Comments on: Angelina Jolie vs. Fox News

By: J.L.

J.L. — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 19:45:34 +0000

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.

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:13:28 +0000

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

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:12:28 +0000

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.

By: Nimrod Gently

Nimrod Gently — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 00:31:31 +0000

Jon Voight isn’t even a pretty man.

By: Lysander Spooner II

Lysander Spooner II — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 23:05:51 +0000

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

By: michael

michael — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:15:47 +0000

“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?

By: Nimrod Gently

Nimrod Gently — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:14:25 +0000

Farris is operating in backwards mode today.

By: Halffasthero

Halffasthero — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:04:04 +0000

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. : )

By: SaveFarris

SaveFarris — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:50:26 +0000

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.

By: Nimrod Gently

Nimrod Gently — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:37:51 +0000

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.

By: OxyCon

OxyCon — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:36:51 +0000

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.

By: Jay

Jay — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:27:01 +0000

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.

By: Oliver

Oliver — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:56:43 +0000

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

By: SaveFarris

SaveFarris — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:45:52 +0000

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...