Eyes On Fox News Network

What is this Fox News “habit” of misindentifying him? How many times has this “habit” exhibited itself? Just include the I with the D attached or freestanding? Fine. Then the only WRONG label would be (D).

Of all the times Lieberman has been shown on Fox, you are claiming that MOST of the time it’s as (D)? That would be the meaning of it being a Fox “habit”. And yet that would be untrue, wouldn’t it? Do you have ANY idea, outside of your cherry picked examples, what Fox’s “habit” is? No. You make it up out of the thinnest possible reed of evidence.

I could just as easily claim that CNN has a “habit” of calling LIeberman a (D) because they did so just a few weeks ago . I saw the video on youtube. In fact, if you want to be amazed, just glance at all the Lieberman videos there and see how networks and news channels are totally inconsistent in how they label Joe, probably depending on which producer or intern is working at the time.

You claim I zeroed in on a side issue. Wrong. My issue is that Fox haters lie to smear Fox. That even when they have a point, they often embellish it with lies to make it sound worse. That’s just what the newshounds did here. They were wrong about the labeling of Joe on Cavuto, and rather than admit it, they iied. And Melanie used the same lines–almost word for word–that she has used on at least two previous occasions when she has been caught in the exact same fashion. In other words, it’s a pattern. That was my point, and I think I proved it. THank you so much.

“My issue is that Fox haters lie to smear Fox.”

That’s an amazing quote.

First of all, it’s hypocritical. Someone as sensitive as you are to “haters” should be cognizant of vicious personal attacks more than anyone.

Secondly, it’s hard to prove. “Lie” implies intent and I doubt you’re a mind reader. In the case at hand, no reasonable person would assume News Hounds purposely lied over their inexperience with “I” being embellished with a “D,” to quickly sum it all up. Even if News Hounds were right on the issue, who cares? I surely don’t. What’s the point of lying over it?

The fact someone’s not interested in correcting a mistake doesn’t make it a lie either. It’s generally a matter of ego though, in this case, it might be their realization you likely can’t be appeased and will just use it for more attacks.

You fight what you claim is hate with vicious personal attacks and juvenile, grade school name calling. Fighting alleged hate with what appears to be anger? Do you hate the News Hounds? Fox critics in general?

In all the dust you threw up in your blog post trying desperately to discredit News Hounds, you gave no significant coverage to the real issue, Fox News repeatedly screwing up Lieberman’s party affiliation.

In your tizzy singling out a chink to discredit News Hounds, did you notice they documented, I believe, with video two instances of this screw up? I documented a third. Has Fox News corrected this mistake? If not, by your logic, we’re starting to build a case they’re deliberate liars.

But why do you need a count? In your rush to spin this issue you say networks are “totally inconsistent” so everyone, including Fox, must be labeling Lieberman a “D” quite a lot. There must be a bunch more Fox News examples of doing this. Gee, it might even be a media-wide habit by now.

Mislabeling Lieberman is sloppy journalism. In going after News Hounds, you proved “D” is wrong. It doesn’t matter if CNN or Fox News does it, they need to correct the record.

Do you think Fox News is “fair and balanced” as they claim? Or do they tend to spin to the right? Is that why you’re such a fan? You lean to the right too?

Isn’t it conservatives who often bash CNN as being liberally biased? They used to deride it as the “Clinton News Network.” I don’t buy all this baloney but you might. So do you suppose CNN has a political agenda in their screw up?

Then observe the Hannity’s America clip. Lieberman’s a useful tool for conservatives like Hannity because here we have him pretty much saying he’s inclined to vote for a Republican as president. Label him as an independent and it might raise an eyebrow. Label him a Democrat and it’s a powerful message.

There’s a larger issue than caucus affiliation, the one you mention on your blog. In the last election he lost the battle to run as a Democrat. He’s not a representative of the Democratic Party nor is he their spokesperson. The “D” indicates he is. It’s deceptive. It fits Fox News’ conservative agenda like a glove. They make it spin.

But you never go after their deceptive spin, just News Hounds.

