Saturday, January 08, 2011

Media Matters Beclowns Itself Anew: Still Unable to Demonstrate a Single Fox News Lie After Four Attempts

The Soros-funded Marxist front group known as Media Matters has been busy trying to document a single lie by Fox News. The reason: they want the 1-oz. Krugerrand I pledged to the first person to describe a lie by FNC reporters. The rules are simple and Media Matters, to its credit, did try to follow them. Of the hundreds of other 'progressives' who responded, I think a grand total of two figured out what the grade-school-level rules were.

That said, let's examine Media Matters' track record -- the four lies they've attempted to document. Note, too, the nature of their entries -- they can't come up with real lies like the Dan Rather "Air National Guard Memo", or "If you like your health care plan you can keep it", or "Your premiums will go down an average of $2,500 a year", or the "Al Qaqaa" smears of our military or the "John McCain Lobbyist Affair" fabrication. Instead, Media Matters attempts to use slight variations in grammar or diction to document a "lie".

But don't believe me, check out their four attempts:

Attempt #1: Elena Kagan Never Banned Military Recruiters From Harvard Law


This was a particularly humorous attempt, since Kagan's ban of recruiters was well known and one of the more controversial aspects of her confirmation hearing. After I uncovered DOD emails from multiple branches of the service that described how they had been refused permission to visit and couldn't so much as even post a job opening on campus, I stopped hearing back from their representative, 'Matters' Gertz.

Attempt #2: The 'Slaughter Rule' was really a Democrat vote to pass health care


In the words of Media Matters, FNC "repeatedly reported that by passing health care reform through a self-executing rule, Democrats would be doing so 'without actually taking a vote'".

Of course that's precisely why Democrats attempted to pass health care reform without actually voting on it -- it was to avoid the scrutiny of voters if they could have deemed the bill as having been passed without a vote. Deem-and-pass, as it is known, had never been done with legislation this controversial, which is why it received so much attention in 2010 and was ultimately discarded as a tactic by Democrats.

But how were members of Congress, and other news reporters and analysts, describing this issue? Oh, gee, lookie here:

The New York Times: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is eyeing a strategy by which the Democrats include the Senate bill in the rule that will set the terms of the House floor debate on the health care legislation. Once the rule is adopted, the Senate bill would be “deemed” to have passed without House members actually voting on it."

The Wall Street Journal: "How Democrats may 'deem' ObamaCare into law, without voting... Under this amazing procedural ruse, the House would then vote only once on the reconciliation corrections, but not on the underlying Senate bill. If those reconciliation corrections pass, the self-executing rule would say that the Senate bill is presumptively approved by the House—even without a formal up-or-down vote on the actual words of the Senate bill."

John Boehner, House Minority Leader: "Democrats Prepare “Slaughter Solution” to Ram Unpopular Health Care Takeover Through Congress Without a Vote... House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday."

Daniel Foster, National Review: "The sense around here for the last week or so has been that 'only the House vote matters' in deciding the fate of Obamacare. But what if the Democrats can pass the bill with no House vote at all? Astoundingly, House Democrats appear to be preparing to do just that..."

Mark Tapscott, Washington Examiner: "House Democrats looking at 'Slaughter Solution' to pass Obamacare without a vote on Senate bill... "

The Heritage Foundation: "Yesterday, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) endorsed the rumored Slaughter Rule to send the Senate passed Obamacare bill to the President without a direct up-or-down vote in the House. Don’t believe those on the left who are trying to argue that because Republicans used deeming resolutions when they were in power, it is okay for Democrats to use a similar tactic to pass legislation without a vote."

LifeNews: "House Republicans have unveiled a new move to force Democratic leaders to vote directly on the Senate pro-abortion health care bill. Democrats have been looking at using the controversial Slaughter Rule that would allow the House to adopt a procedural rule declaring the bill passed without voting on it."

In essence, Fox News Channel simply reported the Democrats' disgusting machinations regarding the Slaughter Rule using the same language that members of Congress (and others in the media on both sides of the aisle) were using.

Verdict: FAIL.

Attempt #3: ClimateGate Emails Really Didn't Show Scientists Trying To "Hide The Decline" In Global Temperatures


Gertz asserts that "Fox News reporters falsely claimed that stolen emails "reveal that scientists use, quote, 'tricks' to hide evidence of a decline in global temperature."

Unfortunately the real climate scientists agree with FNC.

So far one of the most circulated e-mails from the CRU hack is the following from Phil Jones to the original hockey stick authors – Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes [which states] ' I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline...'

