comments.....

1. An Irish Christ, huh? I bet he will have to fight Padre Rivera for that title.

   Comment by Roger C. — August 26, 2007 @ 8:45 am

2. all the loyal fox news viewers could put that up in their homes and every night before everyone begins dinner they can pray to Billo LOL

   Comment by don — August 26, 2007 @ 9:22 am

3. If Bill is Christ, that means Olbermann is Satan!

   Comment by jmkaib — August 26, 2007 @ 10:01 am

4. I think this dude might have something. FNC is like a cult machine. Its viewers take everything as it is the Bible. I still don’t get what draws people to watch FNC. Maybe it’s because FNC does the thinking for its viewers therefore the viewers don’t have to waste their energy thinking. I don’t know…

   Comment by Me — August 26, 2007 @ 10:12 am

5. #4, eh, I guess I’ll say I am an exception to that since I still watch CNN and don’t care for much of FNC’s opinion programming. Still, I always find it scary how much people go nuts over FNC and the whole “liberal media” idea, I mean, come on!

   Comment by Chris (clind) — August 26, 2007 @ 11:01 am

6. You people took a non-humorous idea and made it even more inane.

   While I watch Fox a lot, I apparently have the wisdom to turn it off when they’re reporting on something trivial, since I seem to watch CNN, CNBC and MSNBC as well. And it sounds like the majority of those on this site do as well, since most of us are conversant on all cable networks.

   While I disagree with O’Reilly at times, the majority of his programs are in fact dedicated to going after corrupt people who are either criminals, or are in authority positions and not doing their jobs. What’s wrong with that?

   I appreciate O’Reilly trying to hold those in authority accountable, just as I do Lou Dobbs in his crusade for the preservation of the way of life for the middle class. So instead of you people just letting Media Matters tell you why you hate O’Reilly, let’s have some specific examples of what you’ve observed personally. And then tell us why it’s wrong for him to present those stories to his viewers.

   Comment by Missy — August 26, 2007 @ 11:08 am

7. Missy,

   I think all that any of us want in a journalist, anchor, reporter, or commentator is fairness and the truth. When they begin to show shades of hypocrisy, that’s when their integrity gets called into question.

   And just about all the big names have questions beside them. O’Reilly rails on sexual predators, but sexually harrasses a female producer…Olbermann professes objectivity yet never allows an opposing view on his show…etc.

   A little integrity and consistency would be nice….like my wife said about Ted Haggerty, Jimmy Swaggart, Tom Delay, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Foley…

   Its the guilty dog that barks first.

   Comment by bill — August 26, 2007 @ 11:22 am

8. Well, since we’re going for “The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day” —
   Since Dan Brown’s book The Da Vinci Code claims the person on Christ’s right is Mary Magdalena, Gardega could substitute Ann Coulter.

   Comment by Grandpa D — August 26, 2007 @ 11:30 am

9. I think this dude might have something. CNN is like a cult machine. Its viewers take everything as it is the Bible. I still don’t get what draws people to watch CNN. Maybe it’s because CNN does the thinking for its viewers therefore the viewers don’t have to waste their energy thinking. I don’t know…

   So Christ would be Larry (hey they are the same age!!) and Judas would be Anderson Cooper, Klein as Satan and Mary Magdalena = Kiran? Hey this is fun and works for any channel.

   Comment by Mary Snow — August 26, 2007 @ 12:32 pm

10. All joking aside, I think the usual band of haters have it right on this one… well, kind of. The artist is painting this as a representation of the crazy way in which some people treat media figures.

    “I’m painting it to explore the concept that media has become our new religion.”

    There is no doubt that some people put news broadcasters and the people on FOX on a pedestal where they can do no wrong and receive no valid criticism. And while I don’t believe that FOX fans are the ONLY hardcore fans (just look at some of the documenting J$ & Ed have done about KO’s hardcore fans), I can understand why this guy picked FNC first… talking about FNC gets you press. It will be interesting to see, however, how many people pick up this story, and how many of them treat it as “a critique of modern media” instead of the juicier, “someone showing ridiculous devotion for FOX.”

    Comment by ImNotBlue — August 26, 2007 @ 12:46 pm

11. Bill nailed it. Great comment. Agree 100%.

    Comment by Alison — August 26, 2007 @ 12:52 pm

12. OT quibble - Spud, I presume when you title these kinds of posts, you mean ‘Oooo-kay’, and it’s true that ‘okay’ is also correctly rendered as ‘OK’. But when I see ‘ooook’, I automatically parse it as ‘ook’, as in ‘ook-ook’, or monkey-noises. That either interpretation is usually appropriate for the post only adds to my confusion. Just saying - ‘oooo-k’ or ‘ooookay’ would be less ambiguous.

