Some people learn from their mistakes, particularly when exposed before millions of viewers. But not the Outfoxed gals. Updated! J$P Exclusive! Secret newshound email revealed! Updated II! Outfoxed gal admits censorship!

You'd think once bitten, twice shy. But not in the case of the newshounds (another fine product from the Outfoxed cabal). It was just a few days ago that nefarious nancy was humiliated on worldwide television when David Asman exposed her phony "report". But rather than learn from her embarrassment, she sticks her paw in it again:

[David] Asman sneers at "that champion of civil liberties, The New York Times" for co-sponsoring the festival, then says that

The Times issued a statement saying that they were co-sponsoring the event because their readers appreciate a diversity of thought and opinions in culture.

The phrase "issued a statement" is clickable in the original. So I clicked. That link takes you not to the NYTimes but to a page in the New York Sun which -- oddly enough (not) -- is an article, dated 4/11/05, entitled "Cuban Film Festival Called Propaganda"

Much to nancy's delight, she finds that several quotes used by Asman come from this article:

For example, in para 2, Asman quotes expatriate Cuban filmmaker Reinaldo Cruz on ICAIC:

As Cuban filmmaker Reinaldo Cruz, who fled Cuba in 1998, says about the Cuban Film Institute, it has one overriding purpose: "to project the power and the image of the regime of Castro. It was founded for that."

Here's what the NYSun article said:

...As such, Mr. Cruz said, the Havana Film Festival and its New York cousin have one purpose. "It is to project the power and the image of the regime of Castro. It was founded for that," Mr. Cruz said.

...Later, in para 4, Asman quotes another Cuban:

Cuban American filmmaker Ivan Acosta (search) is incensed that the New York Times is endorsing a censored vision of Cuba: "They have a duty of investigating and finding out what is going on, instead of being useful idiots."

Here's what the NYSun article said:

To Mr. Acosta, however, "They [the festival's sponsors] have no excuse not to know." "They have a duty of investigating and finding out what is going on, instead of being useful idiots," the filmmaker said of the press and broadcast sponsors of the event...

And as for the NYTimes statement that Asman sneered about...here's what the NYSun article said:

In a statement issued by e-mail from the Times director of public relations, Toby Usnik, the paper responded: "The Times's marketing department sponsors a variety of film and arts festivals each year as a service to its readers who appreciate a diversity of thought and opinions in culture. This festival is one such sponsorship."

So Asman lifts selected bits from another news source & re-publishes [sic] them as his own, without proper attribution. I believe that's called plagiarism.

What a great job of investigative research! Nancy has really exposed Asman's sneaky plagiarism. Except for one small detail:



Yes, each of the quotes that nancy so cleverly traced back to the New York Sun were, in fact, attributed to the New York Sun, right up on the screen as Asman read them. Duh!

Then the foxnews.com website links Asman's op-ed piece to the source Asman plagiaried [sic] from. I believe that's called stupidity.

Um, since the source was identified on-screen three times, it's hardly surprising that the print version would include a link to it. Nancy pretends that this "proof" that Mr Asman "plagiaried" all came to light as a result of her clever research. But to paraphrase Mr Asman, either she knew these quotes were attributed all along--in which case she is a liar--or she didn't bother to perform the most rudimentary fact-checking--in which case she is lazy.

For the second time in less than a week, nancy has misrepresented Mr Asman's Observer segment. One lazy? Maybe. Two lazies? We think: liar.

Update: J$P has obtained a copy of an email posted to the newshounds. It was sent over 48 hours ago, and we've been waiting, waiting to see how that doyen of integrity, newspup nancy, would deal with it. Apparently nancy has decided to keep it a secret, but once again we will reveal what the tail-waggers don't want you to know about:

From: David Asman
To Newshounds:
You can always tell the extent to which you get under a bigot's skin by the extent to which they lie in order to save their prejudicial views. Of course I gave full attribution to the New York Sun on air, as I give full attribution to all the sources from which I get my Observer material. I won't bother to send you yet another correction because you failed to make note of the other correction that I sent you two weeks ago, and you obviously don't care to correct the record. But I'm happy that you gave the story in the Sun even more exposure, which it deserves. --David

The newshounds, who have no compunction about opening, reading, and publishing other people's emails without the consent of either the senders or intended recipients, for some reason have not seen fit to publish Mr Asman's email. They ban commenters for pointing out their falsehoods, and disallow our trackback pings to their articles. Their "J$P Blocker" rejects any reader posts that include a link to this site. And now, when caught making a libelous, untrue charge of plagiarism, exposed not just by this site but also by the victim of their character assassination, Mr Asman--they stonewall and try to keep the evidence secret. They'd rather stick to a lie than admit the truth. What a surprise.

Update II: Nancy finally gets around to answering Mr Asman:

The official Fox transcript, which I linked to in my original post on this topic, contains no reference to the New York Sun. If, as he claims, he "gave full attribution to the New York Sun on air" why isn't that reflected in the official Fox transcript?

Oh, that nancy is quick. There's no getting anything past her. Except that, as nancy well knows, the attributions were on the screen, exactly as shown above. We were under the impression that transcripts record what people say. If they recorded what appeared on the screen, they wouldn't be transcripts, would they? They would be videos. The video of this Asman segment was sitting right there on foxnews.com, right next to the print version. Either nancy knew the attributions were on-screen and lied about it, or she was just too lazy to check for herself. As it turns out, she lied.

The gem of nancy's rant is the unintentional admission she makes early in the text:

Because another blog has published the gmail that Asman sent us on 4/18, I see no reason not to publish it here as well

Thanks, nancy, for confirming that we were right all along. You intended to keep Asman's email a deep, dark newspup secret. But once J$P let the cat out of the bag and published the email that you were trying to keep hidden, you had no choice but to follow suit.

And even though we published Asman's email, and we published the screen caps that clearly show every quote being properly attributed, and you admit that you were aware of this article--you're still making the phony, dishonest complaint that the quotes were not attributed. In fact, you have yet to retract your venomous charge of "plagiarism", even as you know for a fact it is a lie.

Lying liars are bad enough, but it's always delightful when they stupidly admit dishonesty with their own words.