Angelina Jolie vs. Fox News

3:34 pm EST June 14th, 2007 | News | 14 Comments

I may have tipped my hand, but my money is on Ms. Jolie.

UPDATE: And now Don Surber thinks Angelina Jolie is a liberal “fascist” because she doesn’t want Fox News covering her press junket. They really can’t separate the important from the unimportant, can they?

Topic:

Related Posts

«
»

14 Responses to “Angelina Jolie vs. Fox News”

  1. SaveFarris says:
    June 14, 2007 at 3:45 pm

    If you actually read the article, Mrs. Pitt is demanding concessions from ALL Journalists, not just those from Murdoch Inc.

    Of course, if you were to ask Oliver a couple of weeks ago, he’d have told you that being in a bubble is a bad thing. Amazing how his principles change once he factors in the party affiliation of the participants…

  2. Oliver says:
    June 14, 2007 at 3:56 pm

    Yes, the president is the same as a Hollywood starlet. Surely what Brangelina does affects us all like the effing President.

  3. Jay says:
    June 14, 2007 at 4:27 pm

    Oliver, your fatwah against Fox News aside, hopefully do see the irony of Jolie promoting a movie that deals with the freedom of the press while at the time, doing all she can to restrict press freedom.

  4. OxyCon says:
    June 14, 2007 at 4:36 pm

    Only Repubs are allowed to “Dixie Chick” someone’s “Free Speech”.
    If you don’t allow Fox “News” to character assasinate you, you’re against free speech somehow.

  5. Nimrod Gently says:
    June 14, 2007 at 4:37 pm

    Do you know what “fatwa” means, Jay?

    Also I am of the opinion that talking to movie stars about movies does not constitute news, and said stars having the legal right to make reporters not talk bollocks about them does not restrict the inalienable freedom of the press. So they’re restricted when talking to and about Angelina Jolie. Boo hoo. Actual news is not affected.

  6. SaveFarris says:
    June 15, 2007 at 9:50 am

    So it’s okay for some people to establish omnibus ground rules for how the press will portray you and not okay for others. John Edwards was right: there are Two Americas.

  7. Halffasthero says:
    June 15, 2007 at 10:04 am

    Murdoch, Inc. does use smear tactics on their channel and I think that Ms. Jolie, while trying to send a message about Fox, may have actually done more harm than good given the subject matter. I think it is clear how she feels about Fox though and she is wholly unafraid to say so. “Hell hath no fury…” and all that. : )

  8. Nimrod Gently says:
    June 15, 2007 at 12:14 pm

    Farris is operating in backwards mode today.

  9. michael says:
    June 15, 2007 at 12:15 pm

    “So it’s okay for some people to establish omnibus ground rules for how the press will portray you and not okay for others. John Edwards was right: there are Two Americas.”

    We need labels for those two types of people. How about “public officials” and “private citizens”? Are those distinct enough and easy to remember?

  10. Lysander Spooner II says:
    June 15, 2007 at 6:05 pm

    It was both impractical and wrong for Mz. Jolie to have made such a decision.
    It was bad for business, and did, indeed, dishonor the memory of Michael Pearl.
    And I don’t think she’s all that. Her Father is prettier

  11. Nimrod Gently says:
    June 15, 2007 at 7:31 pm

    Jon Voight isn’t even a pretty man.

  12. Duros62 says:
    June 16, 2007 at 2:12 pm

    t was both impractical and wrong for Mz. Jolie to have made such a decision.

    Turns out it wasn’t even her decision. Her “people” just wanted journalists to talk about the movie and not the gossip crap.

  13. Duros62 says:
    June 16, 2007 at 2:13 pm

    Funny how Jon Stewart didn’t have to sign anything, him being so big-time MSM and everything…

  14. J.L. says:
    June 18, 2007 at 2:45 pm

    Fox News isn’t real news, so who cares if she hates them? Anyone that trust Fox News as a legitmate news outlet, can’t be trusted.