PDA

View Full Version : Over the top


Boris
08-12-2003, 01:45 PM
Fox News is suing Al Franken because he uses the phrase "Fair and Balanced" on the cover of his upcoming book. I thought the conservatives were always whining about frivolous lawsuits and the need for tort reform.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Fox News Network is suing humor writer Al Franken for trademark infringement over the phrase "fair and balanced" on the cover of his upcoming book, saying it has been "a signature slogan" of the network since 1996.



According to court papers made available on Monday, Fox is seeking a temporary or permanent injunction against Franken and publisher Penguin Group to stop them using the phrase in connection with the book to be published next month.


The network, part of the News Corp group, also asked Manhattan Supreme Court for compensatory and punitive damages.


The title of liberal satirist Franken's new book is "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them." At the bottom of the planned cover is the tag line, "A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right."


Fox claims the use of the phrase is intended to confuse the public and boost book sales.


In the lawsuit, Fox said the network was created "as a specific alternative to what its founders perceived as a liberal bias in the American media."


A spokeswoman for Penguin imprint Dutton, Lisa Johnson, called the lawsuit "extraordinary."


"In trying to suppress Al Franken's book the News Corp is undermining First Amendment principles that protect all media by guaranteeing a free, open and vigorous debate of public issues," she said.


"The attempt to keep the public from reading Franken's message is un-American and runs contrary to everything this country stands for."


Franken worked as a comedy writer in the 1970s and has appeared frequently on "Saturday Night Live."

Zeno
08-12-2003, 02:24 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Fox claims the use of the phase is intended to confuse the public and boost book sales

[/ QUOTE ]


So, how many layers of irony are in the above statement, in relation to both Fox News and Mr. Franken. Nothing like controversy to help sell books or stimulate interest for parties on both sides of the issue. A publicity coup for everyone involved. The lawyers get the money and the parties get to haggle with each other over the airwaves and in print.


Neither Fox News nor Big Al is worth it. F**k all of them.

-Zeno

ripdog
08-12-2003, 03:20 PM
It plays right into Franken's hands. Now he's got a hilarious forward to put into the second edition, while making FOX look, well, like FOX. I can't wait to see what The Daily Show does with this one. Should be a riot. And more truthful than anything the network news programs report on the subject (or any other subject for that matter)...

adios
08-12-2003, 05:04 PM
"I thought the conservatives were always whining about frivolous lawsuits and the need for tort reform."

Is Fox News the coservative organization or is it News Corp or is it just Murdoch or all of the above or just a few? Or is it just the Fox News on screen hosts?

Sean Hannity: Conservative vs. Alan Colmes: Liberal

Geraldo Rivera: He seems liberal to me but possibly not. You tell me.

Neal Cavuto: Don't know for sure seems middle of the road to me.

Greta Van Sustern: Seems middle of the road to me I really can't tell.

Britt Hume: Again I can't really tell seems middle of the road to me.

Fred Barnes: Conservative

Mort Kondracke: Liberal

Bill O'Reilly: Seems middle of the road to me but I'm not all that familiar with him.

I know there are a lot more members of the Fox News "team" but from what I can tell there seems to be a balance between conservatives, liberals, and middle of the road views. Apparently not resembling other tv news networks and organizations makes their balance look like they're biased as conservatives. I guess this is a statement about those other organizations and networks and what their bias is.

Boris
08-12-2003, 05:56 PM
Well maybe I am unfairly labeling Fox News. To be perfectly honest I only watch maybe 1-2 hours of TV news a year.

"Bill O'Reilly: Seems middle of the road to me but I'm not all that familiar with him."

He would probably label himself a conservative. A more accurate desctiption might be Polemecist. I can completely understand why you would not want to be associated with him politically.

nicky g
08-13-2003, 10:18 AM
Someone should be suing Fox News for misleading advertising.

"Is Fox News the conservative organization or is it News Corp or is it just Murdoch or all of the above or just a few?"

Everything Murdoch owns is heavily tilted to the right.

