Fox News Considered Suing Fox's "The Simpsons" 840
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."
The Simpsons (Score:3, Insightful)
Look where we are headed (Score:3, Insightful)
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!
Parody is a democratic right (Score:3, Insightful)
Doing a parody is a given right in democracy.
I do not, however, know if this Simpson episode broke copyright laws. Anyone helpful enough to explain?
Re:Spelling Error... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:ahem... (Score:5, Insightful)
PS - i wore my asbestos underwear today.
Re:Suing themselves (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Spelling Error... (Score:3, Insightful)
MSNBC has quite a few conservative pundits, and CNN has quite a few too. A good example of the difference between CNN and Fox News is Crossfire vs Hannity and Colmes.
CNN has smart liberals and conservatives on both sides of Crossfile (Tucker Carlson, Robert Novak on the Right) whereas Fox News has a freaking moron arguing against Sean Hannity. It's literally HANNITY vs colmes. (In fact, when the show was first pitched it was referred to internally as "Hannity vs some wimpy liberal")
Sure, some papers may lean left (like the Washington Post,) but they don't compare to the wacko right wing-ness of papers like the Washington Times.
Re:Preemptive strike? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not gonna happen (Score:2, Insightful)
BEEN SAID BEFORE: Why is this News for Nerds? (Score:1, Insightful)
* Is Fox News trying to extort money out from owners of smart card programmers?
* Is Fox News accusing The Simpsons of violating the DMCA?
Don't get me wrong, I find the story hilarious, but it's already being covered by every other news outlet. (With the exception of Fox News?)
Re:Suing themselves (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Erm... Can you say SATIRE? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll explain this, slowly (Score:5, Insightful)
In other news: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's not the ticker (Score:5, Insightful)
It's funny (Score:4, Insightful)
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...)
Re:BEEN SAID BEFORE: Why is this News for Nerds? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Some of the actual lines in that episode (Score:2, Insightful)
Cheers,
Craig
Re:Spelling Error... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's not a percieved bias (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Spelling Error... (Score:3, Insightful)
The Washington Post? Left-leaning? The paper that publishes Charles Krauthammer (who's rapidly narrowing the gap with Ann Coulter), George Will, Jim Hoagland, etc?
Apart from some fringe outfits like the Nation, there is no "left" in the US. The NYT and Washington Post are centre-right, most others are far-right. By global standards I mean.
Re:Spelling Error... (Score:4, Insightful)
Talk about BS (Score:2, Insightful)
Myopic (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Suing themselves (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Spelling Error... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Come up with new material? Why? (Score:0, Insightful)
I think you mean Socialist and Big-government = fair and balanced.
You ever listen to CNN? NPR?
I laugh my ass off when leftists refer to themselves as open minded, yet dismiss any other views as unfair or unbalanced.
Re:Look where we are headed (Score:2, Insightful)
If UPS drives a truck into my house that my bank owns most of, who sues whom? Does I sue the driver? No. My insurance company pays the bank and the insurance company sues UPS and UPS fires the driver and pays my insurance company. Driver A doesn't have the money to pay.
Person-sues-person civil cases (divorces aside) are not only rare, but perpetually trivial. What defines a good suit? What situation puts one individual against another person or entity? John Q. Public owes me $3000? If that's found in your favor, the court doesn't enforce retribution, they only rule. 'You're right, he owes you. NEXT!!'
Is company X going to acknowledge me? Can I afford to defend myself as well as they do? Check out the docket in your local courthouse and read the publically available complaints for one day. You'll have a different ideas of lawsuits.
Class-action lawsuits are a joke to the affected ('damaged')parties, serving only attorneys and rarely public awareness.
Re:Spelling Error... (Score:2, Insightful)
Like you mentioned, they use the opposite for shows dedicated purely to "debate", choosing misinformed unelectable liberals to defend the Democratic party line and well-composed, intelligent conservatives for the Bushies. (Until they get into the "mindless rant" section of the program.)
Re:Fox - They distort, we deride (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, I demand that you rebate MY tax money that goes to fund PBS/NPR and that bigot Bill Moyers, along with all his friends.
I'm waiting.
Re:Spelling Error... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Suing themselves (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Spelling Error... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Spelling Error... (Score:3, Insightful)
CBS news has the highest percentage of tv viewers after FOX who think that Saddam is responsible for 9/11. That's not a liberal view point, but what the current administration wants us to believe. It is a myth that the news media is liberal. The media just parrots the PR fluff that the administration puts out.
Re: Spelling error, but Faux News truly misleads (Score:3, Insightful)
There is nothing wrong with Fox news ... (Score:2, Insightful)
There is absolutely nothing wrong with Fox news. They are a right leaning news organization. So what? If you want the liberal take on things you can listen to NPR, read the New York or LA Times, or tune into ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, CNN and/or MSNBC. Do these networks present some of the right's arguments? Yes they do, but for the most part you get a liberal slant. Does Fox present some of the left's arguments? Yes they do, but for the most part you get a conservative slant.
The great thing about America is that you can get your news almost anyway you want it. I just wish more media outlets would fess up and quite presenting themselves as unbiased when they cleary are. That's one reason why I respect the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, James Carville (sp?), Al Franken, etc. At least when you listen to them, you know what position they are coming from. I'm so sick and tired of people pretending to be unbiased when they so clearly lean one way that it makes you sick.
Re: Spelling error, but Faux News truly misleads (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Suing themselves (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, it is pretty well established that showing people what they want to see will generate higher ratings than the truth.
Re:Spelling Error... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Spelling error, but Faux News truly misleads (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Spelling Error... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [bbc.co.uk] 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....
Re:Spelling Error... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Spelling error, but Faux News truly misleads (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [kuro5hin.org]).
'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 [quantumphilosophy.net].
Objectively, it should be the Fox Editorials Shouted At You From On High Channel, but that's tough to fit on a logo.
Key demographic (Score:4, Insightful)
No, they controlled for right-winger effect (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [whitehouse.gov] released 9/17/02 term "rogue states" (such as Iraq) an "imminent threat." Furthermore Scott McClellan [whitehouse.gov] called Iraq an "imminent threat" twice in Feb 2003, though by July he was backtracking. [whitehouse.gov] Ari Fleischer labeled Iraq an immediate threat [whitehouse.gov] on Jan 21 2003. In some Rose Garden remarks [whitehouse.gov], 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
Re: Spelling error, but Faux News truly misleads (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:news ticker belongs to one company? (Score:2, Insightful)
Basically all the news sources, including slashdot, become shills.
I might be getting more cynical but the more this stuff happens the more I believe it is planned.
Re:Spelling Error... (Score:1, Insightful)
The irrational spin you noted is also due to the culture, and not due to liberal bias. No mass news outlet is going to report that terrorist killings are outnumbered by natural deaths. Instead, the right-leaning media will report on deaths, killing, and injustice committed elsewhere and by other parties. Either way, Americans feel angry and afraid, and they want their leaders to protect them. Only the "radical" left is left enough to point out that the differences between the mass outlets are there to create the illusion of a balanced debate. If you strip away the politics and look at the raw data of what they are reporting and who benefits from it, it's a bit clearer.
Re:news ticker belongs to one company? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Anyway what is fox doing sueing one of their best shows?"
What is FOX doing sueing themselves???? We all know that FOX has no clue, and this just proves that further.
What's next? SCO sues UNIX intellectual property holder for copyright violation? Actually that wouldn't suprise me.
Well, they said that the Simpsons was confusing and would be mistaken for a real Fox News broadcast. They also said that the title of Al Franken's book was too subtle for them. In other words, yes, the entire crew, cast, and all the execs and lawyers at Fox News are complete idiots, but at least they are admitting it now.
When Al Franken said "There is no way a person not completely dense would be confused by this cover to think that Fox is accusing Bill O'Reilly of being a liar. There is nothing confusing about this." I would not doubt there was a meekly muttered "insensitive clod" from the Fox table. :)
Re:Spelling Error... (Score:1, Insightful)
You're forgetting that the major contention is that IT WASN'T A COMBAT ZONE AND THE US KNEW THERE WERE NO ENEMIES IN THE AREA.
If you consider this half-assed analysis to be proof of anything it's no wonder you think fox is a news network.
Fucking retard.