New Lies? Same As the Old Lies!
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.