My only recent experience of Fox was its reporting of the war in Iraq, when I was in the US visiting my wife's family. It was the antithesis of "balanced." My problem with it wasn't its talk show hosts etc - it was the way the newss itself was presented. One of their embedded reporters during the war was Oliver North! He constantly referred to the US's "glorious", "brave", "wonderful" etc troopd and "the terrorist death squads" (ie the Iraqi army) they were fighting. That's balance? It's not even journalism. The anchormen defended the US from all reported criticism, when they should have simply been reporting events. For instance, the coalition was being criticised by people for the chaos that came with the fall of Baghdad. When a correspondent mentioned this and showed some footage he had of alleged looters being beaten up and then taken away to be shot, the anchor butted in to say "But let's not forget, these people are thieves!" Apart from the obvious absurdity of such a statement, he should not have been editorialising in such a context at all.

adios
08-13-2003, 11:25 AM
I've tried getting through a Bill O'Reilly show a few times and gave up because couldn't stand it. Really don't know much about him.

adios
08-13-2003, 11:32 AM
I'd bet that for every Oliver North on Fox News there's an Alan Colmes, Geraldo Rivera, etc. I don't think your argument is at all convincing.

"Apart from the obvious absurdity of such a statement, he should not have been editorialising in such a context at all."

Come on nicky you should condemn every network and news agency for that happening. Are you going to tell me that this doesn't happen when others report the news e.g. the Guardian?

nicky g
08-13-2003, 11:50 AM
"I'd bet that for every Oliver North on Fox News there's an Alan Colmes, Geraldo Rivera, etc."

There wans't when I was watching. I don't think though that Geraldo Rivera could balance out the right-wing garbage that Oliver North comes out with. Depends where you regard the centre as being I guess. Maybe you're right though, I've not watched it over a long period of time. But even if they had exactly equal numbers of "liberal" and "conservative" reporters though, that wouldn't be good journalism in my view - the news itself should be reported impartially by proper journalists, and balancing out political views should be saved for the commentators.

It was all worth it though to see Oliver North pontificating on "death squads"; this from Mr Iran-Contra himself. I thought the Simpsons had replaced animation with live actors for a second.

"Are you going to tell me that this doesn't happen when others report the news e.g. the Guardian? "

Not to that extent. People pontificate endlessly in the comment sections but when reporting the news, they by and large stick to repoting the facts and what relevant sources have said, not to their own political opinions. This is true of both left and rightwing papers here, ignoring the tabloids. Fox is the televised equivalent of the tabloids.

adios
08-13-2003, 11:59 AM
"Fox is the televised equivalent of the tabloids."

Ok I more or less agree. However, low quality journalism doesn't make them conservatively biased. I think that's what most people do, equate what they perceive as poor journalism as being conservatively biased. If this was the case then given recent history, the NY Times is a bastion of conservatism /images/graemlins/smile.gif. IMO several of the Guardian links to articles that have been posted here were extreme distortions. I also think that Fox is suing Franken for the publicity it will bring.

MMMMMM
08-13-2003, 12:09 PM
The Fedayeen Saddam were terrorist death squads.

I agree editorializing should be separate from reporting and this goes for all the US Networks, CNN, Fox, The Guardian, the BBC et al as well.

Also I think there is something to the statement:

"The Republicans have become Democrats, and the Democrats have become Socialists."

In other words, there has been a significant pallette shift over the last 60 years or so. Liberalism has become more popular but it's still Liberalism. And what most people think of as middle-of-the-road today is in fact a significant departure from what is was 60 years ago, and an even further departure from the principles which founded the USA and from what is spelled out in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

As to the point of the looters being shot: sometimes it is the only way to stop mass looting in times of great civic unrest. I'm not saying it is always necessary but it can be.

By the way it is too bad those guys who mugged you three times didn't get shot. Actually the best thing for them would have been if they had mugged you in a dark alley and you pulled out a gun and forced them to turn over their wallets and then pistol-whipped them. Alternatively it is too bad you weren't lucky enough to see a tire iron lying nearby which you could pick up and crack their knaves' pates! Then you could have taken their money. They don't have a right to mug you (except apparently in the eyes of some confused British politicians). I think the law should be amended so that anyone trying to mug someone else is fair game to get robbed if the tables somehow get turned. In other words it should be so that if you are able to beat down the mugger you can legally take anything he has on him. He's coming after your money so why shouldn't his be at risk too.

nicky g
08-13-2003, 12:30 PM
"However, low quality journalism doesn't make them conservatively biased."

