Fox News' 'Obituary' for Kurt Vonnegut

[someguy]

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/16/kurt-vonneguts-lifefox-news-style/

Transcript:

The influential American author, Kurt Vonnegut has died at 84 after suffering brain injuries in a recent fall in his Manhattan home. Some of Vonnegut's books had, at times, been burned or banned. Correspondent James Rosen looks at Vonnegut's life and the impact of his work on the culture 20th century America.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KURT VONNEGUT, AMERICAN AUTHOR: I never thought I'd amount to a hill of beans.

JAMES ROSEN, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Kurt Vonnegut probably wouldn't have wanted a classically structured obituary. His life's work, 14 novels, short stories, plays, essays, left-wing screed and random musings, was much too quirky, too filled with scatological humor, cosmic coincidences, and self-admitted sci-fi mumbo-jumbo for him to have enjoyed stately induction into the great pantheon of American writers. So here's the Cliffs Notes version.

VONNEGUT: I was born in 1922.

ROSEN: And he joined the Army in World War II. Taken prisoner in Germany, Vonnegut survived by pure chance the kind of indiscriminate stroke of fate he later made a career out of conjuring [--] the fire bombing of Dresden by allied planes, a hell-on-earth experience that flattened a city and killed 25,000 people. The horror of the war never left Vonnegut. It figured prominently in his books, most famously Slaughter House Five, which, like other of his works, made it to the big screen.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He drew explicit parallels between his experience in World War II, witnessing the destruction of the German city of Dresden by allied forces and the American involvement in Vietnam, and that's one of the reasons why it was so popular and it's also one of the reasons why it was a very, very radical book in it's time.

ROSEN: Vonnegut thought Richard Nixon was not evil, just mean. And that Ronald Reagan was old-fashioned, ignorant, prudential, and dangerous. Such views make Vonnegut a counter-cultural icon and ultimately propelled the author himself to the big screen.

VONNEGUT: Hi, I'm Kurt Vonnegut.

ROSEN: His early work in science fiction brought little acclaim until the publication in 1963 of Cat's Cradle a story of earth's direction that became a cult classic. By the late '70s Vonnegut was rich and irrelevant. The subject of other people's books, a sacred cow of the New York literary scene. He once said any New Yorker you've met once you get to call your friend. He then listed his New York friends and asked if anyone wanted an introduction.

VONNEGUT: American male writers have done their best work by the time they are 55 and then it's pretty junky after that...

ROSEN: But Vonnegut kept at it and persisted in his unique brand of despondent leftism.

VONNEGUT: The bad news is the that the Martians have landed in New York City and have checked in at the Waldorf. The good news is that they only eat homeless men, women and children of all colors and they pee gasoline.

(LAUGHTER)

ROSEN: Vonnegut, who failed at suicide 23 years ago, said 34 years ago that he hoped his children wouldn't say of him when he was gone "he made wonderful jokes, but he was such an unhappy man." So I'll say it for them.

Kurt Vonnegut was 84.

In Washington, James Rosen, FOX NEWS.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

Holy shit

[Jon Lyrik]

Well, I don't know what else to expect from Fox.

[Thrizzle]

:mad:

How about the print version of Fox News, right after Gov. Corzine's crash.

http://static.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/corzine-nypost.jpg

The man was in critical condition, with his life on the line. News Corp doesnt feign humanity and decency like they used to.

[Squid Vicious]

DEAR KURT VONNEGUT,

YOU ARE AN IRRELEVANT DESPONDENT LEFT-WING HACK WHO FAILED AT SUICIDE. ANNA NICOLE SMITH'S DEATH IS MORE NEWS-WORTHY THAN YOURS.

LOVE,
FOX NEWS

P.S. HOW DARE YOU BASH ST. REAGAN.

[Jim H]

I'd heard people complaining about Vonnegut's obit on Fox. I actually don't see the problem. The ending is exactly the kind of thing, in particular, he probably would have wanted.

