A Letter to Fox & Friends

Avatar

Tod Kelly

Tod is a writer from the Pacific Northwest. He is also serves as Executive Producer and host of both the 7 Deadly Sins Show at Portland's historic Mission Theatre and 7DS: Pants On Fire! at the White Eagle Hotel & Saloon. He is  a regular inactive for Marie Claire International and the Daily Beast, and is currently writing a book on the sudden rise of exorcisms in the United States. Follow him on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

119 Responses

  1. Avatar Mike Schilling says:

    It’s not the original Lynyrd Skynyrd, of course. They have Francisco Franco sitting in on bass.Report

  2. Avatar Jason M. says:

    “Aye, Mr. President, just so ya know, I hail from Port Royal. Not one of ’em Somali pirates, Arrrr-har-har-har-harrrrrrr!”Report

  3. The rest of the story: FOX’s fabulously witty “The Five” has almost double the ratings of “Fox & Friends”, and more than Stewart or Colbert.

    Fox & Friends is dumb, but its cost per thousand makes it probably the most profitable show on TV, and it’s no more insipid and far less obnoxious than “The View.”

    And 4 AM Fox & Friends FIRST’s Ainsley Earhardt and Anna Kooiman are just hot, better looking than me and smarter than you. Even O’Donnell and Maddow get up early for it.

    http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/7761607/480/Ainsley-Earhardt-%2526-Anna-Kooiman-10-03-12/19.jpg?v0

    Ssssssss.Report

    • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:

      “The rest of the story: FOX’s fabulously witty “The Five” has almost double the ratings of “Fox & Friends”, and more than Stewart or Colbert.”
      No. That it not the rest of the story. The story here is about “Fox & Friends”. It’s not about “The Five” or Stewart or Colbert or anyone else YOU want to talk about. If YOU want to talk about those shows, write a post. You do remember you are a Front Page author here, correct? So, no, that’s not the rest of the story. That’s a DIFFERENT story. One clearly intended to distract from Tod’s point because you lack the ability to substantively respond to it.

      “Fox & Friends is dumb, but its cost per thousand makes it probably the most profitable show on TV, and it’s no more insipid and far less obnoxious than “The View.””
      Hmmm… are you disagreeing with Tod or agreeing with him? “Fox & Friends” IS dumb. That was sort of the point. Whether they channel that stupidity into making money is sort of irrelevant. Or maybe it isn’t at all. Maybe part of the reason it is so profitable is because it is so dumb. Maybe there is a segment of the population that prefers stupid, inaccurate news reporting. I wonder which side of the divide they come from…? And what does “The View” have to do with anything? You realize “F&F” and “The View” have like, nothing in common. Well, I suppose neither one is hosted by alligators or Martians. But otherwise you have a morning news show on a channel supposedly dedicated to “Fair and Balanced” news reporting on the one hand and on the other you have a morning talk show aimed at a particular slice of supposedly female interests. Comparing “F&F” and “The View” actually makes “F&F” look much worse, if that is the actual category of show you want to put it in.

      “And 4 AM Fox & Friends FIRST’s Ainsley Earhardt and Anna Kooiman are just hot, better looking than me and smarter than you.”
      Oh, the creme de la creme…. the EXPLICITLY offensive part. What do their looks have to do with anything? If they are talented, accomplished news anchors, that would be something worth talking about. But instead, you focus on their looks. Because, ya know, something about them having lady parts just makes it hard to take them seriously as anything other than a vehicle to those lady parts. Wonderful. And we wonder why you have issues interacting with the women here.

      “Even O’Donnell and Maddow get up early for it.”
      Oh. Oh shit. I thought that LAST part was the offensive part but, no, now you’ve outdone yourself. Because, not only are you still speaking of women solely with respect to their sexuality, as O’Donnell and Maddow are lady-bit-craving lesbos and nothing more, but you are also perpetuating the fallacious logic that gays are rampant sexual predators who want to do nothing more than gayrape the virtuous straights and turn them into damned dirty lesbians. I mean, I know all my lesbian friends set their sleep schedule around when attractive ladies are on TV.