...The e-mail is about WMO statement on the status of the global climate in 1999 -report, or more specifically, about its cover image.

...grafting the thermometer onto a reconstruction is not actually the original “Mike’s Nature trick”! Mann did not fully graft the thermometer on a reconstruction, but he stopped the smoothed series in their end years. The trick is more sophisticated, and was uncovered by UC over here...

...When smoothing these time series, the Team had a problem: actual reconstructions “diverge” from the instrumental series in the last part of 20th century. For instance, in the original hockey stick (ending 1980) the last 30-40 years of data points slightly downwards. In order to smooth those time series one needs to “pad” the series beyond the end time, and no matter what method one uses, this leads to a smoothed graph pointing downwards in the end whereas the smoothed instrumental series is pointing upwards — a divergence. So Mann’s solution was to use the instrumental record for padding, which changes the smoothed series to point upwards as clearly seen in UC’s figure (violet original, green without “Mike’s Nature trick”).

...TGIF-magazine has already asked Jones about the e-mail, and he denied misleading anyone but did remember grafting... 'Jones told TGIF he had no idea what me meant by using the words “hide the decline”... “That was an email from ten years ago. Can you remember the exact context of what you wrote ten years ago?”'

Actually, FNC got it precisely right, which is why in 2007 about 17,200 scientists signed a petition to Congress disputing anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming. Or should I say 'glo-bull warming'?

Verdict: FAIL.

Attempt #4: Using Budget Reconciliation to Pass Obamacare Wasn't a 'Nuclear Option' and Didn't Involve a Violation of Senate Rules


In the words of Matters Gertz, "Fox News reporters claimed that by passing health care reform using the reconciliation process, Democrats would be 'changing the rules' and using the 'nuclear option'."

This is a curious attempt indeed, since it involves (among other things) relatively obscure nomenclature. Avoiding the filibuster by using the reconciliation process has been called by many parties (not just Fox) a 'nuclear option'.

Here's The New York Times describing this exact situation in 2009.

Some Republicans have likened the building struggle over budget reconciliation to the 2005 Senate fight over Democratic filibusters against judicial nominees chosen by President George W. Bush.

Frustrated at the opposition, Republicans warned they would invoke the “nuclear option” and change Senate rules to ban filibusters against executive branch nominations. Democrats characterized that as an assault on the very nature of the Senate... But now that they are in the minority, some Republicans have begun suggesting that if Democrats insist on reconciliation, Republicans will gum up the Senate works to the greatest extent possible, using their remaining procedural rights to essentially shut down the Senate.

...Republicans have another hurdle as well. The so-called nuclear option represented a change in Senate rules...

In other words, even the Democrat National Committee's public relations arm uses the term 'nuclear option' to describe wrapping a conventional bill into the protective coating of a budget reconciliation process.

But perhaps Matters intended to concentrate instead on the Senate rule process. If they did, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, just before he passed away last year, described the real situation (much to Media Matters' chagrin).

Sen. Robert Byrd warned Democratic colleagues against changing filibuster rules in order to advance their legislative priorities... In a "Dear Colleague" letter dated Tuesday, Byrd, the longest-serving member of the Senate, said that the Senate's rules on ending debate shouldn't be changed, but he encouraged forcing senators to actually sustain debate in a real, live filibuster...

The frustration over the filibuster has been especially manifest in the healthcare debate, where all 41 Republicans, sticking together, have been able to sustain a filibuster.

So both The New York Times and Democrat icon Senator Robert Byrd effectively eviscerated this attempt.

Verdict: EPIC FAIL.

Say, Media Matters: what the hell are you doing with all of that money George Soros gave you? I do this for free, working on my blog perhaps 10 hours a week. You'd think all of that media watching would allow you to identify some real lies by Faux News.

If I were Soros, I'd ask for my money back.


24 comments:

Anonymous said...

This was a particularly humorous attempt, since Kagan's ban of recruiters was well known and one of the more controversial aspects of her confirmation hearing. After I uncovered DOD emails from multiple branches of the service that described how they had been refused permission to visit and couldn't so much as even post a job opening on campus

First

couldn't so much as even post a job opening on campus

Has NOTHING to do with the lie. Fox news said that,

Fox news:
Megyn Kelly: "[T]he criticism of Kagan is that while she was dean of Harvard Law School, and she was dean in 2003, she decided to continue a policy of banning the military from the campus because they didn't like the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy." [America Live, 5/17/10]

Also you said this is all well documented. Well, I keep asking again and again and again for you to show me the email that shows clearly that they were, in Fox news OWN WORDS,

continue a policy of banning the military from the campus

Now its your turn to show clear proof!

