http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA59PHZ8JD.html

Fox Sues Humorist Al Franken Over 'fair and Balanced' Slogan
The Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) - Fox News Channel has sued liberal humorist Al Franken and the Penguin Group to stop them from using the phrase "fair and balanced" in the title of his upcoming book.
Filed Monday in Manhattan, the trademark infringement lawsuit seeks a court order forcing Penguin to rename the book, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right." It also asks for unspecified damages. Fox News registered "Fair & Balanced" as a trademark in 1995, the suit says. Franken's "intent is clear - to exploit Fox News' trademark, confuse the public as to the origins of the book and, accordingly, boost sales of the book," the suit said. <snip>

OK...unless you've been living under a rock, you know that AL FRANKEN of all people is a liberal and won't confuse by his intentions, especially when they put 'From the Author of Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" on the cover.

And how right you are! Have you noticed how often they are rushing into court when it suits their purposes for all sorts of frivolous reasons. I will forever fume that * rushed to court in 2000 to stop the vote count & the press never said a word about their hypocrisy.

I thought the cheap-labor conservatives were against trivil crap like this. Bad for Buisness don'tcha know.

Of course, I forgot, one rule for them, and another rule for those that disagree with them.

If some nimrod goes into a bookstore and picks up a book simply because it has "Fair And Balanced" in small type and an insert photo of O'Really (among other GOP talking heads), while ignoring the full photo of Al Franken and the larger title "LIES AND THE LYING LIARS THAT TELL THEM"....well, I guess that's the typical Faux News viewer. Dumber than a rockpile and proud to be ignorant.

The "lies and the lying liars" part :evilgrin:

Al will get a lot of mileage out of this!


Cher

Faux did Al a favor, and looks foolish in the process.

Brit Hume must be steaming like rocks in a sauna. Of course he isn't too bright.

there may come a day when we are refused to ask 'why' because some corporate ninny has decided they own the word? This is beyond belief!!! :eyes:

Any decent lawyer will shove it right up their asses. I just hope Franken doesn't go for the summary judgment. He should drag it out and make it as expensive as possible for Faux, then sue them for the cost of defense.

I'm frankly surprised that Faux is stupid enough to think they can get any value out of this. They must be brainwashed by their own dreck.

A few years back a liberal radio talk show was starting up and they wanted the time slot right after Rush. They were going to call their show "After the Rush" a play on words for after the Rush Hour traffic and also Rush Limbaugh. Rush sued and won. Go figure.

I'm not familiar with the Limbaugh case, so I can't comment on the legal implication, but this case falls clearly under the fair use doctrine for parody and satire.

...confuse the public as to the origins of the book and, accordingly, boost sales of the book

Only Fox viewers would be confused: It says "Fair and Balanced" yet it tears O'Reilly a new one. How can that be?"

I think Franken should countersue on the grounds that obviously Fox has not operated under that slogan and is guilty of false advertising with the express inent to "confuse the public as to the methods and content of the network and, accordingly, boost ratings for the network."

Shouldn't be too hard to prove their false advertising.

FOX should be forced to have a disclaimer crawling below every 5 minutes.

I hope they spell his name right because this is the kind of pub htat Franken couldn't buy. Plus, it serves to remind folks that the pablum that Faux dishes out ISN'T fair and balanced.

Nice job, is it my imagination or is the far right collapsing under its own hubris (* and his flight suit, Texas and redistricting, Cali and Ahrnold....)?

:eyes:

Not to mention they probably just helped Franken sell an extra couple million extra copies!

an "EQUITABLE AND CONGRUOUS" look. A much more sarcastic stab at faux news imo

Made my day. That is the only kind of FOX I could love!!

:toast:

Not that US Justice is "fair and balanced" anymore under Ashcroft.

