johnny dollar's place

With J$P Video!

Those fair and balanced folk over at Slate.com have helpfully put together a video montage. Its purpose: to compare how MSNBC and Fox reacted to Michelle Obama's speech. Watch it carefully, and see if you can tell what's missing:

Does it strike one as passing strange that Slate somehow managed to avoid any footage of Juan Williams, who was not only the first member of the panel to be called on, but also the one who spoke the most, and the most eloquently? Does it seem odd that Fox's latest high-visibility hire, Howard Wolfson, also ended up on Slate's cutting room floor?

As a public service, J$P brings you the footage that Slate spiked. Note also how carefully Slate edited around the favorable comments of Fred Barnes and Chris Wallace. (They pretty much reversed the meaning of what Wallace said by skipping his first words and then including a comment not about the speech but the night as a whole):

Did the creators of Slate's montage have an agenda? We report, you decide. fox news s ms mo

With J$P Video! Updated: Ellen repeats racist slut smear!

It started with Soup Cans, who found something to complain about in this interview with Megyn Kelly:

Kelly made the following statement, which caught us quite by surprise:

"I stand by my comments on the Michelle Obama dress...bluish-green is not the color for these women."

Yes, she did indeed say "these women." We'll leave it up to you to judge what she meant by that comment. Listen to the full interview, including an ironic remark that Bill Clinton is "still upset that he was called a racist".

Then the innuendo was kicked up a notch by Jossip ("Megyn Kelly: Closeted Super-Racist?"):

Megyn Kelly is the worst kind of moron: tthe [sic] blond, perky, Republican kind.... Hemmer needs to put a ball-gag on that woman before they're both axed for being too racist--even for Fox News. First she started in with that baby's mamma crap with the Obamas...

Of course that was a chyron on the screen, which Ms Kelly had nothing to do with, and didn't even know was there. Be that as it may, Jossip continues:

Well, at least she said "these women" instead of "those women," or "you people." Little known fact: It's not racism if you change a letter. Semantics are tricky that way.

Now neither Jossip nor Soup Cans quoted the interviewer's response to Megyn's statement. So we will do that here:

KELLY: I stand by my comments on the Michelle Obama dress…bluish-green is not the color for these women.
HOST: And it blended in--you were right--it blended in with that background.

It should be remembered that the background behind the podium is a bright blue. And that the interview began by recalling Megyn what said on the night of the speech about how a blue dress blends in with that background:


Hmm. Soup Cans and Jossip didn't tell you that either. Given that there was no discussion about race, either in this interview or in Ms Kelly's statements Monday night, could it be that "these women" Megyn Kelly was talking about were the ones speaking at the podium in front of a bright blue background? Ya think?

UPDATE: The more disreputable and dishonest the smear, the quicker it will be pounced upon by the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed syndicate). Sure enough, the biased bassets rushed to parrot the slander, but the most repulsive contribution was of course delivered by the hateful Ellen Brodsky, who found this to be a perfect occasion to reiterate her vile defamation of Ms Kelly all over again:

Megyn "I love to smear people of color" Kelly was disgusting as ever, I have forgotten which Democrat she was interviewing but she kept asking Cavuto mark questions beginning "Is it a fair question..."
That woman would probably say the "n-word" if she thought it would advance her career. God knows, it won't happen because of any real talent.
Wonder how her extramarital friendship with Brit Hume is faring in Denver.

It's amazing what envy and jealousy will do to an already twisted psyche.

Updated! Sometimes it's just too easy; you'd think that they'd know better by now. We're speaking of the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed cabal). It was bad enough when we would post videos that exposed their lies about Fox News. But now they're even relieving us of that responsibility. Their own videos prove them wrong!

Chrish starts out with a bold-type HeadLie:

Kilmeade on FOX: McCain "one of us now"

And it just gets better from there:

[Brian Kilmeade] thinks John McCain has come around, shedding his maverick persona in order to unify the Republican party around his candidacy.... Kilmeade interrupted, joking that McCain is "totally out of control," and needed to be "reigned in." "Just kidding, governor, he's one of us now!" Yes, he is; maverick no more. Another inadvertent truth brought to you by one of McCain's Friends at FOX.