Anonymous said...

Also, everyone should read this site,

http://mbloomer1.edublogs.org/2011/01/03/the-doug-ross-challenge/

Why have you not address this point?

The_Bad said...

I think I figured this out, Doug. These are progressives you are dealing with here. They believe in the system which has taught them that everyone who plays the game gets a trophy. This is why they demand you pay the prize regardless of not actually winning it. They believe they have earned it by simply trying.

Anonymous said...

@The_Bad

PROVE IT, I have been asking again and again for proof that,

she decided to continue a policy of banning the military from the campus because they didn't like the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

This goes to the heart of the contest, if he cannot show clear proof then what good is the contest?

ANYONE!!! please link me to the email, the site, or ANY evidence that proves

Megyn Kelly: "[T]he criticism of Kagan is that while she was dean of Harvard Law School, and she was dean in 2003, she decided to continue a policy of banning the military from the campus because they didn't like the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy." [America Live, 5/17/10]

is the truth

directorblue said...

@Anon: 2:25pm

Megyn Kelly: "[T]he criticism of Kagan is that while she was dean of Harvard Law School, and she was dean in 2003, she decided to continue a policy of banning the military from the campus because they didn't like the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy." [America Live, 5/17/10]

Consider that statement. Ignore whether or not she actually banned the military or not from campus. Megyn Kelly reported that some had criticized her for that action.

So if anyone, anywhere, at any time prior to that report had actually criticized Kagan for the policy (whether the criticism was valid or not), Kelly's report was entirely accurate.

EPIC FAIL, AGAIN!

MRPKW said...

Do you think the progressive seminar callers will come back again and flood the comments??

Anonymous said...

Also your argument does not hold water because

Bret Baier: "The top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee has asked the Pentagon about its recruitment efforts at Harvard while Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was dean of the law school there. Kagan barred recruiters in protest of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy." [Special Report, 6/3/2010]

Carl Cameron: "In the Clinton White House, she recommended compromised policies that worry conservatives over abortion and guns. As dean of the Harvard Law School, she made headlines supporting a controversial wartime ban on campus military recruitment." [Special Report, 6/28/2010]


So, fox news is on record for these statements, so again I ask

Did Kagen Ban the military from campus?

directorblue said...

Good heavens, man, are you dense?

I provided numerous snippets of DOD emails here in Update IV with a link to the Congressional Record so you can see how Kagan treated the military.

The record validates everything I said and more.

MRPKW said...

@ diretorblue
google
" bush ban embryonic"

That's what the progressives used to call a ban.

Now they have changed that definition !!!!
What losers

Anonymous said...

No, Doug, those e-mails show that they were NOT banned from campus.

"He stressed that I could contact interested students via the Harvard Veterans Student Group but that his office could not provide any support to us..."

Once again, your own evidence works against you.

directorblue said...

Geez, you're a real Einstein.

Go to my post.

Look for this really cool thing called a hyperlink.

It links to a GPO.GOV website with the DOD emails that were entered into the Congressional Record.

Wait.

You're so frickin' stupid, you probably can't even figure that out.

Here's the link, genius.

It's been sitting there for days, but you never figured out how to click on it.

You really need to get out of Mom's basement once in a while.

The_Bad said...

I'm slightly confused. What am I supposed to be proving here, anonymous tool? Am I supposed to prove that you haven't won this contest? Am I supposed to prove that you aren't crying like a bitch because you believe you deserve to win simply by showing up and stamping your feet?

Pathetic.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the Link, Where in the document best proves your case, please quote it and site its location

Anonymous said...

I read through the document he provided. It shows that military recruiters were not provided assistance through the Office of Career Services, but were still allowed to recruit on the campus. I love how directorblue posts a link while shouting, "It's all there, you just have to read it," apparently assuming that no one would read through the lengthy document. Of course, if one were to actually read through the document, one finds that the e-mails demonstrate that directorblue is either intentionally deceitful or unbelievably incompetent. Either way, it is clear he never had any intention of following through on his bet.

Doug Ross gives true conservatives a bad name.

Anonymous said...

Doug,

I read the e-mails. Nowhere in them does it confirm your delusion that the military was banned from campus. In fact, the portion of the e-mails I quoted shows that the military was encouraged to go through the Harvard Veterans Student Group, which is a CAMPUS group.

Nice ad hom attacks, though. Very original.

Anonymous said...