Have a seat, everyone. Well, I've reviewed the parties' pleadings, briefs and memoranda in this case, and heard the oral arguments of counsel. By the way, the stenographer had trouble transcribing the inarticulate grunts of the attorneys for Fox News Channel, so she just put in "Defendant bad" wherever it got too obscure. She also wasn't quite sure of the spelling of "Thhhbbbbbpppppttt," the raspberry that defense counsel blew during its oral argument. As you can see, the court had no such difficulty. Back to the matters at hand:

Clearly, the notion of "fair and balanced" as it pertains to the news has been given a special definition unique to the Fox News Corporation, and I believe that even counsel for the defendant conceded that no other organization in the history of news gathering and reporting has been fair and balanced the way Fox has been fair and balanced during the past eight years.

Defendant has, and plaintiff has conceded, for many years been publicly known as a wise ass, and no one with an IQ higher than 70 would be confused by any connection, real or implied, by the proposed title of defendant's book. The court believes this is prima facie evidence that the defendant's title is meant to confuse regular viewers of plaintiff's programming.

As such, I find that the plaintiff's suit is well taken, though the timing is not. Therefore, it is my judgment that the title of defendant's book shall be changed from "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right" to "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Balanced and Fair Look at the Right," and that because of the late filing of plaintiff's complaint in protecting its signature brand of "fair and balanced" news, plaintiff should bear the costs of reprinting.

Finally, it is the order of this court that should anything but the highest praise for this ruling appear either in future books, if any, by defendant or any public dissemination by plaintiff through any of its outlets, directly or indirectly, the offending party should consider its ass to be grass and this court a lawnmower.

{Bangs gavel.} We're adjourned.

ROFLMFAO!

That is great!

:toast:

:beer:

That was priceless!

It won't work out that way.

Considering the intelligence of FAUX they would consider that ruling to be a win for them.

If only more people could be sued by FAUX for similar actions and lose everytime. Then FAUX could either be removed from the airwaves or bought out by a better company. Either a slim chance.

I may be totally confused, but I thought that there was some sort of legal protection for satire and parody -- which Franken's title certainly is!

sw

on edit -- did a quick search and found this:
http://www.publaw.com/work.html
Section 107 of the Copyright Act, entitled, "Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use," is the statutory codification of the fair use doctrine. This judicially developed concept strives to balance the public's need to know and be informed against authors' incentives to create. The copyright law contemplates that fair use of a copyrighted work without permission shall be for purposes such as (1) criticism and comment, (2) parody and satire, (3) scholarship and research, (4) news reporting and (5) teaching, and that such fair use will not result in the infringement of a copyrighted work.

FOX will lose and look like (bigger) idiots!

are about as good as their REAL journalism.

apparently know the difference between copyright law, which does not apply to this case, and trademark law, which does.

and Molly Ivins had a big to do with O'Reilly on a tv
panel and called him a verbal bully, at which point he
got up and walked off the set......methinks this lawsuit
may be Mr. Fair and Balanced O'Reilly's vindictive assault...
ha ha by lawsuit which he and his neo-con buddies decry.

When did this happen?

a few months back..

The big fiery debate of course happened,(with Tucker Carlson absent) I thought we've all seen it on c-span or heard an mp3 of it by now, but O'Reilly never walked off of the set there.

So there! PBLLAATTZZZ!!!

IANAL but copyright and trademark are 2 different things, they are suing to protect their trademark, not for copyright infringement.
Still ridiculous tho.

they may need a Liberal to read it for them.

*Trade Libel

*Slander

*Defamation

*Restraint of trade

*False Advertising...

Just off the top of my head

That's how you kill a frivolous lawsuit.

:evilgrin:

He could get punitives for that. Plus Rule 11 sanctions including his own attorney fees.

Bake

fucking trial lawyer happy liberals republicans!

This issue has been incomparably decided, but the court relishes independent confirmation.

Seems IF a case could be made that "Fair And Balanced" is merely a brand name rather than a descriptive phrase, Fox News would look even dumber than they already do.

I just hope this makes sales of the book skyrocket for Al. I already want to buy about 17 copies for myself. :loveya:

...a mere brand name.

If the phrase "fair and balanced" was merely descriptive, it's use would be weakly protected, if at all. A clearly fanciful usage of "fair and balanced" would be accorded strong protection. FOX might have the strongest protection of all for the use of "fair and balanced" with respect to its news programming.