      I’m so glad that “ideological diversity” here at that League is so sacrosanct that we’re willing to sacrifice all credibility when we allow Front Page authors to spew crap that is not only offensive to particular subgroups of the population, but is also offensive to any one here actually interested in reasoned, intellectual debate.Report

      • Avatar Loviatar in reply to Kazzy says:

        +1 on the comment
        ++++++++++1 for the bitchslapReport

        • Look, I have no desire to become the self-appointed Comments Policeman, but this is a problematic way of formulating your positive feedback. You used it with me regarding my response to my friend and colleague’s post, and I regret not having repudiated it sooner than I did. While it’s very nice that you liked my post, I’d rather hear that in a way that doesn’t denigrate someone else.

          You can say what you like, and nobody here is going to delete your comments. But for my part I’d like you to reconsider using this way of expressing your thoughts. If nothing else, it’s getting tired.Report

          • Avatar Loviatar in reply to Russell Saunders says:

            The +1 was for Kazzy’s overall response to TVD.

            The ++++++++1 was for Kazzy bitchslapping the League for their continued support of those who regularly insult and demean others. Kazzy called you on it and its the best thing I’ve read today.

            ——————

            The most important part of Kazzy’s post.

            I’m so glad that “ideological diversity” here at that League is so sacrosanct that we’re willing to sacrifice all credibility when we allow Front Page authors to spew crap that is not only offensive to particular subgroups of the population, but is also offensive to any one here actually interested in reasoned, intellectual debate.

            Great post Kazzy

            P.S.

            Boo F*cking HooReport

          • Avatar Loviatar in reply to Russell Saunders says:

            Because you wrote such a wonderful post yesterday, I’m going to apologize for the Boo F*Cking Hoo and give a little insight to my disdain and anger towards the TVDs of the world.

            Class Warfare
            – 40+ years of attacks on everything that was done to give minorities and women a chance at the opportunities given to white men at birth.

            Unfortunately for me I’m not one of those white males, so I’ve struggled (after 47 years) to get to where TVD and yourself where at at time of your birth. And I’m tired of the constant demeaning insults and attacks, I’m also tired of the justification given by yourself and others like yourself for allowing TVD to get away with his offensive actions.
            – ha ha its a joke
            – Oh, that’s just TVD, the crazy racist, bigot of our group. Thats his thing.
            – He is our friend and colleague. He is really a good person. He is not like that once you met him. etc., etc.

            Its annoying and yes frustrating to refight battles from 40 years ago. But what most frustrating and most angers me is you and your colleagues defense of the bigots, sexist and racist in your pursuit of “Ideological Diversity”.

            Yeah its also pretty sad.

            Boo HooReport

            • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Loviatar says:

              Loviatar-

              As I said above, I’ve never seen Russell himself offer any defense of Tom. There are those who have defended him here, defenses I take issue with, because I do think he makes this place a worse place.

              Your perspective, to me, is a valued one here. And while others might balk at your tone, I think your anger is justified and much of that balking is often part of a subconscious agenda to further silence already marginalized voices. So, generally speaking, I say to push on, because I think we need perspectives like yours to realize the depths of the problems that Tom creates. But, in this specific instance, you are barking up the wrong tree in directing your criticism at Russell. I don’t know what your prior interactions with him are and I can’t say that I’ve read every word he’s ever written here, but I can say that Russell is one of the voices here that genuinely seeks to make this place a more open and accepting place, where folks can safely be who they are, and I trust that he recognizes Tom as a hindrance to that, even if he disagrees on what ought to be done about that.

              Russell, if I’ve misrepresented you here, my apologies. I see a fire brewing here that need not.Report

            • Uh, if you think I am constantly defending Tom, you clearly don’t read my blog. Which is, of course, fine. Nobody has to read it. But your criticism is coming from an incompletely informed vantage point, and is not sound.Report

              • Avatar Loviatar in reply to Russell Saunders says:

                Response to both Kazzy and Russell.

                First, great posts both you, Russell yesterday and Kazzy today.

