So why does John Malkovich want to shoot Robert Fisk?
May 14, 2002 3:30 AM   Subscribe

So why does John Malkovich want to shoot Robert Fisk?
Is Fisk right to be scared or does he deserve what he gets when he criticises the US and Israel? Read about Malkovich's threats here.
posted by zimbobzim (45 comments total)
 
Well, I'm not sure that he *is* scared (not of John Malkovich and associated anonymous hate-mailers anyway). His day-job is much more dangerous than anything that disgusted of Tunbridge Wells can throw at him.

Nevertheless, I can see why he is upset. Of any journalist covering the Middle East, he is the most consistently insightful (and, more to the point, human). The fact that he seems to be losing the smear-battle and reaching a point where the contention that he takes sides wrt Israel v Palestine is accepted as truth saddens me greatly. Of any Middle-East correspondant I have read, he feels like the most consistently even-handed. That is not to say that he has many (or any) nice things to say about either side (which I think is where the problems usually occur), but the simple fact of the matter is that short of recycling propaganda, there isn't much credit to find in the behaviour of any player in the Levant, from the perspective of the educated and stakeless.

In any case (although subjective interpretation is inevitable to an extent), Fisk's bias is a matter of written record. At some point someone will look closely at his writing, and we'll have a clearer perspective. I might even do it myself.
posted by bifter at 4:04 AM on May 14, 2002


"In early December, I was almost killed by a crowd of Afghan refugees who were enraged by the recent slaughter of their relatives in American B-52 air-raids. I wrote an account of my beating, adding that I could not blame my attackers, that if I had suffered their grief, I would have done the same...

Does this kind of filth have an effect on others? I fear it does. Only days after Malkovich announced that he wanted to shoot me, a website claimed that the actor's words were "a brazen attempt at queue-jumping". The site contained an animation of my own face being violently punched by a fist and a caption which said: 'I understand why they're beating the shit out of me.' "


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I don't understand why Malkovitch wants to shoot this guy. Why bother? Just let him be. One of these days Fisk will die by allowing himself to be slowly torn into pieces by a horde of hamsters.
posted by Stumpy McGee at 4:27 AM on May 14, 2002


War Now! "Are you an ex-leftie, pushed over the edge into savage right-wing thinking by the current unpleasantness? Yeah, me too ..." If this blogger lived in Israel, he or she would most likely be active duty military, not writing an aggressive blog.

Making threats ("I wanna kill so-and-so / whup yer a***, etc.) seems to be an unfortunate part of popular culture in some parts of the world. Perhaps police departments need to start taking threats more seriously.
posted by sheauga at 4:37 AM on May 14, 2002


I totally misread the title of this post.
posted by yerfatma at 4:43 AM on May 14, 2002


Surely Malkovich's comments are a "terroristic threat". Why is he not being rigorously interrogated by the FBI?

Fisk stands accused of making his own mind up. He reports what he sees, not what he thinks he ought to report. If concepts like "democracy" and "freedom of speech" mean anything then people like Fisk are extremely important. It's easy enough to allow freedom of speech when the subject is irrelevent or not popular. It's precisely these sorts of times when freedom of speech is so important.
posted by salmacis at 5:00 AM on May 14, 2002


The scariest thing of all in that article: Natalie Imbruglia, one-hit wonder from 1997/8, is ACTING in a film. Save us.

But I wonder if this thing is a set-up...notice the next-to-last paragraph, where there is a quote: "Who can get inside the head of John Malkovich?" Uh...are they trying to be funny?
posted by davidmsc at 5:00 AM on May 14, 2002


Did any one actually read the story reporting what Malkovich said:
The actor was addressing students at the Cambridge union debating society when he was asked who he would most like to "fight to the death".... Malkovich, star of movies including Dangerous Liaisons and the Killing Fields, replied: "I'd rather just shoot them."
Is that a threat or a flippant response to a flippant question (kinda what famous-guests-at-a-debating-society events are generally about). What's interesting is how both the politician and the columnist (Fisk isn't a journalist, he's a columnist - he is biased and writes that way because that's what columnists are supposed to do) removed the statement completely from it's context in order to pump up their own sense of importance. Then again, that's pretty much what these people are all about, isn't it?
posted by dchase at 5:03 AM on May 14, 2002


davidmsc

The scariest thing of all in that article: Natalie Imbruglia, one-hit wonder from 1997/8, is ACTING in a film. Save us.