Thank you, Bill O'Reilly.

Fox is suing for exclusive right to be "fair and balanced"?

It was only a few years ago that http://www.protectorganic.org/sasf/medialie.htm">FoxNews lawyers were arguing for the right to lie.

Are the FAUX suits so stupid that they don't realize they're making themselves look like complete idiots while giving Al Franken the opportunity to rebut on television, radio, the print media? How in the world can "fair and balanced" be trademark infringement? Put me down for a couple dozen copies. Christmas 2003 is solved.

I'm absolutely not joking- this kind of statement goes beyond puffing- it's a deceptive advertising practice, falling squarely within their jurisdiction. The FTC goes after infomertials all the time over stuff just like this.

"They thought we were going to file a lawsuit."

Morans.

too just how HARD Al kicks their bums. He's my kind of liberal the kind
'that isn't going to take it anymore'


I was going to just check the book out at the library Now I'm going to buy it!!

can't wait to read it!

clearing throat asking about that uhhh what's that:think: "tort reform" yea bet those reich-wingers want em' some "tort reform" about right now......Not!:eyes:

...the phrase "fair and balanced", then Faux might have a chance.

But as it stands, they are just blowing hot air. They don't have a prayer! It's harassment only.

-- Allen

I don't think "fair and balanced" for a "news" service can survive a challange to its trademark status. Al Franken's lawyers can (and God I hope they do) argue that "fair and balanced" is "merely descriptive" and not a mark at all, since it doesn't serve to identify the source of the goods or services.

That puts Fox in the position of arguing that "fair and balanced" IS NOT descriptive of its "news" network- but has some "secondary meaning," otherwise their registration may get cancelled and they lose their mark (not that it's really worth anything) -but you gotta love the irony.

"That puts Fox in the position of arguing that "fair and balanced" IS NOT descriptive of its "news" network- but has some "secondary meaning," otherwise their registration may get cancelled and they lose their mark (not that it's really worth anything) -but you gotta love the irony."

I do love the irony, and it will be the most simple point of fact to prove, that they are neither fair nor balanced so there must be a secondary meaning.

for the same stupid reason.

That agitproperties.com is worth a few chuckles. I love their T-shirts. :)

this is only on three outlets so far, and the OLDEST is this one, just 2 hours old:

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny--foxnews-lawsuit0811aug11,0,339402.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire

How many news outlets will have this by tomorrow morning? Who knows how to make a poll? I bet 120.

Posters to this thread have it right. You can't BUY this kind of advertising. Is this a BIG break (for Franken AND the dems)? I sure hope so....

...This is an obvious satire on Faux's slogan, not an infringement of it. The intent is very specifically NOT to "confuse the public as to the origins of the book" but rather to mock the book's satirical target. This is like accusing SNL of copyright infringement for doing take-offs on, heck, any number of manistream programs. As long as you've got the money to pay the lawyers, this sort of thing won't hold up.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

CAMPBELL, aka SKYYWALKER, et al. v. ACUFF ROSE MUSIC, INC.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit
No. 92-1292. Argued November 9, 1993 -- Decided March 7, 1994


Respondent Acuff Rose Music, Inc., filed suit against petitioners, the members of the rap music group 2 Live Crew and their record company, claiming that 2 Live Crew's song, "Pretty Woman," infringed Acuff Rose's copyright in Roy Orbison's rock ballad, "Oh Pretty Woman." The District Court granted summary judgment for 2 Live Crew, holding that its song was a parody that made fair use of the original song. See Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the commercial nature of the parody rendered it presumptively unfair under the first of four factors relevant under §107; that, by taking the "heart" of the original and making it the "heart" of a new work, 2 Live Crew had, qualitatively, taken too much under the third §107 factor; and that market harm for purposes of the fourth §107 factor had been established by a presumption attaching to commercial uses.

Held: 2 Live Crew's commercial parody may be a fair use within the meaning of §107. Pp. 4-25.

MORE. . .

Fox News registered "Fair & Balanced" as a trademark in 1995...