There is just one slight problem with this hound exposé of Kilmeade's alleged comments about McCain: it ain't true. Kilmeade said nothing about McCain, and never mentioned his name. Shall we go to the transcript?

HOOVER: The Republican Party was more fractured when John McCain got the nomination. And here it is, way together, supporting their nominee in a way you just don't see in the Democrat Party.

KILMEADE: Although Huckabee's totally out of control. That guy's gotta be reigned in. Just kidding, Governor. He's one of us now.

What!? Kilmeade was talking about Mike Huckabee!? Apparently newsmutt Chrish missed a few clues here:

• Huckabee is a governor (McCain isn't).
  
• Huckabee works for Fox and to Kilmeade would therefore be "one of us" (McCain doesn't work for Fox).
  
• Oh and one more: Kilmeade said "Huckabee", not "McCain"!
  

So where did Chrish get the idea Kilmeade was talking about John McCain? She made it up! But don't take our word for it. Here's the hounds' very own video. Don't fret over the typically grainy video quality from the kennelcorder. The audio is good enough so that if you listen halfway carefully, you will hear Kilmeade talk about Huckabee, never mentioning the name of John McCain:


Another newspoodle article entirely based on a false premise. Despite several commenters pointing out how wrong the article is, so far no correction or retraction has been made. At this rate, all we need now to put the icing on the cake is for Keith Olbermann to pilfer this phony story for his nightly Fox News attack, without of course checking whether it's true. After all, he's done that before.

UPDATE: Just for the record, here's our comment exposing the newspooch falsehoods. You have to read it here because it has, of course, been deleted. The hounds are so interested in truth after all:


UPDATE UPDATE: Our pal Chrish has apparently thrown in the towel on this one:

Apparently Brian Kilmeade was NOT referring to McCain being "one of us" but rather to Governor Mike Huckabee, offstage, who is of course a former Republican candidate and current FOX News contributor. My mistake; sincere apologies. I do wish Kilmeade wasn't such a mush-mouth.

Note that the original HeadLie stands, as does everything else. The correction is tacked on the end as an "amendment". Be that as it may, we congratulate the hounds for doing the right thing, this time.

UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE: Chrish has now clarified her headline as well. Props for that. We have modified our headline to reflect her action.

We shouldn't be surprised. The newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed gang) have long been purveyors of unsourced personal attacks and vicious hate speech. In her role as "queen bee", Ellen Brodsky has permitted the lowest, most vile sorts of ad hominem libels to flourish for years. And now she is welcoming the most execrable form of hate speech: ugly racial smears.

Let us not forget that this is the site that republished an unsubstantiated rumor accusing a Fox anchor of being a drunken child molestor. That allowed Fox contributor Father Jonathan Morris (pointedly described as "baby faced") to be labeled a "pedophile priest". That specifically approved a comment claiming Fr Morris was a closeted gay and speculated about the size of his penis.

Even worse than what Ellen permits others to write is the mud she herself wallows in. Whether it's using a discredited rumor to call Megyn Kelly a racist and a slut, or tossing in a conjectural slur about another commentator's "sex life", there is no defamation too loathsome. She once even accused this writer of having a criminal record! But in her defense, she had an unimpeachable source: an email...if only she could find it.

This is all merely prelude to the outpouring of racist vituperation that Ellen Brodsky has ushered in to attack, of all people, Juan Williams. After a headline suggesting Mr Williams is a bigot, Ellen starts in with her ritual smear of Hannity as a promoter of "white rights". (This oft-repeated calumny is based on the discredited word of racist Hal Turner, who recently made much the same claims about Tim Russert!) Then, coyly, Ellen tosses in another stink-bomb, asking if Juan Williams "shares Hannity's bigotry". Point made, she can then sit back, smile, and watch the vomitous racial invective fill the comment thread:

• Juan works weekends as a lawn jockey on the Klannity Plantation.
  
• Another tool of Fox they pull out when they need someone to kiss their ass and help spread the message of the White House.
  
• They are also playing to their racist drooler audience that think that since he's a Black Man, that he speaks for all Black Men. Well he doesn't. He lets his wallet do the speaking for him.
  