Natalie Imbruglia is a much loved and well respected character actress y'know... I guess you don't get Neighbours over there...
posted by bifter at 5:05 AM on May 14, 2002


I had read Fisk himself and the article by him is totally about him--oh, he is suffering while the world goes on so peacefully!--and the title is totally misleading about Joh's alleged attempts to gety him. As some of you know, I think Fisk and his paper third-rate. But the, you like what you like.
posted by Postroad at 5:05 AM on May 14, 2002


It should not go unnoticed that Professor Judea Pearl of UCLA is the father of Daniel Pearl. What could he know about hatred?

"My father is a Jew, my mother is a Jew, and I am a Jew"
- the last words Daniel Pearl for made to say before his throat was slit.

As journalists, our lives are now forfeit to the internet haters. If we want a quiet life, we will just have to toe the line, stop criticising Israel or America. Or just stop writing altogether.

Perhaps Fisk has "journalist" mixed up with "columnist". Journalists aren't supposed to choose sides. I used to respect Fisk, that respect has long since faded. I'll let someone else pick up the "maybe I should just stop" comment.
posted by joemaller at 5:08 AM on May 14, 2002


Does anyone have anything more substantive to add than "I don't like Robert Fisk" here? God knows that journalists aren't easy people to like, we'll be here all day if we embark on a mass media hate-a-thon. I usually read Fisk threads, as my gut-feeling is one of like and respect both for him and The Independent. I've yet to see anyone offer any compelling evidence of his treating the Palestinian cause unfairly favourably, to the detriment of Israel.

It seems to me that this is (or ought to be) the nub of any accusation against him: not that he is a critic of Israeli and American actions, but that he culpably misrepresents the situation with the intention of advancing the Palestian cause. Otherwise the accusation of bias is meaningless. I'm open-minded on the issue, and prepared to reconsider should anyone be able to support accusations of bias...
posted by bifter at 5:47 AM on May 14, 2002


> Is that a threat or a flippant response to a flippant question

It sounds like a flippant response to a flippant question, like one puffed up public ego versus another, and not a real story, but I suppose a columnist gets a lot of publicity and a feeling of importance by declaring that people are not only trying to shut him up, but are trying to kill him. Does anyone think that this actor -- why do people interview actors about anything but acting or waiting tables? -- but does anyone think that this actor, even if handed a gun and given an open shot, would pull the trigger?
posted by pracowity at 5:49 AM on May 14, 2002


He's spent too much time in ruffled shirts sporting swords...epee, lunge, not there not there...

I feel this has more to do with the threat perception of the statement as opposed to Fisk's biases, bifter. Read salmacis and sheauga 's comments above.
posted by bittennails at 5:51 AM on May 14, 2002


davidmsc: notice the next-to-last paragraph...are they trying to be funny?

The whole paragraph is a quote from Galloway, and the "Being John Malkovich" reference is not his only allusion to Malkovich's films. Observe:

Mr Galloway asked: "Who can get inside the head of John Malkovich, a very strange man offering a dangerous liaison - indeed, offering a killing field?"

I'm not so sure Galloway is taking this whole thing seriously. Earlier in this same article, he is quoted as saying, "We can have a high noon at the Old Bailey if he likes."
posted by thatweirdguy2 at 5:52 AM on May 14, 2002


Fisk isn't a journalist, he's a columnist - he is biased and writes that way because that's what columnists are supposed to do
Columnists do go to war zones and report about what they see. Journalists do. Fisk has intimate knowledge of the area being a middle east correspondent for around a quarter of a century.
Other than that, what bifter said.
posted by talos at 6:02 AM on May 14, 2002


Err, I meant ...Columnists don't go to war zones... sorry
posted by talos at 6:04 AM on May 14, 2002


Here is the article where Fisk turns Pearl's murder into another "why is it so hard to be me" column. That came two weeks after referring to Pearl as a "friend". He mentions his Afghan beating again, then blames Geraldo. He fails to realize that he and Geraldo are two sides of the same coin.
posted by joemaller at 6:05 AM on May 14, 2002


Talos: You got it right the first time. Some columnists do go to war zones.

