Fox News Mocks Antiwar Protesters

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Messages that Fox News scrolled on its giant newsticker on Sixth Avenue
in NYC, as the Thursday "die-in" demonstrations in front of Rockefeller Center were happening:

"War protester auditions here today ... thanks for coming!"

"Who won your right to show up here today? Protesters or soldiers?"

"How do you keep a war protester in suspense? Ignore them."

"Attention protesters: the Michael Moore Fan Club meets Thursday
at a phone booth at Sixth Avenue and 50th Street"

Um. Discuss.

― geeta (geeta), Saturday, 29 March 2003 01:36 (twenty-three years ago)

woah. are they even attempting objectivity these days?

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Saturday, 29 March 2003 01:40 (twenty-three years ago)

I like the idea that finally their twue colows are shining through (this is not why I love them).

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 29 March 2003 01:41 (twenty-three years ago)

the station is like a 24-hour version of "The Hot Seat."

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Saturday, 29 March 2003 01:43 (twenty-three years ago)

HILARIOUS

I mean it's FOX NEWS anyway. Somebody probably got fired. Either that or they were pissed off enough by having to deal with the extra traffic on the way to work that they decided it was time to have a go. They should probably get rid of the 'fair and objective' bit, though.

God forbid the protestors have a sense of humor, though the third one is a bit shitty (and barely makes any sense besides)

― Millar (Millar), Saturday, 29 March 2003 01:44 (twenty-three years ago)

pretty funny, but the Onion's protester mockery was better - "I Oppose this War and I Vote. Wait, No, I Don't.", "The International Socialist Organization Needs A Ride Home", "I Support My Activist Girlfriend"

― James Blount (James Blount), Saturday, 29 March 2003 01:45 (twenty-three years ago)

plus, nobody swears the onion is providing them the REAL story.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Saturday, 29 March 2003 01:54 (twenty-three years ago)

do I really need to point out how many Americans under the age of 40 (hint: the majority) get their news from the Daily Show, the Onion, SNL, talk show monologues, etc. Fox is no more biased than NPR, and hella funnier (even if they don't actually employ alot of journalists - nothing but talking heads). The back page ad they had in the Nation was hilarious - "Thank YOU for making us America's number one news source!"

― James Blount (James Blount), Saturday, 29 March 2003 02:02 (twenty-three years ago)

They are all OK except the second one, which is really lame.

― N. (nickdastoor), Saturday, 29 March 2003 02:57 (twenty-three years ago)

somebody set them up the e-bomb

― the hegemon, Saturday, 29 March 2003 03:04 (twenty-three years ago)

i binged on FOX yesteray at a friend's house. Mr. AnchorMAn had finished his report. He turned to the camera, and the word ANALYSIS came up on the screen. The subject was france. Suddenly, he was speaking directly to the FRENCH PEOPLE (no mention of Chirac).

quotes: "pardon me, Pepe" and "Well excuse me, Jacques"

my head exploded.

― gabriel (gabe), Saturday, 29 March 2003 03:08 (twenty-three years ago)

why are you wasting your time here? don't you know "fair and balanced" is designed expressly to make you mad?

gotta love the al jazeera "objective and balanced" though - the two of them are made for each other

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Saturday, 29 March 2003 03:16 (twenty-three years ago)

yeah I meant the second one, not the third one (thanks N)

― Millar (Millar), Saturday, 29 March 2003 03:17 (twenty-three years ago)

in other news, the sky is blue

― jess (dubplatestyle), Saturday, 29 March 2003 03:28 (twenty-three years ago)

it's expected, it's fox, no need to be surprised or to care

― Maria (Maria), Saturday, 29 March 2003 03:30 (twenty-three years ago)

"Tonight's leading story - Michael Jackson: he crazy"

― James Blount (James Blount), Saturday, 29 March 2003 03:31 (twenty-three years ago)

actually I think that first Fox one is funnier than any of the Onion ones

― James Blount (James Blount), Saturday, 29 March 2003 03:32 (twenty-three years ago)