• As a black man, I am embarrased by that "I hate I was born black", yassa boss Juan Williams.
  
• Juan Williams is just one member of a cadre of Black bashers Hannity and O'Reilly utilize to justify their racist notions.
  
• Juan Williams needs to just put on his tap shoes and do a little jig for Klannity on the next show... I mean he'd probably do it considering the amount of bread they're giving his uncle tom ass.
  
• After a good Obama bashing, House Negro Juan is often rewarded with some extra bacon grease on his bread.
  
• Juan Williams, thinking for himself, dons a tophat [sic] and grabs his cane and taps the [Fox] dance for Hannity!
  
• It's just [expletive deleted] sad that these black enablers continue to play house nigra for their masters. Sad thing is, however much they are paid to [expletive deleted] on their own people and no matter how desperately they want to be, they'll never ever be white.
  

Meanwhile, Ellen Brodsky has been reading these comments, and posting to the thread herself. Her most recent post (1:02 am) was after all of the above, so she cannot claim to have been unaware of this content. She saw it, approved it, and let it stand. Shameful and beneath contempt. fox news juan nh

With J$P Video! Think Progress defames Fox News? Not exactly a bulletin; in fact, no more surprising than "pig eats truffles". TP's track record speaks for itself, and their methodology hasn't changed: use quote-cropping and cherry-picked snippets to distort and misrepresent FNC, just as they have done on topics ranging from Iran to Stephen Colbert.

Their latest bit of transparent trickery:

Fox News Host Refuses To Talk About Russia-Georgia War, Insists On Covering Edwards’ Affair
Yesterday, Russia launched a major military offensive against Georgia, which Georgia has called “a state of war.” Nearly two thousand people have died and the conflict risks sparking a wider war. Also yesterday, former senator John Edwards admitted to having an extramarital affair in 2006. Fox News has decided which story is worthy of more coverage.

Today, host Gregg Jarrett interviewed PBS’s Bonnie Erbe. “We have these huge stories going on like the one you’re reporting in Georgia,” Erbe noted when asked about Edwards. Jarrett, however, completely ignored Erbe’s comment on Georgia and continued to talk about Edwards... Throughout the segment, Jarrett refused to talk about anything except for Edwards’s affair... Of course, this is nothing new for Fox, which has a history of covering tabloid issues more than wars.

Naturally, the credulous Fox haters, free of any concern over accuracy by their refusal to watch, were happy to swallow the propaganda whole:

• They can’t come down hard on Russia’s tampering in Georgia, when the Israeli/U.S. attack on Iran looms on the near horizon.
  
• I never watch any [Fox] new’s [sic] and have been shutting off the local crap because they want to keep this going for ever [sic]…
  
• And that is why I don’t watch the Fox Clown Network. The nimrod and Gumby University journalists don’t want to report “real issues.”
  
• Wouldn’t we all have been more surprised if they had covered the war?
  
• What else would one expect from the Tabloid News Network.
  
• Get smart! Get informed! Turn Murdoch OFF!!!!
  
• Rupert Murdoch detests the Georgian Government and is certainly delighted to see them take a pounding from the Russians.
  

Needless to say, outfits like Think Progress rely on the ignorance of the gullible, as displayed above, to sell their smears. Because not one of those lemmings had any idea what Gregg Jarrett and Julie Banderas broadcast in the 70 minutes that preceded the Bonnie Erbe segment. (Erbe, it should be noted, was employing a variation of an old tactic: hijacking an interview. Fox haters just love when they do this. Just ask Judy Bachrach. But we digress.)

Here is a timeline of the coverage that aired before the Erbe segment:

• When the broadcast began at 4:00 pm Eastern, the first story mentioned was not the Edwards affair, but the Georgian war. Think Progress did not report this.
  
• Minutes later, Steve Harrigan did a live report on the fighting from Tbilisi, Georgia. Think Progress did not report this.
  
• In another segment, Jarrett and Banderas got analysis on the diplomatic implications from Amy Kellogg in Russia. Think Progress did not report this.
  
