Sunday, May 25, 2008

Fox News "Jokes" About Killing Obama...

This is NOT fucking funny anymore. I'm trying to figure out who that nasty old lady is but either way Fox News allowed this to air and so far I haven't heard any apologies. I'm completely floored and need to go put my fist into something. I'm normally a very pacifist kinda guy.

UPDATE: Ok, the crypt keeper commentator is Liz Trotta former New York bureau chief of the Washington Times. I am really interested to see how this story plays out this week after everyone gets back from vacation. We'll be updating this later in the week.

UPDATE: Here's Trotta apologizing for her "oopsie!" moment this morning on Fox:


Nice, a lame attempt at humor is probably the understatement of the campaign season. Yes Miss Trotta, you DID make it seem like you wanted to do Obama harm. Unreal. Another classic example of an "apology", "I'm deeply sorry more people didn't find that funny!"


alzaido alzaido said...

She sure thought that she was funny as she emphasized with her evil cackle.

Bradda said...

We'll see how long it takes if Fox apologizes. I'm not holding my breath. Between Rush calling for riots in Denver and now this, this is setting up to be the nastiest election season ever. Krep and I talked and I agree with him that this kind of helps in the long run as the wing-nuts will have to try and defend this. We do need to shine a big light on these "people" and they have to be judged by these horrible jokes/remarks.

.e. said...

Who cares? Why should Fox have to apologize?

Bradda said...

Who cares .e.? I'll just leave that one alone because you obviously don't care about people "joking" about killing a presidential candidate. It's all fun and games right? Ignorance is bliss.

Reason said...

Wow. That is one classy lady.

It's not just the right-wingers, though. Hate speech from the far left is often just as bad.

Really, though, I think occasional lapses besides, Obama and McCain have raised the level of debate this season. Okay, it wasn't hard to do, seeing as how the tone of the dialogue for the last eight years has been moderated by Team Bush.

I hope that the Obama and McCain campaigns are able to come to terms on the deal to travel the country together doing a series of Lincoln-Douglas style debates.

Now that would be something to see!

.e. said...

I don't think Fox should have to apologize for some idiot's comments. People on all sides become so passionate about their team that they sometimes say some really stupid things. Does this lady really want Obama to be murdered? I don't know, but my guess would be that she truly wouldn't want that to happen, but obviously doesn't want Obama to win and probably dislikes him. In this age of Youtube, everything is under a microscope ready to be blown up. A lot of times, out of context. I'm not going to make any judgments based on a 14 second clip. I don't think she is trying to incite an assassination attempt. I've said a lot of things about Hillary that would be all over Youtube if I happened to be on TV. And these so called analysts and experts they have on Fox and CNN aren't anything special most of the time. I think people are overreact on all sides as things are getting intense and the stakes are high.

Bradda said...

So her saying, "well both if we could" is an overreaction? Just some silly comment that was possibly based in, what you say, her passion for team right? I thank God for the age of YouTube because bullshit like this will be shown over and over. Unless you were watching Fox News yesterday, you wouldn't have known she said it. My point is that they can't be allowed to go on a major cable network and spew shit like this and have it ONLY be heard by their base and not the other side. "Joking" about offing the first real chance for a minority president is fucked up, whether it's in a 14 second clip or a five hour mini series. I have seen the whole clip .e. and there is NO, repeat NO context that this was acceptable. Oh, and I've NEVER said anything like, "I wish we could kill Osama AND Obama, HAHAHAHA". Don't know what you've been chatting about.

Bradda said...

Reason: I agree that there are kooks on both side. I just can't remember anyone on the left actually calling for the other side's candidate to be murdered. On air no less.

.e. said...

"So her saying, 'well both if we could' is an overreaction? Just some silly comment that was possibly based in, what you say, her passion for team right?"

No, I'm saying that your reaction is an overreaction. Because even though she said what she said, in my opinion it's not how she really feels. She probably doesn't really want Obama to literally be assassinated, although I'm sure she doesn't like him and would rather see McCain automatically be declared President. It's not like people always say what they mean.


