Saturday, September 05, 2009
Some humour for Saturday morning. Keith Olberman goes after Glenn Beck and it's hilarious.
And there's more.
And there's more.
Labels: Fox, Glenn Beck, News International, United States, YouTube
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Fair and Balanced as Ever.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Fox News, These Are Your Children...
I have now received three student papers that discuss Iraq's attack on the Twin Towers on 9/11...
Meanwhile, the tragic and brutal assassination of Benazir Bhutto does mean that her supporters don't need to worry about her apparent cosying up with Pervez Musharraf (trying to ingratiate herself with someone she saw as remaining the main power in Pakistani politics, or ingratiating herself in order to persuade him to step aside?) and forget about all the corruption that happened last time she was in power.
Meanwhile, the tragic and brutal assassination of Benazir Bhutto does mean that her supporters don't need to worry about her apparent cosying up with Pervez Musharraf (trying to ingratiate herself with someone she saw as remaining the main power in Pakistani politics, or ingratiating herself in order to persuade him to step aside?) and forget about all the corruption that happened last time she was in power.
Labels: 11/09/01, Fox, Iraq, Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, The War Against Terror
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Satire is dead. Bill O'Reilly, broadcast on FOX, says:
Now for the top story tonight, for the first time ever, a political party may have a network news organization in its pocket!
But wait, he's not decided to come clean about the links between the channel he works for and the GOP, no! He's claiming NBC is a tool of the Democrats.
O'REILLY: You've got now a network who's thrown down the gauntlet, is going to support the Democrats in subtle ways sometimes, in overt ways in other times. Is that a big advantage?
GAVIN: Well, you know, if that's their strategy, I don't think it's a successful one. I mean, people...
O'REILLY: No, no, but is it an advantage for the Democratic party? I don't care about NBC. Is it an advantage for the Democratic party? Is it?
GAVIN: Yes and no. I mean, on the one hand, sure. If you know, if the notion about NBC is friendlier for Democrats, great. But are they just going to reach people who already agree with them? Are they not going to reach across the aisle to people maybe who won't tune in because they might...
O'REILLY: No, it's an interesting point. But remember, it's a big cannon. I mean, it's a big, big organization.
I don't think we've seen cheek that big since Brontosaurii bestrode the world.
Now for the top story tonight, for the first time ever, a political party may have a network news organization in its pocket!
But wait, he's not decided to come clean about the links between the channel he works for and the GOP, no! He's claiming NBC is a tool of the Democrats.
O'REILLY: You've got now a network who's thrown down the gauntlet, is going to support the Democrats in subtle ways sometimes, in overt ways in other times. Is that a big advantage?
GAVIN: Well, you know, if that's their strategy, I don't think it's a successful one. I mean, people...
O'REILLY: No, no, but is it an advantage for the Democratic party? I don't care about NBC. Is it an advantage for the Democratic party? Is it?
GAVIN: Yes and no. I mean, on the one hand, sure. If you know, if the notion about NBC is friendlier for Democrats, great. But are they just going to reach people who already agree with them? Are they not going to reach across the aisle to people maybe who won't tune in because they might...
O'REILLY: No, it's an interesting point. But remember, it's a big cannon. I mean, it's a big, big organization.
I don't think we've seen cheek that big since Brontosaurii bestrode the world.
Labels: Conservatives, Fox, media, United States
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Monday, July 09, 2007
Talking Points Memo have discovered a new bit of Fox-lunacy.
Because some of the people involved in the crap terrorist activity of the last few weeks in the U.K. were Doctors in the N.H.S, universal healthcare in the U.S. would become a gateway for terrorism in the United States!
Here, here, here...
Because some of the people involved in the crap terrorist activity of the last few weeks in the U.K. were Doctors in the N.H.S, universal healthcare in the U.S. would become a gateway for terrorism in the United States!
Here, here, here...
Labels: Fox, immigration, news, stupidity, terrorism, The War Against Terror, United States, YouTube
Sunday, July 08, 2007
"It makes sense that if you have lawless gay people that they would do this sort of thing."
That's the special kind of sense that only lives in Bill O'Reilly's head. This clip has been making the rounds because of it being Fox News insanity at it's very finest.
Seriously, how the hell is The Half-Hour News Hour supposed to compete with this?
Dykes beat up young women to recruit and indoctrinate them into their gangs. Using pink pistols, supposedly.
As Pandagon points out, it's all about the hate crimes legislation.
(Sadly I can't find a picture that I had as a teenager of Kathleen Hanna (IIRC) with a big fuck-off gun to illustrate this with)
Seriously, how the hell is The Half-Hour News Hour supposed to compete with this?