I haven't seen enough to be sure that they are (though from Murdoch's track record I would have thought so). What I would say is that they definitely aren't "fair and balanced"; their reporting had a clear pro-war, anti-dissent slant, from what I saw..

adios
08-13-2003, 12:39 PM
Ok but I'm sure the Guardian purports itself to be an objective source of news and from what I saw they aren't objective; their reporting had a clear anti-war, pro-dissent slant /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

nicky g
08-13-2003, 12:44 PM
He was talking about the regular Iraqi army. They were fighting on the side of a despotic government but they were not terrorist death squads. They were regular troops fighting a foreign invading force. Being on the wrong side does not amke you a terrorist. Even the irregular units were not death squads, any more that any military unit is a death squad; they were irregulars or guerillas.

As far as i can tell, the centre of politics has shifted to the right over the last few decades, at least over here. Even the left-wing mainstream parties are free marketeers and the concept of state ownership is dead. The idea that the democrats are socialists is absurd. They won't even immplement socialised health care.

As for shooting looters, who knows if they were looters or not. That's what the men killing them said they were; they may have been the victims of revenge killings, vendettas etc. This was happening after Baghdad had fallen, with coalition troops in control of Baghdad; with enough planning and people on the ground, there was no reason for looting to be allowed to go ahead, or for people to be shot because of it.

adios
08-13-2003, 12:54 PM
"The idea that the democrats are socialists is absurd. They won't even immplement socialised health care."

Man I was going to sign off on this thread until I read this. Elect enough Democrats to Congress and elect a Democratic president and IMO you'll see a major shift in that direction.
Howard Dean Lays Out Health Care Plan (http://www.siliconinvestor.com/headlines/politics/20030513/D7R0FPA80.html)

I'm not sure how Dean is going to rectify the decrease in government revenues over the past several years and IMO the runaway costs of Medicare and Medicaid to balance the budget.

MMMMMM
08-13-2003, 01:01 PM
The irregular units, Fedayeen Saddam, absolutely were death squads; they used to go to Iraqis' houses, drag a woman out for some sort of ridiculous crime (political or perhaps an accusation of prostitution), tie her to a bench in front of her house and and hack her head off with a sword right then and there. They were thugs Saddam used to terrorize his own citizens and maintain power. So when they started fighting the coalition troops, that didn't suddenly make them no longer death squads. They were thugs and state terrorists through and through. They also forced villagers to take up arms against the coalition on pain of death.

Europe has been far more left than the USA hence our differing perspectives on shifts (although in the USA there has been some recent shift right, but it is still not as great as the much longer term shift left.) The saying about Rrepubs becoming Dems and Dems becoming Socialists is cute and funny but it holds a bit of truth. I didn't mean it entirely literally; just to illustrate a point in a cute way.

You make a pretty snap judgment that no looters had to be shot in Iraq. Even in the USA on accasion when there have been huge riots or natural disasters, and looting got out of control, the National Guard had to be called in to help out and to restore order. On a few of those occasions the announcement was made that looters would be shot. It's easy for you to say that it isn't necessary but if they are looting the hospital equipment en masse just how are you going to control it without the threat of firepower? Hire 20 Hulk Hogans to guard every entrance??? What about those who go in the windows? Again I'm not saying it had to be, but I am saying you are probably wrong if you categorically state it didn't have to be.

nicky g
08-13-2003, 01:27 PM
Calling out the National Guard is one thing. Condoning groups of armed men shooting whoever they deem a "looter" is something else.

Saddam certainly had death squads. But North was simply referring to the Iraqi troops in general. Most of the irregulars seen at the end of the war were regular troops who'd taken off their uniforms in territory captured by the coalition.

IrishHand
08-13-2003, 07:58 PM
My current favorite: now that we've decided the war is over, members of the Iraqi Army who *gasp* are still opting to defend their country have devolved from "soldiers" to "guerillas". Seems to me they're going the same things now that they were doing a few months ago.

John Feeney
08-14-2003, 11:47 PM
Heh, this is good to see:

They're all going "Fair and Balanced"! (http://www.blah3.com/graymatter/archives/00000420.html)

John Cole
08-15-2003, 12:09 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure how Dean is going to rectify the decrease in government revenues over the past several years and IMO the runaway costs of Medicare and Medicaid to balance the budget.

[/ QUOTE ]


Two words: "Tax cut."

John Cole
08-15-2003, 12:15 PM
"Fair is foul. Foul is fair--and balanced."

"My Fair--and Balanced--Lady"

And, of course, another musical: "State Fair--and Balanced"

Last, "The End of a Love Affair--and Balanced."