What are you talking about? I never said you did. If you're referring to my comments that I've said harsh things about Hillary, well, I haven't wished for her death, but I've certainly used harsh words that would be all over Youtube.

And look, I'm not saying she shouldn't be criticized for this by those who wish to. She's responsible for what she says and she has the right to say it. But her words do not necessarily reflect Fox's view. I don't see why they should have to apologize. Even the reporter sarcastically threw out the old "Tell us how you really feel."

puddy said...

if fox news would remove the word "news" from their name then they wouldn't have to apologize for anything - ever.

as it stands, rupert murdoch should apologize for his very existence.

Bradda said...

I'll say it again .e., "joking" about killing a candidate is wrong. Period. For you to pass it off as no biggie because you "think" she REALLY doesn't want him killed in real life. You have NO idea what that crazy lady really wants in real life. Real nice job trying to defend her comments though .e., I never pegged you for a lunatic fringer but a lot of your comments in the past are starting to add up.

Anonymous said...

When you hear FOX Trotta's comments in context, it's even more hideously sick that this FOX "contributor"-- read: On FOX's payrole-- was lecturing us on how "tone deaf" Hillary Clinton is for even using the word "assassination," and what a "career killer" remark it was!

If you watch her carefully, replay the 'tube-- you'll start to see she was knee-JERK Sucking fox cock trying to be Repuglican cute.
See the original context as well as her bullshit apology at Urantian

This shit has got to stop. You can file a complaint with the FCC here:

.e. said...

I'm curious to hear about the multiple comments I've made in the past that make me out to be a lunatic fringer in your eyes.

Bradda said...

Well the one that stands out at first glance is your dislike of Edwards. What could any reasonable person really have agaisnt the man that is fighting to end poverty and to get power back to the people instead of the corporate owners we have now. You took a shot at his $400 haircut. That's right out of Michelle Malkin land.

Unknown said...

One thing I've gleaned from reading this thread of comments and it's that e. doesn't think that FauxNoise should be responsible for what people say on their show. That might partially explain why they get away with blatant lying and propaganda spewing the way they do; because hardly anyone calls them on it.

e. is fine with this sort of inflammatory insult (or veiled threat?) to a presidential candidate because news shows shouldn't be held accountable to their content. Interesting. I wonder if e. also thinks that FauxNoise's tendency to mislabel political figures "democrat" when they are actually republicans while reporting stories on republican scandals should be accounted for. Or when they "accidentally" juxtapose "Obama" and "Osama" as they've also done in the past. No, none of that should be accounted for in e.'s view. Just overlook it or you're "too picky".

A typical FauxNoise viewer, though, is not all that interested about the facts. They want the dirt and the sound bytes and pretty, glowing graphics. They are OK with inflammatory hate speech and threats. Well. That's the rightwing recipe for catapulting the propaganda and it obviously has worked on e. Instead of calling them on it, he blindly accepts it.

There was a time when journalists were called to task on mistakes and a good journalist checked and rechecked his/her facts. There was a time when YouTube or NO YouTube, people didn't fuck up so much because they THOUGHT about their responses, weren't just talking heads without any real journalistic integrity or schooling, and didn't just speak in sound bytes. Thanks to the monopolizing of our mainstream corporate-owned media, that's no longer the case. Now, people can spew bullshit and lies to their heart's content and never answer for it.

Another thing it's obvious e. thinks is that it's no big deal for people who claim to be journalists, operating with journalistic integrity, to toss "assassination" jokes out with careless abandon, especially in light of the fact that Obama has received death threats since the second he decided to campaign for President.

Does anyone think that the KKK hanging a noose on a black person's doorknob is any worse? Really. I'd like to know.

Between Huckabee's joke, Hillary's THREE TIME mention of Bobby Kennedy's assassination in the same breath as her competition with Obama, and the pic of Obama's head near the end of a barrel of a gun on a Hillary flyer, I get the impression that they are not-so-subtly trying to warn Obama that they mean business.

