Hilarity with The NewsHounds: Megyn’s Blood, Steve’s “Inbred” Son, and Hateful Harris

In its first incarnation The Cable Game kept a keen eye on shenanigans of the NewsHounds kind. It’s not surprising that they’re still doing the crazy after all these years—hate sites are an internet staple, the viler, the better. And these schnauzer-sized intellects play to that market like virtuosos of vitriol.

A stroll into the pound last week turned up the predictable screeds attacking Megyn Kelly, a special obsession of the hate crowd. The impresario of this dog pound, Ellen Brodsky, has called her every name in the book, and a few that aren’t. When she isn’t insisting that Ms. Kelly is a frothing-at-the-mouth Klansman-type racist, she’s telling her readers that Megyn slept her way into her job via an extra-marital hookup with Brit Hume. Yes, this is what passes for a good time at the NewsHounds’ dog pound. So it’s no surprise that the hate continues to flow:

The Great Huge Trumpkin is right – Babs Kelly is overrated, blood coming out of her eyes, wherever

Cute. Another writer ups the ante:

Steve Doocy’s inbred ‘journalist’ son, Peter…

Are you laughing yet? The ugly personal attacks are a NewsHound tradition, but good old-fashioned lying is still a key part of their operation, now with click-bait headlines to ensnare the unwary:

Fox’s Bill Hemmer Uses Pope’s Visit To Attack Obama For Having Gay And Transgender People On His Guest List

It shouldn’t come as any surprise that at no point in the discussion did Bill Hemmer attack Barack Obama…or anyone else. It was a NewsHound lie as tasty as those of old, this time served up by a newcomer to the kennel. “Richard,” like Ellen Brodsky, is quite active on twitter, where we gain additional insight into his ideas of news coverage. Just today we learned Harris Faulkner is a “Hillary hater” because she mentioned the candidate’s upcoming birthday. And there’s this:

Screen Shot 2015-10-25 at 9.15.36 PM

Now since every cable news channel has loads of people that criticize Donald Trump daily, “Richard” appears to be saying that’s not enough. He wants every person on that “one channel” to criticize Trump. No other views will be tolerated. Every analyst, commenter, reporter, and anchor must criticize Trump! Because, you know, that’s their job. No wonder he’s fitting in so well with the NewsHounds.

I’m only picking on “Richard” here because he singled The Cable Gamer out. For whatever reason he posed this question to us on twitter:

Why we got asked is a stumper. The Cable Gamer doesn’t program The Five, but the fact that they had the segments set ahead of time with video packages plus Greg’s monologue pre-written and in the prompter suggests that it was planned that way all along. But why ask The Cable Gamer for her opinion, when you really didn’t want it anyway:

Screen Shot 2015-10-25 at 9.27.56 PM

We’ll continue to watch those mendacious mongrels at NewsHounds. Once you’ve called Megyn Kelly a racist slut, and Steve Doocy’s son “inbred,” that’s a hard act to follow. But The Cable Gamer knows The NewsHounds too well. They’ll find a way.

UPDATE 26 October, 4:07 pm:

Is it part of the job description of a news anchor that he, or she, must criticize Trump? The NewsHounds think so. It’s not enough for commentators or analysts to criticize Trump. News anchors on Fox must as well. Does that clear it up for everyone? Class dismissed.



  1. scott

    Don’t forget the following: Brodsky once sang the praises of some idiot Occupy supporter named Harrison Schultz back during the illegal encampments. They said Schultz “was feisty and smart” when he did verbal battle with Sean Hannity. They ignored the fact that when Hannity challenged him about all the rapes including the two that happened at Zuccoti Park, Schultz responded by saying the NYPD planted rapists near the par. That’s the kind of human vermin that Newswoofs supports.
    Also, Brodsky and Co. has never offered up one word of condemnation or even discussion of Black Lives Matter protesters chanting “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon!” Newshounds is clearly a lying hate site that out-Salon’s Salon sometimes.