The difference between columnists and journalists has to do with viewpoint and language. Fisk is constantly writing about himself. In this column Fisk writes about himself, referring to himself in the first person more than 20 times. Journalists remove themselves from their stories. We look to columnists for informed opinions. We look to journalists for objective fact.

Of course the actual quantity of "objective fact" in most journalism is quite small. In some ways we're probably better off with columnists, as long as their words are taken as opnion. Facts are better distilled from multiple viewpoints and retellings.
posted by joemaller at 6:14 AM on May 14, 2002


George Galloway may be making slightly jokey references, but the man is an MP and he also says:

"His comments are especially dangerous because in a couple of days' time, I will be in the Palestinian Authority visiting President Arafat and there are a lot of bullets flying around there."

Threatening him is as bad as threatening Robert Fisk. Imagine the fuss if a UK actor had said about a senator?
posted by laukf at 6:18 AM on May 14, 2002


bittennails

I feel this has more to do with the threat perception of the statement as opposed to Fisk's biases, bifter. Read salmacis and sheauga 's comments above.


Okay... fine. I'm not really sure that I see your point though. Threats don't occur in isolation, and the post itself asks if Fisk deserves such threats as a result of his comments regarding the US and Israel.

I can't see that there is too much to discuss on the threat perception side. George Galloway clearly thinks the whole issue is hilarious, while reading Fisk's articles it seems clear to me that clear, public and forthright condemnation of Malkovich's behaviour implies anything but fear. His point seems to be that making such comments publicly (whether sincere or not) cheapen life and contribute to an atmosphere in which taboos (such as wishing people you don't agree with dead) become more easily broken, and eventually a realistic proposition. However, many of the comments in this thread choose to focus purely on irrelevant personal attacks (he is taking the threat of being murdered by John Malkovich too seriously... he is self-obsessed... he is not a "real journalist" etc)

A last thing: just read joemaller's last post on preview. I think we disagree strongly on Fisk, but agree totally on the best way to process and evaluate media coverage. I'd tend to add that objective fact is a scarce currency in the current middle-east climate, where disinformation is common-place from all parties. In view of this, I'd argue that "columnists" such as Fisk should be treasured, not pilloried, for their insight and perspective.
posted by bifter at 6:23 AM on May 14, 2002


Journalists remove themselves from their stories. We look to columnists for informed opinions. We look to journalists for objective fact.

That kind of stylistic objectivity (which, I'd argue, is more stylistic than objective) is usually highlighted as the major difference between US and British journalism. I'd argue that most major US print journalism has the life 'objectified' out of it. Anyway, I think to argue that 'journalists remove themselves from their stories' is a rather detached piece of absolutism. (He said, recalling Homage to Catalonia.)

Certainly, Fisk is at his best when he has something to describe, rather than just opining. But his descriptions are worth reading by the fact that he has three decades of personal experience of the region, meaning that the events he describes on a daily basis can be compared directly to his own experience of, say, Lebanon in the mid-80s. If anything, it shows up the deficiency of 'stylistic objectivity', which at the very least attempts to drain out the cultural memory of a situation which is sustained by just that; at worst, it perpetuates a subtle bias, in which only one side is cast as 'defenders'.

And, look, all war correspondents are fucked in the head. That's why they seek out the smell of gunsmoke, and that's why editors send them as far away from the office as possible.

