When it comes to distorting and fabricating, the Outfoxed gals are in a class all their own. But this week there's serious competition.

The haters are at it again...the Fox haters, that is. Week after week, Fox News chalks up crushing ratings victories over its competitors, and that just magnifies the apoplexy of the smear merchants. You'll find a typical example at the aptly-named Crooks and Liars. They put up a clip of Brit Hume, who was on Dayside talking about the release of the National Intelligence Estimate in July of 2003 [QuickTime video clip]:



Get that information off the screen! See how evil Brit Hume is? The latter half of the partnership takes charge, as the Liars claim:

what caught my eye was the way the rest of the studio reacted after he demanded FOX take down the  graphic of the headline that appeared on the screen. Everyone is cheering and clapping.

Except that it's clear from the clip itself that nobody clapped for Hume's statement. The applause came when the segment concluded, after the hosts thanked Hume for appearing--the same applause that routinely accompanies segment endings on Dayside every day of the week!

Speaking of misrepresentation, we are dealing not only with Liars, but also Crooks. And what could be more fraudulent than selectively editing a video clip to distort its meaning? Why did Mr Hume think the onscreen text should be removed? What was his nefarious ulterior motive? We will tell you what the Crooks don't want you to know. Hume had this peculiar notion (especially repellent to the Fox haters) that text banners should not be erroneous [QuickTime video clip]:



He wanted the banner corrected to state accurately that an authorized release of information cannot be defined as a "leak". For some reason the haters saw fit to hide that part of the interview. And in a cyberspace version of the old Telephone Game, as the "news" spreads through the online anti-Fox network, it gets more and more remote from the truth. Just hours later, TVNewser links to the edited, misleading C&L post, adding another layer of distortion:

Brit Hume asked an FNC chyron operator to remove the words "Libby tells prosecutors Bush authorized CIA leak" because he said it's unclear what happened.

Umm, no, Brian. Brit Hume's reasoning was explicit: because the term "leak" is incorrect. He never said it was "unclear what happened".

Naturally, the spin and fabrication are ramped up to stratospheric levels when one enters the domain of the full-time Fox haters, the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed mob). But just because they are professionals of defamation doesn't mean they do it professionally. One of these Einsteins wrote a bizarre piece about Eric Shawn's appearance on Studio B. Poor Mr Shawn: he made no appearance on Studio B. Newspoodle Donna went on about what he said, including a link to Mr Shawn's bio--with a picture, no less!--blissfully unaware that the interview she was misrepresenting was not with Eric Shawn, but rather Eric Burns.

After repeated hectoring by commenters about her ignorant mistake, did the newspooch admit the error and make a correction? Of course not. Instead, she did a "stealth rewrite", changing Shawn to Burns, posting the revised version, hiding the wrong one, neatly avoiding any embarrassing admission of another uninformed hound blunder. Oh, the new version claims Eric Burns is "a Fox Senior Correspondent". Sorry, Donna, that would be Eric Shawn. Maybe the third version will be the one where you get the facts right. Meanwhile, the curs can't even bury their mistakes properly. The first version of the article that they tried to hide? It can still be found here.

The most fun that can be had with the anti-Fox terriers is to catch them in an outright fabrication. There are so many to pick from. One example:

Here is McKinney's very brief statement. I'd be willing to bet Fox's audience would have thought it was a perfectly fine apology, if, that is, Fox had let them see it.

Well if covering it live, as it happened, and replaying it through the rest of the day count as "letting them see it", then the newsmutts have stepped in it once again.



But let's cut to the chase with our pick for The Hound Lie of the Week:

The Fox morning news yesterday 4/6/06 was mostly non-stop coverage of Cynthia McKinney.

Let's just look at the first hour:

• Moussaoui Trial
• Train Crash
• Fired Air Traffic Controller Arrested
• Italian Terrorist Plot Foiled
• Duke University Rape Charges
• Mansion Murder
• Actor Saves Rape Victim
• Hot Pursuit
• Weather Alert
• Downed Chopper Pilot
• Interview with Sen Menendez (D)
• Point/Counterpoint on Cynthia McKinney
• Market Update
• Headlines
• Iraq Car Bomb
• Bush Heads to North Carolina
• Iran and the UN
• UN Rebuilding Plans
• Diabetic Driver Crashes into Dentist Office
• Mansion Murder
• Twisters

There were two 10-second News Alerts in the hour regarding the McKinney Grand Jury. Even adding those to the mix, the claim that the coverage was "mostly non-stop McKinney" is a blatant lie--McKinney got no more than a tiny fraction of the time. That should surprise no one: facts and truth do not matter to the newspoodles.

Incidentally, later in the morning, McKinney apologized and Fox was there, live. That raises a bit of a conflict: the newspups claim that Fox refused to show it, yet on the other hand it was part of their "non-stop coverage". Don't try to make sense of it; it's hound logic. But wait, there's more! They go on to reference a report (from William LaJeunesse, whom they slander with a repellent smear) on students who skipped school to march in a protest:

At the conclusion of the interview, LaJeunesse mused about this walk-out, which had “the tacit consent of the teachers,” being part of an overall truancy problem in Los Angeles. And in true Fox style he concluded by stating that “some people say that the walk-out was tolerated because the students were Hispanic.”

Yes, the "some people say" piffle again. But in this case, it's just part of a larger tapestry of invention. This is how the reporter actually concluded the piece:

LaJEUNESSE: Now supporters say these students learn more about Democracy in a day than a month of class; however, critics and opponents say that many of these students who are here illegally should pay a price for taking their public school for granted.

What a delicious amalgamation of artifice! First he didn't use the evil phrase "some people say", so that's a lie. Then the newspooches rewrite what he did say: a double lie. On top of all that, they conveniently omit the first half of the sentence, so that their gullible readers will think LaJeunesse was being biased when in fact he gave both sides--fair and balanced. This is more than a double lie. It would have to be the dreaded "Double Dog Lie"! But don't take our word for it; hear for yourself [mp3 audio]:



How could a Double Dog whopper not be our Lie of the Week? The Croix de Johnny Dollar for Conspicuous Lying is awarded, yet again, to the anti-Fox terriers.