[someguy]

Oh yeah, Kurt would definitely enjoy what they did but it's still despicable.

[Squid Vicious]

Originally posted by Jim H
I'd heard people complaining about Vonnegut's obit on Fox. I actually don't see the problem. The ending is exactly the kind of thing, in particular, he probably would have wanted.

I take it you haven't seen The Half-Hour News Hour.

[jolanar]

If his death is such non-news, then Fox should have done the respectable thing and NOT REPORT IT AT ALL.

[Lynn7]

I liked it and I don't get what the problem was. It seemed pretty complimentary to me. The way it ended was that the guy had tried to commit suicide years ago. I have heard he wasn't a happy man. Was the problem that Rosen said he wasn't a happy man? Was that a bad thing to say?

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
:mad:

How about the print version of Fox News, right after Gov. Corzine's crash.

http://static.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/corzine-nypost.jpg

The man was in critical condition, with his life on the line. News Corp doesnt feign humanity and decency like they used to.

I'm not really up on this but isn't he the one who really pushed for mandatory seat belt laws? Am I wrong on this? And did I hear his driver was driving 91 miles an hour at the time of the crash? Did I hear wrong? Was it his driver or the other driver who was going so fast?

[Thrizzle]

From what i heard, a car swerved to miss another which caused Corzine's car to swerve off the road.

So because he wasnt wearing a seatbelt, he not only deserves the critical life altering injuries, but public humiliation as well? Wow. Compassionate conservatism truely knows no limits. :rolleyes:

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
From what i heard, a car swerved to miss another which caused Corzine's car to swerve off the road.

So because he wasnt wearing a seatbelt, he not only deserves the critical life altering injuries, but public humiliation as well? Wow. Compassionate conservatism truely knows no limits. :rolleyes:

Well, since I was not sure I looked it up and came up with the current info regarding the accident. Maybe we conservatives can be excused from being judgemental on this one ;)

Newest report on Corazine Accident (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/nyregion/18cnd-corzine.html?ref=nyregion)

And the report is from the New Yiork Times- not a conservative outfit so you can trust it! If the Governor had been a Repub in the same circumstances this NYTimes article would have ripped the guy apart- instead, it simply states the facts.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Lynn7
And the report is from the New Yiork Times- not a conservative outfit so you can trust it! If the Governor had been a Repub in the same circumstances this NYTimes article would have ripped the guy apart- instead, it simply states the facts.

Conservatives always bash the NYTimes for being a liberal counterpart to conservative papers, but rarely if ever provide evidence to support their claims. The NY Post and Fox News have no legitemate equal (no citing "high times magazine" or "the nation").

[The Postmaster General]

Another case of someone failing miserably at an attempt to be witty and hip.

[jeo4]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Another case of someone failing miserably at an attempt to be witty and hip.

Or as I like to refer to it, just another day for Fox News.

[Beenthere]

Change the channel and stop wailing.

[jeo4]

Who said anyone here was wailing??


OR watching Fox News?? (Except maybe Lynn...)

[jeo4]

Originally posted by jeo4
Who said anyone here was wailing??


OR watching Fox News?? (Except maybe Lynn...)

And let's clear that up before it self destructs...I was simply referring to Lynn being a fan of Fox News, not wailing.

[Thrizzle]

We can't afford to ignore Fox News because believe it or not people actually do take the network seriously.......... and they can vote.

[The Heart Collector]

I get what they're trying to do, but they fail in so many ways it's almost a case study in mental retardation.

[Jim H]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
Conservatives always bash the NYTimes for being a liberal counterpart to conservative papers, but rarely if ever provide evidence to support their claims. The NY Post and Fox News have no legitemate equal (no citing "high times magazine" or "the nation").