                My anger while it seemed directed at Russell was more directed at the circumstances encompassed by these words

                You used it with me regarding my response to my friend and colleague’s post, and I regret not having repudiated it sooner than I did.

                Why is TVD your friend? Why are you friends and colleagues with someone if they’re not a bigot or sexist or maybe even an outright racist sure acts the part of one? Why are you defending his right to spew bigoted, hateful comments on private space, a space by the way that is a also reflection of your character since you are a Front Pager.

                My anger was towards your automatic jump to defend TVD, Why?

                When I have “friends or colleagues” who regularly offend me or attack others outside of what I consider the norm I tend to disassociate myself from them. While I may not attack them out of residual feelings of comradely, I sure the hell would not jump to their defense while their making their offensive comments.Report

              • Tom is not my friend. I was referring to your using the exact same wording to praise my post “We are the state,” which was written in part as a response to Jason, who is indeed my friend.Report

              • Van Dyke’s Law: As a LoOG discussion grows longer, the probability that it will become about Tom approaches 1.

                The more I think about it, the more I suspect that this is precisely what Tom wants out of his internet interactions.Report

              • Avatar James H. in reply to Chris says:

                I’m sure he does. The question that League principals still haven’t answered is why they’re comfortable with that. Keeping TVD on the FP seems to go against everything they’re trying to do, and while they frequently seek out feedback from their readership they resolutely stonewall any response to feedback about TVD. Meanwhile, the list of his critics continues to grow. It’s not just old Positive Liberty folks anymore, so it can no longer honestly be dismissed as merely “people who have a history” with him.

                He is a cancer on the League, and the leadership appears frozen in response, apparently unwilling to offend their one FPer who is most offensive. Or perhaps it is an unwillingness to be seen as being susceptible to pressure, to being pushed around. It’s not readily explicable, and that is their fault for not clearly explaining their position. Perhaps they are hoping it will all blow over, but with TVD continuing to create ever more critics it’s clear that the controversy over his status is not going to go anytime soon. As Chris cheekily suggests, the TVD issue is coming to increasingly define the League. Saying his critics should ignore him misses the point–if there are only one or two critics that might make sense, but as a person’s list of critics continues to grow it becomes clear that it is not the critics who are the problem, but the person who is amassing so many critics. If the critics were fools, it might be a sign the FPer is doing things right, but no honest person can call all of TVD’s critics fools.

                I’ll say it publicly now: The League is making a mistake, and I call on them to revoke TVD’s FP status. I know this isn’t a democracy, and I am not suggesting a vote. I am suggesting that the Leagur principals recognize and do the right thing.Report

              • Avatar Loviatar in reply to Chris says:

                the TVD issue is coming to increasingly define the League.

                ding, ding, ding, we have a winner.

                As I mentioned above, after awhile those who you associate with (particularly if its a voluntary association) become a reflection on you and your character.Report

              • Avatar NewDealer in reply to Chris says:

                James,

                I am no fan of TVD but would removing his FP status really help?

                I remember someone making a comment in another thread that if we did not have a TVD, we would need to create him. This seems to be more of an iron-law of internet communities. Every community seems to have a troll that will not go away and eventually becomes “tolerated” by the community at large.

                Sociologically this is interesting but you are also right that it can prevent a community from growing.

                Personally I don’t understand the psychological need to troll but it seems that this anonymity is hear to stay. The only places that manage to suppress trolling make people comment using facebook.Report

              • Avatar James Hanley in reply to Chris says:

                New Dealer,

                Removing his FP status would not remove him from the League. He would still share a sub-blog (and removing him from that or not would be up to Tim Kowal), and even if he didn’t have that he could still comment. And he does not meet the League’s criteria for banning, so I would not call for his banning.

                But there is a difference between, “oh, there’s that commenting troll again,” and “oh, there’s that troll that the League commends by allowing him FP status.” It’s less about TVD, and more about the League. I respect the League, and his FP status tarnishes that respect considerably. Him as a commenter would not do so.Report

              • Avatar Shazbot2 in reply to Chris says:

                James H is exactly right in my opinion.