Dykes beat up young women to recruit and indoctrinate them into their gangs. Using pink pistols, supposedly.
As Pandagon points out, it's all about the hate crimes legislation.
(Sadly I can't find a picture that I had as a teenager of Kathleen Hanna (IIRC) with a big fuck-off gun to illustrate this with)
Labels: Fox, gay, lesbian, news, queer, YouTube
Monday, February 26, 2007
Heh. Turns out 'that guy' in the opening sketch on HHNH was Rush Limbaugh. Which shows how little his face is recognised in the UK.
Labels: Conservatives, Fox, Half-Hour News Hour, humour, Television, United States
The Half-Hour News Hour
Well, that's a bit of an odd title isn't it? I mean, it's good to see show titles with more than two syllables in them, but did this edge out Some Amusing Comments About Democrats And Some Constructive Criticism (Also About Democrats) for the Betterment of American Society for the show title?
Whoops, it's started, I almost didn't notice, what with the previous report on Fox News being some humorous thing about the Oscars and about how Barbra Streisand is a dirty liberal, Clint Eastwood's great and how unfair it is that the two term law and death are being held up as reasons why Ronald Reagan can't be president any more. But anyway, eyes down, it's the Fair and Balanced, We Quip You Decide, Fox Comedy Show. It's based on the principle that when Conservatives controlled every branch of U.S. Government it wasn't fair for treacherous Commie pinko rats like The Daily Show not to spend equal time satirising people who lacked power and influence and who called themselves Democrats.
But anyway, here we go. Right, the first sketch involves some fat fella who is making a Presidential address in 2009. Being British I'm not sure who he is, but the applause does. I'm not sure if he's supposed to be playing someone, or if he's some right-wing commentator playing himself. He gives a short monologue about how the country is going to get back on track in 2009. Because, apparently, since the Democrats took over one branch of Government in 2006 the U.S. went to hell in a handcart, falling from it's place as a land of milk and honey beforehand. It's almost amusing. I don't think there's any reason why 'humour by Consrvatives' can't be funny, part of the problem with the first sketch I think is that it comes off just trying to crowbar all of the things Bush supporters hate right now, Speaker Pelosi, Cindy Sheehan and so on, into a sketch. Their names are used instead of punchlines. Oh well, it's only a short sketch and...
Gah! Fuck! It's Ann fucking Coulter! Shit! They really should have had one of those warnings up on screen before that one! Isn't she being investigated for tax fraud? She's playing the Vice-President to 'guy-I'don't-know' but her presence makes me think that he is some right-wing columnist guy. She appears to lack any ability to act but hey, they're still lining up and knocking down left-wing ideas (such as smoke-free zones) so she doesn't really need to do any more than stand straight and read the dialogue boards behind 'guy-I-don't-knows' head. Of course, in America you have that Dinner thing where the President performs a brief skit each year, we don't really have anything like that in the UK so the closest we got to this sort of behaviour was when Margaret Thatcher performed in a Yes Minister sketch in the 80s, when Tony Blair was interviewed by Alan Partridge in the mid-nineties or the last few years of Labour Government.
Don't look at her eyes! Her cold, dead eyes! Sorry...
President: Now stay tuned for the Half-Hour News Hour on the Fox News Channel.
Vice President Evil: If you don't, we'll invade your country, kill your leaders and convert you to Christianity.
Now that would be funny if it didn't appear to be Government policy already.
The first sketch after the titles is news headlines and whoomp! There it is! Straight in with the Hillary Clinton jokes. Although attacking her by bringing up Shrubya's penchant for cronyism is an intriguing way to go. Do Conservatives really not care that Bush won't appoint anyone to a Government post unless they used to be a drinking buddy of his from days long past? Again the 'jokes', she'd staff the White House with lesbians if she got in, she works on a telephone line like one of those dial-a-hookers, aren't funny per se, more kind of 'let's laugh at her because we don't like her'. It's a televisual equivelent of putting someone's face on a dart board. The Iran item, about the Holocaust Denial conference, is funny, though so old I'm sure I've heard it before. And a joke about Harry Potter being gay! Was this show originally filmed about three years ago?
Aah, faux adverts for the ACLU. A worthless organisation because they helped white supremacists get the freedom to march, apparently. Is there a similar sketch about how the US Government of the thirties didn't consider the rise of fascism to be something it should concern itself with? Nope.
Then it's the Obama jokes. I've just realised, they've not mentioned the Republicans or Shrubya once. They've only mentioned the White House in terms of the main two Democratic would-be Presidents. That first skit made it clear they were Republicans, but didn't mention the GOP at all.