I have to agree. I'm not going to argue numerous news agencies may have a liberal bias, but they're not nearly to the extreme that Fox News has. Not to mention Fox News spends more time on meaningless "news" like celebrity gossip than any other network. Well, it certainly seems that way to me at least.

[Lynn7]

The New York Times has lost so much credibility because ot the lack of quality and outrageous slant in its articles that it has lost huge percentages of its readership. Since you guys like it so much, hope it is able to stay in business for you.

[Jim H]

Originally posted by Lynn7
The New York Times has lost so much credibility because ot the lack of quality and outrageous slant in its articles that it has lost huge percentages of its readership. Since you guys like it so much, hope it is able to stay in business for you.

Well, just so you know, I don't read it. I don't read any printed publication on a regular basis at all anymore.

[Thrizzle]

Still waiting on all the evidence. Reality has a well known liberal bias lynn, maybe thats the problem.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Beenthere
Change the channel and stop wailing.

No.

[Jim H]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
Still waiting on all the evidence. Reality has a well known liberal bias lynn, maybe thats the problem.

I actually have to agree that the New York Times is liberally biased (which I think is fine, actually), though from what I've read in it it was never strongly anti-conservative (which isn't OK) like Fox News is anti-liberal.

[Thrizzle]

Are you sure it's not just because of the current government? I mean, it's not like the government (which up until the last elections was all republican) hasn't given the Times much to report on. This administration has been responsible for the mismanagement and vast corruption in Iraq, a slew of major scandals (including this new AG fiasco) and the worst mismanagement of a natural disaster in this country's history. Considering all that, you wonder why the Clinton's infidelity scandals grabbed more headlines.

[Jim H]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
Are you sure it's not just because of the current government? I mean, it's not like the government (which up until the last elections was all republican) hasn't given the Times much to report on. This administration has been responsible for the mismanagement and vast corruption in Iraq, a slew of major scandals (including this new AG fiasco) and the worst mismanagement of a natural disaster in this country's history. Considering all that, you wonder why the Clinton's infidelity scandals grabbed more headlines.

I'm talking in the long run. Their journalistic staff is mostly liberal, and most of their articles with a viewpoint have a liberal bent to them. It's not actually a bad thing in my book, as long as it doesn't lead to deliberate deceptions or misreporting.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Jim H
I'm talking in the long run. Their journalistic staff is mostly liberal, and most of their articles with a viewpoint have a liberal bent to them. It's not actually a bad thing in my book, as long as it doesn't lead to deliberate deceptions or misreporting.

True.

[Kevin Lockard]

The best thing to do is to just not watch Fox News, especially seeing what they usually do with "the news."

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
We can't afford to ignore Fox News because believe it or not people actually do take the network seriously.......... and they can vote.

Are you suggesting I HAVE TO take CBS/NBC/ABC/CNN/KGB channels seriously? If I want all the crap I'd watch Syrian TV station news.

Live in your delusions and let us live in ours. We are so divided now that no TV channels would fix the difference.

[Thrizzle]

I'm suggesting you diversify your sources of information. After that you'll start to realize that Fox News is pure propaganda and feeds people utter bullshit. It's dangerous because we live in a democracy, and healthy democracies thrive on information. Take away our ability to get information and you take away democracy/freedom. Or was it easy to get to the truth in the USSR?

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
I'm suggesting you diversify your sources of information. After that you'll start to realize that Fox News is pure propaganda and feeds people utter bullshit. It's dangerous because we live in a democracy, and healthy democracies thrive on information. Take away our ability to get information and you take away democracy/freedom. Or was it easy to get to the truth in the USSR?


You missed my point. I do dig info from different sources accepting the sadness of their very subjective points of view and agendas.
However, some folks here emphasized the idea that anyone who watches Fox News is just not good (smart, intelligent, civil) enough - or at least I scanned that in their posts.