I simply do not understand why anyone can trademark a common expression. The first time I heard of something like this it was McDonald's suing someone for using "Nothing but net". Why were they even allowed to trademark that line? That was a common b-ball expression long before they hired Larry Bird and Magic Johnson to hawk burgers. I felt the same way when there was debate about "Let's roll". We said that over 30 years ago in high school!

Maybe I should trademark "Merry Christmas", "Happy Birthday", "innocent until proven guilty", "baby boomer", maybe even "bling, bling".

Open themselves up to losing a generic trademark, false advertising, fair comment, etc. And they picked Manhattan? Sounds like they want to lose.

typical corporate tactics. they figure they can raise the cost so high their victim will back down.

like when mc hammer sued the seattle band hammerbox out of their name. you see, he OWNED the word 'hammer'!

al can probably afford to fight but it will cost a LOT of money.

arrogance comes before a fall.

if he doesn't have other friends that want to see Murdoch buried. What if he gets 'em on an affirmative defense of false advertising? How can they make sure they won't pull a judge without a sense of humor who just hammers them for screwing up his court room (or hers). Or, they get a judge with a sense of humor, and Franken just slays in the courtroom.

Oops-I wait a sec, can I still say that????:eyes:

We can tell him "Let's roll it up your ass"

mailto:comments@foxnews.com

Registered "Fair and Balanced" as a trademark???!!!

What the hell is going on with those people down there that they'd allow that as a trademark? It flies completely in the face of what patents and trademarks are all about. But, what the hell when the patent office is granting patents on genes and plants found in the rain forest.

So, I could trademark "Bite Me" or "Fuck You" and make a fortune.

(Or a platoon of lawyers would.)

Anyway, I did a search at the Patent & Trademark office, and they have indeed trademarked "FAIR & BALANCED" in '98, and then "FAIR. BALANCED. UNAFRAID." in this year.

What is really interesting is that if you do a search on the patent office's front page for "Fair and Balanced" you get two hits where the term is used in their own documents!

as long as it is not in general use in the "field" for which Fox trademarked it. Now IF there was some media company which as some point in the past was using it, or is still using it, then this phrase I think falls in the public domain, and then Fox can't trademark it. The people who are/were using it (it they exist) might be able to, I think.

If that isn't the case, then probably Franken's defense will be the satire defense.

They can register a "merely descriptive" mark, but it may not survive a challange. Basically, they have to show that it's "distinctive" to Fox News- in other words, that it has acquired "secondary meaning." Fox has cetainly advertized it and used it- but they still have a whole can of worms showing why the public associates it specifically with Fox and no with other news service. It would be kind of like ford registering "efficient and reliable."

Even if they do get to keep the mark, won't those be fun arguments to hear!

Ohio University (a small private school in Athens, OH) won a trademark dispute with The Ohio State University, which caused OSU to pay some type of damages to Ohio University. OU claimed that they were in the education business - or something of that sort - before Ohio State and they have the right to use "Ohio" first.

They were suing because OSU's cheerleaders only had the word "Ohio" on their uniforms, and OU claimed it was their trademark.

they lost the case.

I have frinds from OU who are still giving me shit on that subject.

Fair & Balanced is registered for use with respect to entertainment services in the nature of production and distribution of television news programs.

Fair. Balanced. Unafraid. is registered for use with respect to neckties.

Go figure.

Actually, Franken might offer a compromise. On every cover and ad for the book: "Fair & Balanced is a registered trademark of Fox News Network. Go figure."

Did you get that off the PTO site?

Fair & Balanced is registered for use with respect to entertainment services in the nature of production and distribution of television news programs.

Nothing more general? If the trademark is really that specific, I just don't see a problem with it on the cover of Al's book. And as you suggest, he can have some fun with it too.

Fair. Balanced. Unafraid. is registered for use with respect to neckties.

What the heck is that all about?

I would think that Al would win this because his use is really different from theirs, but hey, as everyone said, I'm sure he'd like this to go to court. There's no reason to settle this quickly.

with a balance as the design. Complements the Fair & BAlanced line. If you want to see it, dig around their site for the shop.

