OK, thanks for actually coming up with something, McG. I wish I had time for a nimh job on those -- I don't.
I'll counter with the quicker option for now, inaccuracies in Fox news.
First, one of your links (the second) is obliging:
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=3&x_outlet=15&x_article=149
Your third link is inoperational.
Your fourth is basically the same as your first -- same organization.
Your fifth is again in the same category as the article you posted where I asked whether anything being huffed about was actually untrue. Here they are huffing about this sentence; ""Yet another controversial Bush administration judicial nomination seems to be headed for trouble." What is inaccurate about this? Several Bush administration judicial nominations have been controversial. Several nominations have run into trouble.
It goes on to say,
Quote:Totenberg skews the report right off the mark: "'Bizarre' is the only word to describe yesterday's hearing." Why bizarre? Because, she explains, outraged Republicans brought to the hearing a blown-up cartoon that depicted Brown ?- drawn to look like a fat Clarence Thomas wearing a women's wig ?- entering a room where Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice stood clapping. Totenberg believes the cartoon's presentation was bizarre because the Democratic senators said they too found the cartoon offensive.
That sounds rather bizarre to me. At worst, it's evidence of bias -- not inaccuracies. The cartoon really existed (and sounds just as offensive as the Condi Rice cartoons that people were [understandably] upset about here.)
Then the next part is about how Totenberg was wrong to describe Brown as "seem[ing] at times confused", and explains Totenberg was wrong because while Brown was confused, she was
justifiably confused:
Quote:Perhaps most outrageously, Totenberg not only slants the story, but actually gets it wrong ?- predictably, to Justice Brown's detriment. Totenberg describes an exchange between Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Penn.) and Brown, in which, she says, Brown "seemed at times confused." The exchange supposedly confirms that Justice Brown is intellectually unprepared, perhaps even unfamiliar with basic constitutional law:
Specter: Well, doesn't the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution mean that the equal protection of the 14th Amendment trumps California Proposition 209?
Brown: Doesn't the Supremacy Clause mean that?
Specter: Yes.
Brown: Well, the U.S. Supreme Court has not said that.
Specter: Well, the state cannot have a constitutional provision which conflicts with a U.S. constitutional provision, can it?
Brown: This is not an issue that I have looked at in detail.
But if Brown is confused, it is only because Specter has his facts wrong. In fact, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that the California constitution's prohibition of public race and gender preferences does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, so Brown's confusion was warranted. Presumably Totenberg's clarification, including this detail, is forthcoming.
So it wasn't so hard to do a nimh job after all. Your cites are a) from an uncredentialled crank, b) from a link that cites inaccuracies in Fox news, as well, c) inoperational, d) a repeat of b, and e) incoherent, contradictory opinion that has no evidence of factual inaccuracies.
I'll see what I can find on Fox.