  2. notfoxy

    As silly as the idea of a rightwing media watch site throwing a fit about a leftwing one is, you have every right to do it, but this article conflates things Newshounds wrote with things in the comments. That’s dishonest.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sydney Bloom

      Sure, it’s really dishonest to quote what is published on their site, in one case by a regular commenter there with well over a hundred entries in the past year or two. And it’s really dishonest to specifically note that a comment was from “another writer,” hence not the writer of article in chief. And I suppose it would have been dishonest to note that the NewsHounds just published a post complaining about comments in an article on foxnews.com. But apparently you think it’s fine for them to cite one or two comments out of hundreds, but it’s “dishonest” for me to cite one or two comments out of a dozen? Meanwhile the NewsHounds hypocritically demand Donald Trump apologize to Megyn Kelly? When NewsHound commenters say the same thing and get away with it? And NewsHound writers say much worse? Or maybe you think it’s just fine for them to insist Megyn slept with Brit Hume to get hired at Fox. Sounds like it might be up your alley.


      • notfoxy

        I personally find Newshounds commenters generally reprehensible, which is why I never comment there. Nevertheless, I think it’s dishonest to conflate a blog with its commenters as if they are the same thing. I seriously doubt Joe Concha would be interested in his Mediaite articles being conjoined with the comments to those articles.

        If you want to do a story about a site’s comment section, that’s fine. It’s not at all difficult to separate the articles from the comments, then write about whichever one bugs you more on any given day.


    • scott

      Newshounds has moderators that screen the comments. They have allowed all kinds of hate-filled, racist comments against conservatives. I used to post opposing comments on that site before they required a Facebook account. My comments and other opposing comments were routinely deleted. Worse yet, some of them were sabotaged. They would take out the body of the actual comment and then insert garbage like “I am a pathetic troll.” They have even posted IP addresses of commenters. It is truly a disgusting website. And to think, Mark Potok from the southern Poverty Law Center has actually referenced these hate-spewing rotweillers.


    • scott

      Newshounds lie and spew hate. A commenter once called Michelle Malkin “the love child of an opium whore from Manila and a syphilis-infected ape”. That’s Newshounds. They rule nothing.


      • notfoxy

        A righty cable news blog picking a fight with a lefty one very few have ever heard of. Whatever trips your triggers.


  3. notfoxy

    Well, Ms. Blog Writer, since I said I find the Newhounds comment section (like most comment sections) reprehensible, I guess it stands to reason I’m not “ok with that.” You’ve intentionally avoided my point, which is that you’re conflating blog content with its comment section as if they’re all parts of a whole. I seriously doubt you would try to get away with that stunt with Inside Cable News, so I’ll surmise that you have some longstanding beef with Newshounds which maybe 15 people in the country are aware of, and chose to dredge it up. Knock yourself out.


    • Sydney Bloom

      It’s the NewsHounds site owner that calls Megyn Kelly racist, it’s the NewsHounds site owner that says she slept with Brit Hume to get hired at Fox. You can leave aside every comment ever posted at NewsHounds and you still have them personally attacking people at FNC with homophobic slurs, rumors about their private lives, and worse. And just lying about what they air, as in the Bill Hemmer example cited. The comments simply exemplify what they approve for publication. This isn’t a site that gets hundreds of comments a day. They get a handful and are quick to remove the ones that they don’t like. They are the dessert: tasty and memorable, but ultimately a mere adjunct to the main meal which is as vile and repellent as it was years ago when TCG 1.0 first dealt with them. Which, in case it went over your head, was the point of the post.

      You want to keep insisting this site has some sort of “longstanding beef” with NewsHounds, but it was their writer who challenged me on twitter, then quickly moved to block me (possibly Ellen told him to stop tweeting with this site). Actually it sounds more like you have some vested interest in defending their character assassination and lies. People in the business know them for what they are, including how much of their writing is cribbed from other sites, albeit spiced up with name-calling and personal smears to pander to their readership. But because there’s a network that recirculates their product it gets more attention than the meager readership of the NewsHounds website itself would suggest.


      • notfoxy

        I have no interest in defending their product. I don’t particularly enjoy it, and don’t read it very often. As I’ve stated several times, my issue with this article was the conflating of blog content with comments content. It’s as simple as that, and I don’t think your readers are confused about it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s