An amusing sketch about Ed Begley's electric car not making it to the studio. Hot writing talent from the 1980s there.
Did Che Guevara really 'execute thousands of people without a fair trial'? Wasn't that more Castro's thing? I thought Che was too busy taking his inhalers and sulking in a Bolivian cave to do much of that. Never mind, you can add 'Cubans' and 'left-wing students' to the list of 'things mentioned more than the Republican Party on the HHNH '. The sketch is about a t-shirt salesman being asked about whether it's okay for kids to wear t-shirts honouring someone who set up forced labour camps where people were imprisoned without trial. Mr t-shirt says "Well, in that case they might want to wear one of these..." and reaches for another t-shirt. There is a genuine expectant hush in the studio and you know everyone is thinking: "Is Fox really going to make a joke that could be seen as critical of Government policy?" He holds up the t-shirt. The moment is gone. It's a t-shirt with Mao on the front. There is relieved laughter in the studio.
'Six Degrees of Global Warming'. A sketch to show global warming doesn't exist, by pretending it does and going for reductio ad absurdum . Then another ACLU 'ad'. Oh, now jokes about Ed Begley being raped in prison. Niiice!
So, that's that. HHNH isn't bad because it's conservative, but because it's not very funny. But that's the first episode ever, so it's bound to be rough. It needs to learn to make some jokes at Fox and Conservatives expense, it also needs to go more up to date, jokes about electric cars and Che Guevara? At the moment it seems too much like regular Fox News programming, just without the hyperactive graphics. It lacks the Daily Shows sycophantic guest interviews, which is a definite plus. But after watching it I don't think it achieves anything, it's like the humour of five year olds making fart noises after something they don't like.
Charlie Brooker has more to say here.
Whoops, it's started, I almost didn't notice, what with the previous report on Fox News being some humorous thing about the Oscars and about how Barbra Streisand is a dirty liberal, Clint Eastwood's great and how unfair it is that the two term law and death are being held up as reasons why Ronald Reagan can't be president any more. But anyway, eyes down, it's the Fair and Balanced, We Quip You Decide, Fox Comedy Show. It's based on the principle that when Conservatives controlled every branch of U.S. Government it wasn't fair for treacherous Commie pinko rats like The Daily Show not to spend equal time satirising people who lacked power and influence and who called themselves Democrats.
But anyway, here we go. Right, the first sketch involves some fat fella who is making a Presidential address in 2009. Being British I'm not sure who he is, but the applause does. I'm not sure if he's supposed to be playing someone, or if he's some right-wing commentator playing himself. He gives a short monologue about how the country is going to get back on track in 2009. Because, apparently, since the Democrats took over one branch of Government in 2006 the U.S. went to hell in a handcart, falling from it's place as a land of milk and honey beforehand. It's almost amusing. I don't think there's any reason why 'humour by Consrvatives' can't be funny, part of the problem with the first sketch I think is that it comes off just trying to crowbar all of the things Bush supporters hate right now, Speaker Pelosi, Cindy Sheehan and so on, into a sketch. Their names are used instead of punchlines. Oh well, it's only a short sketch and...
Gah! Fuck! It's Ann fucking Coulter! Shit! They really should have had one of those warnings up on screen before that one! Isn't she being investigated for tax fraud? She's playing the Vice-President to 'guy-I'don't-know' but her presence makes me think that he is some right-wing columnist guy. She appears to lack any ability to act but hey, they're still lining up and knocking down left-wing ideas (such as smoke-free zones) so she doesn't really need to do any more than stand straight and read the dialogue boards behind 'guy-I-don't-knows' head. Of course, in America you have that Dinner thing where the President performs a brief skit each year, we don't really have anything like that in the UK so the closest we got to this sort of behaviour was when Margaret Thatcher performed in a Yes Minister sketch in the 80s, when Tony Blair was interviewed by Alan Partridge in the mid-nineties or the last few years of Labour Government.
Don't look at her eyes! Her cold, dead eyes! Sorry...
President: Now stay tuned for the Half-Hour News Hour on the Fox News Channel.
Vice President Evil: If you don't, we'll invade your country, kill your leaders and convert you to Christianity.
Now that would be funny if it didn't appear to be Government policy already.
The first sketch after the titles is news headlines and whoomp! There it is! Straight in with the Hillary Clinton jokes. Although attacking her by bringing up Shrubya's penchant for cronyism is an intriguing way to go. Do Conservatives really not care that Bush won't appoint anyone to a Government post unless they used to be a drinking buddy of his from days long past? Again the 'jokes', she'd staff the White House with lesbians if she got in, she works on a telephone line like one of those dial-a-hookers, aren't funny per se, more kind of 'let's laugh at her because we don't like her'. It's a televisual equivelent of putting someone's face on a dart board. The Iran item, about the Holocaust Denial conference, is funny, though so old I'm sure I've heard it before. And a joke about Harry Potter being gay! Was this show originally filmed about three years ago?
