Fox News Trashes Kurt Vonnegut In Obit
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in History, Media, Partisan HacksSeriously, they’re not even trying anymore.
The reporter you hear in this piece is James Rosen. This is part of his bio from Fox News…
Rosen has also distinguished himself by scoring a number of exclusives, including sit-down interviews with four justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. He interviewed the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist an unprecedented three times, and their final session together, conducted in May 2001 and more than an hour long, marked the first time news cameras are known to have been permitted inside the chambers of any justice.
Good times.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 18th, 2007 and is filed under History, Media, Partisan Hacks. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Well, I think “trashes” is a bit of an overstatement. Although it is odd that it’s presented as if Vonnegut was part of some bizarre tribe (the leftists) rather than part of the fuller American culture.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Alright, so he’s not being fellated in this (as he is in every other obit I’ve read and seen, excepting the little note on PowerLine), but it is not THAT bad. By 1980 Vonnegut WAS largely irrelevant (for my money only Bluebeard is worth a damn). He was, in many ways, a deeply unhappy man. His political writings DO very often veer into screeds. And yes his brand of political posturing didn’t endear him to everybody, as this piece makes stridently clear.
Do we have to pretend it did?
April 18th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
They took subjective potshots at Vonnegut in his obit. Again…his obit?
This was a celebrated American author, but because he railed against Republican leaders Fox News took it upon themselves to try and make him into a unhappy, unhinged, failed writer. I think that’s trashing somebody.
I mean fair enough if you don’t, but I’d ask if you think Fox has desensitized you to what’s acceptable and what isn’t in the media circus these days.
Thoughts?
April 18th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
My dear old grandmother used to say “Don’t speak ill of the dead.”
As I recall, there was nothing about speaking only a little ill, or a lot ill.
At worst, it’s darn right mean; at best, tacky.
I’m sorry, but I don’t care what the man’s politics are–if you want to do a retrospective on Vonnegut and debate those issues it’s one thing, but in a one-sided obituary it is simply not defensible.
I always thought Fox had no taste–now I see it does–poor taste.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
You obviously haven’t seen what the British press do in the obits, Justin – not saying that should be the standard, but in comparison — this is tame.
April 19th, 2007 at 12:12 am
You know I quit watching Fox on 09/11/2001 and this instance of kicking a man when he is permanently incapable of defending himself is just another reason I’ll not be watching Fox anytime soon.
April 19th, 2007 at 12:35 am
“They took subjective potshots at Vonnegut in his obit. Again…his obit?”
If it was Mr. Rogers we were talking about I’d agree with you, but it isn’t. Vonnegut deliberately courted controversey, in his own way, so an obit like this is actually somewhat appropriate.
And if you have read Vonneguts short non-fiction you know that He had no trouble speaking ill of the dead. That was his privilege for being alive when they weren’t. I really think he was self aware enough not to begrudge it of others.
April 19th, 2007 at 12:45 am
“Fox News took it upon themselves to try and make him into a unhappy, unhinged, failed writer.”
That he was an unhappy man isn’t Fox News opinion, it is a (self admitted) fact. And “unhiged”?? How did they do that exactly? OK his quote about the “martians pissing gasoline” wasn’t exactly Nobel Prize for Literature type of material, but it hardly came across as unhinged, especially if you compare it to something like the Sean Penn rant about “Bush’s blood soaked underwear” that Colbert keeps showing. THATS unhinged. This was just a little odd.
And Fox tells about his dozen plus books and how many have been made into major motion pictures. How “failed” is that exactly?
April 19th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Dos, the British media is what our future looks like if we don’t do something about it. I hope blogs will be the equivalent of that for us…so the US media will feel they have to take the higher ground. Fingers crossed.
Rich, the overall tone of the piece is anti-Vonnegut. They give some factual information sure, but ALL of the editorializing is negative. All of it. Go back and watch.
I know Rosen tries to couch it all at the beginning by saying that Vonnegut wouldn’t want a classically structured obit, but then he launches into exactly that with a few barbs thrown in. Maybe he feels he was paying homage to the writer. I don’t.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Oh, hell, everybody got Vonnegut wrong. He wasn’t a liberal. This thing – http://www.philalawyer.net/archives/kurt_vonnegut_i.phtml – was the only one I read that saw him for the apolitical sort he was. This is just an excuse to go nuts on Fox.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Vonnegut had very dark humor and was known for being macabre and unhappy about many things. He was very open about that.
NPR describes him as unhappy in their few sentence introduction to their piece:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9533595
The comment about him reaching his prime decades ago was unnecessary, but hard to argue with…
Not exactly a hatchet job.
May 15th, 2007 at 5:05 am
The obituaries for Kurt Vonnegut in the quality British press and on quality news channels, such as the BBC praised this wonderful and important writer. It’s interesting to notice that the trashiest “newspaper” in the UK, “The Sun” is owned by Rupert Murdoch, yes, the same guy who owns Fox News.
Fox News isn’t really news at all. It’s a right-wing sounding board for people who’s lips move when they read. Pure and utter garbage that appeals to the lowest common denominator: A pseudo news channel for Republican psychopaths.