> no reasonable person would assume News Hounds purposely lied over their inexperience with “I” being embellished with a “D,”

I didn’t say their original statement was a lie. It was, I presume, a mistake. But then they lied to cover it up. “It looks like I-CT”. You have to get up close to the screen and squint and then it might look like I-D. This about the the largest fonts on any news channel’s banners! And “I reviewed the tape” (the same line used twice before)…but on this particular controversy they refuse to post the video or even a screengrab to document what they STILL claim is I-CT. I’m sorry but I conclude from all this that they are lying to cover up their mistake. If you disagree that is your right.

I don’t impute a sinister motive to CNN’s screwups. Anyone who has worked in broadcasting knows these things happen all the time. Lieberman has been shown on Fox probably at least 100 times since the election. How many of those used the incorrect (D) designation? If it’s a sinister plot, why don’t they do it all the time? Why did CNN do it? Why have countless newspapers done it? Here’s a clue: they goofed. It’s not a mortal sin, because Lieberman still votes and caucuses with Democrats–and not just by his own decision, but because the (D) party lets him. It’s at most a venial sin. To create an eeevil conspiracy out of it is sheer Fox hater paranoia.

I am sorry that to you the issue of dishonesty only goes one way. That if you’re against Fox you can say or print anything that comes into your little head, even if it’s made up. You can even write an article blasting a Fox program that you didn’t even watch–something the hounds have done, and more than once. But somehow I’m wrong to ask that these people simply tell the truth. I am sorry that I disagree. Thank you so much.

A lot that passes for discussion on the Internet is what I’ll broadly label Usenet style debating. Straw men, redirection, post the evidence, reflection, personal attacks, putting two things on a graph and assuming they’re related, etc. Usually there’s a victor of sorts. That’s the person who’s the last one to comment on a thread and who doesn’t get chased off by the tedium and heat. Which is to say most of it’s low-grade crap.

In the past, I’ve talk to you about your straw men and zeroing in on chinks while missing the broader, more important issues. Recently, you were trying to get me to waste time transcribing quotes from a video I’d included in a blog entry. That’s the old post the evidence dodge.

Now I’m dealing with reflexion. It’s the ploy where if I criticize you for something, you boomerang it back. Sometimes it’s intellectual laziness. Sometimes it’s a shallow attempt to infer hypocrisy. Often there’s an assumption if someone brings something up they, in turn, might be sensitive to it so you’ll trigger a detonation.

So, after I say “but you never go after their deceptive spin, just News Hounds” you, without addressing your own behavior, just toss it back into my lap: “I am sorry that to you the issue of dishonesty only goes one way.”

This is ludicrous on the face of it. I’ve criticized News Hounds, as you’re well aware, for deleting your posts. In this thread, I’ve criticized them for not correcting their mistakes. I even suggested they may have a problem with their egos.

Do I defend them too? Sure, I don’t think they’re liars and they’ve pointed out numerous times Fox News has screwed up labeling Lieberman as a Democrat.

I also hold CNN to the same standards of accuracy here as I hold Fox News.

You, on the other hand, are a consistent apologist for Fox News’ cable channel and for conservative Fox News personalities like John Gibson who do radio. You also are a broken record of name calling and personal attacks regarding News Hounds.

You ignored my question regarding whether or not you hate them or Fox News critics, like myself, in general. I could justifiably infer an answer but I’ll give you another chance to respond.

You’re back to the straw man act: “But somehow I’m wrong to ask that these people simply tell the truth.” It’s a phony argument because I never made it. It’s an artificial construct of your own design to posture yourself as reasonable in the debate and myself as unreasonable.

Again, this sort of hypocrisy isn’t justifiable on your part when you’re so outraged over News Hounds’ behavior and trying to exact your pound of flesh, not “simply” correct the record as some ‘white hat’ interested in “truth.” But more to the point, I have absolutely no problem with you correcting News Hounds as you already know. I can’t make myself clearer than this: they should correct their mistakes.

My problem with you, J$, again as you’re perfectly aware, is you’re into character assassination. If you can, in your vernacular, “smear” them good enough it’s case closed, mission accomplished.

I’m forced here to repeat myself from my previous post because my point isn’t sticking with you. You proved that “ID” is the correct method of designating Lieberman. So why now the big defense of the entire media screwing it up?

