|
|
Post by remedios on Aug 23, 2003 15:33:14 GMT -5
Why do YOU think liberal political pundits can't sell books?
I know of at least on pundit who couldn't sell books because the idiots at Fox don't know the first thing about free speech or copyright law. I've only been through one year of law school, but even I knew that Fox would never win that loopy case. And Fox knew it too. O'Reilly, or some similarly mentally equipped conservative, just got his panties in a knot and couldn't STAND being made fun of. What I want to know is where Fox found their lawyers. One of the functions an attorney is supposed to perform is to dissuade his client from filing unnecessary lawsuits, as well as those likely to fail. Fox has made a complete fool of itself, along with O'Reilley, Coulter, and all other pundits involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Aug 23, 2003 16:24:01 GMT -5
On the contrary. His publisher decided to print more copies and release the book early because of the publicity the case was receiving. It is now a big hit, and he can thank Fox for that. Most of his books fail. He didn't get his first hit until he used the name "Rush" in his title. Fox news will help him sell this one. The "idiots at Fox" have managed to maintain the highest news ratings on television. People have been making fun of "fair and balanced" since they first started using it, and they love it! They get millions in free advertising. The "idiots at Fox" have managed to get everyone talking about them again. Imagine that! Seems they know a thing or two about cheap advertising!
BTW- Ann Coulter does not work for Fox, although she does appear as a guest. She works for Human Events.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Aug 23, 2003 17:15:48 GMT -5
The "idiots at Fox" have managed to get everyone talking about them again. Imagine that! Seems they know a thing or two about cheap advertising!
BTW- Ann Coulter does not work for Fox, although she does appear as a guest. She works for Human Events.
I listed Ann Coulter as an "involved" pundit not because I thought she worked for Fox, but because she is one of the liars listed by Franken.
And if Fox is such a media, publicity-savy organization, why have they managed not only to fail at preventing the publication of Franken's book (which was their goal), to make themselves look like bad sports and idiots, and to simultaneously boost sales of the book that accuses them of hiring liars (either as hosts or guests)? Cheap advertising my a**! This snafu will not make it any more/less likely for anyone to watch Fox. What it has done is demonstrate once again that the people who run Fox have very poor judgment, from which it is not that far-fetched to conclude that similar crappy assessments go on when it comes to hiring hosts and guests.
In essence, it has proven Franken's point: that the people he mocks have no shame when it comes to protecting their interests.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Aug 23, 2003 18:06:11 GMT -5
From Bill O'Reilly- Calling Al Franken a satirist is a farce In a few weeks, the Fox News Channel will celebrate its seventh birthday awash in publicity and success. From virtually nothing, the organization that employs me has risen up to become one of the most powerful news agencies in the country. This is a stunning achievement, but it's also one that has engendered bitterness and controversy. Fox has succeeded by mixing a populist-traditional, pro-American editorial posture with lively debate that includes voices the traditional network news organizations would never allow airtime. The accusation that Fox is a conservative network is pure propaganda. Poll after poll has demonstrated that Fox's audience is across the board, ideologically and demographically. The latest survey taken by Mediamark Research finds that more ultraconservative viewers watch CNN than Fox. But facts don't matter to the Fox haters who are, themselves, primarily ultraliberal. The dominance of Fox in the cable news world has shattered the stranglehold the left had on TV news for decades, and that has caused fear and loathing in some political circles. Using liberal-leaning newspapers and publishing houses, the critics of Fox have unleashed defamatory personal attacks on me and other Fox news analysts and have attempted to denigrate the entire network. If Fox News crashed and burned tomorrow, these people would toast marshmallows in the flames. Now Fox News is striking back by putting the demonizers on notice that they will be held responsible when they violate trademarks or launch defamatory personal attacks on Fox personnel. It is simply a sorry joke to see a political activist like Al Franken labeled a satirist by The New York Times. Attempting to smear and destroy the reputations of those with whom you politically disagree is not satire. If that were the case, Richard Nixon's Watergate plumbers would all be writing for "Saturday Night Live." Fox News has become the highest-rated news network on cable because we feature lively debate and all honest voices are welcome. We don't do drive-by character assassinations, and we don't denigrate opposing points of view by launching gratuitous personal attacks. Fox's presentation is in the tradition of the raucous town meeting where passion and conviction are on display. We challenge people of all political persuasions. It makes me sick to see intellectually dishonest individuals hide behind the First Amendment to spread propaganda, libel and slander. But this is a growing trend in America, where the exchange of ideas often degenerates into verbal mud wrestling with intent to injure. The poo-bahs at The Times know what a smear campaign is, but apparently, if it's directed at an enterprise the paper disapproves of, it's okay. I wonder how The Times' editorialists would react if their faces graced a book cover accompanied by the word "liar." Oh, right, they'd consider it satire. This country is a better place because Fox News has succeeded. Now there is a wider range of thought and expression available 2-4/7. But the country is worse off because of the brutal repercussions of that success. A nation that prides itself on diversity of opinion and acceptance of differing political points of view is being subjected to an orgy of media defamation and sometimes outright hatred. And satire has nothing to do with it. Bill O'Reilly www.nydailynews.com/08-18-2003/news/story/109839p-99223c.html |
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Aug 23, 2003 22:57:50 GMT -5
I have never accused Fox of being a conservative organization - I simply don't watch it enough to know. I have accused them of being idiots, or at least of hiring idiots to represent them in court. Anyone with the slightest understanding of copyright law and the first ammendment who read Fox's complaint would know that Fox had no case when it sued Penguin and Franken.