                This is simple: Tom can comment with dumb stuff, but the fact that he is on the masthead makes this blog less respectable than it should be.Report

              • Avatar Loviatar in reply to Russell Saunders says:

                Ahhhh, I see, you dislike my usage of the term bitchslap was in reference to your friend Jason.

                OK, even though you wrote a quite eloquent post which not only contradicted his post, but did it in a way that demonstrated how much of an out of touch, mean spirited, selfish person his post made him out to be, I guess my use of that term was offensive.

                I apologize.

                ————————

                I need some help though, please provide me with a term that you would be comfortable using to praise someone who has eviscerated a out of touch, mean spirited, selfish person whose theories are built on nothing more than his own self delusions.

                Thanks for the helpReport

              • Avatar greginak in reply to Loviatar says:

                “stern frowning” is good.Report

              • Avatar Loviatar in reply to Loviatar says:

                +1 for the stern frowning doesn’t convey the same umph as +1 for the bitchslap particularly coming from someone with screen name Loviatar. I have to live up to the example set by my goddess.Report

              • Avatar greginak in reply to Loviatar says:

                less umph would mean less focus on you and less collateral insult damage.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Loviatar says:

                I struggle with “bitchslap” because of the mysogonistic nature of the word, but otherwise agree that haymakers may accomplish what politeness clearly will not.Report

              • Avatar Jason Kuznicki in reply to Loviatar says:

                I am Loviatar. I complain about misogyny. I also regularly use the word “bitchslap.”

                I boldly expose the hypocrisy at the League, too.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Loviatar says:

                I don’t think anyone else refers to the attractiveness of women in lieu of discussing their journalistic skills in a post on journalistic integrity with impunity. And given his track record, I don’t feel it necessary to treat all individuals the same.

                Again the crux of that part of his post was, “Who cares if they’re dumb? They’re hot!” I thought that represented the LoOG poorly and wanted to make it clear he didn’t speak for all of us.Report

              • Avatar Rose Woodhouse in reply to Loviatar says:

                I can’t believe I’m bothering to answer this. I am a moderate liberal. Female. Non-homophobe. Non-misogynist. While I didn’t agree with Jason’s post, I have met him and dealt with him on this blog. He is an absolutely lovely person with whom I have good faith disagreements about what would be in everyone’s best interests. He and I both share the same goal – the good life for more people. We disagree (and not hugely) about how to get there. I am proud to consider him my friend.

                As for the TVD brouhaha, I’m addressing that at Kazzy’s post.Report

              • Avatar Loviatar in reply to Loviatar says:

                Guys,

                The push back against the hate crowd begins when they are no longer seen as acceptable company. They must no longer be considered “friends or colleagues”, they are what they are; bigots, racists, sexist and homophobes.

                When that becomes the norm we win.Report

              • Avatar James H. in reply to Loviatar says:

                Why are you defending his right to spew bigoted, hateful comments on private space/em>

                I think it’s evident that TVD is a blemish on the League and there’s really no doubt his FP status should be revoked, out of simple decency and respect for the kind of space the League’s principals say they want to create.

                But there is no doubt we have to defend his rights to spew bigotry, whether on private space or public space. Everyone’s free speech must be defended, or nobody’s freedom of speech is safe.Report

              • Avatar Loviatar in reply to James H. says:

                But there is no doubt we have to defend his rights to spew bigotry, whether on private space or public space.

                I agree totally. However my question is why defend at all? I didn’t call for his banning, I celebrated his shaming.Report

              • Avatar James H. in reply to Loviatar says:

                We must defend everyone’s right to speech. That is not anything like defending the content of their speech.Report

              • Avatar Jason Kuznicki in reply to Loviatar says:

                This isn’t a free speech issue. He still has access to blogging. He could always start a new blog, which costs basically nothing, if cost is an issue, and the only penalty we could possibly exact on him is just excluding him from a bit of our property.

                That said, I’m still struggling to see what was so terrible about Tom’s original comment.