You admit “they goofed” but your rational on why it doesn’t matter is because it’s “not a mortal sin” just a “venial sin.” Not being Catholic, I decided to research this quip of yours. You do realize at one point Catholic doctrine was “any unconfessed sin at time of death resulted in damnation.” [Wikipedia] Does Fox News plan to take this “venal sin” to the grave to make it a mortal one?

Again, rather than repeat myself, read my previous reply to you in this thread for my discussion of the Hannity’s America video clip for why this incident is a problem. No “Fox hater paranoia” to it, to quote your latest bout of name calling.

Your addiction to name calling is insatiable, it seems. You’re back trying to prove the News Hounds liars because they’re having trouble reading their screens. Did you ever, even for a mere nanosecond, ponder some less, as you like to say, “sinister” reason for their statement? Bad reception? Crappy equipment? Crappy recording (their YouTube videos aren’t the greatest though they’re viewable)? Ancient eyeballs (to which I can relate – I have trouble reading the computer screen myself anymore)?

But no, they’re liars for not correcting their mistakes while Fox News is easily forgiven for theirs. I guess this is the rare case of the professional journalist being held to a lower standard than the amateur. Bizarre but anything to keep conservative Fox News smelling like a rose for the partisan fans.

sknabt: I’m usually a fan of your work but these comments are weak.

This case where Fox labels Lieberman as a (D) is no real prove of Fox being biased. It might be an indication if things like this happen all the time, you should treat it that way.

Johnny: Fox is biased, everyone knows that, just admit it. Many Fox news reporters are rightwing orientated as are their reports. It’s just annoying FOX News keeps calling themselfs balanced while they’re not.

> Prove the News Hounds liars because they’re having trouble reading their screens.

Oh please. This is NOT the first time this has happened. It’s not the first time it happened with Melanie. It’s not the first time it happened with Melanie where she claimed she checked the tape and was still right. When she wasn’t. Are you unfamiliar with the concept of a “pattern”? When somebody blasts a Fox program that they haven’t even watched, that doesn’t give you, um, pause about their honesty?

I know you’ve criticized the newshounds. But you do so here, or at my site. I haven’t seen you, in your numerous comments there, call them out for deleting messages that are critical. Or for calling people liars at the drop of a hat. My guess is that, deep down, you think if you did that YOU might get deleted!

I don’t hate the hounds, or you, or Fox haters. I believe in truth. Don’t tell me that there were multiple gunmen in Dallas. Spare me the hidden explosives in Tower 7. Nobody bends spoons with mental powers, and $500 audio cables are no better than $5 ones.

If someone wants to take shots at FNC, have at it. But don’t do it by cherry-picking (oh look, they had a Republican on, how biased, but we won’t mention the Democrat who came on after her), or outright lying. The ends do not justify the means. Just because someone gets it into their head that Fox is an eeevil arm of the Rovian Empire doesn’t exempt them from the simple requirement of accuracy and truthfulness. Just yesterday, the hounds attacked a priest commenting on the death of Ruth Graham with a screed full of personal attacks, followed up by a comment that accused the priest of being gay (probably an improvement over the one that claimed he was a pedophile). These are all people who know NOTHING about this priest, but the personal attacks are fired off with abandon. (And don’t tell me the “gay” comment is not the resposibility of the hounds, because THEY edited that comment, and the personal smear about the priest being gay is what they left IN. You can only imagine what sort of bilge didn’t make the cut!)

You talk about character assassination? How would you like it if someone spouted forth all that bilge about you just because you dared to express Catholic philosophy on a tv channel?

I’ll never live up to your standards of balance because you have no interest in balance. When you speak of “truth” it’s a conservative political one, not an absolute standard.

You say: “I believe in truth. Don’t tell me that there were multiple gunmen in Dallas. Spare me the hidden explosives in Tower 7.” Yet, you do like phony conservative conspiracies like Gibby claiming there’s one going one between Hillary Clinton and Media Matters. Witness you featuring this clip: http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/iblog/C168863457/E20070601232411/index.html. My comments are at your web site so I won’t regurgitate them here.