Fox is no more biased than NPR

this is patently untrue, and a simple ideological headcount of the talking heads put forth by each outlet is one of the many ways this claim can be disproved; npr gives the 'opposing viewpoint' much more airtime than fox does (and bill o'reilly bringing people on then shutting their mic off right away doesn't really count as 'airtime,' sorry)

but i guess i wouldn't be an ilxer if i wasn't post-everything and reveling in how culcha is just the awesomest ever, pass me that ashanti cameo will ya

― maura (maura), Saturday, 29 March 2003 03:36 (twenty-three years ago)

maura, lame caricatures dont do your argument any good

― jess (dubplatestyle), Saturday, 29 March 2003 03:48 (twenty-three years ago)

give me a break jess, you know i have a point (in both of my paragraphs)

― maura (maura), Saturday, 29 March 2003 03:51 (twenty-three years ago)

"post-everything and reveling in how culcha is just the awesomest ever, pass me that ashanti cameo will ya "

this ghost does haunt ILX yes, but its been laundered and examined and reacted to enuf that most exhibitions of it are self-conscious, maybe?

but, anyway FITE

― gabriel (gabe), Saturday, 29 March 2003 04:02 (twenty-three years ago)

sigh. i dunno why you draw this weird line between appreciating what's going on and applauding what's going on.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Saturday, 29 March 2003 04:07 (twenty-three years ago)

there was a good protester-mocking letter in the chch paper yesterday where the writer suggested that anti-war protesters were a "rent-a-mob" led by "socialist cell groups" & their "gormless flower power" followers (what year is he living in!?), another guy also said a thing about how people forget that their present-day freedom was won by people fighting in wars & he made it sound like he meant "so MORE WARS will get you EVEN MORE FREEDOM!"

― unknown or illegal user (doorag), Saturday, 29 March 2003 04:16 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't know that I'm post-anything or post-everything, does that make me meta-post?

― Millar (Millar), Saturday, 29 March 2003 04:16 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't know, the whining I hear from my conservative friends over NPR (especially since they started carrying the 'Baghdad Broadcasting Company's war coverage, which is - hysterically - biased) is just as loud as the whining I hear from my liberal friends over Fox News, albeit slighty more clever ("Morning Sedition"'s hella cleverer than "Bill Racist O'Reilly")

― James Blount (James Blount), Saturday, 29 March 2003 04:17 (twenty-three years ago)

Bill O'Rights

― jess (dubplatestyle), Saturday, 29 March 2003 04:28 (twenty-three years ago)

corny indie fuck!

― James Blount (James Blount), Saturday, 29 March 2003 04:29 (twenty-three years ago)

God, if Fox gets wind of that they'll start 'bill'ing him as that!

― James Blount (James Blount), Saturday, 29 March 2003 04:30 (twenty-three years ago)

'why the hell did people start taking the guy from Inside Edition seriously?': ILE corrolary to my 'why the hell did people suddenly start taking Weezer seriously?' quandry on ILM

― James Blount (James Blount), Saturday, 29 March 2003 04:31 (twenty-three years ago)

maybe i should edit that out before the fox news spies see it

― jess (dubplatestyle), Saturday, 29 March 2003 04:34 (twenty-three years ago)

too late!

― Matt Groening (James Blount), Saturday, 29 March 2003 04:36 (twenty-three years ago)

"plus, nobody swears the onion is providing them the REAL story.

-- Anthony Miccio (anthonymicci...), March 28th, 2003 2:54 PM."

"though seeing how that article was referenced in my search it seems a lot of music fans feel they're getting legitimate news from the onion. well, that's america for ya!

-- lolita corpus (drgrea...), March 28th, 2003 5:32 PM."

― James Blount (James Blount), Saturday, 29 March 2003 04:37 (twenty-three years ago)

you gonna take someone with that name seriously?

― jess (dubplatestyle), Saturday, 29 March 2003 04:38 (twenty-three years ago)

what's wrong with "Anthony"?