                Sure, he said some women are hot. I seem to recall a recent front page post from Burt that invited the heterosexual gentlemen here to admire some attractive young ladies as well. I also remember a video with some surprisingly photogenic young men.

                If sexual attraction equals sexism, we’re all in a whole lot of trouble.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Loviatar says:

                Jason-

                As I said elsewhere, acknowledging attractiveness is not inherently wrong. But in a post in journalistic integrity, singing the praises of two journalists because of their attractiveness does what exactly?

                Imagine this conversation…

                “I’d much rather see Condu Rice as VP that Sarah Palin. She’s more accomplished, smarter, and better qualified.”
                “Yea, but Palin is hotter.”
                It’s just a stupid thing to say that twists the conversation from an intelligent one to a vapid one.Report

              • Avatar Jason Kuznicki in reply to Loviatar says:

                It would lower the tone of the conversation. But around here lately, and for both genders, that ship’s already sailed. Attacking Tom for something that other people are doing with impunity is unfair.Report

              • Avatar James Hanley in reply to Loviatar says:

                I agree with Kazzy here. It’s not the noticing attractiveness, or even commenting on it in a genial way that’s a problem. It’s the suggestion that public stupidity is ok as long as the chick’s hot. It’s the valuing of attractiveness above competence that’s offensive. It’s the idea that if two women are competing for the same job, the pretty vacuous one should get it instead of the less pretty but more intelligent/skillful one.

                That’s sexist. Hands down. And, yes, it would be just as wrong if we said the vacuous handsome dude should be hired instead of the not so good looking intelligent/skillful guy. And that does happen, but historically it’s been a lot less of a handicap for the average looking Joe than it has been for the average looking Jane.

                But some people don’t care. Some folks really can’t get past a person’s looks to judge them by their more important qualities. TVD’s not totally incapable of that, but he’s less capable than most people who participate here.

                The League boasts a FP sexist. Damn, that’s something to be proud of.Report

              • No. Everyone has to read it. Don’t lie, man.Report

            • Avatar Fred in reply to Loviatar says:

              ” at the opportunities given to white men at birth.”

              Well praise Jesus for all those opportunities I got at birth. Too bad they all evaporated before I could take advantage of them. What with having such a crazy dip-shit stupid mother who never did anything to help me, such as when I was being tortured by my brother and beaten at school. I got tired of that so simply stopped going to school. She didn’t care.

              Well thank Jesus I had all those opportunities because I was born a white male.Report

      • Avatar Mayfly in reply to Kazzy says:

        I’m waiting for Tom to respond by saying that his comments, though true, were not put as “eloquently” as he ought to have done. That admission of lack of eloquence redeems all things vile.Report

      • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Kazzy says:

        Well, I suppose neither one is hosted by alligators or Martians.

        Other than Elisabeth Hasselbeck.Report

      • Avatar NewDealer in reply to Kazzy says:

        An excellent comment, sir!Report

      • Avatar Chris in reply to Kazzy says:

        Tom does the dirty old man thing really well. Too well.Report

      • Avatar James Hanley in reply to Kazzy says:

        Shorter TVD: “Look, shiny object!”Report

      • Avatar Tom Van Dyke in reply to Kazzy says:

        Lawrence, not Rosie. Hot is hot. And the point is that trolling for the dumbest MFers on the other side is an only somewhat fruitful exercise, and not the whole picture. Clearly there is a larger intent by the author of the OP to embarrass both Fox and the right in general. Only the disingenuous or unimaginative would deny that.

        Fine. Mine is a rebuttal to the picture, or rather a completion of it and not the least bit irrelevant. I take the shoutdowns as a measure of its effectiveness.Report

        • Avatar Chris in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:

          “I said that some girls are pretty, and therefore Fox is a great network, and people took issue with that. Therefore, I win the internet!”Report

        • Actually, my point was that FOX needs to stop going out of its way to find anything negative, no matter how patently absurd, to report about Obama in outraged tones, because after a while they become parodies of themselves.