    (/pedant)

    Comment by Arthur — August 26, 2007 @ 1:42 pm

13. Arthur, I agree. I am thinking he means something yucky.

    Comment by elmonica — August 26, 2007 @ 2:10 pm

14. I think Roger C. says it best in post #1. And Spud’s “Oooooook…” means one thing: “I bet this post will get lotsa comments!”

    I think many of you underestimate your fellow citizens. In America, we don’t go out in the world with the exact same ideas about what is going on in the world as the rest of the population. That is the beauty of a free press. Even if someone subscribes only to the CNN view, the MSNBC view, the FNC view, the Bill O’Reilly view, or the Keith Olbermann view, they still can’t go out into the world unchallenged. Americans are not the drones/zombies some of you think they are; because the rest of us won’t let them.

    About Bill O’Reilly, even some of you conservatives fail to see that he is not a true conservative. He is way more of a populist than a conservative. That’s why he goes after the big bad bigwigs; and good for him.

    In contrast, John Edwards is also a populist; but he’s much more liberal than populist.

    Comment by erljr — August 26, 2007 @ 2:23 pm

15. Bill, nowadays just looking at a woman can constitute sexual harassment. Whatever happened to you libs’ belief in “If it feels good, do it?” BTW, all of you Fox Haters should get a grip. All other tv news outlets are left-wing. You can’t call FNC biased without ceding to the fact all the others have obvious biases. And yes, MSNBC is the biggest piece of crap to hit the airwaves since QVC.

    Comment by jmkaib — August 26, 2007 @ 3:31 pm

16. ah, the right wing, left wing thing. still can’t how coverage of a flood, murder, or other NON-political story can turn into a right wing, left wing thing. If certain personalities on fnc wanna promote all the other media as being MSM and Liberal, I think it’s time for FNC to come out of the closet and declare what everyone knows, it’s the mouthpiece for the repubs. AND is this not true, FNC watchers are the angriest people on earth. Always declaring they are RIGHT (pun intended) and everyone else is wrong and they don’t wanna hear what you have to say. Try it out, and you’ll find it’s true.

    AND gotta love Mary Snow’s comments. AC and klein are satan. AND saying bad things about Kiran. Mary, wonder how your client John Roberts would like what you say about the person he works with everyday….huh?

    Call mary snow today(212) 765-3040

    Comment by Me — August 26, 2007 @ 3:54 pm

17. Me, there you go, claiming that FNC is the mouthpiece for the GOP. If you are going to claim that FNC is the mouthpiece for the GOP, than at least have the decency to disclose you get all your information form MediaMatters and Newshounds. FNC is biased to the right, but that does not make them a “mouthpiece” for the GOP.

    Comment by jmkaib — August 26, 2007 @ 4:00 pm

18. ^ Please read this link and get back to me with an explanation.

    “It got exactly one mention in prime time on FOX News during a news cut-in.”

    http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/iraq/war_news_is_depressing_lindsay_lohan_is_hot_65770.asp#email

    Comment by Terance — August 26, 2007 @ 4:11 pm

19. Fred Barnes explained this best. Basically, the MSM overreacted. John Warner has been a critic of the surge since the beginning. It was no surprise! FNC reports bad news from Iraq. BTW, yes FNC is biased! But so are all other outlets, in one way or another. News Anchors choose which stories to air and which to not. MSNBC and CNN refuse certain stories, and FNC refuses certain stories. BTW, this comes from Howard Kurtz, who repeatedly cheers for CNN. Did he have any conservatives on his panel. I doubt it. Reliable Sources must be the second-worst show on CNN, after Larry King. While FNC barely mentioned it, CNN kept talking about it. CNN overblew the story.

    Comment by jmkaib — August 26, 2007 @ 4:40 pm

20. Terance - I actually saw Reliable Sources this morning. This was an out of context comment from one of the panelists(Michelle Cottle). The “one mention of Warner’s comments” during just three hours (8pm-11pm ET) was actually one more mention than CNN had in that same time period(CNN had a Larry King rerun and God’s Christian Warriors).