― James Blount (James Blount), Saturday, 29 March 2003 04:39 (twenty-three years ago)

thank you, we'll be here all week

― jess (dubplatestyle), Saturday, 29 March 2003 04:40 (twenty-three years ago)

say goodnight Gracie

― James Blount (James Blount), Saturday, 29 March 2003 04:41 (twenty-three years ago)

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

-- Hermann Goering

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Saturday, 29 March 2003 06:35 (twenty-three years ago)

embrace the cliche

― James Blount (James Blount), Saturday, 29 March 2003 06:39 (twenty-three years ago)

I came across this quote for the first time tonite and at first I wanted to start a thread about it to know if it been around to the point of being a cliché or if it was still insightful. Thanks for the concise answer JB :-)

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Saturday, 29 March 2003 06:47 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm just being snarky! it's not near as tired as an Einstein quote or a made-up Indian quote.

― James Blount (James Blount), Saturday, 29 March 2003 06:54 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm curious, James -- what's your standard for 'unbiased'? Does any member of the US media live up to that standard? Do you think journalistic objectivity is a realistic ideal?

― maura (maura), Saturday, 29 March 2003 15:22 (twenty-three years ago)

the station is like a 24-hour version of "The Hot Seat"

http://www.wallygeorge.com/wally5.jpg

― o. nate (onate), Saturday, 29 March 2003 15:47 (twenty-three years ago)

that looks the old lady in the 'Come To Daddy' video

― stevem (blueski), Saturday, 29 March 2003 17:51 (twenty-three years ago)

maura, why do you think that us "appreciating" what's going on (and i'd argue that nervous laughter in the face of your enemy is an appropriate response...keeps one from sinking into too deep of a humorless depression) = accepting or applauding it? because we're not, at this moment, out there picketing fox? because there's not a total solemnity that comes with fighting for "the movement"? that's why your caricature niggled so much, because you know damn well it's not true, certainly across the board. and it's a bit rich coming from someone who works in media.

― jess (dubplatestyle), Saturday, 29 March 2003 18:08 (twenty-three years ago)

Sheryl Crow Unsuccessful; War On Iraq Begins

WASHINGTON, DC—In spite of recording artist Sheryl Crow's strong protestations, including the wearing of a "No War" guitar strap, the U.S. went to war with Iraq last week. "Making the decision to go to war is never easy, but it's that much harder when you know Sheryl Crow disapproves," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said at a press conference Monday. "It is this administration's sincerest hope that it can one day regain the support and trust of the woman behind such hits as 'All I Wanna Do' and 'Soak Up The Sun.'" Fleischer issued similar apologies to Martin Sheen, Janeane Garofalo, and Nelly.

― Ally (mlescaut), Saturday, 29 March 2003 19:12 (twenty-three years ago)

Everyone in "the media" is biased. That's not news. It's only news to some people that the bias comes through most of the time. The other networks were (and are) spewing bias long before FoxNews came along, but nobody gave a shit until an inconsequential audience started kicking Rick Kaplan's F.O.B. ass around the newsroom. CNN then brought in a more pedigreed newsguy and he got his ass handed to him in what, barely a year without the benefit of Monicagate to churn the ratings. Call me crazy or there were people in the country looking for an alternative spin--you know, if there's a spin one way then there's bound to be a spin the other.

The unreported news is that the left secretly rejoiced at having ammunition to fire back at the accusations of a left-wing slant by the major news media--hey, FoxNews and the Washington Times are right wing so it negates the efforts of the CNN/ABC/NBC/CNN/NYTimes/LA Times/ChiTrib/etc./etc.--even though this joy of a new enemy normally manifests itself in vitriolic jealously and sniping condescension. The shoe is now on the other foot, the pot is calling the kettle black, and in the end both sides seem unrepentant to the fact that unbiased news wouldn't sell to Madison Avenue no matter how it is packaged.

And really, everyone pretty much expects Fox to be the fart joke of the news channels (and oh shit is it ever a stretch to call a 300 word-if-it-bleeds-it-leads "story" news anyway, what with all the depth 200 seconds can accurately portray) is anyone actually surprised that they might make fun of protestors? It's not like some of them don't deserve it.

― don weiner, Saturday, 29 March 2003 21:18 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't think folks are pretty much surprised that they're making fun of the protesters; they are probably happy to have the mockery turned on someone else for a change. However, they are wrecking their shot to be seen as serious journalists.

― Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Saturday, 29 March 2003 22:52 (twenty-three years ago)

Fox News? Serious journalism?

*laughs hysterically for five minutes*

Problem Solvers, Bill O'Reilly, lusting over Gulf War II weaponry, that flag-waving graphic they use for the touchstone graphic of "Operation: Iraqi Freedom" coverage... Fox News is a fucking conservative's televangelist channel disguised as reputable media. Say what you will about Michael Moore, at least he doesn't pretend to be objective.

We report (more propaganda than you can shake a stick at), you decide (to lap it up like an eager puppy or vomit on the spot).

Fuck Rupert Murdoch anyway.

― justin s., Sunday, 30 March 2003 00:03 (twenty-three years ago)

Fuck Rupert Murdoch anyway.

It's more Roger Ailes fault, I believe

― Vik, Sunday, 30 March 2003 01:05 (twenty-three years ago)

It's all Roger Ailes fault.

Then again, the door was left wide open the way the other networks all marched in lockstep to the beat of the same fucking drummer for five decades. Bill O'Reilly is just revenge for the scourge of Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather et al, even if he's only half as smart. At least O'Reilly fakes the other side of an issue.

Anyone who considers a nightly network newscast or a cable news network serious journalism is Darwin radarlock. There's nothing more vain or condescending on television.

― don weiner, Sunday, 30 March 2003 01:43 (twenty-three years ago)

I'd like to see Fox News under a Democrat government. I bet they'd either do a huge turnaround or go off air altogether.

Failing that, if they'd stayed how they currently are, it would be the best TV station ever.

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Monday, 31 March 2003 11:38 (twenty-three years ago)

One thing that works to stop media you don't like is the switching-off. The other thing is to ring up their advertisers and complain. It's the one action I can think of that really puts the shits up them.

I would also argue that non-violent protest has ensured freedoms for billions rather than the mere millions made 'free' by Americans going abroad to kill people who didn't ask for their help in quite the numbers they'd have us believe.

― suzy (suzy), Monday, 31 March 2003 11:50 (twenty-three years ago)

Who won your right to show up here today? Protesters or soldiers?

Or was it philosophers/statesmen?

― oops (Oops), Monday, 31 March 2003 13:40 (twenty-three years ago)

Don't forget "gentleman farmers."

― hstencil, Monday, 31 March 2003 20:13 (twenty-three years ago)

http://pages.ripco.net/~dymaxia/freeper.jpeg

― Kerry (dymaxia), Monday, 31 March 2003 20:52 (twenty-three years ago)

The Cardinals t-shirt clinches it!

― Aaron W (Aaron W), Monday, 31 March 2003 20:54 (twenty-three years ago)

I hope for his sake that his last name is "Moran"

― oops (Oops), Monday, 31 March 2003 20:57 (twenty-three years ago)

That is without a doubt the greatest picture I've seen today.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 31 March 2003 21:07 (twenty-three years ago)

No, oops, I happen to know that fellow's last name is Kerr.

His parents christened him with the surname of a well-known Oscar-winning Western (mainly) actor who died about 20 years ago, whose first name was John.

― Fred Nerk, Monday, 31 March 2003 21:17 (twenty-three years ago)

Man, I knew there was a joke there, but it took me two minutes to decipher it. Who's the Wayne Kerr now?

― oops (Oops), Monday, 31 March 2003 21:20 (twenty-three years ago)

"I'd like to see Fox News under a Democrat government. I bet they'd either do a huge turnaround or go off air altogether.

Failing that, if they'd stayed how they currently are, it would be the best TV station ever.

-- James Mitchell (jame...), March 31st, 2003 2:38 AM."

where was this guy during the nineties?

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 02:35 (twenty-three years ago)

where is that guy right now?

― g--ff c-nn-n (gcannon), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 02:42 (twenty-three years ago)

also there's something about this - "I would also argue that non-violent protest has ensured freedoms for billions rather than the mere millions made 'free' by Americans going abroad to kill people who didn't ask for their help in quite the numbers they'd have us believe.

