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."
news ticker belongs to one company? (Score:4, Funny)
-Seriv
It's not the ticker (Score:5, Funny)
Just watch any day of the week and see for yourself.
It's true!
Really...
Re:It's not the ticker (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Apparently... (Score:3, Funny)
I find this entire thread extremely funny.
Re:Apparently... (Score:3, Informative)
Ridiculous scrolling tickers (Score:3, Funny)
Re:news ticker belongs to one company? (Score:2)
"We called their bluff because we didn't think Rupert Murdoch would pay for Fox to sue itself. So, we got away with it."
And "While the lawsuit never materialized, Groening said some action was taken. "
Pretty ignorant that theyd even consider sueing one fo their highest rating shows, but that just goes to show the ignorance of business logic for you and how lame it is that people can try to sue for whatever stupid thing they
It gets better (Score:5, Interesting)
What a bottomless pit of stupidity yes-men media is.
Re:news ticker belongs to one company? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [salon.com]. 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.
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
The Simpsons (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Simpsons (Score:3, Informative)
The whole Illegal Art project is pretty neat. [illegal-art.org]
Bunnyhole had to destroy an entire run of their magazine because Groening threw a hissy fit. This really annoys me because I love the Simpsons and Futurama. Especially the parodies.
It's fine for Groening to parody other people, but don't parody him.
Spelling Error... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Spelling Error... (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 freak
Re:Spelling Error... (Score:3, Informative)
William Buckley (Jr.) founded National Review, not William Safire. Perhaps Buckley has written for the Times occasionally, but I don't think he's a frequent contributor.
In other news: (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Re:Spelling Error... (Score:4, Funny)
You know, that's the first time I've ever heard anybody suggest that there might be a problem with liberal news. That is a mystery: why has nobody on this planet ever criticized the news for being too liberal? You would think that at least one conservative out there would speak up about this issue.
Re:Spelling Error... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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: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... (Score:3)
Last summer Limbaugh spent most of it ripping
Re: Spelling error, but Faux News truly misleads (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
I also really like this paragraph (page 16): 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 [washingtonpost.com] seattle times [nwsource.com] twin cities [twincities.com] and other [medialifemagazine.com] places
The one place you I can guarentee you won't find it is fox news! [foxnews.com]
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: 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.
Re: Spelling error, but Faux News truly misleads (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Spelling error, but Faux News truly misleads (Score:5, Informative)
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.
The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.
The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.
Stop being such a tool.
Re: Spelling error, but Faux News truly misleads (Score:3, 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.
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
Come up with new material? Why? (Score:2)
The only thing original on the whole network is how they claim to be "Fair and Balanced" without breaking out into giggles and shooting spitballs at the teacher.
What's the big deal? (Score:5, Funny)
NRA4Ever!
Suing themselves (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Suing themselves (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Suing themselves (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Suing themselves (Score:5, Funny)
Well, in fairness, we are talking about Fox News viewers.
Re:Suing themselves (Score:4, Funny)
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:Suing themselves (Score:4, Funny)
This is true. I know some people who watch it purely for the unintentional humor value.
And not every conservative zealot watches Fox News.
Yes, some of them read the Washington Times or Newsmax instead, or prefer their Ann Coulter books to television news.
It just drives me crazy when people are pigeonholed as being a moron based on one simple aspect of personal preference.
Unfortunately, in this case, it's absolutely true [pipa.org].
- A.P.
Re:Suing themselves (Score:3, Informative)
You can't honestly tell me, with a straight face, that a story like this [foxnews.com] isn't at least slightly sensationalistic. Or this one [foxnews.com]. Or this one [foxnews.com]. Generally, it is advisable to wait until there are facts to report before writing a story -- FNC seems to have abandoned that notion when it comes to Iraq's phantom WMD.
Also, keep in mind that the articl
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:Suing themselves (Score:2)
Re:Suing themselves (Score:2)
Which network/channel/show will be the first to parody this on a show? My money is on "Daily Show" on Comedy Central. Fox has opened itself up to legally-protected ridicule.
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...
Key demographic (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Suing themselves (Score:5, Funny)
Aren't they afraid that the Fox news ticker itself might cause confusion and be mistaken for actual news?
Re:Suing themselves (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Suing themselves (Score:3, Insightful)
This is news why? (Score:2, Funny)
How about a list of everyone they haven't sued?
Damn, must be a slow news day.
Re:This is news why? (Score:3)
If nothing else, it's funny. That's why it was marked with the "It's funny. Laugh." icon. Most humor stories aren't really "news," but that doesn't mean they're not worthwhile, unless you're one of those dour individuals who despises levity in all its forms.