          But yeah, I had some fun too.Report

          • So did I. Peace, brother. ;-DReport

            • Avatar Jazzy in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:

              When did objectifying women and insulting lesbians become “fun”?Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Jazzy says:

                I think the question is when it stopped being fun.Report

              • Avatar Patrick Cahalan in reply to Jazzy says:

                https://ordinary-times.com/jaybird/2012/07/12/if-these-dont-get-russelljaybirdmissmaryeveryone-into-sports-i-dont-know-what-will/

                I mean, if we’re going to talk about objectification, I can point at a number of posts other than this one.

                (Not that I necessarily think of the above post as “objectification”, but it certainly can be viewed that way.)Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Patrick Cahalan says:

                While it was probably too subtle and context-specfific, that was a slight commentary on objectifying itself.Report

              • Avatar Glyph in reply to Kazzy says:

                Kazzy, first of all let me make clear that I have no issue with your ESPN Magazine cover post, but I think Patrick has a bit of a point here. Saying that you were being a bit ‘meta’ on your post doesn’t quite wash.

                But it doesn’t matter to me. Simply commenting on the ‘hotness’ of some media figure, does not objectification/misogyny make, IMO.

                Just in the last couple weeks, we’ve had the good Doctor commenting on a pic of Daniel Craig; several people commenting on the dudes in that music video that Erik posted; I myself commented that I think Michelle Obama is attractive (she reminds me of Sigourney Weaver).

                Was TVD’s comment substantive? Nah, not really.
                Was TVD’s comment substantially different from any of that other stuff I name above, or your post? Nah, not really.

                I understand we would like to make sure the place doesn’t get too ‘locker room’, but I am also no fan of accusations of objectification or misogyny when someone simply says, hey, that person is hot – especially when that person (like the Fox eyecandy, and let’s not kid ourselves about this, unless you expect Pulitzer material on Fox & Friends) is in the public eye, at least in part, BECAUSE they are hot.

                I’m not trying to get on you here, I am really not.

                But to my eyes, you may be making a misogynist mountain out of a meaningless molehill of a comment.Report

              • Avatar Patrick Cahalan in reply to Glyph says:

                I’m not trying to get on you here, I am really not.

                But to my eyes, you may be making a misogynist mountain out of a meaningless molehill of a comment.

                Pretty much this.

                (Although I gotta admit, I’m really tired of the maypole.)Report

              • Avatar Glyph in reply to Glyph says:

                RE: maypole, tired of.

                No doubt.

                The First Rule of Internet Club is, if you think someone is a troll and they consistently make you really mad, IGNORE THEM FOR GOSH SAKES.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Glyph says:

                A few things…

                – I found the O’Donnell/Maddow comment worse than the “hot” one and has originally geared my entire comment towards that, but then went for the whole shebang.
                – I don’t think there is anything wrong with commenting on attractiveness. But Tod was talking about the intellectual and journalistic integrity of F&F. Tom responds with, “Yea, but look at their legs!” He seemed to be explicitly saying that the newsworthiness of news anchors on a morning news show on a cable mews channel matters not if they’re hot. To me, that is pretty blatant objectifying.
                – There is a pattern of behavior with this particular poster that matters.
                – Most importantly, I subscribe to the “broken windows” theory. It might be a molehill, but if we ignore the molehills we never get rid of the vermin. We’ve gone meta, folks have formed “pacts”, and we still have a certain element here that deliberately or not makes this place hostile to certain groups and, more importantly, take no responsibility for it. It’s wrong and I’m tired of it. If me pointing it out is more of a bother than it happening, the problems here are much deeper.
                – If my post was offensive, and I’m happy to accept criticism that it was, I will respond appropriately. I don’t have that same confidence in the other individual here.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Glyph says:

                And Glyph, I don’t take it as you getting in me. You’ve shown yourself to be an honest interlocuter and even when we disagree or you feel it necessary to offer constructive criticism, I value your contributions. Thanks, brother.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Glyph says:

                The First Rule of Internet Club is, if you think someone is a troll and they consistently make you really mad, IGNORE THEM FOR GOSH SAKES.