You’re upset at “personal attacks” by News Hounds against Fox News. Fine. Then you are a major contributor over at Olbermann Watch where I recently saw your buddy Robert Cox ranting about the “Olbyloons.” Here’s the link (not that you need it): http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2007/06/olbyloons_revol.php#comments.

Again, your outrage is limited to liberals.

I haven’t read Fox News’ “character assassination” against Billy Graham. To put this in perspective for you, I spent part of last week reading two of Billy Grahams’ daily devotionals to my mother who was in the hospital at the time.

I saw some of your buddy Robert Cox’s idiocy recently that almost had me adding a comment but, in the end, I decided not to. Is there a hidden agenda there? Hardly. Nor is there one in me not posting on News Hounds.

Believe it or not, I’m not a huge fan of News Hounds. If I were, I wouldn’t have started EyesOnFox. I’d just join the fandom of commenters over there. In fact, I brought their site up in discussions with SoD before we created this site.

IMHO, they’re dyed-in-the-wool liberals upset over Fox News because it’s conservative. I’m upset at Fox News because it’s the worse mainstream cable news propaganda factory I’ve ever witnessed. If Fox News were to change their logo to “Conservative News for Conservatives” I’d fold up shop.

Then I might become a regular commenter over there whining about Fox News’ conservative spin.

Maybe if that eventuality ever happens, I’ll spend more time evaluating the quality of their posts via research. Right now most of that goes towards the very limited time I have blogging on EyesOnFox. I won’t be bashful about criticizing anybody. I’ve been banned from websites and forums before.

> you do like phony conservative conspiracies

Please, if you are going to claim what I like and don’t like, please do not put words in my mouth. I want you to quote what I wrote or said.

> your buddy Robert Cox ranting about the “Olbyloons.”

Please, if you are going to claim what I like and don’t like, please do not put words in my mouth. I want you to quote what I wrote or said, not what somebody else wrote or said.

I ask only one thing: document your claim that I “like”, or “agree with”, or even “think could be true” what’s in the Gibson clip. Quote my words, spoken or written, anywhere on my site.

I’ll save you the trouble. You can’t. Because it ain’t there. You just seem unable to stand the fact that my site is not political. So you find an audio clip you don’t like and you MAKE UP the fact that I “like” what is being said in it. Do I also like what is being said in the Ron Paul clip I posted? How about the one where Col. Hunt demolishes Bill O’Reilly re Iraq coverage? Do I “like” the clip that rips the Bush administration’s military tribunals policy? Or the one that bashes Giuliani?

I coud go on and on, but I suspect it doesn’t matter. When I post a clip you use your psychic powers to determine that I agree with what is being said. Never mind that would be impossible since the clips I post are all over the ideological and partisan map.

But maybe I’m misunderstanding you. Maybe you do have evidence that I agree with what Gibson says in that clip. So I’ll just wait for you to quote my words on that. Thank you so much.

Thanks so much for calling out Johnny Dollar and explaining so clearly exactly what is wrong with him.

By the way, he has been repeatedly asked to stay off our site but refuses to do so. I gave him formal notice that any further comments from him will be deemed harassment and yet he still returned.

We have an email drafted to his ISP reporting the harassment but are just waiting for a few more comments (which are sure to come).

It’s a pity that having his own website to smear us isn’t enough for him.

By the way, if you do some research on him, you’ll find out he was arrested many years ago (I believe it was in the ’70’s) for political dirty tricks.

Before J$ goes into a paroxysm of snarls and yelps, I may be wrong about the arrest. He may just have been charged.

My recollection is that he pleaded guilty.

Oops, stop the presses! I may have been wrong about the political dirty tricks… I was unable to find the article in my archived emails from 2004 and I may be misremembering or confusing him with someone else..

But there’s no mistake about the harassment.

Thanks again for the great analysis!

Wow, the newshounds caught in another smear. Only this time the gods of libel and slander impelled them to immediately take it back and correct the record. If only they would do so for the hundreds of others.

“Please, if you are going to claim what I like and don’t like, please do not put words in my mouth. I want you to quote what I wrote or said.”

