Take, as a particularly egregious example, Bill O'Reilly's interview this year with Jeremy Glick, the son of a New York Port Authority worker who died in the rubble of the World Trade Center. O'Reilly was mad at Glick because he had signed a petition opposing war in Iraq. So he laid into him, not just for "mouthing... a marginal position in this society", but also for offending the memory of his father with his criticisms of President Bush and US military power.
Glick tried to explain that his father had also disliked Bush and thought he had come to power illegitimately, but O'Reilly would have none of it. "You keep your mouth shut when you sit here exploiting those people," he fumed, calling Glick's views "a bunch of crap". O'Reilly then repeatedly shouted "Shut up!" before finally yanking off his guest's microphone and yelling after him, off camera: "Get out of my studio before I tear you to ****ing pieces!"
Finally O'Reilly exploded, calling Franken an idiot and telling him at least twice to shut up. On a radio show two days later he said that if he and Franken had been living in the Old West, "I would have put a bullet right between his head [sic]."
You don't blame them for suing over what was an obvious satire? Fox wanted an injunction against the book. Fox, a multinational corporation, wanted to stop the book from being sold until Al Franken, a person, agreed to change to the title of his book. Hello? Fox pretty much said that Al Franken could not satirize Fox News' slogan, hence the judge's remark about a media company attacking first amendment rights.
(ASIDE: Only profit drives both CNN and Fox? I think that's a fair statement to make. I also think it's a fairly ambiguous statement to make. What does that mean? I guess you can say that profit is the driving motive behind both companies- both of which owned by even larger companies. Although, I think other considerations have some value. In CNN's case, legitimacy, and in Fox's case, ideology. Here's a tidbit for you:
CNN makes more money- despite lagging behind Fox News in the ratings.)
Correct me if I am wrong, but CNN hasn't sued openly critical satirists.
I don't doubt that the nature of what Franken wrote is satire. You asked my opinion and I gave it. Pretend I'm entitled to have one of them thar... opinions.
However I can say that from both the right and the left we are either going to have to get over being so touchy about satire or find a new word that describes something that is entertaining but often now crosses into the informational/semi-educational realm. I mean there are a whole bunch of folks that really are comedian/commentators now. I personally consider Rush Limbaugh to be this way from what I have heard of him.
I do seem to remember certain parties on this board getting upset when Rush Limbaugh called Tom Daschle "El Diablo" or somethink like that. Likewise SDW has mentioned something about him calling Kerry "The French looking guy?" (I dunno)
Franken, Maher and others really are straddling a line here. They are very entertaining and comedy certainly can drive some points home better than ever a full blown piece from a regular political commentator. However when you straddle a line, you shouldn't be upset if sometimes people hold you accountable for what is true for both sides of that line. What is true for political commentators isn't true for comedians. If someone acts as both, they open themselves up to more issues.
I find Maher tremendously enjoyable and I truly like the wide range of guests he had on Politically Incorrect. He has some very iconoclastic views and while funny, they got him the gig (Politically Incorrect), fired from the gig , and then hired for another gig. (Real Time) It's the nature of what they do. It lives in two realms and they can get bitten in the butt from both sides.
Franken can be very funny. I have no doubt this book is, in final view, satire. However most "satirists" don't need a fellowship from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and a small group of graduate students to "research" a satire. It is funny, but it also attempts to convince with writing regarding the people/organizations listed in the book that is, at least from the contention of the author, factual research. Factual research would not fall under the same trademark rules as satire which is protected. It mixes both so Franken had to put up with the lawsuit (and free publicity) for mixing both. If he doesn't like it, oh well. He seems to have shrugged it off easier than many on the left here have done.
Lastly the contention that CNN is worried about there legitimacy vs ideology is your opinion and you are welcome to it. You, yourself saw them make the changes to become "foxlike" in an attempt to garner more ratings. I said, and still believe that if they could sign Hannity, O'Reily or anyone else (I think those are the screamers being complained about at Fox.) they would do so in a hot minute. I'm sure when Larry King interviews Larry Flynt, it isn't legitimacy they are worried about.
I don't doubt that the nature of what Franken wrote is satire. You asked my opinion and I gave it. Pretend I'm entitled to have one of them thar... opinions.