                Huh.Report

              • Avatar Glyph in reply to Glyph says:

                One spin around the maypole and then I really need to step away from this thread.

                Kazzy, I respect you and some of TVD’s other persistent critics. And as I said, I have no issues with your ESPN post.

                But as I have stated in the past, the bad blood that now exists, IMO, prevents either side from perceiving any communication from the other side in any light but the absolute worst one possible, and I see no fix for this.

                As an aside, I am also very uncomfortable with using words like ‘vermin’ (I have also seen the word ‘cancer’, just today) being used to describe pretty much anybody here.

                I also think that when it comes to speech, a ‘broken windows’ approach may not be best, due to the chilling effect it can have. (But if I wanted to be the Comment Police, ‘vermin’ and ‘cancer’ would probably be right out.)

                I expect nothing to change, but that’s my take.

                And with that, I must leave this maypole behind. I just don’t enjoy it, sorry. Catch you elsewhere?Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Glyph says:

                Fair enough. I will say one last thing and step away as well…

                My attempts are not to change Tom but are meant as signals to others. If I stumbled onto a blog where someone posted something offensive and it went unchallenged, I’d be very reticent to join. I want it to be known that he does not speak for us all.

                Vermin was a poor cheap shot. Piss poor on my part. Too much clever, not enough smarts. Thanks. Definitely catch ya elsewhere.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Glyph says:

                Glyph, I agree with you. Or at least, I agree that your view is an entirely appropriate one to hold. I didn’t mean that to sound as dismissive as it prolly sounded.

                It’s one of many reasonable views to hold on the topic.Report

    • Avatar Michelle in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:

      Wow Tom. This is bad and way off point even for you. They get good ratings? They have hot babes? So what? That doesn’t excuse them from egregious misrepresentation of the facts. But I suspect you already know that.

      Smoke screen.Report

    • FWIW, whether or not Tom hit a salient point, I want to say that I have absolutely zero problem with commenters going off in their own directions over whatever I write. Many of the best conversations in my threads happen when people do this.Report

    • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:

      I gotta admit, those ladies are well-form…, I mean well-informed.Report

    • Avatar joey jo jo in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:

      Pivot, move the goalposts, PROFIT!, tu quoque, repeat.

      Fucking hell this place is weird.Report

    • Avatar Jesse Ewiak in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:

      Is there where I point out after following the link that the two women in the picture TVD links too aren’t actually the same women he listed? One of them is, but it seems the two names TVD referred too are both blondes. The brunette is somebody else.Report

    • Avatar Prof. Tinkles (formerly Mr. Harris in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:

      I was going to make a snarky comment about how these two ladies are like pornstars with diplomas but have second guessed that decision because of the simple fact that there are women’s all over this country who feel pressure to dress or look a certain way in order to secure jobs in their chosen fields. When I look at these two I feel sorry that they’ve decided to tra on their looks in order to get a plum, on-air spot. Their not journalists, their more like young actresses in Hollywood who have to take their tops off when their starting out if they want a role in a movie. That Fox News Corp. airs a show like this, essentially soft-core porn for the elderly, speaks volumes about their credibility as a “news” organizarion. I feel soiled.Report

  4. This powder keg was set to make that whole Watergate coverage look like a recycled Ann Landers column.

    I do not believe I exaggerate when I say that may be the best sentence in recorded English.Report

  5. Because if you don’t, you’re going to risk losing all of your hard earned credibility.

    I see what you did there.Report

  6. Avatar Snarky McSnarksnark says:

    Great post. I award you the McSnarksnark Snarkity Snark award for the week.

    Congratulations.Report

  7. Avatar Markahuna says:

    I’m very disappointed in your fact checking Tod.