It's a mistake to think they aren't. And it's a mistake to let the MSM get away with lies, threats and inflammatory comments such as this. THAT IS NOT THEIR JOB and they should be called on it EVERY time they fuck up. What comes out of their pie-holes is what many people consider FACT. That is a huge responsibility and of late our MSM has failed badly, to say the least.

Bradda said...

Thanks for chiming in Helen, I was begining to think I was the only one.

puddy said...

spot-on helen. and props for having broached this topic well before clinton and trotta's deplorable comments.

although i'm not really quite sure what point he is trying to make in this thread - i don't think e is an advocate of fox news based on my discussions with him in the past.

e, a true "news" network (excluding fox obviously) is generally held accountable for the views expressed during it's programming... no?

is your argument that fox should be exempt from this generality due to the fact that it is not actually a news network - or do you feel that news networks should no longer be held to this standard of accountability - or do you support some other point of view entirely?

.e. said...


Alright, so I am not a fan of John Edwards. I gave my reasons in previous posts. Perhaps you should address those. And let me be clear that I have never taken a shot at his haircut, nor have I ever mentioned anything about his hair. I never even knew about a $400 haircut which I do find pretty ridiculous by the way if true.

I'll respond to the other posts after work.

Bradda said...

"John Edwards is a hypocrite. No doubt, we have all heard his campaign theme about the “Two Americas”, but which America is he a part of? He just had built a 28,000 SF extravagant mansion on a 100 acre private estate. I’ll be the first to say that I have no problems with self-made wealth. But when you talk about the “Two Americas” and preach about disparity of wealth, well I find a 28,000 SF mansion to be a tad gaudy. Sure, as a personal injury trial lawyer, John Edwards would help the little guy out, but only if he could make a million dollars out of it.

Couple that with his decision to continue on the campaign trail after his wife was diagnosed with cancer. Certainly, that is a personal decision to be made by the two of them. But the campaign trail is grueling. There is no rest 24/7. Not much time to spend with your ailing wife. Priorities are a little out of wack.

April 21, 2008 12:04 PM"

Your right e. you didn't bring up the haircut. Calling him a hypocrite for having a large house is in NO way the same thing. Just because YOU think his new house is too "gaudy" doesn't amke him a hypocrite. Also, calling him out because he wanted to continue to run for president so he could help end poverty was TOTALLY selfish because his wife had cancer. Only a jerkoff would continue a run at the White House when his sick wife wanted him to. She wanted him to continue and she herself continued to campaign WITH him. So your right e., HIS priorities are totally out of whack. So I stand by my comparision of Malkin. Both of your "reasons" for not liking Edwards are based on your own opinion of what he should do and the second one wasn't even factly based. Only wing-nuts argue like that.

.e. said...

Hey, I have no problem with my statements. At least this time, you quoted me correctly. Certainly, anyone is entitled to disagree with me. Even call me a wingnut, which I find pretty funny.

I even acknowledged that his decision to keep running was his personal decision... and I'm totally entitled to disagree with that decision. I'd feel that there would be others in my party that could carry the cause.

.e. said...

kreplech and HelenWheels, a couple of great posts there that I'd like to respond to, but I don't have time at the moment. I'll have a lengthy post addressing your points and questions this weekend in its own thread.

Unknown said...

Fair enough, .e! Thanks for responding.

Unknown said...

Oh and re: Edwards, I don't think it's at all hypocritical to have a political platform about poverty and living in a mansion. Being a politician and lawmaker is his JOB. He's not claiming to be a monk, fer chrissakes. It's like when folks say Gore is a hypocrite. Holy shit! The guy raises global awareness on global warming, and that's not enough! No, he shouldn't have a big house himself... even though he makes use of solar & other earth-friendly power sources. Gawd. If only poor people are allowed to speak for poor people we're really up a shit creek!

Mr. Chris said...

Ever heard of a movie called Death Of A President?