Aah, faux adverts for the ACLU. A worthless organisation because they helped white supremacists get the freedom to march, apparently. Is there a similar sketch about how the US Government of the thirties didn't consider the rise of fascism to be something it should concern itself with? Nope.
Then it's the Obama jokes. I've just realised, they've not mentioned the Republicans or Shrubya once. They've only mentioned the White House in terms of the main two Democratic would-be Presidents. That first skit made it clear they were Republicans, but didn't mention the GOP at all.
An amusing sketch about Ed Begley's electric car not making it to the studio. Hot writing talent from the 1980s there.
Did Che Guevara really 'execute thousands of people without a fair trial'? Wasn't that more Castro's thing? I thought Che was too busy taking his inhalers and sulking in a Bolivian cave to do much of that. Never mind, you can add 'Cubans' and 'left-wing students' to the list of 'things mentioned more than the Republican Party on the HHNH '. The sketch is about a t-shirt salesman being asked about whether it's okay for kids to wear t-shirts honouring someone who set up forced labour camps where people were imprisoned without trial. Mr t-shirt says "Well, in that case they might want to wear one of these..." and reaches for another t-shirt. There is a genuine expectant hush in the studio and you know everyone is thinking: "Is Fox really going to make a joke that could be seen as critical of Government policy?" He holds up the t-shirt. The moment is gone. It's a t-shirt with Mao on the front. There is relieved laughter in the studio.
'Six Degrees of Global Warming'. A sketch to show global warming doesn't exist, by pretending it does and going for reductio ad absurdum . Then another ACLU 'ad'. Oh, now jokes about Ed Begley being raped in prison. Niiice!
So, that's that. HHNH isn't bad because it's conservative, but because it's not very funny. But that's the first episode ever, so it's bound to be rough. It needs to learn to make some jokes at Fox and Conservatives expense, it also needs to go more up to date, jokes about electric cars and Che Guevara? At the moment it seems too much like regular Fox News programming, just without the hyperactive graphics. It lacks the Daily Shows sycophantic guest interviews, which is a definite plus. But after watching it I don't think it achieves anything, it's like the humour of five year olds making fart noises after something they don't like.
Charlie Brooker has more to say here.
Labels: Conservatives, Daily Show, Fox, Half-Hour News Hour, humour, Rupert Murdoch, Television, United States
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Bizarre. Ever since I upgraded from Blogger to Blogger On Crack! or whatever this new thing is supposed to be, YouTube refuses to post to it. Even though I've checked and the settings in YouTube are correct. I can only assume that it's some Google/YouTube turf-war as I've completely lost track of which company owns which these days. So, let's see if this works:
Hopefully you'll be seeing a couple of minutes from the Fox News attempt to do The Daily Show . I wonder what would happen if they tried to do a take off of The Colbert Report ?
Hopefully you'll be seeing a couple of minutes from the Fox News attempt to do The Daily Show . I wonder what would happen if they tried to do a take off of The Colbert Report ?
Labels: Daily Show, Fox, Google, News International, Rupert Murdoch, Television, YouTube
Monday, September 11, 2006
So, I've heard that today's some kind of anniversary yeah? Wait, don't tell me, let me guess... It's your birthday right? Hey, looking good, not a day over... not a birthday? Wedding anniversary? Between Tony Blair's face and George Bush's arse? Hmmm, five years, I believe that's wood... Not a wedding anniversary? But I'm getting close right?
So, yeah, September the 11th 2001, or 'niynellevun' as the USians would have it. Grief's a weird thing, I didn't feel anything when my Nan died, my sister was almost hysterical at the end of the service and a few years ago refused to hear any conversation that included the inevitability of our parent's eventual demise. I suspect it's part and parcel of being a moody bugger, I don't tend to go much lower when something genuinely bad happens.
Of course, there's other reasons to distrust public mournathons. The wailing and gnashing of teeth following the death of Princess Di wrongfooted me as much as it did the royal family, I didn't understand how anyone could devote so much of their time to following someone else so intently, 'were they crazy?' I thought, 'I wouldn't do something like that'. The fact that many many times the number of people who died in the Twin Towers on that September day in 2001 have died in the rest of the world since, both those against the American imperialists, those for, and those unfortunate to have been caught in between. The Independent's figures make grim reading.
