Three Dog Night
Who are better liars, Brock's brigade or the gals from Outfoxed?
Sometimes the talented amateur can beat the pro.
Half truths or total lies? Every day the unscrupulous critics of Fox
News have to make that difficult choice. Which will it be, a subtle bit of
distortion and selective editing, or just an out-and-out falsehood? A trio of
tirades will illustrate.
Media Matters, the website presided over by the self-described liar David Brock, mostly opts for the subtle approach--as in their expose of media who are spreading a "false GOP smear" about Texas Prosecutor Ronnie Earle. You know that Brock's boys must have some powerful documentation to prove that charges of bias against Mr Earle are "false". They cite two sources: one is a newspaper editorial (just the place for unopinionated hard news!), and the other "documentation" is a statement from a truly neutral corner, Ronnie Earle himself! The Brock brigade goes on to cite a quote from Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano:
NAPOLITANO: I was being polite when I said quasi-renegade. The Republican leadership today called him a political crackpot. And there is a basis for calling him that.
Brock's toadies get his little article reposted in blogs all over the internet, with comments appended like:
When a member of the Bar (Judge Napolitano) vouches for allegations against the professional character of a fellow member of the Bar (D.A. Earle), and proffers "a basis for calling him that" ... hadn't he ought to have a basis for calling him what they're calling him ("a political crackpot")?
Apparently it didn't seem odd to these people that Brock's transcript stops just at the point of maximum suspense. What is the Judge referring to as basis for calling Earle a crackpot? Even a grade-school reporter-wannabe wouldn't leave readers hanging at that point. But this is Brock's modus operandi--put up an incomplete quote, spread it around, and lead people to believe it's just a silly unfounded "false" charge.
Judge Napolitano actually went on to detail what that basis was--a bizarre case where Earle indicted himself in an election law matter. He charged himself with a petty misdemeanor, paid the fine, and was thus immune to any further prosecution. But the MMers don't want you to know that.
Meanwhile, the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed cabal) are still baying at the moon:
Falwell wondered why our teachers, who are well educated, would tolerate any administration that would refuse academic freedom calling the current teaching of Thanksgiving revisionist. Hannity added that the first Thanksgiving was about the Pilgrims thanking God and how could the public schools exclude this....I decided to take a good look at all the books we have in our school library about Thanksgiving thinking that perhaps I had missed something. After checking 23 books on the subject, 19 clearly discussed the concept of Thanksgiving as a time to be grateful to God for our blessings....Falwell and Hannity are the ones guilty of distortion not the teachers.
Well, what deborah (yes, again!) left out is the entire premise of the segment, which was explained not by Sean Hannity, but by Alan Colmes:
COLMES: If your child is a student in the Maryland Public School system, it better not include being thankful for God. Maryland School Administrators say students can thank anyone they want when learning about the history of Thanksgiving, but religion is not part of the curriculum and therefore it cannot be included. But is the history of Thanksgiving lost without the mention of religion? Joining us now, from Lynchburg VA, Rev Jerry Falwell. Reverend, good to see you. I hate to shock you, and I hate to shock Hannity--well I don’t mind shocking Hannity--I think this is wrong...if a student wants to mention being thankful for God, the school should not interefere with that.
Now why did deborah leave all that out? Possibly because it would show that the books in her school library are totally irrelevant to a news item from Maryland? Could it be that deborah is the one guilty of distortion, not Hannity and Falwell? Ask yourself that question again after taking in our third example, yet another bit of debbie duplicity:
Hannity made this statement during a discussion with Bernie(liberal media bias) Goldberg about Dan Rather's departure from CBS. Goldberg had just finished praising Fox News for it's [sic] interesting and balanced programming. "We have to respect the audience, bend over backwards to be fair and if we don't, we run the risk of being just like the networks." Only a hypocritical narcissist like Hannity could make such an outrageously dishonest comment.
So now you have to wonder, what did she leave out this time? How about Hannity's preceding statement to Goldberg, could that be relevant?
HANNITY: Why is Fox so successful? Because we have both sides. That’s why Alan is here. That’s why we offer both sides on a debate program.
After Goldberg's response is interrupted by a break, Hannity adds:
HANNITY: We have to always and continually respect our audience, and never take them for granted, and always bend over backwards to give them a good show, and be fair and offer all points of view, I think. And if we don’t, we risk becoming like them.
Needless to say, since deborah used quotation marks and inserted words within them, her purported quote was another counterfeit, mangled and rewritten by our favorite tail-wagger to omit any reference to offering varied points of view (which just happened to be the point Hannity was making).
So with quotes that are not only out of context and truncated, but also phony, the newspups trump professional liar Brock with a one-two punch of poodly prevarication. We await the inevitable rematch.
