Slashdot Mirror
Fox News Considered Suing Fox's "The Simpsons"
ZeDanimal writes "The Simpsons' pooh-bah Matt Groening said in an NPR interview this week that the Fox News Channel considered legal action against the show for its parody of the station's news ticker. Broadcast, of course, by Fox Entertainment, the episode that raised the ire of the "Fair and Balanced" Fox News crew was Krusty For Congress, which mocked the perceived rightward-leanings of the channel with pseudo-news items such as "Do Democrats cause cancer?" and "Oil slicks found to keep seals young, supple" scrolling across the bottom of the screen. Guess the powers-that-be learned something from the Al Franken affair... or maybe they just feared getting into a popularity contest with the likes of the inanimate carbon rod."
are always parodying things. They often parody Fox themselves, but do they sue? No. I can understand Fox News being annoyed at this, but to take such strong action as to sue them is a bit over the top. I might recommend Fox News to tell The Simpsons to get rid of all copies of the episode and to never have it shown, at the most.
When anger rises, think of the consequences.
Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)
This illustrates the level to which our legal system has sunk. A TV Show considers suing another TV Show.
From my knowledge of the founding fathers and our legal system as it was meant to be: private citizens are given rights. They can bring suits in court or have suits brought against them to preserve public order. Television shows, and more generally, companies are not, I repeat, NOT citizens!
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
Well lets think about this quote for a second. If we assume that Fox news is actually concerned that its viewers will confused a cartoon like the simpsons for a real news broadcast , it really says hat FNC thinks their viewers are in fact incredibly stupid. Particularly if you look at what went by on the news ticker .Who other than a fox news viewer would think those headlines were real?
PS - i wore my asbestos underwear today.
They did institute a new rule that the Simpsons, or any other non-news show on Fox, could not use an onscreen information scroll lest the audience become confused and think it was actual news.
If your viewers are so dim as to think that the cartoon animation on the screen is the real news.. I think you have more problems that you realize...
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
It's news because one branch of Fox came very close to suing one of the most popular, profitable shows ever on the Fox Network. It's news because a supposed news(tm) organization was prepared not only to sue to stop free speech (of the well-supported parody class) but were actually considering doing this against a component of their parent corporation. It's news because the whining, bedwetting, crybabies of Fox News are so supremely "Can dish it out but can't take it" that they were actually going to go toe-to-toe with a cartoon.
Why is this moderated as funny? It seems far more insightful to me.
It gets them a ton of publicity, and more importantly it emphasizes to the demographic they want how much loathing and contempt the class of people who run ABC, CNN and the New York Times have for their lessers.
So, the lawsuit against Al Franken was a big surprised. You'd think they'd know better than to do something so counterproductively lame. Apparently in this case they did no better.
(Incidentally, it's interesting how after all the ancient Reaganites Ali G had on his show, the only two people I know of who threatened to sue him were Ralph Nader and Naomi Wolf...)
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Nerds like the Simpsons.
-- Sorry, I can't think of anything funny to say here.
CNN and MSNBC don't direct their newsroom staff, the bias comes from the individual creating the content, based on their experiences and knowledge. Over at Fox the bias comes from the top down and people have to express it or hurt their career. Would you trust Rush's opinion or analysis, even if you agreed with it, if you knew he was just saying what the GOP press office told him to?
This is why we accept some bias from real news organizations and simply filter it, but we call this one Faux News Channel. For instance, I rarley agree with Chris Matthews on MSNBC's Hardball, but I like watching it, because I think he represents an independent conservative voice and I think he treats the issues more fairly than anyone at Faux.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
Replying to myself: when a free-marketeer like Paul Krugman is branded as "far-left" (as is Howard Dean), you know how far to the right this country has really gone. In any other country they'd both be mildly-left-of-centre at best.
As covered elsewhere, this stunt generates publicity. Your analysis is too simple. If the free advertising surrounding the story outpaces the legal fees, they win, potentially win big.
"Well, in fairness, we are talking about Fox News viewers."
Which, BTW, outnumber CNN or MSNBC viewers. FNC must be doing something right by not putting a liberal spin on selective topics.
No, all that proves is that this country is rapidly reaching its "stupid people saturation point". FNC is nothing but propaganda and lies -- how many times during the Iraq war did they run a story about WMD being "found"? How many of those stories turned out to be true?
FNC is for stupid people who think only in terms of good and bad or black and white, plain and simple.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
I'll agree on the majors having slight liberal slant, but Fox News is more than 'slightly' right-leaning. You're talking about a network that goes out of its way to find the dumbest, most extreme left wingers to bring on the air so their hosts can ridicule them. Bill O'Reilly's shouting matches and mic cutting are pretty much SOP over Fox - they try to give the appearance of letting both sides tell their story, but in reality, are only interested in their side of the story. The other networks generally at least give conservatives a chance to speak without treating them like bafoons. That alone makes them far more centerist than Fox will ever be in my mind.
Yup...I see CBS, NBC, ABC...the major network news, and CNN on cable as all having from a slight to major liberal slant.
Maybe it's because I'm Canadian, but I find this belief in liberal slant in mainstream U.S. media as incomprehensible to me as the arguments of the gun lobby. (I'm not equating the two, by the way.)
I read or watch CNN fairly often, and there seems to be an undertone to all the coverage that I would hardly call liberal. For instance, while Fox News might directly attack a Democrat for suggesting tax cuts are a bad idea, CNN will simply quote him, while still subtly suggesting that most Americans would want the tax cut.
The most telling evidence, though, is the fearful lack of coverage of foreign events by the mainstream American networks, excepting of course the Middle East. I was astounded to see the difference between regular cable CNN, and CNN International, which has reasonably decent coverage of stuff in Africa, Asia, etc. And I don't accept the argument that CNN is simply showing what its domestic audience wants to see, and has no free will in the matter.