• Later in the hour, another segment, with Douglas Paal of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, offered further perspectives on the implications of the war. Think Progress did not report this.
  
• And then at 5:00 pm, another live report from Steven Harrigan from Tbilisi. Think Progress did not report this either.
  

Think Progress claims that Jarrett "refuses to talk about" the war: false. They say Fox deemed Edwards "worthy of more coverage" than the war: a blatant lie. In truth, during the very program Think Progress chose to focus on, no story got "more coverage" than the Georgian war did!

Why can't Think Progress tell the truth?
fox news tp greg je

Keith Olbermann's slander of Bill O'Reilly was first reported by Olbermann Watch and this site. It was further advanced by TV Newser, who pointed out additional errors in Keith's "reporting". But on his Thursday night show, Olbermann ignored journalistic ethics and refused to correct his smear. Instead, he turned his fire on O'Reilly again, doubling down with a new, and dubious, tirade.

In comments first reported here, Bill O'Reilly talked about how NBC had offered him more money than Fox, but he chose to stay with FNC. This was too much for Olbermann:

I checked with the relevant bosses...

The "relevant bosses"? No names? Nobody willing to go on the record to back up Olbermann on this?

...whose memory of this was like mine, sometime in 1999, more likely 2000 or 2001...

Um, do you think you could vague that up a little, Keith?

...NBC made an informal overture to O‘Reilly, like if you ever want to leave, let us know. No offer, no money figure, no ton, and now he thinks we attack him every day because he wouldn‘t come work here.

Aha, did you catch that last bit? O'Reilly never said that! But that's a handy way for Keith to divert from what has to be an embarrassing fact: NBC wanted to hire Bill O'Reilly.

How much credibility should we give Keith's claim that there was never a money figure involved? How much credibility should we give anything Olbermann says about Fox News? He was just caught in a whopper about Bill O'Reilly and won't even air a correction. And it's not like this is something new. The falsehoods and outright lies Keith Olbermann has spewed about FNC are legion. Here are just a few, with documentation linked:

• Olbermann lies about Liz Claman and Alexis Glick.
  
• Falsely asserts a Bin Laden tape was leaked to Fox.
  
• Ignoring video, insists O'Reilly ordered Jane Hall's mic cut off.
  
• Calls O'Reilly "liar" based on disingenuous blog posting.
  
• Fabricates and rewrites an O'Reilly interview with Nancy Soderberg.
  
• Concocts Fox "report" out of thin air.
  
• Invents nonexistent Fox News "quote" and imaginary "fervor".
  
• Falsifies his own words to justify lying about John Gibson.
  
• Attacks Brit Hume by taking quote about one event and attaching it to a different one.
  
• Repeatedly lies about nonexistent "doctoring" of Fox transcript.
  
• Slams O'Reilly for something he never said.
  
• Lifts unverified blog story on O'Reilly comment, errors and all.
  

Whom to believe? Bill O'Reilly, who has gone on the record about the money NBC offered? (And not for the first time, either.) Or Keith Olbermann, who after a career of false smears tries to manufacture credibility for his latest attack by citing the flimsiest corroboration possible: anonymous sources?!?

A good reporter may encounter a tip, or two, or five, in a day’s time. He has to check them all out before publishing or reporting. --Keith Olbermann fox news bor ko

Keith Olbermann is notorious for filching stories from the blue blogs, particularly ones that attack the eeevil Bill O'Reilly. But now his sloppy, unprofessional practices have come back to bite him. He aired an out-and-out falsehood Wednesday as fact, ripping and reading from the most unreliable source in existence.

On Countdown June 23 Olbermann assailed O'Reilly over his segment on Rep. Robert Wexler. After some crack about altering the color of Wexler's lips (a confirming clue as will be seen), he then turned the indignation up to '11' and ridiculed Bill for not knowing that Florida doesn't have a state income tax:

OLBERMANN: The Frank Burns of News then speculated that Wexler was somehow trying to cheat Florida out of income tax. Fund had to inform him that Florida doesn't have an income tax. "No income tax? This is where my argument falls to the ground!"

