How many things can the Outfoxed gals get wrong in just one article? You won't believe the answer.

Every once in a while a real gem comes along, a fevered diatribe so haughty, so cluelessly ignorant that it confirms with certitude the arrogant stupidity of the writer. We are of course talking about the net's premier Fox haters, the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed gang).

"Fox News Goes After Google", blares newsmutt Ellen in a bold-type headline. And what follows is a smorgasboard of pompous hubris and humiliating ignorance. We'll take it line by line. And we'll keep a running count of everything Ellen gets embarrassingly wrong.

Hannity & Colmes accused Google of being in cahoots with MoveOn.org because the internet giant denied a couple of Republican ads

Actually, Colmes argued just the opposite. (1) And it wasn't a couple of ads, it was four. (2)

both conservative pundits misrepresented what a copyright violation is (Google's stated reason for denying the ads) then declared no violation had occurred.

Copyright was never an issue. Google's stated reason was and is trademark infringement. (3)

I don’t recall any outrage from “fair and balanced” FOX News when Verizon refused to allow NARAL Pro-Choice America to use a text messaging program.

Verizon immediately reversed itself and allowed the text messages. (4) Google has not reversed itself and is still refusing the ads.

No evidence was offered to support the contention that MoveOn had in fact complained to Google.

In addition to telling Lance Dutson (Maine Coast Designs) that moveon complained, there is also Google's own statement: (5)

Under our advertising policies , companies and organizations that demonstrate that they own trademark rights can request that their trademarked terms not be used in the text of ads on Google. MoveOn made such a request, and as a result we required that this advertiser rewrite their ad and remove the trademarked terms. If ads are running on Google that include trademark terms in their text, this is likely because either the trademark owner has not submitted a complaint, or because the advertiser has been authorized to use the trademark.

(Note to Ellen: you'll note there is nothing about "copyright infringement" whatsoever; it's a trademark case. Got it?)

[Kate Obenshain] confused copyright infringement with trademark violation. “They’re claiming a trademark violation,” she falsely said

Dammit, Ellen, you're still wrong. (6)

[She] seemed to think that a copyright infringement meant some kind of slander “There’s no disparagement protection. You can say what you want about a company,” she said

We'll say it slowly, Ellen, so maybe it will sink in. This is a trademark case, not a copyright case, and by this point you owe Kate Obenshain a serious apology. (7) Furthermore, Obenshain was correct on the law of "trademark disparagement": courts have clearly ruled that no company has the right to prevent the use of a trademarked name by those who criticize it. (8)

What grounds did Obenshain have to conclude that MoveOn and Google have a long relationship together?

They have been aligned for a long time on issues of net neutrality. And Google staffed its Washington PAC with moveon people. (9)

Unfortunately, Colmes, who usually seems to enjoy shredding Obenshain’s punditry, didn’t call her on either her misunderstanding of copyright violation or her baseless assertion about the relationship between MoveOn and Google.

Because she was right and Ellen is yet again wrong: the case is not about copyright violation (10), and the relationship between moveon and Google is a matter of public record. (11)

Lowry also seemed to confuse copyright law with trademark law and then accused Google of falsely applying it.

Man, when the newspoodles get something wrong, they hammer it all the more. Lowry's analysis was spot on, in part because he wasn't falsely insisting that the case involved copyright law, which it doesn't. (12)

The “we report, you decide” network didn’t bother to do any investigation into the issue

Ellen got everything wrong, from what Google stated to the applicable law down to the facts of the dispute. She obviously didn't bother to read anything on the case. If she had, she wouldn't have embarrassed herself so thoroughly. And yet she accuses Fox of not doing their homework? (13) There you have it, a baker's dozen of uninformed, inaccurate, specious allegations, courtesy of Ellen and her crack team of researchers.

Welcome to the world of the Fox haters, where the biased bassets are erroneous, ignorant, and proud of it.