    Rupert Murdoch has nothing to do with re-animation, life extension via transfusions of the life-force of 3rd world children or voodoo magic. (when it comes to preserving Lynyrd Skynyrd)

    The Koch brothers take full responsibility for preserving the American treasure that is Lynyrd Skynyrd. The tragic airplane accident that claimed their lives in 1977 was actually the real reason for the formation of the Cato Institute.Report

  8. Avatar Michelle says:

    Looks like the folks at SNL decided to have a bit of fun with Fox and Friends (and Romney as well) on their special last night:

    http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/snl-mocks-romney-fox-news-in-special-election-edition-spoof.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

    Romney, not quite Sarah Palin, but comedy gold nonetheless. . .Report

  9. Avatar AJ says:

    Do you actually watch this show? I just can’t imagine putting up with watching the thing. Geraldo? That’s even worse. I’ve been laughing myself silly over Geraldo’s general obtusity since he opened Al Capone’s empty safe.Report

  10. Avatar Pyre says:

    Post would have been better if you had been talking to an empty chair.Report

  11. Avatar Burt Likko says:
    Facts are plastic when
    Pretty plastic people read:
    Right now, on Fox News.

    Report

  12. Avatar Burt Likko says:

    I ran a Flesch-Kinkaid reading analysis on the text of this OP, and on the text of another post written by Tod last week.

    Tod’s post from September 12 was written at a Grade 14 level, presumably aimed at a college-educated reader. This post was written at a Grade 10 level, aimed at someone who hadn’t quite finished high school yet.

    Was that deliberate, Tod?Report

  13. Tod,

    First off, top shelf writing. I thoroughly enjoyed this post. The grocery store bingo was gold (Gold, Jerry! Gold!).

    I had been hesitant to write what I’m about to write, but I thought I should offer the feedback. It seems that you have written quite a few posts on Fox News recently. Though your takedowns are great, and I’ve enjoyed them, I read this post thinking, ‘oh Tod’s slamming Fox News,* again. It’s a bit tired.’

    Now, perhaps my perception is wrong. Perhaps there haven’t been that many, and the ones there have been are just sticking out. But to me, this seems like (a)low hanging fruit; and, (b) been-there-done-that.

    Don’t get me wrong, I love your posts (and this comment is probably coming off more negative that it should), but it just seems like there are more enjoyable topics (like the diary of an evil henchman).

    * this comma is for Jason K’s sake.Report

    • This is the point when I set aside being puckishly cute and amusing, and instead loose some venom. You’re half-right, Mr.McLeod. Taking on Fox News is indeed reaching for the low-hanging fruit.

      But I don’t think it can be done enough. Too many people voters think they’re getting Gospel from Fox when too often the distortions and editorial slant cross the line from spin and editorial slant into prevarication, deception, lies, fraud. Tod’s example in the OP is an excellent one: Obama did not blow off Netanyahu to meet with the pirate guy. That wasn’t just an error or an editorial take on events. It didn’t fishing happen at all but Fox and Friends portrayed it as if it did.

      Mock them for it. Mercilessly. They’ve well earned it. Don’t stop mocking them for it until they either clean up their act or they lose viewership.

      FTR: if someone wants to watchdog MSNBC or NPR and mock them every time they do something like this, awesome. I’ll cheer them on, too. But that doesn’t seem to happen all that often. MSNBC and NPR make mistakes and they frequently let their biases show. (MSNBC doesn’t even bother trying to hide their bias anymore.) Being an elitist East Coast elitist liberal is a different kind of animal entirely than being an outright fishing liar and that’s what you get on Fox News — a bunch of liars telling lies.Report

      • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Burt Likko says:

        The problem is that the people you think get all their news from Fox will just say “oh look, someone slamming Fox News again, they say all the same thing? Yep? Welp.”

        And the people who congratulate you on your masterful takedown of idiocracy…already thought that Fox News was the butt.

        So what I’m saying here is, this might feel good, but so does masturbation, and if you masturbate for too long you stop being interested in actual sex.Report

      • Two things:

        (a) I get your objection, and am sympathetic.

        (b) I’m stunned that I elicited venom from the usually non-venomous Burt Likko. I don’t know if I should be chastened or proud in some weird way.Report

    • Thanks Jonathan. I actually really appreciate this feedback. I agree with Burt that such thing should be mocked, but probably not be me all the time.

      I have no problem ignoring FOX for a while.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *