The fascinating thing to me is when they get all the facts so completely wrong to the point that their coverage is nonsense the second you get any context, why do they even bother starting from something real in the first place?
Why did they wait for a Joker comic to come out with this content? Why didn't they run a segment on a completely fabricated trans stripper abortifacient batman or whatever? Clearly they have no qualms with making things up or getting the information completely wrong. I honestly don't understand what's stopping them. There's functionally no difference.
That's a good point, but tbh, what they've got going is so much easier and just as rage-inducing: taking whatever minor "outrage" they hear about on the internet and giving it the biggest possible audience. A few days before the Fox story, I saw a post or two about the comic on Twitter from some right-wing accounts grumbling about it. Fox sees stuff like that and is just like "yeah, our audience will also be upset about this" basically.
It's such a neverending well. There will always be things for people to be angry about on the internet. Some random person will go "I'm not going to [book/movie] because I don't support [actor/director/whatever]!" get a handful of retweets with a few comments in agreement, and then Fox will turn it into "Cancel culture comes for [actor/director/whatever]!" So long as people have opinions of things on the internet, and so long as the bar for "this should be a national news story" is so, so low, they'll never run out of things to rage about.
In addition to what Parker said, I think it's a matter of How to Own the Libs. If you go on the air and say "TRANS STRIPPER ABORTIFACIENT BATMAN!" then people are just going to say, "you just entirely made that up, you loon," and where't the fun in that? But if you say "this comic raises the specter of raising the issue of male pregnancy!" and the Libs have to go to the trouble of saying "No, actually if you look at page 6 it's clear he isn't pregnant," then they can all chortle at how we have to "quibble" over "details" in order to defend our beloved Woke perversity.
"There is a bizarre new Batman storyline that has the Joker becoming pregnant and giving birth. This is a statement you literally could not say ten years ago"
You could tell me practically anything happened in a comic book from decades ago, and I'd go "Sounds legit." Given the inherent zaniness of superhero/supervillain stories and their innumerable deviations from the laws of observed reality, the question these Fox News contributors should ask themselves but won't is why *they* feel the need to make a statement about *this* storyline in *this* moment.
Also, can society please get past the idea that certain forms of media (e.g., comic books, animation) are inherently for kids?
For real! There are comic books for people of all ages. What always frustrates me about the semi-regular Fox News "OMG, something something woke comic book!" thing is that the people doing this very clearly don't know anything *about* comics, and it'll always be like "Did you hear they made Superman bisexual!?" not caring/realizing that whatever they're raging about is almost always some non-continuity story or in the case of the Superman thing, not about the Clark Kent version of Superman. Part ignorance, part desire to stoke moral outrage.
I have to wonder what these right-wing nut-jobs would make of pantomime in Britain? It's family entertainment -- for kids but also with jokes for parents that kids won't get -- where the leading man is traditionally played by a woman and the "old maids" are played by men. It dates back to the Middle Ages so it's about as traditional and "old-fashioned" as you can get! https://www.britishpantomimes.com/ with origins explained https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantomime
It's not just the Fox News crazies who misunderstand/condemn something they know nothing about. I saw a local news spot about this. The story went something like "Well, this is NOT your father's Batman..." The unspoken implication was that was another stunning example of how the world's going to hell in a bucket. I admit I know very little about comics, but my thoughts when I heard the story were: "Comics are not real. It signifies nothing except to people who follow the stories. Must just be something I don't get, but it involves the JOKER after all. How in any universe is considered news anyway?" Proof you can even twist "unreality" to fit any real narrative you want.
The fascinating thing to me is when they get all the facts so completely wrong to the point that their coverage is nonsense the second you get any context, why do they even bother starting from something real in the first place?
Why did they wait for a Joker comic to come out with this content? Why didn't they run a segment on a completely fabricated trans stripper abortifacient batman or whatever? Clearly they have no qualms with making things up or getting the information completely wrong. I honestly don't understand what's stopping them. There's functionally no difference.
That's a good point, but tbh, what they've got going is so much easier and just as rage-inducing: taking whatever minor "outrage" they hear about on the internet and giving it the biggest possible audience. A few days before the Fox story, I saw a post or two about the comic on Twitter from some right-wing accounts grumbling about it. Fox sees stuff like that and is just like "yeah, our audience will also be upset about this" basically.
It's such a neverending well. There will always be things for people to be angry about on the internet. Some random person will go "I'm not going to [book/movie] because I don't support [actor/director/whatever]!" get a handful of retweets with a few comments in agreement, and then Fox will turn it into "Cancel culture comes for [actor/director/whatever]!" So long as people have opinions of things on the internet, and so long as the bar for "this should be a national news story" is so, so low, they'll never run out of things to rage about.
That's a good answer. It's just so easy to grab some nonsense off Twitter as a promlt that there's no need to do anything else.
In addition to what Parker said, I think it's a matter of How to Own the Libs. If you go on the air and say "TRANS STRIPPER ABORTIFACIENT BATMAN!" then people are just going to say, "you just entirely made that up, you loon," and where't the fun in that? But if you say "this comic raises the specter of raising the issue of male pregnancy!" and the Libs have to go to the trouble of saying "No, actually if you look at page 6 it's clear he isn't pregnant," then they can all chortle at how we have to "quibble" over "details" in order to defend our beloved Woke perversity.
FOX NEWS: PREGNANT JOKER STOLE CHRISTMAS AND YOUR STOVES
OMG What about ALIEN (1979) Where Kane gets pregnant???
"There is a bizarre new Batman storyline that has the Joker becoming pregnant and giving birth. This is a statement you literally could not say ten years ago"
You could tell me practically anything happened in a comic book from decades ago, and I'd go "Sounds legit." Given the inherent zaniness of superhero/supervillain stories and their innumerable deviations from the laws of observed reality, the question these Fox News contributors should ask themselves but won't is why *they* feel the need to make a statement about *this* storyline in *this* moment.
Also, can society please get past the idea that certain forms of media (e.g., comic books, animation) are inherently for kids?
For real! There are comic books for people of all ages. What always frustrates me about the semi-regular Fox News "OMG, something something woke comic book!" thing is that the people doing this very clearly don't know anything *about* comics, and it'll always be like "Did you hear they made Superman bisexual!?" not caring/realizing that whatever they're raging about is almost always some non-continuity story or in the case of the Superman thing, not about the Clark Kent version of Superman. Part ignorance, part desire to stoke moral outrage.
I have to wonder what these right-wing nut-jobs would make of pantomime in Britain? It's family entertainment -- for kids but also with jokes for parents that kids won't get -- where the leading man is traditionally played by a woman and the "old maids" are played by men. It dates back to the Middle Ages so it's about as traditional and "old-fashioned" as you can get! https://www.britishpantomimes.com/ with origins explained https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantomime
It's not just the Fox News crazies who misunderstand/condemn something they know nothing about. I saw a local news spot about this. The story went something like "Well, this is NOT your father's Batman..." The unspoken implication was that was another stunning example of how the world's going to hell in a bucket. I admit I know very little about comics, but my thoughts when I heard the story were: "Comics are not real. It signifies nothing except to people who follow the stories. Must just be something I don't get, but it involves the JOKER after all. How in any universe is considered news anyway?" Proof you can even twist "unreality" to fit any real narrative you want.
These "journalists" who you monitor and critique are not good faith actors. They are bigots whose hatred does not reduce to a knowledge deficit.
Thanks for the sacrifices you make on the discursive front lines. You never give these monsters an inch, which is so important.
Sending kindness and compassion from a sister.
You've got to admit - they had no choice, "Woker" was just irresistible.