Media Matters, the website presided over by the self-described liar David Brock, mostly opts for the subtle approach--as in their expose of media who are spreading a "false GOP smear" about Texas Prosecutor Ronnie Earle. You know that Brock's boys must have some powerful documentation to prove that charges of bias against Mr Earle are "false". They cite two sources: one is a newspaper editorial (just the place for unopinionated hard news!), and the other "documentation" is a statement from a truly neutral corner, Ronnie Earle himself! The Brock brigade goes on to cite a quote from Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano:
NAPOLITANO: I was being polite when I said quasi-renegade. The Republican leadership today called him a political crackpot. And there is a basis for calling him that.
Brock's toadies get his little article reposted in blogs all over the internet, with comments appended like:
When a member of the Bar (Judge Napolitano) vouches for allegations against the professional character of a fellow member of the Bar (D.A. Earle), and proffers "a basis for calling him that" ... hadn't he ought to have a basis for calling him what they're calling him ("a political crackpot")?
Apparently it didn't seem odd to these people that Brock's transcript stops just at the point of maximum suspense. What is the Judge referring to as basis for calling Earle a crackpot? Even a grade-school reporter-wannabe wouldn't leave readers hanging at that point. But this is Brock's modus operandi--put up an incomplete quote, spread it around, and lead people to believe it's just a silly unfounded "false" charge.
Judge Napolitano actually went on to detail what that basis was--a bizarre case where Earle indicted himself in an election law matter. He charged himself with a petty misdemeanor, paid the fine, and was thus immune to any further prosecution. But the MMers don't want you to know that.
Meanwhile, the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed cabal) are still baying at the moon:
Falwell wondered why our teachers, who are well educated, would tolerate any administration that would refuse academic freedom calling the current teaching of Thanksgiving revisionist. Hannity added that the first Thanksgiving was about the Pilgrims thanking God and how could the public schools exclude this....I decided to take a good look at all the books we have in our school library about Thanksgiving thinking that perhaps I had missed something. After checking 23 books on the subject, 19 clearly discussed the concept of Thanksgiving as a time to be grateful to God for our blessings....Falwell and Hannity are the ones guilty of distortion not the teachers.
Well, what deborah (yes, again!) left out is the entire premise of the segment, which was explained not by Sean Hannity, but by Alan Colmes:
COLMES: If your child is a student in the Maryland Public School system, it better not include being thankful for God. Maryland School Administrators say students can thank anyone they want when learning about the history of Thanksgiving, but religion is not part of the curriculum and therefore it cannot be included. But is the history of Thanksgiving lost without the mention of religion? Joining us now, from Lynchburg VA, Rev Jerry Falwell. Reverend, good to see you. I hate to shock you, and I hate to shock Hannity--well I don’t mind shocking Hannity--I think this is wrong...if a student wants to mention being thankful for God, the school should not interefere with that.
Now why did deborah leave all that out? Possibly because it would show that the books in her school library are totally irrelevant to a news item from Maryland? Could it be that deborah is the one guilty of distortion, not Hannity and Falwell? Ask yourself that question again after taking in our third example, yet another bit of debbie duplicity:
Hannity made this statement during a discussion with Bernie(liberal media bias) Goldberg about Dan Rather's departure from CBS. Goldberg had just finished praising Fox News for it's [sic] interesting and balanced programming. "We have to respect the audience, bend over backwards to be fair and if we don't, we run the risk of being just like the networks." Only a hypocritical narcissist like Hannity could make such an outrageously dishonest comment.
So now you have to wonder, what did she leave out this time? How about Hannity's preceding statement to Goldberg, could that be relevant?
HANNITY: Why is Fox so successful? Because we have both sides. That’s why Alan is here. That’s why we offer both sides on a debate program.
After Goldberg's response is interrupted by a break, Hannity adds:
HANNITY: We have to always and continually respect our audience, and never take them for granted, and always bend over backwards to give them a good show, and be fair and offer all points of view, I think. And if we don’t, we risk becoming like them.
Needless to say, since deborah used quotation marks and inserted words within them, her purported quote was another counterfeit, mangled and rewritten by our favorite tail-wagger to omit any reference to offering varied points of view (which just happened to be the point Hannity was making).
So with quotes that are not only out of context and truncated, but also phony, the newspups trump professional liar Brock with a one-two punch of poodly prevarication. We await the inevitable rematch.
Posted: Wed - November 24, 2004 at 02:09 AM j$p send link | recent entries
Quick Links
About US
The premier independent website for the truth about the Fox News Channel, with exclusive Instant Transcripts and media clips. When attack dogs falsely malign America's number one news channel, J$P gives you the facts and exposes the lies.
Don't Play This!
Marginal Thoughts
Search J$P
Archives
