The Outfoxed gals are shamed into reporting on Fox's GannonGate coverage. Unfortunately, they were not shamed into telling the truth. Updated!

In an attempt to preserve the notion that Fox has "ignored" the Jeff Gannon "story", the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed cabal) managed to avoid any report whatsoever on Saturday's edition of Fox NewsWatch. When we pointed out their curious silence, tail-wagger ellen rushed into damage-control mode, promising a write-up on the program. A few hours later a hastily-written article appeared, covering only the Gannon segment of the program. Considering that they only addressed about seven minutes of the show, the newspoodles did an exceptional job of falsifying and distorting:

For one thing, they didn't go into the false identity aspect of Gannon/Guckert.

Fabrication Alert!

JIM PINKERTON [NEWSDAY]: Guckert/Gannon getting a pass: I worked at the White House for six years, and I can tell you that to clear somebody in on a false name is, with the Secret Service--
NEIL GABLER: On a daily basis.
PINKERTON: --on a daily, takes an incredible amount of intervention from somebody high up in the White House to do this.
ERIC BURNS: So it wasn't just that somebody overlooked this. Somebody was complicit.
PINKERTON: It's conscious, yes.

That opened the door for Jim Pinkerton, of Newsweek...

Um, Mr Pinkerton has been with Newsday for over a decade. More meticulous reporting from the hounds who "watch Fox so you don't have to".

overall the panel seemed to think Gannon was on a par with bloggers - a member of the new media - and should not be barred from the press corps

Newspoodle Fabrication Alert Part Deux! Why is this statement of what the panel "overall seemed to think" presented with not even a single illustrative quote? Who exactly on the panel expressed the view that Gannon "should not be barred"? Is this just another dog-eared lie? Once again, we will tell you what the newspups don't want you to know:

JANE HALL [AMERICAN UNIVERSITY]: It's hard for me to imagine that this would have happened if the bias were on the other foot....
NEIL GABLER: I think you were unfair when you called him a journalist....
HALL: He was clearly posing questions that fed into their story line about Democrats divorced from reality, soup lines--Rush Limbaugh said, gee that was I line I used. He used it as a White House reporter allegedly. It's different.
GABLER: There are many many journalists, and we know a lot of them, who act like partisan hacks. This guy was a partisan hack. And there's a difference....He worked for a GOP operative. He would not have been credentialed, and was not credentialed by Congress, for precisely that reason....This person should never have been credentialed, was not credentialed by Congress....The White House wanted him there.
PINKERTON: Some investigation should proceed and they should find that out....
BURNS: But the point is, Jane, we have a finite amount of space here, so there have to be some distinctions about who can get in.
HALL: There is actually a serious question of security for the President. If you have that kind of a lapse, and somebody's intervening, that's a serious issue.
CAL THOMAS: I agree with that.

But ellen "reports" that "overall" these commentators "seemed to think" that Gannon "should not be barred". Just who, anywhere in the discussion, said that? Ellen? Bueller? Anyone?

Update: An in-depth article from Men's Wear Daily is more evidence that ellen's description of the panel's viewpoints is fabricated fantasy.

Meanwhile, admitted liar David Brock's Media Matters employs its own variety of in-depth analysis, citing Eric Burns's introductory question, where he referred to Gannon as a "journalist". Burns went on to quote one of Gannon's embarrassingly softball questions, and then turned to Jim Pinkerton:

BURNS: So he did give a clue, Jim, that he certainly wasn't an impartial journalist.

This, of course, suggests the Burns didn't think Gannon was a journalist, or at least an impartial one. But that distinction seems to have been lost on Brock's Brigade. As were all the subsequent comments, questions, and observations in the segment, as detailed above and in the MWD article. Media Matters doesn't tell you about any of the discussion that followed--not a single quote.