I know Fox News got someone who repeats, let's say, NBC News. And CNN got Glen Beck now. Then listen to Alan Colmes' comments on the "objective" news on Fox if you even bother to turn it on and his views will be closer to you. But don't claim that only Fox News got its own agenda and the people who prefer it are "danger" to society or bad voters.

P.S. Since I worked for TV News program back in 1980s in the Soviet block let me tell you about the truth in the news... :(

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by God of Cinema
The best thing to do is to just not watch Fox News, especially seeing what they usually do with "the news."

And this is the same way I have felt about CNN so I'm glad we can each have our own channels that we trust.

I agree with Beenthere about the divisions these days- totally insurmountable. People are coming from their own points of views and see everything filtered through that.

Objective truth- does it exist? I just saw many people come to John Edwards defense about his right to get a $400 haircut- this is usually a conservative point of view and yet people who are known to be liberal here on the board came to his defense, not because it was OK to get a $400 haircut but because it was John Edwards who happened to do it so it was OK cause he is a Dem. If the story had been about George W or Karl Rove who did it, the respsonses would've been different.

The objecive viewpoint would come in if we could agree that for everyone it is OK to get a $400 haircut.

The same standards should apply to everyone, IMO. That is not how the media works.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Beenthere
You missed my point. I do dig info from different sources accepting the sadness of their very subjective points of view and agendas.
However, some folks here emphasized the idea that anyone who watches Fox News is just not good (smart, intelligent, civil) enough - or at least I scanned that in their posts.

I know Fox News got someone who repeats, let's say, NBC News. And CNN got Glen Beck now. Then listen to Alan Colmes' comments on the "objective" news on Fox if you even bother to turn it on and his views will be closer to you. But don't claim that only Fox News got its own agenda and the people who prefer it are "danger" to society or bad voters.

P.S. Since I worked for TV News program back in 1980s in the Soviet block let me tell you about the truth in the news... :(

That wasn't what i was getting at. and i never said only fox news has an agenda. People who only watch Fox News are just misinformed, and that statement has been backed up by research (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003571876). And im not just pulling Fox News' right wing agenda out of thin air, Roger Ailes himself has acknowledged this. The station misrepresents things to fit a certain point of view, and outright lies. If one were to only trust Fox News for their information, they would not be able to participate freely in our democracy.

Oh, and i hate Alan Colmes. I watch Hannity and Colmes all the time and Alan definitely is not championing liberal causes, only pretending to.

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
That wasn't what i was getting at. and i never said only fox news has an agenda. People who only watch Fox News are just misinformed, and that statement has been backed up by research (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003571876). And im not just pulling Fox News' right wing agenda out of thin air, Roger Ailes himself has acknowledged this. The station misrepresents things to fit a certain point of view, and outright lies. If one were to only trust Fox News for their information, they would not be able to participate freely in our democracy.

Oh, and i hate Alan Colmes. I watch Hannity and Colmes all the time and Alan definitely is not championing liberal causes, only pretending to.

Change Fox and right wing with NBC and left wing and I can say practically the same.

As for the liberal causes and Colmes, it seems to me , you are moving toward anarchy or "Lawyer Democracy" - freedoms for the sake of freedoms (and theoretical non-senses), not for humans in a real life. It's based on my assessment of Colmes' comments.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Beenthere
Change Fox and right wing with NBC and left wing and I can say practically the same.

As for the liberal causes and Colmes, it seems to me , you are moving toward anarchy or "Lawyer Democracy" - freedoms for the sake of freedoms (and theoretical non-senses), not for humans in a real life. It's based on my assessment of Colmes' comments.

Yea you could say the same thing. It wouldnt be true, but you could say it....assuming you're not a mute.

Alan Colmes never puts forth a good argument no matter obvious it is, and lets Hannity control the show. He either a.) refuses to do research, or b.) is disengenious in his representation.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
Yea you could say the same thing. It wouldnt be true, but you could say it....assuming you're not a mute.