You posted a clip where, amongst other things, Gibby makes up a phony baloney conspiracy story regarding Hillary Clinton and Media Matters. I brought this issue up and you ignored it – which is a common habit of yours – while loyally defending Gibby’s dishonest and repeated smears of Media Matters. So folks reading this will know what I’m talking about, here’s the thread:

http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/iblog/C168863457/E20070601232411/index.html

You’re so enamored with Gibby’s dishonest vomit on this topic, you posted a 2nd clip on this:

http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/iblog/C168863457/E20070605193847/index.html

Now, I’m using the brain God gave me to reach the obvious conclusion your heart goes pitter patter every time you play these clips. I could be wrong and I’m glad to admit it. All it takes for me to admit I was wrong is for you to answer the question if you think Gibby’s full of beans regarding the Clinton-Media Matters connection.

If you keep dodging the issue or hemming and hawing then I’ll stick with my original conclusion because it then just looks like phony posturing on your part.

Ditto your buddy Robert Cox calling Olbermann “Olbyloons.” If you’re willing to say he’s wrong or gone too far in his vicious name calling then I’m glad to admit I misjudged you. However, his name calling sounds like a page from your own play book. Until I’m proven wrong, I’ll stick with my conclusion.

“You just seem unable to stand the fact that my site is not political. So you find an audio clip you don’t like and you MAKE UP the fact that I ‘like’ what is being said in it.”

In the case of the Gibby audio clip we discussed it and you defended it. So obviously you’re sympathetic to his liberal-bashing. You rabidly attack News Hounds and occasionally this web site for criticizing Fox News. You are also a main contributor to a web site going after liberal pundit Kieth Olbermann. Are you going to pretend you’re not politically aligned with conservatives? C’mon.

You’ve tried to make the argument you’re simply in pursuit of “truth” which is complete baloney, IMHO. This is not me saying conservatives, such as yourself, can’t tell the truth. Far from it. My point is, as I’ve said before, you’re not looking for some absolute truth but a political one. Both web sites you’re active in support this thesis and based upon the web sites I’ve seen you attack this thesis is further supported.

Avoiding discussions you view as political or pretending to sit on the fence, IMHO, is a dodge. Are you trying to imitate the phony “fair and balanced” game Fox News plays?

Ellen,

Thanks for posting.

I’m sure we agree quite a bit on the Fox News right-wing propaganda factory. I’m not sure we fully agree on J$.

Now, I’m in the middle of this. As I told J$, I haven’t researched his claims. As you can tell, I’m not a big fan of his name calling. Especially, in light of the fact if either of us behaved towards Fox News in comments on his web site as J$ does attacking Fox critics in some of his blog entries, we’d be violating J$’s hypocritical rules.

So J$ is a pit bull. He’s a hypocrite. He’s a one-way apologist for Fox News. Yada yada yada. But, all that said, I’ve never seen him behave as a troll. While, as I’ve discussed, I think he leans far too heavily on the crutch of Usenet debate tactics, he’s smart and knowledgeable of the topics he picks.

I’m a big believer in free speech. Realizing, I have only seen a small fraction of his posts at News Hounds, it bothers me you’re pondering muzzling him. Unless he’s doing something illegal or is a troll deliberately out to drive people away, trash the site, or stifle debate I don’t get it.

J$ does document on his web site his opinions and claims regarding News Hounds. If he’s full of beans it shouldn’t be hard to address. That’s my approach. Censorship is wrong.

I don’t believe in censorship either but he iis not on our threads to provide any kind of respectful debate or discussion but to demean, denigrate and disrupt.

It’s unfortunate because he could have contributed to a vigorous and healthy discussion and he does occasionally make a valid poiint.

But it’s impossible to include him (at least for me) without having him sink immediately into snarling attacks, usually beside the point, and always with an eye toward denigration. Also, he won’t make his point and leave but repeat his vituperation endlessly, and without constructive purpose.

He has just disrupted too many threads.and offered too little in the way of substance.

If you’re “lucky” enough to attract his continuing attention and have enough of your threads hijacked by him, you’ll see for yourself.

By the way, it’s not censorship, it’s moderation. It’s no different than a restaurant asking an obnoxious customer to leave. And by J$ not respecting our wishes, it’s harassment.

ef3a9743479a78bc92bae0b929722f00…

ef3a9743479a78bc92bae0b929722f00…