I'll explain this, slowly (Score:5, Insightful)
ahem... (Score:4, Funny)
I'm at a loss for words here. I really am.
Re:ahem... (Score:5, Insightful)
PS - i wore my asbestos underwear today.
Re:ahem... (Score:5, Funny)
Either that, or that it is hard to distinguish Fox News, from cartoon news.
Re:ahem... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:ahem... (Score:2, Funny)
>> thinking it's real news
You mean like the way Fox News tries to confuse the viewerr in to thinking it is real news?
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!
Re:Look where we are headed (Score:2)
Well, that could be quite valid... but in this case its more: A company sues itself!
I guess Fox'd win the case easily
Re:Look where we are headed (Score:5, Funny)
Fox income = damages - lawyer fees
Fox loss = damages
Fox net gain = - lawyer fees
That's one hell of a business strategy.
Myopic (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Look where we are headed (Score:5, Funny)
Boy, you're in for a shock when you get to page 2 of your Corporate Law textbook...
Suing Peter to satisfy Paul. (Score:2)
I do find it funny that FOX has to use lawsuits to work together as a company.
Some of the actual lines in that episode (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Some of the actual lines in that episode (Score:2)
Rupert Murdoch: terrific dancer
Only dorks watch CNN.
If they left these three out, there wouldn't have been a problem. It was plenty funny to spoof foxnews, and obvious by context, but you don't need to hit us over the head with it. Oh, right, modern Simpsons.
Learn what? (Score:2)
You don't think Murdoch just told them that he didn't like sueing himself?
I really don't think Murdoch cares what Fox News thinks, or that the Simpsons parodize him..
He's making money off both of them, rememnber?
geez (Score:2)
Re:geez (Score:2)
Re:geez (Score:2)
Really? Wow, you'd think they'd at least be able to spell "asleep", wouldn't you? That is dumb.
Re:geez (Score:2)
Re:geez (Score:2)
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:Parody is a democratic right (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Parody is a democratic right (Score:2)
Re:Parody is a democratic right (Score:2)
Re:Parody is a democratic right (Score:2)
Could you give me a reference for that definition of parody? I'd be very interested in that. Would that be a legal parody globally? Or just in the US and France? How do you define average? I hear that in Canada they just find someone called Joe to use as a benchmark of averageness / normality? Is that true aswell?
Re:Parody is a democratic right (Score:3, Funny)
Screenshot here (Score:4, Informative)
Well, to begin with, it was animated.
I grabbed a screenshot, here [physto.se].
Now, would -ANYONE- confuse this with the real Fox News?
What is everything coming to. (Score:2, Funny)
It comes down to the books (Score:2)
And that's politics
Whom shall we trust? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Preemptive strike? (Score:2)
Re:Preemptive strike? (Score:3, Insightful)
What you don't understand is that the lawsuit ... (Score:3, Funny)
Fox Obviously Thinks Highly of their Viewership (Score:3, Interesting)
"Now Fox has a new rule that we can't do those little fake news crawls on the bottom of the screen in a cartoon because it might confuse the viewers into thinking it's real news," he said.
Yes because "Oil slicks found to keep seals young, supple..." is very believable and I can't believe all those dirty environmentalists have been lying to us! Oh, and JFK really DID join the replicans after death.
Facts are Fox Evening news is a joke, and when I had the (dis)pleasure of watching it once at a friends, I seriously thought it was a parody of news since it was so distasteful and circus-like. I honestly see these parody-tickers as an IMPROVEMENT to their otherwise shitty, imcomplete, skewed news.
Wait, this is rediculous... (Score:2)
This is rediculous from every perspective. I am a fan of both the Simpsons and Fox News, and found that particular episode to be quiet comical and laughed by ass off the entire time. It plays to the democratic claims that Fox New
free publicity (Score:2)
The complaint: (Score:3, Funny)
People are finding "The Simpsons" to be a more reliable news source. Apparently, the only people who actually watch Fox News are convalescents who can't reach the remote control (whoever left the TV on should be punished severely).
I can see the trial now... (Score:2)
Groening:"oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that."
-t
It's not a percieved bias (Score:5, Informative)
It's not percieved, the proof is here [poynter.org]. 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 [nyu.edu] out. You might also want to read this commentary [clickability.com] over at Editor & Publisher deconstructing Fox's spin on the latest "liberal media" salvo they fired.
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.
Who stands to gain? Fox. (Score:3, Funny)
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:Holy old news Batman! (Score:2, Informative)
Ummm... (Score:2)
...wouldn't that make it a Shakespeare reference?
Re:Not gonna happen (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:BEEN SAID BEFORE: Why is this News for Nerds? (Score:5, Insightful)