Don't believe us? Here's the video:


Unfortunately this is completely false, and in fact the opposite of what actually happened. It was O'Reilly who brought up Florida's lack of an income tax:

O'REILLY: You say it's legal. You can do that, based upon how he set it up. Now, taxes. Doesn't he have to pay taxes in both states if he has dual residency there?
FUND: Members of Congress can choose to pay taxes either in the Washington area or in their home state.
O'REILLY: OK so they have the choice. So he would pay it in Florida because Florida doesn't have a state tax. And Maryland taxes like crazy.
FUND: And you have just identified one of the big reasons he has to have this phantom residence, because that enables him to pay no state income tax.

Don't believe us? Here's the video of the segment, the video Olbermann was careful not to show:


Obviously Olbermann's entire segment was built on a lie, constructed around a conversation that never happened. So how did he come up with his twisted, doctored version of what O'Reilly said? Where else, but from the masters of twisting words and doctoring quotes, the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed syndicate). No other site that we could find reported this peculiar, and demonstrably false, version of the conversation:

While Bill O'Reilly elaborated on the dubious charge, a photo of Wexler with unusually red lips was shown on the screen.... BOR continued the probe speculating about the state taxes Wexler pays insinuating that he is trying to cheat in some way. Fund couldn't help him with that either informing him that Florida has no income tax anyway.

Aha! Olbermann's "news source": another lie from the newspoodles.

We have exposed literally hundreds of falsifications, doctored quotes, and lies from the newsmutts on this site. There is no more dishonest source for smears against Fox News. But Keith Olbermann is supposed to be a journalist. He's supposed to check sources and facts before he airs a story. That means something more than merely lifting something from an unreliable blue blog and airing it as if it were fact.

To say that the next Edward R Murrow's journalistic standards are subpar would be the understatement of the eon. Does Olbermann not care that he is just spewing lies? Was the story "too good to check?" Can you imagine a "journalist" taking the word of a discredited blogger, without even bothering to look at the video to see if it's true?

You don't have to imagine it. MSNBC brings it to you every night, on Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

It seems the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed cabal) have stepped into some of their own excrement. We've documented how their deliberate lies come back to bite them. Take, for example, their attempt to stir up a nonexistent controversy over an interview with Dennis Ross.

To make it look like some sort of slight, they go out of their way to refer to Ross as a "former Fox News contributor". Really, how gullible do they think we are? Do they believe no one will check his FNC bio? Even more hilarious, he's clearly identified as a "Fox News contributor" in the very video they are hawking! Warning: don't point that out or your comment, like ours, will be immediately deleted. In service to the "greater truth" no doubt.

But the case at hand appears to be more one of ignorance and arrogance than purposeful fabrication. The biased bassets finally decided to report last week's news about Brian Kilmeade's email. But that presented a problem. How to trumpet this story without crediting this site for breaking it? The solution: find a site that reported on what we reported, and credit it to them:

TVNewser reported last week that FOX and Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade mistakenly hit "reply all" on an internal email, letting half of FOX News know he was dissatisfied with the amount of segments he was assigned. Also exposed was an outline of the program's structure (easily ascertained after watching for a while, I should add) that confirms the use of daily "talking points" and puts to rest Gretchen Carlson's lie that they don't get talking points.

Yes, the newspoodles consider it "breaking news" that Fox & Friends has a "talking points" segment, and therefore, using Hound Logic, that proves Fox "gets talking points" from the White House. No it doesn't make a minute of sense, but that doesn't bother the kennel-dwellers:

• What a bloody shock, a Fox whore caught out in a lie, what ever next, Bush is an intellect.
  
• What is equally weird is that they often don't even bother to mix up the order or paraphrase which makes it all the more obvious.
  
• Of course Fox gets talking points.
  
• They exist to disseminate pro-republican talking points.
  
• Gretchen has not had a real thought in years. Talking points is her substitute for a brain.
  

Unfortunately, the program outline "exposed" nothing that any F&F viewer hasn't known for years. The "talking points" segment, where the morning's most interesting news stories are discussed, is anything but a secret. They even use that title on the air, as they did recently with comedian Jay Thomas:

DOOCY: Now Jay, we've included you in the 'talking points' because we know you do a radio show and you talk about things and politics.