(laukf: Galloway's received far worse threats from inside his own party. He's not known as the 'member for Baghdad Central' for nothing. And what's scary is that nowadays he sounds almost reasonable compared to the people on the front bench.)
posted by riviera at 6:39 AM on May 14, 2002


It sounds like a flippant response to a flippant question, like one puffed up public ego versus another, and not a real story, but I suppose a columnist gets a lot of publicity and a feeling of importance by declaring that people are not only trying to shut him up, but are trying to kill him.

That's what this looks like to me, too. Fisk has learned that a journalist who obsessively covers himself, a la Andrew Sullivan, never has to go far to find a story. There's no other explanation for treating a thoughtless remark at a debating event like it was an ayatollah's fatwa.
posted by rcade at 6:42 AM on May 14, 2002


Fisk is trying to counterbalance the shooting of Pim Fortuyn by an eco-leftist by claiming that the rightists also do the same thing. This guy has no shame.
posted by mikegre at 6:50 AM on May 14, 2002


I have little regard for Fisk but one poster wanted to know what he has done that is less than decent (or good) journalism or writing: for starters, look up his piece on the huge massacre that took place in Jenin. Then, after, when a number of outfits went in , such as Amnesty and Human Rights, it became clear that there was in fact no massacre. And yet Fisk, on the spot, reported that one had taken place. Just plain incompetence or heavily biases: does it matter which?
posted by Postroad at 6:54 AM on May 14, 2002


mikegre: putting the 'nonsense' into 'non sequitur'.

Postroad: you're wrong there on a couple of counts, and that you don't provide sources perhaps shows why your memory is, on this occasion, suspect. If you're referring to this piece, Fisk is undoubtedly stringing together sketchy reports with comparisons to Sabra/Shatila, but he doesn't call Jenin a massacre. He primarily asks what the Israelis had to hide from the press. He wasn't 'on the spot', nor does he claim to be: not simply because the Israelis were barring access to the press, but because he was in the US on speaking engagements at the time.
posted by riviera at 7:04 AM on May 14, 2002


To be honest Postroad, thats not a great example. I'll try to find the article after work for the sake of courtesy, but you and I both know that Jenin is not an open & shut case by any stretch of the imagination. Without being flip (and believe me I don't find it a laughing matter), "massacre" is hardly a precise quantitative measurement (how many were there in the Texas Chainsaw variety...? Less than 10 as I recall, and certainly less than the recorded number of deaths at Jenin...)

The point of the issue is, as you say whether he is biased versus (for the sake of argument) incompetent (or competent as I'd contend...) The reason why, I think, it matters is that media bias relating to the middle east is so closely tied up with accusations of political and racial partiality. The end result of endless accusations of bias is the creation of a victim culture on both sides, which can only serve to undermine the chances of reconciliation, put the lives of journalists such as Robert Fisk or Daniel Pearl in danger from over-credulous fanatics and make good journalism more of a rariety than it is at the moment.

Consider it as a "boy that cried bias" situation if you like - it can only end in tears.
posted by bifter at 7:16 AM on May 14, 2002


Riviera and Bifter I salute you: informed, measured and intelligent.
posted by niceness at 7:23 AM on May 14, 2002


hmm, shooting the messenger, such a simple solution to any problem. A sitaution reaches a new low when suddenly not the story itself but the commentator/journalist offering biased opinion becomes the focus for attention and occasional bile, pathetic.
posted by johnnyboy at 7:26 AM on May 14, 2002


to clarify I was referring to malkovich et al, most of what I've read here is well niceness pretty much hit the spot.
posted by johnnyboy at 7:28 AM on May 14, 2002


Postroad:
Amnesty 1:
"What we are looking at is facts and the facts are: civilians, including children, were killed; humanitarian assistance was blocked and the wounded were denied medical assistance. Extensive demolition of houses rendered three thousand people, the majority children, homeless," said Irene Khan.".... "She also clarified that there is no legal definition in international law of the word 'massacre' and that its use in the current circumstances is not helpful."Whatever terms one uses, the situation in Jenin begs for a full, impartial and independent investigation," stated Ms Khan."
Amnesty 2: "The Amnesty International delegates have been talking to Palestinians who have escaped from Jenin and to residents of Jenin and the camps by telephone, and have received eye-witness testimony of houses being shelled or bulldozed on top of the residents, and of Palestinians, including children being left to bleed to death in the streets."