Apparently, they registered the TM for this line of ties, which is legitimate.

Sucks, and I still hate them, and I won't buy or wear their ties, but it's a legitimate TM.

I've already trademarked 'Fuck You'. You'll all be hearing from my lawyers soon.

Sue me.

hehe

He should send the Fox lawyers flowers to thank them for helping promote his book.

is to simply reverse the words or add a comma.

For example:

A Fair, Balanced. . .

A Balanced, Fair. . . OR

A Balanced and Fair . . .

OR (more satirical) titles

"Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fare and Balanced Look
at the Right"

OR "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: Affair and Balanced Look
at the Right" (Of course, this version should contain information
about all of the Repukes who condemned Clinton while having Sub Rosa
Affairs of their own).

The slogan that they copyrighted was "fair and balanced" -- only that
exact thing and nothing more. Just a tweak, and their lawsuit is
moot.

(Can you tell that I am an amateur writer??)

nt

and besides, the TITLE is entirely different...

More shite from FAUX

'Fair and Balanced' news at the hearing!

Just wondering.

Once agian the right wing shows its ture colors by filling a the kind of lawsiut that they foam at the mouth agianst..ON THAT CHANNEL no less! Just like when they say the hollywood should stay out of politcs, go off about rich libirals, cheating politcians and the list goes on

this lawsuit is an act of intimidation. fox news knows full and well this book is going to become a parody of their station and wants to do their best to stifle book sales and to hurt the company and anyone who does business with al franken by dragging him into what can be a messy and costly court battle. Fox can take the heat but usually little guys can not and will balk out. Oddly .enough this publicity may energize sales and provoke a buying frenzy.

therefore hopefully it's a big publisher with a big
legal department which will pay for the lawyers and not
Al Franken. I don't have the impression that Al FRanken
is rolling in dough. |He's just a comedian ....maybe the
ACLU would help with the "free speech".

If so, then there couldn't be any books, TV shows, or other communications that happened to share a common phrase. I can't wait for the trial. Hope it's on Court TV.

Hey, Rupert! Here's a common phrase that you should consider your theme song: Fuck you!

give me a break :crazy:

peace

this is good stuff for al. he's a really interesting guy, and i'm happy he's getting extra press for his views. it's bizarre that the repugs handed him this visibility so stupidly.

"The next time you hear whining about the FOX News Channel, know that if we weren't here, the elite media would be a lot more powerful than it is right now, and you can decide whether that's a good or bad thing."- Bill O'Reilly. Bill O'Reilly exposed http://www.jgestiot.com/articles/index.php?id=1

Boy, this book must be great!

They (Fox) are just helping to push this book up the best-sellers list before it even comes out! In the words of our fearless leader,
"Bring it on!" :bounce:

after all they calle dthemselves "news"

To Fox, 'Fair and Balanced' Doesn't Describe Al Franken

In the dry corner of business law called trademark litigation, Fox v. Franken is an unusually lively document. Along with mundane accusations of unfair competition, the lawsuit includes some especially derisive remarks about the defendant, Al Franken, the political satirist.

The court papers were filed in State Supreme Court in Manhattan and became public yesterday. In the lawsuit, a judge is being asked to decide an important question: who has the right to use the word "fair" and the word "balanced" together, connected by the word "and"?

Lawyers for Fox News Network, part of Rupert Murdoch's media empire, News Corporation, contend that Mr. Franken should not be allowed to use those words in the title of his new book due in stores next month, "Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right" (Penguin).

They argue that Fox has trademarked "Fair and Balanced" to describe its news coverage and that Mr. Franken's use of the phrase would "blur and tarnish" it.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/12/nyregion/12FRAN.html?ex=1061265600&en=6bd4512b3125599c&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

They worry about how he looks on the cover of a book that shows how his life really works

The article stated

Lawyers for Fox who filed the complaint also take issue with Mr. Franken's book cover because it "mimics the look and style" of two books written by Bill O'Reilly, a prominent Fox News personality. Mr. O'Reilly is also pictured on the cover, just beneath the word "Lies."