When passion drives policy it's a bad thing. Thomas Sutcliffe wrote an insightful article in the Independent in March 2000 asking why the parents of Leah Betts or Stephen Lawrence should be allowed to influence policy. When a situation exists where you think the passion is manufactured to drive policy it's worse. The Sun fakes passion as a matter of course. The overwhelming feeling I felt on the 11th of September 2001 was a sinking one that Bush and the neocons around him were going to use these poor dead people as an excuse to kill a hell of a lot more, I couldn't believe they genuinely felt sorrow, but knew that they couldn't show their smiles publicly.
So, sure, let's remember those who died on this anniversary. But let's remember all of those who died, Americans, British, Israelis, Palestinians, Lebanese, Iraqis, Afghans. Those that died in the Al Qaida attacks on this country, Spain, India and other parts of the world. Let us remember those who no longer walk upon this earth and those who do: Osama Bin Ladin; Ayman al-Zawahiri; Mullah Omar; Tony Blair; George W. Bush; Richard Cheney; Donald Rumsfeld.
So, yeah, September the 11th 2001, or 'niynellevun' as the USians would have it. Grief's a weird thing, I didn't feel anything when my Nan died, my sister was almost hysterical at the end of the service and a few years ago refused to hear any conversation that included the inevitability of our parent's eventual demise. I suspect it's part and parcel of being a moody bugger, I don't tend to go much lower when something genuinely bad happens.
Of course, there's other reasons to distrust public mournathons. The wailing and gnashing of teeth following the death of Princess Di wrongfooted me as much as it did the royal family, I didn't understand how anyone could devote so much of their time to following someone else so intently, 'were they crazy?' I thought, 'I wouldn't do something like that'. The fact that many many times the number of people who died in the Twin Towers on that September day in 2001 have died in the rest of the world since, both those against the American imperialists, those for, and those unfortunate to have been caught in between. The Independent's figures make grim reading.
When passion drives policy it's a bad thing. Thomas Sutcliffe wrote an insightful article in the Independent in March 2000 asking why the parents of Leah Betts or Stephen Lawrence should be allowed to influence policy. When a situation exists where you think the passion is manufactured to drive policy it's worse. The Sun fakes passion as a matter of course. The overwhelming feeling I felt on the 11th of September 2001 was a sinking one that Bush and the neocons around him were going to use these poor dead people as an excuse to kill a hell of a lot more, I couldn't believe they genuinely felt sorrow, but knew that they couldn't show their smiles publicly.
So, sure, let's remember those who died on this anniversary. But let's remember all of those who died, Americans, British, Israelis, Palestinians, Lebanese, Iraqis, Afghans. Those that died in the Al Qaida attacks on this country, Spain, India and other parts of the world. Let us remember those who no longer walk upon this earth and those who do: Osama Bin Ladin; Ayman al-Zawahiri; Mullah Omar; Tony Blair; George W. Bush; Richard Cheney; Donald Rumsfeld.
Labels: 11/09/01, Afghanistan, Fox, freedom, George 'Shrubya' Bush, Iraq, News International, personal history, The Sun, The War Against Terror, Tony Blair, United States, Weapons of Mass Destruction
Thursday, August 31, 2006
I'm am the back. And hello to my father if he really is reading this now rather than just winding me up.
If you're reading this in the year 2525, if man is still alive, can you come back in your time machine? I need to go further back in time, about three years or so:
Q A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?
THE PRESIDENT You know, I've heard this theory about everything was just fine until we arrived, and kind of "we're going to stir up the hornet's nest" theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.
Q What did Iraq have to do with that?
THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what?
Q The attack on the World Trade Center?
THE PRESIDENT: Nothing... Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill to achieve an objective.
Remember, nearly seven out of ten Americans have been mis-led by their Government and that Bill O'Reilly wanker.
'[R]esentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill to achieve an objective', strange how he didn't add 'this is why we unquestioningly support Israel in their attempts to kill all of them' afterwards.
If you're reading this in the year 2525, if man is still alive, can you come back in your time machine? I need to go further back in time, about three years or so:
Q A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?
THE PRESIDENT You know, I've heard this theory about everything was just fine until we arrived, and kind of "we're going to stir up the hornet's nest" theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.
Q What did Iraq have to do with that?
THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what?
Q The attack on the World Trade Center?
THE PRESIDENT: Nothing... Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill to achieve an objective.
Remember, nearly seven out of ten Americans have been mis-led by their Government and that Bill O'Reilly wanker.
'[R]esentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill to achieve an objective', strange how he didn't add 'this is why we unquestioningly support Israel in their attempts to kill all of them' afterwards.
Labels: Fox, George 'Shrubya' Bush, Iraq, The War Against Terror, United States