Doug,

You have really shown your true colors, you have not provided proof and only link to an email that does not show direct proof, I have asked you again and again for the exact email or quote that will prove your case and you fail for live up to your side of the agreement. This whole contest is a scam and you give conservatives an even worse name. I have asked about 8 times for proof and you fail to provide any. From this point forward everything you post should be treated as a lie until you prove you case.

directorblue said...

Dear genius: this is my last response to you, since you're exceedingly dense. Even Media Matters has given up on this particular 'lie' after seeing all of the DOD emails.

Each one of the following questions have been adequately answered by the emails, which describe a military recruiting ban by Kagan and HLS.

• Were military recruiters allowed to interview students on campus? No, they were explicitly denied permission.

• Were military recruiters given any mechanism for interacting with candidate students on campus? No. The third-party organization information was not provided them in time to recruit effectively -- and there was no evidence that they ever agreed to arrange for recruiting visits in the emails.

• Were military recruiters given permission to visit the campus in any recruiting capacity? No, they were refused permission.

• Were military recruiters even allowed to send in job openings for posting on a freaking law school bulletin board? No.

• Did the military believe their access to students was cut off? Yes.

• Did Kagan herself believe she had effectively cut off access to her students because of DADT? Yes.

• Was Kagan openly "hostile" to the idea of the military recruiting on campus? Yes.

• Did the military spend months trying to figure out how to get access to recruits? Yes.

Did the military finally have to escalate, getting the USG to threaten to cut off $300 million in funding, before they could get access to students? Yes.

Case closed, Mr. Rocket Scientist.

Now, go find another 'lie' by Faux News.

I mean a real lie, like:

- If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.
- If we pass health care reform, Americans will see their premiums drop by an average of $2,500 per year
- Passing the Stimulus will keep unemployment from going above 8%
- We've saved or created 3 million jobs
- Our policies will create millions of green jobs
- Etc.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but your past history has proven to me that NOTHING you say should be taken at face value, I guess by the 8th time asking for proof and you not providing any I can no longer accept you saying YES or NO as your answer to your OWN question!

I have to ask you something, do I have to ask 10 times? How about 15 times or is 30 the magic number?

Should I send the question to you by registered mail or should I send the question to you by someone who will sing it to you at your front door?

Ok, here is the magic question for the 10th time.

You say that Fox news did not lie correct?

So PROVE ME A DIRECT LINK that shows that Kagen Banned the military from campus! You saying yes or no after a question is not proof!

Also quote the part of the document / website that proves that Kagen Banned the military from campus!


I think you should know this by now but you need to site your sources!

I honestly believe you will never prove that, so prove me wrong if you want!

I know you will not because she did NOT Ban the military from campus!

Tomorrow's Progressives said...

Doug Ross Beclowns Himself Anew: Fails To "Refudiate" A Fourteen Year Old- STILL

George T said...

only in liberal land would refusing military recruiters access to harvard law students not be considered a ban!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHH!

Anonymous said...

@George T and everyone else

Please, someone provide the link!

This will my 11th time posting this now, but so far nothing that has been posted showing that she banned the military from campus.

It comes down to this, Media Matters used this to win the $1400


Doug says that it was not a lie so they do not win the 1400 coin.

BUT....he has NEVER proven his case. He SAYS lots of things, but so far has not shown a direct link that says they were banned and in any other way not allowed on campus.

If we cannot trust him on this, then how can I believe anything else he says.

Because he will not provide any evidence, then any other user that has the link to evidence, please post it and help out Doug, because he needs your help.

Delayna said...

I have had a revelation after reading these. The reason so many on the left think 0bama is a genius is because leftists are so stupid, he *is* a genius--but only compared to other leftists.

Anonymous said...

Even Media Matters has given up on this particular 'lie' after seeing all of the DOD emails.

Media Matters moved on to other lies told by Fox News after they saw what a stubborn ass you were being about this particular lie. I believe that if you were to ask them, Media Matters would maintain that this is absolutely a lie, and was documented in the exact manner you had demanded for the 'contest'. But because facts are used to prove it, and facts are contrary to your particular worldview (the real world has a noted liberal bias, after all), you are simply covering your ears and eyes and denying it all.

The bare-minimum standards to which you are unwilling to hold yourself are astounding. Honesty and integrity are not solely liberal concepts; why, then, do you avoid them so thoroughly?

Anonymous said...

Doug:

Why do you continue to refuse to answer my question about why the conditions of the contest only include "reporters" from Fox New? Why not include PUNDITS and ANALYSTS?

Can you please clarify who you consider a "reporter" at FoxNews?