One thing that this study may highlight is that once journalists form a hypothesis, they will tend to seek out the stories that support it.
Journalism isn't science. It isn't out to prove or disprove anything. Unfortunately, most journalists today seem to have forgotten this subtle issue.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
FNC must be doing something right by not putting a liberal spin on selective topics.
Well, it is pretty well established that showing people what they want to see will generate higher ratings than the truth.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Downright spooky to hear Republican spin points show up in discussions like this. This has been a recent spin attempt by the White House.
No, Bush never used the word "imminent". He did, however, very clearly lead the nation to belive that Iraq posed a threat to the US in the short term. Hell Cheney told "Meet the press" that he believed Iraq had "reconstituted" nuclear weapons. What threat could be more imminent than that?
The point is that it's a trick: "Did Bush tell America that Iraq was an 'imminent' threat"... "Yeah, I think so"... "Ha! Gotcha! He never actually used the work imminent!"
Look, a majority of Americans believed Iraq had WMD's, including nuclear weapons. A majority also believed that he was working with (or actually WAS) Osama bin Laden. BUSH deliberately perpetuated this point of view. This is a silly right-wing word game.
I suppose karma should be used for something....
Most residents of the United States have fallen into the falacy of the much touted Liberal Bias In The Media (caps intentional).
We've had it cramed down our throats by every radio talk show zelot, republican candidate, and conservitive figure we're willing to listen to.
It's simply not the case. Are most journalists liberal? Unquestionably. Education is one of the strongest factors in determining political viewpoints (next to family and wealth) and most journalists hold at least a BA/BS.
Nonetheless, this does not mean that the media as a whole is liberal. General Motors employs thousands of union workers who, for the most part, have liberal leanings and vote democrat. Would you therefore assume that the automotive interests of General Motors are represented by the Democratic Party? [Fact, GM consistanly supports conservitive candidates above liberal ones, all other factors being equal].
The companies we're talking about aren't interested in the Liberal Agenda. Do you think AOL Time Warner wants to see more regulation of the media? Do you think MSNBC (note the MS there) wants to see anti-monopolistic measures taken in the software industry?
When the BBC ran the story on how the Jessica Lynch rescue wasn't all it was cracked up to be did you see it in the US media? Of course not... That isn't to say it didn't run, you'll find several versions of it with a quick google search... but it wasn't exactly above the fold.
MSNBC is even debuting a made for TV version of the "rescue." Executives have repeatedly declined comment as to which version of events they'll be displaying.
So here's my question. If Bill Clinton had presented blatently false information in the State of the Union Address, acted on that information and gone to war on the basis of it, lied about what happened IN the war all the while systematicly dismanteling the individual rights of the US Population... if all that had happened, don't you think the media would have had a bit more to shout about than a stain on a blue dress?
Clinton was impeached for lieing before Congress. The Bush Administration also lied before Congress. Then it went on to commit the country to a war on the same lies. Where is the special investigative council? Where are the media watch dogs?
Liberal Media indeed.... in an election between a stiff and a coke head who did the media favor? The coke head. Go figgure....
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
One thing that this study may highlight is that once journalists form a hypothesis, they will tend to seek out the stories that support it.
Or that news media organizations tends to hire journalists that lean their direction. Or journalists tend to work for a company that has their general outlook on stuff. What, there shouldn't be leaning in journalism? True dat. But there will probably always be at least a little bit (dang liberals talking about weird shit like anthropic bias and self-selection).
'Course, it could also be that people like to be happy, so they stay away from information that might make them unhappy, after learning where unhappy information comes from. Self-esteem self-selection from a media perspective.
If it leans too far though, it ain't journalism, and calling it 'news' is a stretch. Which is why using Faux is still funny as all hell.
Objectively, it should be the Fox Editorials Shouted At You From On High Channel, but that's tough to fit on a logo.
+&x
What makes you think that Fox News doesn't already know their viewers are morons? That's their key demographic group!
--R.J.
Electric-Escape.net
That controls for the effect that the audience of Faux News is more right-wing.
By the way, you're wrong about the factuality of the "Bush never said imminent threat" meme (though of course that doesn't negate your point).
In fact, the National Security Council strategy document released 9/17/02 term "rogue states" (such as Iraq) an "imminent threat." Furthermore Scott McClellan called Iraq an "imminent threat" twice in Feb 2003, though by July he was backtracking. Ari Fleischer labeled Iraq an immediate threat on Jan 21 2003. In some Rose Garden remarks , Bush called Iraq "threat of unique urgency."
I wonder if anyone will venture an opinion as to which is worse, an imminent threat or an immediate threat? And does a "threat of unique urgency" trump them all? Who knows. But I think it's rather silly to try to deny that the Bushies took the threat of Iraq very seriously last fall and worked hard to communicate their concerns to the world.
Here are the excerpts:
Laying the groundwork for intervention in Iraq, the National Security Council released this strategy document: http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nssall.html (also found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss5.html) The National Security Strategy of the United States of America dated September 17, 2002
As far as I can tell, this document is in the official voice of Bush's Security Council. Thus it speaks officially for the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and numerous others. And it's applying the phrase "imminent threat" to an unnamed adversary that can't be anyone else but Iraq. I think that gives the lie to the meme that Bush never said Iraq was an imminent threat. I think it's pretty clear that they all seek to "adapt the concept of imminent threat" to Iraq.
McClellan's use of imminent threat: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20 030210-8.html Excerpts from the Press Gaggle by Scott McClellan, February 10, 2003
--- Often in error; never in doubt!