Tuesday, January 19, 2010

"I've Been FOXED"!!!

Rehearsal starts today. I'm very exciting and ready to get going. It seems as though the show has been going for awhile and the cast hasn't even been in the same room together until today.

But the most exciting news of the weekend is that I got Foxed. What is foxed, you ask. That is the technique in which you say something in one context and Fox News takes what you said and puts it in a slightly different context to suit their point of view. **Disclaimer** Fox is hardly the only media outlet to do this...they all do (check out the great Paul Newman flick "Absence of Malice" for a great example of how it works)

In my first blog, I was having some fun with the rather aggressive responses to the show and quoted a random blogger's comment about propaganda. I, jokingly and sarcastically (I'm good at that) referred to myself as a cog in the Left Wing Propaganda Machine. That's what I said. Here's how it turned out on the Fox Website.

To quote from the aforementioned "Absence of Malice" - "It's accurate, but it's not true."

Yes...I said it. But I didn't mean it quite like that.

And...in the other big news...RUSH AND I AGREE ON SOMETHING!!

Thanks to Bill C. for his response to my last blog and the inclusion of the excerpt from Rush's website regarding Haiti, natural disaster, and poverty. I think Rush's thoughts are right on. I have long held the belief that you can't solve every problem by throwing money at it. Of course, this is not to say that this problem doesn't need money right now - but is to say that so many Aid organizations have a history of poor management...and poor thought. The excellent book "Dark Star Safari" by Paul Theroux talks extensively about how Aid organizations bent on saving Africa have mostly made the problem worse because they just dump money and run. They don't do the things that really help long term. So, Rush...wait for it...I AGREE. We need to rethink the whole notion of how we give aid to poor nations and what kind of help they really need.

Now...if you had just said that instead of all the inflammatory shit...people may have been more apt to listen.


  1. Hi Mark, it is Mark, right? Because I followed the link over to Fox News and they said it was Mike Sutton. And Fox is always right.

    I think you pointed out that people listen to Rush and Howard Stern because both the people who like them and those who don't tune in to hear the next outlandish statement. Rush is inflammatory because it increases his audience. Otherwise he would be Bruce Dumont. (I happen to like Dumont but I am a political junkie.)

    BTW, I was watching MSNBC's coverage of the Mass. election tonight and Scott Brown was giving his victory speech. He was talking about his family for about 5 minutes and Olbermann cuts in and says we can stop watching before he gives the family chowder recipe. That was funny.

  2. I read the piece in the Sun Times, and came over to see the posts on this blog, hoping I'd find something more inspired.

    It's clear from your work that you have a talent for lampoon, but you're relying on your own unfunny perception of Limbaugh... which is on a par with that of a angry blogger. Your description of his Haiti commentary isn't funny-- it's flat-out wrong. He encouraged people to donate-- but pointed out that the US government already gives millions of dollars that go uselessly down a sewer of corruption-- which is the truth. Look it up, if you doubt me (having said that, I doubt you will).

    Your show (and your worldview) would be much more interesting if you dug into Limbaugh and actually learned something about him and his audience and lampooned that, rather than repeating the easy cliches that, frankly, I can get for free over at Democratic Underground or Huffington Post. How unfortunate. And how lazy of you.

    Why would I pay to see your show? What's funny about this? Will this be more than some lame Air America rant on stage? Am I going to learn anything about Limbaugh, or myself? Where's the insight? Will this make me consider my own views?

    Judging by the press and your blog, the show reeks of 'amateur', in every sense of the word.

    Second City is a great place for cutting edge comedy... but this show looks like just another self-congratulatory circle jerk amongst the 'intellectuals' of the left.

    I think I'll save my money and surf the comments at HP for insightful digs at Limbaugh.