Alan Colmes never puts forth a good argument no matter obvious it is, and lets Hannity control the show. He either a.) refuses to do research, or b.) is disengenious in his representation.

It's funny Thrizzle cause I really like Colmes a lot. I think he is a fair debater- he is respectful and really beleives in his cause, although I have seen him disown foul things that are coming from the far left. On the other hand, although I agree with Hannity's viewpoints, I hate his pounding debating style and he will never admit to any faults from the far right. I tune in and watch a segment that may interest me but i can't stay with the show for the hour usually cause of what I have said.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
Yea you could say the same thing. It wouldnt be true, but you could say it....assuming you're not a mute.

Alan Colmes never puts forth a good argument no matter obvious it is, and lets Hannity control the show. He either a.) refuses to do research, or b.) is disengenious in his representation.

Huh. I always thought Colmes made better arguments than Hannity but refrained from yelling or interrupting guests.

[Thrizzle]

Differing opinions i guess, or maybe im being too harsh. He really pissed me off a couple of weeks ago during the Imus scandal when hannity and colmes brought on some black leaders to discuss the issue. He basically badgered them and played bad cop while Hannity said nothing (his best good cop). Colmes would cut them off while they were talking and ask them questions in a really nasty tone. I was perplexed by the whole thing and it didnt make any sense to me why he did it.

It was really at that point when my opinion of Colmes hit its lowest point.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
Differing opinions i guess, or maybe im being too harsh. He really pissed me off a couple of weeks ago during the Imus scandal when hannity and colmes brought on some black leaders to discuss the issue. He basically badgered them and played bad cop while Hannity said nothing (his best good cop). Colmes would cut them off while they were talking and ask them questions in a really nasty tone. I was perplexed by the whole thing and it didnt make any sense to me why he did it.

It was really at that point when my opinion of Colmes hit its lowest point.

It was probably all he could do not to get Hannity to open his mouth on the subject...imagine the repercussions.

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by Lynn7


Objective truth- does it exist? I just saw many people come to John Edwards defense about his right to get a $400 haircut- this is usually a conservative point of view and yet people who are known to be liberal here on the board came to his defense, not because it was OK to get a $400 haircut but because it was John Edwards who happened to do it so it was OK cause he is a Dem. If the story had been about George W or Karl Rove who did it, the respsonses would've been different.

The objecive viewpoint would come in if we could agree that for everyone it is OK to get a $400 haircut.

The same standards should apply to everyone, IMO. That is not how the media works.

That's just not true Lynn. This struck me as BS so I went back to read that thread, just to be sure. I'm not sure if you're trying to be deceptive or (more likely) that's really just how you see things, but no one defended Edward's right to get a $400 haircut. Instead, the majority of people who replied said it was basically a non-issue. I think it's fair to say no one thinks (I hope) that it's a good idea to get a $400 haircut. Sure, everyone has the "right" to, but it's a stupid and selfish waste of money. However, everyone also recognizes that in modern politics, any major politician is essentially a celebrity and they all maintain their image at great expense. No one defended him for getting a $400 haircut, but rather they said "So what? EVERY major politician gets expensive haircuts, many probably more than $400". The only person who would have responded differently if it had been George W. Bush or Karl Rove is you, because you wouldn't have posted it. You were the one who did exactly what you're railing against, bringing a biased opinion to the issue based on who did something, rather than what they did. There's no reason to keep pretending that liberals have a free pass and conservatives are constantly battered, it's not true.

If someone brought up that Bush had gotten a $5,000 haircut, I would say "So fucking what? He's ruining the country and that's so trivial. Why not focus on something that matters?"

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
Differing opinions i guess, or maybe im being too harsh. He really pissed me off a couple of weeks ago during the Imus scandal when hannity and colmes brought on some black leaders to discuss the issue. He basically badgered them and played bad cop while Hannity said nothing (his best good cop). Colmes would cut them off while they were talking and ask them questions in a really nasty tone. I was perplexed by the whole thing and it didnt make any sense to me why he did it.

