Fox Haters Week in Review
Purloined prose, outdated polls, religious bigotry, and a call to murder Steve Doocy?!? The details in today's action-packed edition of Fox Haters Week in Review!
Stealing One's Blunder:
It's been a busy week over at the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed mob). Our pal Julie decided to take on the eeevil O'Reilly--because Mr Bill made an outrageous statement about government run healthcare:
That's a very tough sell these days.No wonder Julie's upset. How dare anyone claim it's a tough sell! Armed with righteous indignation, Ms Driscoll served up a classic incorrection:
And wow, how do I break this one to Bill? The whole polling thing? Yeah, he’s wrong – in an Ipsos/McClatchy poll (which Fox News’ v.p. Bill Sammon incorrectly quoted), 52% of those polled said they believed a public insurance plan was necessary.First, only 52% support for something is hardly proof that it's not a "hard sell". But more to the point, why did Ms Driscoll dredge up a poll from a month and a half ago with 6-week-old data? Unfortunately for the newspups, Mr Bill cited a current poll, so Julie was forced to deal with that:
O’Reilly then claimed, incorrectly, that “most Americans are now dissatisfied with the President’s healthcare deal. According to a brand new NBC News poll 47% now disapprove of the way Mr. Obama’s handling healthcare reform, while 41% approve.”So how is that incorrect? Don't expect Julie to provide an answer to that.
Am I looking at the same poll? The Wall Street Journal/NBC poll I saw concluded that 40% believe the plans would worsen the quality of health care, 41% approve of President Obama’s handling of the issue, and 54% are worried that the government will go too far, rather than not do enough, to reform the health care system. However, a combined 60% of respondents say the system needs either a “complete overhaul” or “major reform.” That 60% number would seem to be significant, yes?Um, why would the 60% number be significant? You said O'Reilly was "wrong" about the government-funded option. So why do you cite numbers on every other possible aspect of the issue except for that? Didn't the WSJ/NBC poll have a question on that topic? Well what do you know, it did, and Julie failed to report it:
Would you favor or oppose creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies? Favor: 43%. Oppose: 47%.Another question asked if Obama's plan was a good or bad idea: good idea: 36%, bad idea: 42%. Julie says O'Reilly was "incorrect" and "wrong", and this is the poll she cites as her proof?
But wait, there's more. Julie links to an MSNBC article about the poll and then gives this quote:
Those who primarily get their news from FoxNews believe the misinformation about health care reform in far greater numbers than other respondents. For instance, 72 percent of FoxNews watchers believe the illegal immigrant misinformation, 69 percent believe the abortion lie, and 75 percent — three out of every four FoxNews watchers — still believe the 'death panels' nonsense, even though it has been thoroughly, and repeatedly, debunked by the more 'reality-based' media. Oh, and 79 percent of Foxies think health care reform will lead to a 'government takeover' of health care.The first thing to note here is that the poll says nothing about the ignorance of Fox News watchers because that question was never asked. Respondents were asked:
Let me read you a number of criticisms that town hall protesters have made about the proposed health care plan. For each one, please tell me whether this seems to you to be likely to happen or unlikely to happen.They weren't asked if the criticisms were true or false, correct or incorrect. They were asked to speculate about what a future healthcare plan might bring. Ms Driscoll and rascals like News Corpse are portraying this like people flunking a current events test, believing things that are "known to be untrue". But the respondents weren't asked what's true or false; they were asked whether they think these things are likely or unlikely--not a question of fact but a matter of opinion. Ironically, one of these so-called "lies" has already been shown to be not a lie at all. The nonpartisan factcheck.org did a thorough analysis and concluded:
As for the House bill as it stands now, it’s a matter of fact that it would allow both a "public plan" and newly subsidized private plans to cover all abortions.Hmm. Is Julie even a bit chagrined that she called this claim a "lie"? Well, she was just quoting the MSNBC report. But when you go to the MSNBC "first read" piece, the language that Julie quoted isn't there. The phrase "the abortion lie" is never used. So where did this language come from? It would seem logical to credit Ms Driscoll for this embarrassingly false prose. But we poked around a bit and turned up something interesting. It's a blog post, dated August 19th--one day before Julie published her post. And the language there is interesting. Compare what Julie wrote on August 20th (above) with what appeared on The CLog on August 19th:
To no one’s surprise except perhaps their own, those who primarily get their news from FoxNews believe the misinformation about health care reform in far greater numbers than other respondents. For instance, 72 percent of FoxNews watchers believe the illegal immigrant misinformation, 69 percent believe the abortion lie, and 75 percent — three out of every four FoxNews watchers — still believe the “death panels” nonsense, even though it has been thoroughly, and repeatedly, debunked by the more “reality-based” media. Oh, and 79 percent of Foxies think health care reform will lead to a “government takeover” of health care.Wow. John Grooms's CLog post is word-for-word identical to what Julie posted 24 hours later--including that cringeworthy reference to "the abortion lie". They both use the odd construct of "FoxNews" rather than "Fox News"--but Julie properly writes it as "Fox News" everywhere else in her article. Julie does not link to the CLog post. She gives no attribution whatsoever to the writer whose words she repeated. This takes the concept of the Fox Haters "echo chamber" to an all-new level. Isn't there a word for this sort of thing?