    Comment by erljr — August 26, 2007 @ 4:52 pm

21. Ooooooooooooooooook…

    Comment by Spud — August 26, 2007 @ 4:53 pm

22. Did I say AC and Klein were Satan? Do you have someone at the “special home” you live in read these to you and with them having lesser comprehension problems than you got it all wrong? Now John Roberts is my “client”. What happened to Aaron? Well you should hear what he says about Kiran to her face that she doesn’t understand. The things he says about you and the emails you send to Anderson are crap-tasticly funny!

    The guys in the 360blog area have almost got Me and all the Ann’s comments matched up.

    Comment by Mary Snow — August 26, 2007 @ 4:59 pm

23. Thanks for the responses! But, the point is, FNC’s notorious for pushing bad republican news to cut-ins. And no, I’m not saying CNN or MSNBC’s perfect either.

    Also Erljr, I recall you posting something about CNN not identifying the latest democrat in whatever scandal he was involved in. With that said, whats worse.. misidentifying party affiliation or just reporting him as a Representative?

    Comment by Terance — August 26, 2007 @ 5:03 pm

24. Ok “Me”, Mary Snow, and everyone else engaging in this stupid little back and forth…

    It ends now. Either you end it or I’ll end it for you…

    It takes two to tango. It takes a troll and someone to feed the troll. I’m not going to waste time figuring out who started it becuase you’re all keeping it alive.

    Comment by Spud — August 26, 2007 @ 5:15 pm

25. Terance - the Democrat was Brian Baird and he is a representative - a member of the US House - and he wasn’t misidentified by anyone that I know of. He also just returned from Iraq. He voted against the war originally, but - on the same day Warner spoke - said the surge needs to continue, and reducing force levels would send the opposite message to the Iraqi government. All I said was that his statements were omited from the coverage on CNN and MSNBC.

    Comment by erljr — August 26, 2007 @ 6:04 pm

26. Ok, Erljr. In reference to “misidentifying”, I was speaking about FNC’s track record of labeling republicans as democrats. And wondered whether omitting party affiliation was worse in your opinion than mislabeled chyrons.

    Comment by Terance — August 26, 2007 @ 6:11 pm

27. I’m missing something Terance. Yes, I know about “FNC’s track record of labeling republicans as democrats.” But how did “omitting party affiliation” come up?
    The answer to your question: I think it is better to omit than to mislabel. If the person running the chyrons doesn’t know something, they shouldn’t guess. What do you think?

    Comment by erljr — August 26, 2007 @ 6:22 pm

28. Silly me, I meant Ted Haggard, not Haggerty.

    Oh, jmkaib…since when does seeing all sides of an issue make me a ‘lib’? Incredible! But if being objective makes me a liberal, I’ll wear that badge proudly.

    Comment by bill — August 26, 2007 @ 6:27 pm

29. Erljr, recently when CNN omitted party affiliation while reporting on a democrat… I thought that’s what you were talking about. But, I now realize after reading this, “All I said was that his statements were omitted from the coverage on CNN and MSNBC.” that I’m confused and talking about either something different entirely or not exactly relevant to your original post. Sorry.

    Comment by Terance — August 26, 2007 @ 6:30 pm

30. Let me see if I have this right Me. FNC viewers are too dumb to think so that’s why they watch FNC. Ergo, all the intelligent viewers watch CNN, MSNBC, etc. No wonder this country is in trouble. If we are to believe the ratings, we hardly have any intelligent people “left” in the land!

    Comment by Dee — August 26, 2007 @ 8:00 pm

31. No wonder this country is in trouble. If we are to believe the ratings, we hardly have any intelligent people “left” in the land!

    No duh? Check out how many people could point to Iraq on a map. Or blame everything on conspiracies because they can’t understand complex interlocking systems. I was talking to a guy the other day who insisted Hurricane DEAN was a government hoax. I forgot to ask him what news network he watches, alas.

    Comment by Arthur — August 26, 2007 @ 8:22 pm

32. Maybe he doesn’t watch any channel, Arthur. Such people do exist and they react that way because no matter what they see, read or hear, they ignore. It has nothing to do with stupidity. It’s more like tunnel vision - I know what I know because I know it.

    Comment by Dee — August 26, 2007 @ 11:04 pm

33. thanks for paying any attention guys. My point with the painting is neither left nor right. It is about the emptiness of modern culture and what has taken place of religion and religious art and feeling. I am fascinated by the importance we give to media figures in our world. I am flattered that you guys discussed the work.