It was really at that point when my opinion of Colmes hit its lowest point.

Wait a minute. Are you sure you are not talking about that anti-Semitic racists from New Black Panthers? I remember Colmes pressed one of them to answer a Jews-blaming question and called him a right word after the hater said yes. No?

[Thrizzle]

No that must've been a different episode. Colmes was interrupting both guests (via satellite) and neither of them were saying anything inflammatory. I don't believe one of them was from the new black panther party either.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
Differing opinions i guess, or maybe im being too harsh. He really pissed me off a couple of weeks ago during the Imus scandal when hannity and colmes brought on some black leaders to discuss the issue. He basically badgered them and played bad cop while Hannity said nothing (his best good cop). Colmes would cut them off while they were talking and ask them questions in a really nasty tone. I was perplexed by the whole thing and it didnt make any sense to me why he did it.

It was really at that point when my opinion of Colmes hit its lowest point.

I thought this was the show with the Black Panthers guy too. Colmes was so angry and hostile like I have never seen him. To tell you the truth I thought they should not give people like this any airtime. The guy deserved all the disdain that was directed at him by Hannity and Colmes but why do I need to watch that? Why have people like that on who only spout racist hatred?

If you are speaking of another episode i would be very surprised cause Holmes is usually a gent.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by QUENTIN
That's just not true Lynn. This struck me as BS so I went back to read that thread, just to be sure. I'm not sure if you're trying to be deceptive or (more likely) that's really just how you see things, but no one defended Edward's right to get a $400 haircut. Instead, the majority of people who replied said it was basically a non-issue. I think it's fair to say no one thinks (I hope) that it's a good idea to get a $400 haircut. Sure, everyone has the "right" to, but it's a stupid and selfish waste of money. However, everyone also recognizes that in modern politics, any major politician is essentially a celebrity and they all maintain their image at great expense. No one defended him for getting a $400 haircut, but rather they said "So what? EVERY major politician gets expensive haircuts, many probably more than $400". The only person who would have responded differently if it had been George W. Bush or Karl Rove is you, because you wouldn't have posted it. You were the one who did exactly what you're railing against, bringing a biased opinion to the issue based on who did something, rather than what they did. There's no reason to keep pretending that liberals have a free pass and conservatives are constantly battered, it's not true.

If someone brought up that Bush had gotten a $5,000 haircut, I would say "So fucking what? He's ruining the country and that's so trivial. Why not focus on something that matters?"


OK. I guess I see it as a lot of times people who do things on the Dem side get a so what around here when I know if it had been a Repub the reaction would be different. I just think that there should be certain things we are all consisent on. Having said that, I realize that no two people are exactly the same and no two circumstances are exactly the same. But really, the fact that this guy was campaigning on two Americas made the $400 haircut very hypocritical. He is a big representative of the First American.

That Two Americas theme was a very divisve issue anyway- sure to rev up American against American. And he is so rich so why go there?


You are right. If I saw an article that Bush got a $5,000 haircut I would not post it here cause he gets slaughtered here on everything he does. He is a killer, he is stupid, he is evil, he is coniving etc. etc. Why add on?
But- if I found out he got a $400 haircut I would lose a lot of respect for him and wonder about his vanity. Although he has the right to do it of course. And just as an aside- on fox and Friends the other day the guy anchors had haircuts on the set. I came in late so I'm not sure they were both getting $400 haircuts but one of them did have one and when they showed a before and after picture they were both the same. Come on- how much different can a guy's haircut be?

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by Beenthere
Wait a minute. Are you sure you are not talking about that anti-Semitic racists from New Black Panthers? I remember Colmes pressed one of them to answer a Jews-blaming question and called him a right word after the hater said yes. No?

I'm not usually a fan but that was a great episode. "Mr. Hannity you are interrupting a black guest. That is racist."

Priceless.