I'd love to read it! This is ridiculous.

They get in their OWN digs:

"The viewership of Fox News has risen sharply over the last year with a mix of fast-paced news coverage and commentary, although it has been criticized for turning traditional notions of objectivity on its head."

I'd say that's a rather enthusiastic representation of the facts.

is the unofficial website of Al Franken. take a look if you have the time: http://www.alfrankenweb.com

That O'Reilly is partly behind this.

After Fraklen gave him a thrashing on CNN I can imagine he was fuming for revenge.

Oh, please, if there is such a thing as making wish for good purposes, let this blow up in billy boys face a lot more

FairandbalancedFairandbalancedFairandbalancedFairandbalanced
FairandbalancedFairandbalancedFairandbalancedFairandbalanced
FairandbalancedFairandbalancedFairandbalancedFairandbalanced
FairandbalancedFairandbalancedFairandbalancedFairandbalanced
FairandbalancedFairandbalancedFairandbalancedFairandbalanced
FairandbalancedFairandbalancedFairandbalancedFairandbalanced

So can I be sued for using the words excessively without permission? What utter bullshit.

I’ll bet Rush is pissed he didn’t trademark the phrase “Big Fat Idiot”.

>>I’ll bet Rush is pissed he didn’t trademark the phrase “Big Fat Idiot”.

As far as I'm concerned, he did.

it would hurry and trademark phrases such as, "I Lied About WMD's," and "Hijacking Another Election: This Time it's California," == to name a few.

I'm torn between the two most disgraceful news events recently: "FOX's laughable suit OR Issa's humiliating news conference here in Calif. when he actually cried like a rich, spoiled brat during his annoucement that he was dropping out of the governor's race. Unbelievable!

Circular 1

Copyright © Basics
September 2000

Copyright Basics

---

WHAT WORKS ARE PROTECTED?

Copyright protects "original works of authorship" that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device. Copyrightable works include the following categories:
literary works;
musical works, including any accompanying words
dramatic works, including any accompanying music
pantomimes and choreographic works
pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
motion pictures and other audiovisual works
sound recordings
architectural works

These categories should be viewed broadly. For example, computer programs and most "compilations" may be registered as "literary works"; maps and architectural plans may be registered as "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works."

WHAT IS NOT PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT?

Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:

Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded)

Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents

Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration

Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci

but that's interesting info.

and boost book sales.

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=entertainmentNews&storyID=3261200

Don’t know a lot of Law but did any body catch from the underpants link

’In the lawsuit, Fox said the network was created "as a specific alternative to what its founders perceived as a liberal bias in the American media."

Who would take something as subjective as that to court?

Hmmmmmmmmmm

I'm shocked!!! Outraged!!!

WHO WOULD DO SUCH A THING????

Hilarious.

thanks for the chuckle.

Fox - fair and balanced as always?
A fair and balanced look at the media?

Are they both adjectives or is one used as adverbs?

They are adjectives. They are modifying nouns; adverbs cannot do that. The adverbial form of fair would be fairly. I would refuse to say "balancedly," but maybe evenly would do.

It seems confusing because of the structures and the truncations:

Fox - fair and balanced as always

Fox IS fair and balanced (as always) or, alternatively "Fox - We are fair and balanced, as always." - In these case, "is" or "are" serve as copulas for the adjectival "fair" and "balanced" - both of which modify either the proper noun "Fox" or the pronomial "we," depending on your revision of the truncated original.

A fair and balanced look at the media

This one is sneakier, since it includes a nominalization of the verb "to look." If we do look closely, however, we'll notice that the sentence fragment contains NO VERB at all. Since "fair" and "balanced" modify the noun "look," they remain adjectives.

There is so much knowledge here at DU! It's scary! :scared:

for false advertising as Fair and Balanced news - Fox is opinion, not news.

be able to dispute anything in Franken's new book. I'm reminded of the forum C-Span carried with Franken, O'Reilly, and Ivins: Franken said that conservatives poured through "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" and could only find one thing wrong--which wasn't totally Franken's fault to begin with. (He sighted a study's preliminary findings and the final results turned out differently than the priliminary ones.)