Funny, you would think someone who watches Fox constantly, or even "for a while", would be aware of such things. Be that as it may, the whippets' foolishness was so dazzling, so profoundly wrong-headed, that the editor of TVNewser himself took the unusual step of correcting their drivel:


So there was no Gretchen Carlson lie. There were no secret "talking points" exposed. And the newspoodles' citation of TV Newser came back to bite them. All that makes their screaming, bold-type headline that much more ironic:

Talking Points on FOX and Friends confirmed beyond reasonable doubt

Yeah, right. You could fill an encyclopedia with what the newsmutts don't know about Fox News. Their slogan needs an update: "We don't watch Fox so we can make up anything we damn well please about it!"

APPENDIX: Jay Thomas Fox & Friends video:

The hiring of Howard Wolfson as a political contributor to Fox News has resulted in the ritual outrage from blue blogs and Fox haters. When they aren't smearing Wolfson ("sell-out", "right-wing Zionist", etc) the alternate tactic is used: diminish Fox by lying about its influence and reach.

The preferred method for doing so is to marginalize the Fox audience. It's something you've read repeatedly: Fox viewers are "a devout congregation of true believers, incapable of critical thought". They are overwhelmingly Republican and "will not vote for Democrats".

What do all these hyperbolic squeals have in common? They all reference the same single "source", as does this one whipped up by the Daily Kos today, fulminating over Wolfson "whoring" himself:

Democrats can pretend that there are "independents" watching Fox News, but the data is clear -- it is the most reliably Republican outlet in the nation.

The magic bullet that all these Fox haters rely on, their rosetta stone of "clear data", comes from Mark Mellman, John Kerry flack, who was at the time pushing for the famed boycott of Democratic debates on Fox:

In our 2004 polling with Media Vote, using Nielsen diaries, we found that Fox News viewers supported George Bush over John Kerry by 88 percent to 7 percent.

There are literally thousands of references to this "survey" in the Fox haters echo chamber, an astonishing number considering that as far as we can tell nobody has ever seen it. Every link we looked at eventually traced back to nothing more than Mellman's undocumented characterization in an opinion column.

What kind of polling relies on manipulating Nielsen data for its findings? Where has this "survey" been published? Is its methodology public? Have you ever seen a presidential poll from Media Vote? No matter. A four-year-old comment from a John Kerry operative is the definitive word on polling. It's "reality", according to Markos.

Now, what the blue blogs won't tell you. In 2007, Politico reported that an actual study (not mere fiddling with Nielsen diaries) from MediaMark found otherwise:

In fact, according to a study by Mediamark Research, only 38 percent of Fox News viewers self-identified as conservative. In terms of sheer numbers, that means the non-conservative audience for Fox tops CNN’s total viewership.

The Fox haters never mention this survey. Maybe it's too recent. Who wants findings from 2007 when you can have Mellman's unsupported claims from 2004?

To be fair, we don't have much detail about the MediaMark survey either. Luckily, there is an unimpeachable source that is universally recognized as legitimate. The Project for Excellence in Journalism issues its State of the Media report every year. In connection with the PEW Center they conduct scienctific surveys of news audiences using recognized methodology. Did their 2008 report find that the Fox audience is just a herd of "true believers" who are "overwhelmingly Republican"? Not exactly:

The largest share of its audience – 38% -- were Republicans, followed by Democrats (31%) and independents (22%).

Interesting. That 38% figure tracks exactly with the MediaMark study. And at 53%, more Democrats and Independents watch Fox than do Republicans.

In Q2, 2008 Fox News Channel averaged 1,585,000 viewers. CNN: 961,000, MSNBC: 685,000. So according to the PEW survey, how many of these are Democrats? Numbers don't lie:

• FNC (31% Democratic): 491,350 Dem viewers
  
• CNN (45% Democratic): 432,450 Dem viewers
  
• MSNBC (48% Democratic): 328,800 Dem viewers
  

Yes, it's true. More Democrats watch Fox News Channel than either CNN or MSNBC. And the Kossacks, blue blogs, and Fox haters who try to tell you otherwise are lying. fox news hw kos