-- suzy (theartskooldisk...), March 31st, 2003 2:50 AM"

and a sentiment I saw on a protest sign today - "Democracy doesn't come from a barrel of a gun" - that bothers me slightly, if only because the overwhleming majority of democracies have been borne of the barrel of a gun, and the majority of those who haven't have been borne through the threat of force. It's a nice sentiment, but if someone like me - who sympathizes with the protestors and is against the war - can see it's naive bullshit then how well is it gonna play with neutral or pro-war parties? I don't generally think it's a good idea to cede any claims of being realistic or pragmatic to the other side, unless your intention is just to make yourself feel good, in which case go masturbate or something, narcissism /= idealism.

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 03:02 (twenty-three years ago)

"Democracy doesn't come from a barrel of a gun, but from the barrel of a musket."

― hstencil, Tuesday, 1 April 2003 12:27 (twenty-three years ago)

what about a pickle barrel?

― jess (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 12:31 (twenty-three years ago)

"Democracy doesn't come from a barrel of a gun, but from a barrel of monkies."

― Sarah McLusky (coco), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 12:36 (twenty-three years ago)

only on Delancey Street, jess.

― hstencil, Tuesday, 1 April 2003 12:48 (twenty-three years ago)

This lends a whole new urgency to "Beer Barrel Polka."

― Amateurist (amateurist), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 15:05 (twenty-three years ago)

more hi-larious xamples of fox turning irony inside out and upside down and this is opposites land and you couldn't fool yourself on the foolingest day of your life with an electrified fooling machine:

last night on boston public - piss off - the character played by the scary grasshopper lady who used to be on the star trek show went off inna courtroom (after two characters had paid two bums to fight on camera) about how the networks are using depraved "reality" to sell shares, including an impassioned plea against "making 100 women chase after a man for his money, defraud them, and sell it back to us for a profit." guh?!?!

― jess (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 15:20 (twenty-three years ago)

The biggest problem in journalism today is reporters and editors bending over backwards to appear "unbiased". Writers censor their strongest beliefs and feelings, and every story about every subject turns into "one one hand.... but on the OTHER hand...." Thanks for nothing!

Urgent question: this is seriously to do with geezaesthetics.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 15:32 (twenty-three years ago)

geezaesthetics == The New Reasonableness

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 15:52 (twenty-three years ago)

Yes, we've been reasonable. And look where it got us.

― suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 16:00 (twenty-three years ago)

No, the opposite, Andrew. If geezaesthetics = pub-ready arguments with the brow-beating force of "common sense", provoking a feeling that to disagree is to be a snivelling dipshit, and to agree is to larf heartily with the boys, then the folks who bend over backwards to be "objective" are only bending over like that cause they've either lost their backbone or have resigned themselves to forever taking it up the ass.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 16:01 (twenty-three years ago)

(notice how my post actually completely loses its point there at the end yet sounds pubbishly convincing) (non-geezaesthetic translation: "objectivity" is a strategy against/for certain things; in fascist societies for instance it was a great weapon. in our society i think it is often either a great excuse, or a defense against imagined future criticism on most vulnerable spots)

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 16:04 (twenty-three years ago)

Taking sides: losing the point at the end vs forever taking it up the ass

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 16:08 (twenty-three years ago)

taking sides: pointless theories vs. pointless theories

― jess (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 16:30 (twenty-three years ago)

vs pointless posting

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 16:47 (twenty-three years ago)

(that wasn't pointless: he made other feels inferior)

― oops (Oops), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 16:48 (twenty-three years ago)

tracer you act as if the two are mutually exclusive

― jess (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 16:59 (twenty-three years ago)

My last post was geezaesthetics, not an argument meant to hold up. You know exactly what I meant. However you have geezaesthetically outfoxed me.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 17:19 (twenty-three years ago)

(Nipper - look what you've done *now*!)

― the pinefox, Wednesday, 2 April 2003 09:30 (twenty-three years ago)

Tracer, what you define above is laddism, not geezeraesthetics - but I second the Pinefox's lament for the Nipper.

― Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 2 April 2003 09:39 (twenty-three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.