Fox thinks they can distract from the CONTENT but what they'll end up doing is giving Franken more publicity (as many others have pointed out). I just hope that this goes before a "fair and balanced" judge who, in legalese of course, tells Fox to get their heads out of their asses.

That is like saying the phrase "No Smoking" can be copyright protected. I'm pretty sure the phrase "Fair and Balanced" fits under this description.

Somehow, I don't think Faux wants this book to hit the market.

in one friggin day! It should be in the top 5 by the end of the day. I never thought I'd say it, but thank you FAUX! I am so LMAO over this development. :)

Thanks Faux, you stupid f*cks...

HA! Thanks for the free publicity Fox.

lying about being Fair and Balanced.

over using the slogan "fair and balanced." Doesn't something seem wrong here?

"Franken is neither a journalist nor a television news personality," according to the complaint. "He is not a well-respected voice in American politics; rather, he appears to be shrill and unstable. His views lack any serious depth or insight."
--snip--
The court papers refer to Mr. Franken, who is a former "Saturday Night Live" writer and performer, as a "parasite" who hopes to use Fox's reputation to confuse the public and boost sales of his book.
Mr. Franken is also accused of verbally attacking Mr. O'Reilly and other Fox personalities on at least two occasions, and of being "either intoxicated or deranged" as he flew into a rage at a press correspondents' dinner in April 2003. Mr. Franken has not filed a response in court to the suit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/12/nyregion/12FRAN.html

Notice the typical GOP projection in accusing him of flying into a rage during the red ass he gave O'really!

"O'Reilly is neither a journalist nor a television news personality," according to the complaint. "He is not a well-respected voice in American politics; rather, he appears to be shrill and unstable. His views lack any serious depth or insight."

Is anyone that works for Fox actually a journalist? Hannity was a high school dropout and Colmes was a comedian. Bill O'Reilly was a tabloid journalist.

"...as a "parasite" who hopes to use Fox's reputation to confuse the public and boost sales of his book. Mr. Franken is also accused of verbally attacking Mr. O'Reilly and other Fox personalities...

Is it cruel to laugh at such mentally deficient creatures? Does anyone really think that Al Franken works for Fox News ... that Fox is actually news? O'Reilly is just like any bully. He tries to intimidate, but cries like a baby when no one is impressed.

Oops, I mean he won a Polk! Oops, I mean his program won a Polk. Oops I mean, his program won a Polk after he left it.

(rinse, lather, repeat)

Deranged, intoxicated, not well respected in American politics, views lack serious depth?

They've just described Rupert Murdoch to a tee!

this looks to be as good as his rush book. and he's including a prequel to operation chickenhawk!
-----------------
Although I wrote this book in a spirit of dispassionate inquiry, I cannot expect my critics to respond in kind. My right-wing detractors will undoubtedly tell you that I’m “obnoxious,” “smug,” and a “clear and present threat to our national security.” I will not stoop to dignify such calumny with a response, except to say that Condoleezza Rice should watch her mouth.

Al Franken, one of our “savviest satirists” (People), has been studying the rhetoric of the Right. He has listened to their cries of “slander,” “bias,” and even “treason.” He has examined the Bush Administration’s policies of squandering our surplus, ravaging the environment, and alienating the rest of the world. He’s even watched Fox News. A lot.

And, in this fair and balanced report, Al bravely and candidly exposes them all for what they are: liars. Lying, lying liars.

Al destroys the liberal media bias myth by doing what his targets seem incapable of: getting his facts straight. Using the Right’s own words against them, he takes on the pundits, the politicians, and the issues, including:

• Ann Coulter: “The reigning diva of the hysterical right. Or rather, the hysterical diva of the reigning right.”

• The 2000 Election: “Bush was lying throughout the 2000 campaign. And unlike Gore, Bush’s lies weren’t even true.”

