Newshounds: Both Dishonest and Stupid
It's beyond comprehension that anybody takes their drivel seriously any more. We speak of the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed cabal). When they aren't being dishonest, they are just imbecilic and fatuous.
Newsmutt Chrish is eager to point out an "easily verifiable whopper" from Bill O'Reilly, who said his guest list is balanced between(R)s and (D)s. Oh no, she yelps; people who believe that are being "taken for suckers". Of course Chrish cites an irrefutable source: an O'Reilly hate site!
What Chrish doesn't tell you is how this site does its classifications. First of all, anyone who is a Fox reporter (except for Geraldo, who for some reason gets a pass), is automatically labeled a Republican. So Major Garrett, Dagen McDowell, and a fistful of others all get counted as (R)s. (Just to up the ante a bit, they even count Doocy and Carlson's weekly "culture quiz" segment--that's two more Republicans!) Then the guests are given the same treatment: Rasmussen and Gallup, both independent pollsters, get (R) labels. Liberals Patricia Powell and Christopher Hitchens are deemed Republicans. Plus libertarians and even documented Dems, like Lis Wiehl (feminist writer and longtime Democratic contributor), get slapped with the (R). A bigger pack of lies you haven't seen since Jon Lovitz. Yet the newspoodles trumpet it as fact.
But our pal Chrish isn't just dishonest, she's also boneheaded. Her latest screed ridicules Fox & Friends because they opined that most newspaper endorsements are going to Obama:
As usual, FOX and Friends 10/20/08 just suggested something without any facts or sources to back it up; a little checking reveals that the facts wouldn't have supported their innuendo, so best left unsaid.... Since FOX insists that the mainstream media is far and away liberal, most endorsements are for Democrats. Steve Doocy, who recently contradicted a thorough study of campus politics with his own keen observations, said (twice, for emphasis) "I'd say most of them." Brian Kilmeade named three papers who have endorsed Obama, and said "there seems to be a trend." Well, an MIT study (care to refute that one too?) reports...Hold it right there. That MIT study covers 1940-2002. How could that possibly have any bearing on Obama's newspaper endorsements? Well, it doesn't. But Chrish is back to make yet another penetrating point:
Additionally, an Indiana University analysis, The Influence of Newspaper Endorsements in Presidential Elections: The Case of 1964, by Robert S. Erikson © 1976 Midwest Political Science Association...Stop again! 1964? These are studies that refute the notion that Obama has more newspaper endorsements in 2008? Well, they were enough to satisfy the gullible kennel dwellers:
- If Village Idiot Doocbag had to back up his ridiculous statements beforehand with actual facts, he would be a complete mute.
- Fox: "Facts? We don't need no stinking facts."
- That's the kind of insightful, well-researched and detailed analysis I've come to expect from Fox!
- Facts, Reason, Logic, the Truth, Justice and other similar liberal carp will never shake the Faith of the Faithful who choose to Believe.
- Dallas Morning News: Barack Obama now leads John McCain, 104-32, in the race for newspaper endorsements.
- Washington Post: Sen. Barack Obama has opened up a massive lead over Sen. John McCain in newspaper endorsements.
- DemConWatch: Presidential endorsement list.
One would think Chrish would realize how humiliating it is to pass off her hateful harangue as anything other than the fallacious ramblings of a dunderhead. Alas, the standards aren't quite that high over at the pound. If they were, there would be a retraction and an apology forthcoming. Don't hold your breath: if you're a Fox hater, that dog won't hunt. fn nh
