on my own post and make some comments, I suddenly was "BANNED" again. I was still able to make comments on other Newshounds posts, but not my own.

It appeared to me as the people at Newshounds were jealous of the tremendous following I had built up. Newshounds claims they have 18,000 "views/hits" to their website everyday.  From my own personal experience as a guest blogger on Newshounds that figure is very suspect because I have noticed that even when I was pulling in over 1,150 comments to my post it was just a handul of people posting comments. There are about 30 to 50 people who post comments on a post like mine, but because they post comment after comment it appears there are a lot more people posting comments than there really are.  I might add the same holds true for all the other Newshounds posts.

Finally, I have yet to hear from Newshounds as to why I could NOT post comments on my own guest post, but I could go to any other Newshounds post and place a comment in the comment section. 

There will be more as conditions warrant.

--Bill Corcoran

We have exposed some of the fictions concocted by Bill Corcoran, official "guest blogger" at the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed mob). But an emailer tipped us to a whole new universe of egregious falsehoods--not in his notorious "guest posts", but buried in various comment threads. Here Billy can spread his wings and invent even more elaborate lies to smear Fox and anyone connected with them.

Corcoran is not exactly Nostradamus. Back in April our favorite "guest blogger" cited a "rumor" to assert that Imus producer Bernard McGuirk would be "joining Fox News". That worked out well, didn't it? But if news of the future is not his strong suit, facts in the present fare even worse. Did you know that everyone who appears on Fox News gets paid?

Everyone should know one thing about anyone appearing on any of these shows as "experts." They are all getting paid by FOX NEWS and FOX NEWS does not pay an "expert" because he is going to side with liberal views about the war.

The truth: they are not "all getting paid". FNC contributors are paid, but most of the pundits who appear on Fox are not contributors. Oh, and Billy's claim that they don't pay people who express liberal views about the war? Another lie. Just ask Wesley Clark, David Corn, Ellen Ratner, Laura Schwartz, Harold Ford, Bob Beckel... the list goes on.

For sheer unabashed audacity, a lie this brazen is stunning in its chutzpah:

There are two polls you should NEVER, NEVER trust. The first is the FOX OINION [sic] DYNAMICS POLL. It is run by Fox News and they ONLY call Republicans who are home during the day while Democrats are out earning a living.

What in the wide world of sports is Billy talking about? First of all, Opinion Dynamics is not run by Fox News. FNC is just one of their clients, who come from many industries. But then Billy tops himself with the whopper that they "only call Republicans"! Where did he get this idea from? He made it up! Never mind the published methodology. Never mind the polls themselves, which give you the exact breakdown--their most recent survey called 42% Democrats, 35% Republicans. Yet Billy lies, and the credulous kennel-dwellers lap it up.

Corcoran positions himself as a defender of the troops, and even purports to have a military background. He uses every death as a political bludgeon and attacks Fox News if they don't cover it (and even if they do--he will just lie and say they didn't). Keep that in mind as you read these words:

Of course NONE of the FOX NEWS people will allow any of their military age children to enlist in the United States military, but that is beside the point as far as FOX NEWS is concerned.

This, of course, is another "fact" Billy just made up on the spot. But it's especially repellent given one case in particular. Gen Paul Vallely is a military analyst for FNC. His son, Scott Paul Vallely, not only enlisted in the US military, but lost his life during Special Operations training.

Bill Corcoran, the ultimate moral authority, smears everyone who works for Fox News with a lie, in the process slandering a General with years of distinguished service to his country. Corcoran blithely claims people like Scott Paul Vallely never existed--because one of their parents works for Fox News, and Billy will not stand for anything that contradicts his lies. Corcoran's feigned support for the troops is a chimera, a facade, that crumbles as his duplicitous mendacity is laid bare. He owes a lot of people a major league apology.

Update: After this article was published, Ellen of newshounds announced that they have severed all ties with Mr Corcoran. See comments for the rest of her response. Read further for Bill Corcoran's response to Ellen.