As for Franken calling people liars - if you want to cast that as a smear campaign, fine, I can understand it, as you were one of his targets. It's understandable that you would get defensive. But satirist he is: Webster's defines 'satirist' as "a writer of trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly." The title of Franken's most recent book IS funny, whether you like it or not, and it IS meant to discredit you. That's the job of people like him, as well as of people like you. If what Franken wrote was patently false, you might have a case against him. Otherwise, if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Perhaps your real problem with the First Amendment is that it leaves you with little to "hide behind."
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Aug 23, 2003 23:40:15 GMT -5
???Are you talking to me, or Bill O'Reilly?  |
|
|
|
Post by USA50 on Aug 25, 2003 16:53:55 GMT -5
You know, if you look the word 'bias' up in the dictionary, it don't say 'liberal' no where, implying it's a word available for broad use.
There ain't no conservative bias somewhere? It's all Liberal? Man, I never knew us Librals were so damned influential - hell, all that power and influence, and we couldn't even beat ol' george (who said, " Wow, I ran against peace and proseperity.....and WON!).
You know, I THOUGHT them communications industry bidnesses was owned and managed by big time, baby-killin Liberals, who would stop at nothing to get their communist trash into reality tv. Wow. You guys are right (no pun)... and it's soooooo obvious.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Aug 25, 2003 17:48:13 GMT -5
Are you talking to me, or Bill O'Reilly?
Since you parrot him, isn't it essentially the same?
|
|
|
|
Post by USA50 on Aug 25, 2003 21:32:46 GMT -5
Curly...I, I mean Mo:
You should be proud that you, as a FOX advocate, certify and exemplify the studies done in the late 90s which revealed that the Rush radio listeners considered themselves the best informed people in America, but were in fact the least well informed.
Ol' Franken caught O'Really and Frau Coulter in many, real, very well documented lies (it would be easier for you to actually read Al's book if you got your head of O'Really's rear). Come on, give it a try --- read the book, study closely his documentation, then come tell us about bias. Oh, I'm sorry, 'bias' is a word only for Lbrals....'LIES' would be better for right wing authoritarians.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Aug 26, 2003 0:44:12 GMT -5
Have you read Coulter's new book? Maybe you should give it a try.
Does Franken's book come in double-ply?
I was going to read Shrillery's book, but I decided to read Harry Potter instead. I've had enough fiction about a witch for awhile. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by USA50 on Aug 26, 2003 7:57:35 GMT -5
Actually, I asked you first, but you answered me with a question instead.
Read as much of Coulter as I could stand (how'd you conservative guys let a woman do this for you?).
Can you say 'footnotes'? Can Ann? Seems not. You and Ann and Adolph can say what you want (I heard that originated in a 'liberal' idea in the 17th century), but document it and back it up.
Glad you read Potter, he and Ann have much in common, no?
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Sept 1, 2003 2:39:43 GMT -5
This person has never even held this book in his/her hand. Ann Coulter's book has many pages of footnotes!
|
|
|
|
Post by Favre on Sept 1, 2003 22:30:02 GMT -5
This is typical of liberal idiocy. They have never read Ann's book, if they did they would know that it is documented by footnotes on every point. The difference between conservatives and liberals is that we actually listen to and read the opposing viewpoint before we respond. They lurch out in hatred and emotion and we use calm, cool, unmitigated facts. You will never win any debates with your knee jerk reactions. Go home to momma. You lose.
|
|
|
|
Post by expat on Sept 4, 2003 13:42:30 GMT -5
I am beginning to suspect that both sides are absolutely correct: the other side IS lying and slandering it as hard and mean-spiritedly as they can.
Just as EarthFirst! (and other radical environmentalists) needs a demonically defined Big Business to keep contributions rolling in, much of the Conservative press needs to paint liberals as treasonous commies. It sure does sell bucks and air time. Much more than calm, honest and concilatory approach.
What would that lead to Yawn! How boring! Change channels! Better than sleeping pills!
It's an industry playing on hatred, and a lot of folks here seem to be carried right along.
If the other side were really as bad as painted by those profiting most from the artwork, things wouldn't be nearly as good as we have them. We all live better off now than 50 years ago, and despite business-cycle swings, we're likely to keep going. Yet, to listen to you guys, you'd think the end was coming in fifteen minutes.
Is everybody here on speed or steroids or what?
Question of the week:
For Conservatives:
If the left was really as bad as you say, and Diebald Voting machines, owned and programmed by a Conservative consortium, really have a back door by which the vote can be rigged via a modem, would that be justified if the Democrats were leading the polls going into election day?
For Liberals:
If the right was really as bad as you say, and Diebald Voting machines really have a back door by which the vote can be rigged via a modem, and some liberals hackers could sneak in undetected and fix the vote, would that be justified if the Republicans were leading the polls going into election day?
Or should we respect democracy recognizing that give equals take, if we want the Founders' little experiement to continue?
|
|
|
|
Post by Favre on Sept 4, 2003 16:33:50 GMT -5
Expat, do you ever take a stand on anything?
|
|