However I can say that from both the right and the left we are either going to have to get over being so touchy about satire or find a new word that describes something that is entertaining but often now crosses into the informational/semi-educational realm. I mean there are a whole bunch of folks that really are comedian/commentators now. I personally consider Rush Limbaugh to be this way from what I have heard of him.
I do seem to remember certain parties on this board getting upset when Rush Limbaugh called Tom Daschle "El Diablo" or somethink like that. Likewise SDW has mentioned something about him calling Kerry "The French looking guy?" (I dunno)
Franken, Maher and others really are straddling a line here. They are very entertaining and comedy certainly can drive some points home better than ever a full blown piece from a regular political commentator. However when you straddle a line, you shouldn't be upset if sometimes people hold you accountable for what is true for both sides of that line. What is true for political commentators isn't true for comedians. If someone acts as both, they open themselves up to more issues.
I find Maher tremendously enjoyable and I truly like the wide range of guests he had on Politically Incorrect. He has some very iconoclastic views and while funny, they got him the gig (Politically Incorrect), fired from the gig , and then hired for another gig. (Real Time) It's the nature of what they do. It lives in two realms and they can get bitten in the butt from both sides.
Franken can be very funny. I have no doubt this book is, in final view, satire. However most "satirists" don't need a fellowship from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and a small group of graduate students to "research" a satire. It is funny, but it also attempts to convince with writing regarding the people/organizations listed in the book that is, at least from the contention of the author, factual research. Factual research would not fall under the same trademark rules as satire which is protected. It mixes both so Franken had to put up with the lawsuit (and free publicity) for mixing both. If he doesn't like it, oh well. He seems to have shrugged it off easier than many on the left here have done.
Lastly the contention that CNN is worried about there legitimacy vs ideology is your opinion and you are welcome to it. You, yourself saw them make the changes to become "foxlike" in an attempt to garner more ratings. I said, and still believe that if they could sign Hannity, O'Reily or anyone else (I think those are the screamers being complained about at Fox.) they would do so in a hot minute. I'm sure when Larry King interviews Larry Flynt, it isn't legitimacy they are worried about.
Nick
Maybe we should stick a Liberal Warning Label on books:
Warning: This book contains well-researched liberal satire.
(Fine Print: While everyone is entitled to their opinion, some opinions are less valid than others.)
Maybe we should stick a Liberal Warning Label on books:
Warning: This book contains well-researched liberal satire.
(Fine Print: While everyone is entitled to their opinion, some opinions are less valid than others.)
Satire:
1. A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.
2. The branch of literature constituting such works. See Synonyms at caricature.
3. Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.
Hmmmmm...no research. Comedy has to contain some truth for us all to relate to it but seldom declares itself "the truth." Franken does employ satire but then departs into research. Again I said I have nothing wrong with that approach, but when you exist in two worlds, you take heat from both sides.
I'm sure if I dismissed the research in his book as nothing but attempts at comedy you would be just as pissy as you are with those who claim it can't be satire due to the research.
I think a better sticker would be "Warning: May cause reader to mistake sarcastic remarks for intelligent discourse"
Poor Hassan, decries the conservatives but when "getting a life" can show only attempts at spending money, and interacting with inanimate objects.
Poor oppressed boy, no causes or people in his life.
Nick
A curious definition of conservatism, spending money and interacting with inanimate objects, but you're the expert around here and I defer to your superior knowledge.
(Seems a funny sort of ideology to follow so slavishly but hey, it takes all sorts I suppose.)
A curious definition of conservatism, spending money and interacting with inanimate objects, but you're the expert around here and I defer to your superior knowledge.
(Seems a funny sort of ideology to follow so slavishly but hey, it takes all sorts I suppose.)
Hassan, you do see the smilies right?
You complain about conservatives and then you declare getting a life going shopping and spending lots of money.
I just had to point out the irony and add some smilies.
You complain about conservatives and then you declare getting a life going shopping and spending lots of money.
I just had to point out the irony and add some smilies.
Nick
But conservatism isn't just about shopping and spending lots of money! There's so much more to it than that! It's about bullying poor people, saying whose allowed to love who and putting root vegetables up your bottom too!
But conservatism isn't just about shopping and spending lots of money! There's so much more to it than that! It's about bullying poor people, saying whose allowed to love who and putting root vegetables up your bottom too!
Oh yes, I do love putting on my suit, root vegetable and going out to bully poor people about how inequality of effort actually leads to inequality of results.
"You there, remember how you dropped out of 12th grade so you drink nightly, take drugs and knock up two different girls. Well look at me now, I've got a suit and a root vegetable in my bum."
I love how your own wealth would never be attributable to "bullying" only the wealth of others.
1. A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.
2. The branch of literature constituting such works. See Synonyms at caricature.
3. Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.
Hmmmmm...no research. Comedy has to contain some truth for us all to relate to it but seldom declares itself "the truth." Franken does employ satire but then departs into research. Again I said I have nothing wrong with that approach, but when you exist in two worlds, you take heat from both sides.
I'm sure if I dismissed the research in his book as nothing but attempts at comedy you would be just as pissy as you are with those who claim it can't be satire due to the research.
I think a better sticker would be "Warning: May cause reader to mistake sarcastic remarks for intelligent discourse"
Perhaps that would have helped you.
Nick
Wow.
So satires shouldn't be well-researched?
And you believe reasonable people would believe that Fox endorsed Franken's book?
Your arguments are EXACTLY what the judge deemed "wholly without merit." No reasonable person would have been confused.
Oh yes, I do love putting on my suit, root vegetable and going out to bully poor people about how inequality of effort actually leads to inequality of results.
"You there, remember how you dropped out of 12th grade so you drink nightly, take drugs and knock up two different girls. Well look at me now, I've got a suit and a root vegetable in my bum."
I love how your own wealth would never be attributable to "bullying" only the wealth of others.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
Apple (another generic name) sued Microsoft over look and feel and lost...I believe [the fox lawsuit] was a look and feel lawsuit
Not in the sense that the apple/microsoft one was
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=438014
Take, as a particularly egregious example, Bill O'Reilly's interview this year with Jeremy Glick, the son of a New York Port Authority worker who died in the rubble of the World Trade Center. O'Reilly was mad at Glick because he had signed a petition opposing war in Iraq. So he laid into him, not just for "mouthing... a marginal position in this society", but also for offending the memory of his father with his criticisms of President Bush and US military power.
Glick tried to explain that his father had also disliked Bush and thought he had come to power illegitimately, but O'Reilly would have none of it. "You keep your mouth shut when you sit here exploiting those people," he fumed, calling Glick's views "a bunch of crap". O'Reilly then repeatedly shouted "Shut up!" before finally yanking off his guest's microphone and yelling after him, off camera: "Get out of my studio before I tear you to ****ing pieces!"
Finally O'Reilly exploded, calling Franken an idiot and telling him at least twice to shut up. On a radio show two days later he said that if he and Franken had been living in the Old West, "I would have put a bullet right between his head [sic]."
Originally posted by ShawnJ
You don't blame them for suing over what was an obvious satire? Fox wanted an injunction against the book. Fox, a multinational corporation, wanted to stop the book from being sold until Al Franken, a person, agreed to change to the title of his book. Hello? Fox pretty much said that Al Franken could not satirize Fox News' slogan, hence the judge's remark about a media company attacking first amendment rights.
(ASIDE: Only profit drives both CNN and Fox? I think that's a fair statement to make. I also think it's a fairly ambiguous statement to make. What does that mean? I guess you can say that profit is the driving motive behind both companies- both of which owned by even larger companies. Although, I think other considerations have some value. In CNN's case, legitimacy, and in Fox's case, ideology. Here's a tidbit for you:
CNN makes more money- despite lagging behind Fox News in the ratings.)
Correct me if I am wrong, but CNN hasn't sued openly critical satirists.
I don't doubt that the nature of what Franken wrote is satire. You asked my opinion and I gave it. Pretend I'm entitled to have one of them thar... opinions.
However I can say that from both the right and the left we are either going to have to get over being so touchy about satire or find a new word that describes something that is entertaining but often now crosses into the informational/semi-educational realm. I mean there are a whole bunch of folks that really are comedian/commentators now. I personally consider Rush Limbaugh to be this way from what I have heard of him.
I do seem to remember certain parties on this board getting upset when Rush Limbaugh called Tom Daschle "El Diablo" or somethink like that. Likewise SDW has mentioned something about him calling Kerry "The French looking guy?" (I dunno)
Franken, Maher and others really are straddling a line here. They are very entertaining and comedy certainly can drive some points home better than ever a full blown piece from a regular political commentator. However when you straddle a line, you shouldn't be upset if sometimes people hold you accountable for what is true for both sides of that line. What is true for political commentators isn't true for comedians. If someone acts as both, they open themselves up to more issues.
I find Maher tremendously enjoyable and I truly like the wide range of guests he had on Politically Incorrect. He has some very iconoclastic views and while funny, they got him the gig (Politically Incorrect), fired from the gig , and then hired for another gig. (Real Time) It's the nature of what they do. It lives in two realms and they can get bitten in the butt from both sides.
Franken can be very funny. I have no doubt this book is, in final view, satire. However most "satirists" don't need a fellowship from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and a small group of graduate students to "research" a satire. It is funny, but it also attempts to convince with writing regarding the people/organizations listed in the book that is, at least from the contention of the author, factual research. Factual research would not fall under the same trademark rules as satire which is protected. It mixes both so Franken had to put up with the lawsuit (and free publicity) for mixing both. If he doesn't like it, oh well. He seems to have shrugged it off easier than many on the left here have done.
Lastly the contention that CNN is worried about there legitimacy vs ideology is your opinion and you are welcome to it. You, yourself saw them make the changes to become "foxlike" in an attempt to garner more ratings. I said, and still believe that if they could sign Hannity, O'Reily or anyone else (I think those are the screamers being complained about at Fox.) they would do so in a hot minute. I'm sure when Larry King interviews Larry Flynt, it isn't legitimacy they are worried about.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I don't doubt that the nature of what Franken wrote is satire. You asked my opinion and I gave it. Pretend I'm entitled to have one of them thar... opinions.
However I can say that from both the right and the left we are either going to have to get over being so touchy about satire or find a new word that describes something that is entertaining but often now crosses into the informational/semi-educational realm. I mean there are a whole bunch of folks that really are comedian/commentators now. I personally consider Rush Limbaugh to be this way from what I have heard of him.
I do seem to remember certain parties on this board getting upset when Rush Limbaugh called Tom Daschle "El Diablo" or somethink like that. Likewise SDW has mentioned something about him calling Kerry "The French looking guy?" (I dunno)
Franken, Maher and others really are straddling a line here. They are very entertaining and comedy certainly can drive some points home better than ever a full blown piece from a regular political commentator. However when you straddle a line, you shouldn't be upset if sometimes people hold you accountable for what is true for both sides of that line. What is true for political commentators isn't true for comedians. If someone acts as both, they open themselves up to more issues.
I find Maher tremendously enjoyable and I truly like the wide range of guests he had on Politically Incorrect. He has some very iconoclastic views and while funny, they got him the gig (Politically Incorrect), fired from the gig , and then hired for another gig. (Real Time) It's the nature of what they do. It lives in two realms and they can get bitten in the butt from both sides.
Franken can be very funny. I have no doubt this book is, in final view, satire. However most "satirists" don't need a fellowship from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and a small group of graduate students to "research" a satire. It is funny, but it also attempts to convince with writing regarding the people/organizations listed in the book that is, at least from the contention of the author, factual research. Factual research would not fall under the same trademark rules as satire which is protected. It mixes both so Franken had to put up with the lawsuit (and free publicity) for mixing both. If he doesn't like it, oh well. He seems to have shrugged it off easier than many on the left here have done.
Lastly the contention that CNN is worried about there legitimacy vs ideology is your opinion and you are welcome to it. You, yourself saw them make the changes to become "foxlike" in an attempt to garner more ratings. I said, and still believe that if they could sign Hannity, O'Reily or anyone else (I think those are the screamers being complained about at Fox.) they would do so in a hot minute. I'm sure when Larry King interviews Larry Flynt, it isn't legitimacy they are worried about.
Nick
Maybe we should stick a Liberal Warning Label on books:
Warning: This book contains well-researched liberal satire.
(Fine Print: While everyone is entitled to their opinion, some opinions are less valid than others.)
Originally posted by BR
So, SDW, you going to eat crow yet? Come on back SDW.
it's kind of a nice trade-off.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Maybe we should stick a Liberal Warning Label on books:
Warning: This book contains well-researched liberal satire.
(Fine Print: While everyone is entitled to their opinion, some opinions are less valid than others.)
Satire:
1. A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.
2. The branch of literature constituting such works. See Synonyms at caricature.
3. Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.
Hmmmmm...no research. Comedy has to contain some truth for us all to relate to it but seldom declares itself "the truth." Franken does employ satire but then departs into research. Again I said I have nothing wrong with that approach, but when you exist in two worlds, you take heat from both sides.
I'm sure if I dismissed the research in his book as nothing but attempts at comedy you would be just as pissy as you are with those who claim it can't be satire due to the research.
I think a better sticker would be "Warning: May cause reader to mistake sarcastic remarks for intelligent discourse"
Perhaps that would have helped you.
Nick
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
it's kind of a nice trade-off.
Originally posted by trumptman
Poor Hassan, decries the conservatives but when "getting a life" can show only attempts at spending money, and interacting with inanimate objects.
Poor oppressed boy, no causes or people in his life.
Nick
A curious definition of conservatism, spending money and interacting with inanimate objects, but you're the expert around here and I defer to your superior knowledge.
(Seems a funny sort of ideology to follow so slavishly but hey, it takes all sorts I suppose.)
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
A curious definition of conservatism, spending money and interacting with inanimate objects, but you're the expert around here and I defer to your superior knowledge.
(Seems a funny sort of ideology to follow so slavishly but hey, it takes all sorts I suppose.)
Hassan, you do see the smilies right?
You complain about conservatives and then you declare getting a life going shopping and spending lots of money.
I just had to point out the irony and add some smilies.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Hassan, you do see the smilies right?
You complain about conservatives and then you declare getting a life going shopping and spending lots of money.
I just had to point out the irony and add some smilies.
Nick
But conservatism isn't just about shopping and spending lots of money! There's so much more to it than that! It's about bullying poor people, saying whose allowed to love who and putting root vegetables up your bottom too!
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
But conservatism [is] about ... putting root vegetables up your bottom too!
What are root vegetables?
Originally posted by bunge
What are root vegetables?
Carrots, turnips, swedes and such.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
But conservatism isn't just about shopping and spending lots of money! There's so much more to it than that! It's about bullying poor people, saying whose allowed to love who and putting root vegetables up your bottom too!
Oh yes, I do love putting on my suit, root vegetable and going out to bully poor people about how inequality of effort actually leads to inequality of results.
"You there, remember how you dropped out of 12th grade so you drink nightly, take drugs and knock up two different girls. Well look at me now, I've got a suit and a root vegetable in my bum."
I love how your own wealth would never be attributable to "bullying" only the wealth of others.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Satire:
1. A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.
2. The branch of literature constituting such works. See Synonyms at caricature.
3. Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.
Hmmmmm...no research. Comedy has to contain some truth for us all to relate to it but seldom declares itself "the truth." Franken does employ satire but then departs into research. Again I said I have nothing wrong with that approach, but when you exist in two worlds, you take heat from both sides.
I'm sure if I dismissed the research in his book as nothing but attempts at comedy you would be just as pissy as you are with those who claim it can't be satire due to the research.
I think a better sticker would be "Warning: May cause reader to mistake sarcastic remarks for intelligent discourse"
Perhaps that would have helped you.
Nick
Wow.
So satires shouldn't be well-researched?
And you believe reasonable people would believe that Fox endorsed Franken's book?
Your arguments are EXACTLY what the judge deemed "wholly without merit." No reasonable person would have been confused.
Originally posted by trumptman
Oh yes, I do love putting on my suit, root vegetable and going out to bully poor people about how inequality of effort actually leads to inequality of results.
"You there, remember how you dropped out of 12th grade so you drink nightly, take drugs and knock up two different girls. Well look at me now, I've got a suit and a root vegetable in my bum."
I love how your own wealth would never be attributable to "bullying" only the wealth of others.
Nick
That's so funny!