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."

Comments

Spelling Error...

[computerme]

The headline should read: "Faux News Considered Suing Fox's "The Simpsons""

Re:Spelling Error...

[Slack3r78]

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.

Re:Spelling Error...

[TGK]

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....

What's the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's perfectly cromulent for FOX to protect their trademarks. And oil slicks DO keep seals young and supple by preventing them from getting old.

NRA4Ever!

Some of the actual lines in that episode

[axolotl_farmer]

...ripped from alt.fan.simpsons

Pointless news crawls up 37 percent

Do democrats cause cancer? Find out more at foxnews.com

Rupert Murdoch: terrific dancer

Dow down 5000 points

Study: 92 percent of democrats are gay

JFK posthumously joins republican party

Oil slicks found to keep seals young, supple

Dan Quayle: awesome

Ashcroft declares breast of chicken sandwich "obscene".

Hillary Clinton embarrasses self ???

Bible says Jesus favored capital-gains cut.

Only dorks watch CNN.

Jimmy Carter: old, weak & useless.

Brad Pitt + Albert Einstein = Dick Cheney.

Whom shall we trust?

[YankeeInExile]

This conversation has been going on over in alt.tv.simpsons for a few days now. And the succulent nutmeat is: Apart from class-clown Matt Groening saying so on an NPR interview, there is, as yet, no evidence brought to light that any lawsuit was considered, or forthcoming.

I would not accuse Matt of lying, but perhaps of saying something that is not exactly true for comedic value.

While I cannot imagine Fox filing suit against themselves (as entertaining as Fox v. Fox would be to see on the docket), it is not unimaginable that they might file against Film Roman.

It's not the ticker

[poptones]

It's the "fake news" part. Fox has the trademark on scrolling fake news reports at the bottom of the screen.

Just watch any day of the week and see for yourself.

It's true!

Really...

Re:It's not the ticker

[iJed]

Why is this moderated as funny? It seems far more insightful to me.

Re:Look where we are headed

[Doesn't_Comment_Code]

I guess Fox'd win the case easily :) I wonder if they'd have to pay themselves damages.

Fox income = damages - lawyer fees
Fox loss = damages

Fox net gain = - lawyer fees

That's one hell of a business strategy.

Re:Suing themselves

[Blondie-Wan]

Yeah, because their are so many news shows that are animated. I can understand the possible confusion.

Well, in fairness, we are talking about Fox News viewers.

It's not a percieved bias

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

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.

It's not percieved, the proof is here. This is a former producer for Fox's News Watch media show giving the dirt on how the bias comes down from Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes everyday in an email nicknamed "The Memo".

Expect to see more info as "The Memo" starts getting leaked. Fox is truly biased, the proof is in information like this. For more analysis, including a rebuttal from Fox, check this out. You might also want to read this commentary over at Editor & Publisher deconstructing Fox's spin on the latest "liberal media" salvo they fired.

Re:BEEN SAID BEFORE: Why is this News for Nerds?

[twoshortplanks]

Nerds like the Simpsons.

Re: Spelling error, but Faux News truly misleads

[elwinc]

There's a study out that correlates misperceptions about the Iraq war with news source. You can read the whole .pdf if you like.

They took 3 polls with 3334 respondents, gathering data on three misperceptions about the Iraq war
(1) Evidence found for link between Iraq and Al Queda
(2) Evidence found of WMDs in Iraq
(3) Positive world opinion about Iraq war

News_source______FOX_____CBS_____ABC_____NBC_____ CNN___Print_____NPR/
_________________________________________________ _____Sources____PBS

0_misperceptions_20%_____30%_____39%_____45%_____ 45%_____53%_____77%
1_or_more
misperceptions___80______71______61______55______ 55______47______23

Yep, you read that right; fully 80% of Faux watchers had at least 1 of the misperceptions; fully 77% of the NPR/PBS crowd had zero. Wow!

They also attempted to control for demographic variations in the audience. Here's what they say (end of P.15)

Looking just at Republicans, the average rate for the three key misperceptions was 43%. For Republican Fox viewers, however the average rate was 54% while for Republicans who get their news from PBS- NPR the average rate is 32%. This same pattern obtains with Democrats and independents.

I also really like this paragraph (page 16):

Misperceptions According to Level of Attention to News
While it would seem that misperceptions are derived from a failure to pay attention to the news, overall, those who pay greater attention to the news are no less likely to have misperceptions. Among those who primarily watch Fox, those who pay more attention are more likely to have misperceptions. Only those who mostly get their news from print media, and to some extent those who primarily watch CNN, have fewer misperceptions as they pay more attention.

Isn't that amazing? The more you read the paper, or watch CNN, the better informed you are. But the more you watch Faux News, the more likely you are to be misled!! Now of course these are correlations; they don't prove causation, but they are pretty darned persuasive.

This study was commented on in the wash post seattle times twin cities and other places

The one place you I can guarentee you won't find it is fox news!

Re:news ticker belongs to one company?

[Zeinfeld]

Actually, they aren't sueing them, they "considered legal action".

The history here is that the head of Fox News, Roger Aisles is a long time Republican activist and partisan. He was put in charge of the news operation for the sole purpose of slanting the news to the extreme right.

To get an idea of what really goes on at Fox take a read of the experiences of people who have worked there. Every day a note goes arround called 'The Memo' which contains the Republican party messages of the day. If you do not toe the line then you get fired. This is a bad thing since experience working at Fox news does not exactly enhance your resume when applying for a job with the real media.

You can tell this is going on because Fox was even able to report Bush's claim that the Whitehouse did not order the 'Mission Accomplished' banner with a straight face.

So yes it is completely believable that the executives running this bubble world outfit would have so little clue about the real world as to threaten to sue another Murdoch production - in this case a production that can if it choose defect at will to another station and a production that makes money rather than looses it hand over fist.

Fox News does well in the ratings but very poorly with advertisers. The problem is that its core democratic of poor middle aged southern white racist men do not have much in the way of buying power. Advertisers much prefer to reach 18-35 audiences, gays, professionals, etc. in short pretty much everyone who is unlikely to watch Fox. In fact advertising on Fox News actually trades at a discount to other broadcasts reaching the same demographic because advertisers know that many of the demographics they do want are actually less likely to buy a product they see advertised on a channel they associate with biggotry.

The joke on the GOP and the likes of Bill O'Really is that Murdoch has no ideological commitments only business interests. He is quite happy running a Pro-Bejing communist sympathetic news channel on his Asian Star TV and he does not broadcast the BBC signal which might offend the dictators. In the UK Murdoch is quite happy to support Tony Blair's government, provided they do not threaten his economic interests. Murdoch undoubtedly considers his US channels in the same way, if Bush looses power in such a way that a return of Republican government looks to be unlikely in the near future then Fox news will flip flop to the left.