Makin' It Up Is Easy to Do
Were you aware that Fox News Watch hosted a panel of four conservatives? What, you say, you don't recall that? Well, let Julie explain it to you:
conservatives Andrea Tantaros, Jim Pinkerton, Judy Miller and Kirsten Powers (a Greta-style Fox News “Democrat”) a platform to smear and further the right’s agenda on thuggery at healthcare reform town halls, President Obama’s healthcare reform, and the role of the media. I guess Shawn thought a conservative media “expert” (Pinkerton), a conservative discredited journalist (Miller), a neoconic hate-spewing blogger (Tantaros) and a columnist who mainly embraces conservative positions (Powers) were the best folks to talk about all this weighty stuff.Let's see. Judith Miller is so conservative that she wrote this about Obama:
His decision to announce the drawdown of forces in Iraq at Camp Lejeune while paying tribute to American warriors, to their sacrifices and accomplishments, is the kind of gesture that makes me think my instinct about him is not wrong and my faith not misplaced.Miller is so conservative she publicly announced her support first for Hillary Clinton and then Barack Obama. And Kirsten Powers, who "mainly embraces conservative positions", as Ms Driscoll claims (without proof)? The same Kirsten Powers who got into a shouting match with Karen Hanretty, who called the arrest of Prof Gates an abuse of power, argues for gays in the military, wants to make illegal aliens citizens, and who has given thousands of dollars to federal candidates--all liberal Democrats? Just where did Julie get the idea that these people are both "conservatives"? She made it up!
By the way, Julie relied on the same poll trickery here as above. To rebut what current polls show about healthcare popularity, she cited a CNN poll...from the middle of last May! What's the matter, couldn't she find any February polls to cite? Then, in a display of either gross ignorance or outright dishonesty, Ms Driscoll pooh-poohs this scientifically-conducted Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, claiming that a CNN QuickVote poll is just as valid:
When asked, “Do you believe healthcare is a fundamental American right whether people can pay for it or not?”, 83% of those polled said “yes,” and 17% said “no.”But again Julie--who conveniently didn't link to either of these polls--isn't telling the truth. CNN didn't poll anybody; CNN's QuickVote is just an internet survey:
This poll is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole.Why is Julie misrepresenting a meaningless internet survey as equivalent to a scientific poll? It's hard to believe that she could be this ignorant, but that may be preferable to the alternative: that she's just a liar.
The Loony Bin:
A quick visit to the rocket scientists at oreillysucks, who this week claimed that Bill O'Reilly has never had "an actual health care expert" on to discuss the Obama plan. The next day Mr Bill discussed the issue with Dr. Brian Day, an orthopedic surgeon and former president of the Canadian Medical Association. The sucksters had an answer to that: aaah, he's just a "Canadian quack"! But it's hard to top their outrage over a sports story:The 3rd case was about a South African woman who won a track race, and Kelly thinks she could be a man. Even though she has a birth certificate that states she is a woman. Ok now, who fricking cares, and how in the hell is this a legal case. This is garbage nobody cares about, even O'Reilly said he does not care at all about that story. Yet they sat there and talked about it for two minutes anyway.The sucksters tell their readers: "If you want real news, go to the BBC." Do so. You might want to start here.
Lynching Is Fun:
First the backstory: the whippets whipped up a whirlwind of indignation over Glenn Beck's joke about not poisoning Nancy Pelosi. "There's nothing funny" about it! "Joking about such matters shouldn't ever be used!" It's "irresponsible!" And the denizens of the dog pound weighed in:- "Hate speech!"
- Beck should be held responsible for his crimes.
- He should be reported to the police for "inciting to violence"!
- Obama should shut down FNC for promoting sedition!
- Good Christian Gretchen Carlson
- Good Christian Doocy
- Good Christian Gretchen
- Good Christian Steve
Take these three stooges out and hang them before it's too late.
The TPM Countdown Clock
Time is quickly running out, according to the Nostradamuses of Talking Points Memo: there are now just 7 days remaining until Shepard Smith quits Fox News or is fired. Enjoy Shep while you can!Spot something you'd like to see in the next Fox Haters Week in Review? Send us an email!
UPDATED: Forgot to include a link to the CLog post referenced above; link now added. Also the newshounds on 8/24 removed the comment calling for murder, a comment that only appeared in the first place after they approved it. The removal comes six days after it was first approved and published--and less than 24 hours after we published this post. fox news nh nc