• The War On Terror: including the Bush administration’s top secret pre-9/11 initiative, “Operation Ignore”

Come with Al as he confronts Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Paul Wolfowitz, Karl Rove, and other right-wing scoundrels. And enjoy the adventures of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and your favorite right-wing hawks who never went to war as they serve on John Kerry’s Vietnam gunboat in Al’s short story “Operation Chickenhawk: Episode One.”

Timely, provocative, unfailingly honest, and always funny, LIES sticks it to the most right-wing administration in memory, and to the right-wing media hacks who do its bidding.

HIS BOOK IS NOW #7!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

nt

Anything that puts Uncle Rupert's underpants in a twist is something I want in on! Go, Al!

On edit: Do you suppose he'll cheer on Arianna Huffington in California?

I recall listening to his "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" on tape while riding the L in Chicago. (While it grew tiresome toward the end) it had me literally crying tears of laughter through most of the book. I have so much more respect for Al (over Faux News), ---correction - I have no respect for Faux News...

http://1.junglescan.com/scan/details.php?asin=0525947647&days=7

last change in sales... 744% increase! heh. good ol' al... i gotta run to the bookstore and preorder right now!

I hope he has good council and isn't intimidated by any of this -and that his profits more than make up for the trouble! Having a big lug corp after you doesn't sound like any fun.

http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,12311,00.html?eol.tkr

Fox News declined to comment on the trademark infringement suit, citing pending litigation. Franken was out of the country traveling, but released a brief statement through his publicist.

"I normally prefer not to be out of the country on vacation when I'm sued. However, from everything I know about law regarding satire, I'm not worried. But I'd like to thank Fox for all the publicity," said Franken.

"As far as the personal attacks go, when I read 'intoxicated or deranged' and 'shrill and unstable' in their complaint, I thought for a moment I was a Fox commentator. And by the way, a few months ago, I trademarked the word 'funny.' So when Fox calls me 'unfunny,' they're violating my trademark. I am seriously considering a countersuit."

If, for some reason beyond understanding, Faux wins - just make it

Unfair and UnBalanced

I hope someone got a screen cap when it was #1...

How does it slip down like that?

TO:foxnewsonline@foxnews.com

SUBJECT: Request for Frivolous Lawsuit.

Dear Fox News,

Upon hearing that you plan to sue Al Franken for making a satirical and Fair Use reference to your laughable slogan "Fair and Balanced", I have decided, along with about 50+ other websites and blogs, to add the phrase "Fair and Balanced" to my website at www.mykeru.com.
Please feel free to sue me. Like Al Franken, I could really use the hat trick of a publicity-getting lawsuit that makes you folks look like the most hypocritical fuck nuggets on God's green Earth and, as a bonus, will remind people of the major league ass reaming Bill O'Reilly got at Franken's hands.

Please feel free to send one of your evil Barbie news reading bitches round my place for head. I'll toss them a twenty. I'll give Murdoch himself a ten, considering his morals.

Regards,

Reverend Mykeru
www.mykeru.com
"Serenity through Viciousness"


also see http://www.blah3.com/graymatter/archives/00000420.html for a partial list

You have organized your thoughts in a clear and concise manner, and I'm sure that your point will be effectively communicated to the fine people at Fox News.

I especially liked the "fuck nuggets" comment. :9

And should sue the hell out of anybody infringing on their trademark!

...that's reserved for an 'individual'.

- You can't copyright or trademark a SLOGAN or phrase commonly used in the english language.

:(

OMFG! I just read this over at Romanesko's Letters page:
http://www.poynter.org/forum/?id=letters


From ALEX SHERMAN: It may be worth noting that Fox News Network registered the wordmark "FAIR. BALANCED. UNAFRAID." on May 6, 2003. Maybe they saw the flak coming three months ago? But then why call attention to the trademark with the lawsuit against Franken in the first place?


So now they are "Unafraid".....of what?

...if it means you have to change your user name, troll-boy.

:shrug:

Geez.

LOL!!!

http://www.msnbc.com/comics/editorial_content.asp?sFile=tmate030813

It is to laugh!

Read Ann's stuff, it's fantastic. Her art and wit are the best in editorial cartoons.

:kick:

Check out the home page: "Enter Fair and Balanced Message Board."

;-)