HRW: "There is strong prima facie evidence that in some of the cases documented grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, or war crimes, were committed. Such cases warrant specific criminal justice investigations with a view to identifying and prosecuting those responsible.
Human Rights Watch researchers also identified other serious violations of the laws and customs of war, such as the practice of shielding, in which Palestinian civilians were used to screen Israeli soldiers from return fire. Shielding, while not a "grave breach" of international humanitarian law, is nonetheless absolutely prohibited and warrants investigation."
Fisk: A review of his writing on recent events collected at Znet, finds no mention of the word "massacre"to describe what happened in Jenin. Indeed what he reports is consistent with what AI and HRW reported.
Would I be too optimistic if I expected you to retract your statement above?
posted by talos at 7:29 AM on May 14, 2002


Agreed, Talos. There was a documentary on Channel 4 last night about the Amnesty delegation that went to Jenin to investigate claims of a massacre, finding evidence galore of what one member of the group called "war crimes". It's just wrong to say that, after Amnesty went in, "it became clear that there was in fact no massacre."
posted by skylar at 9:10 AM on May 14, 2002


Well if Malkovich really said that he wants to kill the guy, he should just be slapped by a court and serve some time in social services : you can't just threath a dude in public and expect no consequences.

I think It's just a sick form of advertising, but what's the difference between a threat and sick advertising , that he didn't actually kill the coloumnist ? Guess that if you threated to kill some high profile US officer you'd be in jail or with a stick upon your *ss already, so make room John you deserve spanking.

Oh, on a side note, I'm not going to see any of his movies or suggest to, bye bye poor advertising.
posted by elpapacito at 9:17 AM on May 14, 2002


This seems to be part of long-held presuppositions about Israel in the United States coming to a fore (maybe). I think this could be seen in the same company as those who are cancelling their subscriptions to the NY Times and LA Times because of alleged pro-Palestinian bias. The reality, I think, is more subtle-- for a long time America has been only getting one side of the story, and with the added attention on the region sides are being taken that paint the side-taker into a corner when something doesn't go their way. America is still overwhelmingly in support of Israel (if not its current leadership) and there is always a tendency to shoot the messenger (or want to) when you have taken a firm side and someone else shares information that doesn't fit into your view.

Of course, as in most celebrity/journalism stories, there is blame to spread around everywhere. To paraphrase rcade, those with big egos will always find themselves involved with whatever story they're following.
posted by cell divide at 9:45 AM on May 14, 2002


"The end result of endless accusations of bias is the creation of a victim culture on both sides, which can only serve to undermine the chances of reconciliation, put the lives of journalists such as Robert Fisk or Daniel Pearl in danger from over-credulous fanatics and make good journalism more of a rariety than it is at the moment."

Whoa! Are you actually comparing the murder of Daniel Pearl by violent Islamists to the well deserved ribbing that Fisk is subjected to? Please tell me you're kidding.
posted by Stumpy McGee at 10:54 AM on May 14, 2002


Stumpy McGee

Whoa! Are you actually comparing the murder of Daniel Pearl by violent Islamists to the well deserved ribbing that Fisk is subjected to? Please tell me you're kidding.


Well thanks for the heavy distortion, which is either deliberate or ignorant - I'm not sure I like it either way. I meant exactly what I said, which on re-reading seems perfectly clear. Contributing to a situation where a point-of-view opposed to your own is uniformly portrayed as "bias" (ie unfairly favouring the opposing point of view) irrespective of any actual evidence to indicate that this is the case enables a situation where journalists are no longer seen as objective, but are perceived as allies of one side, and consequently enemies of the other: ie ostensibly legitimate targets for extremists and militias.

This was clearly the situation with Daniel Pearl and, I'm afraid to say, is a danger for any ME correspondent including Robert Fisk. If you really, truly, honestly contend that there is no party other than the Palestinians or their sympathisers who are capable of similar acts then there's not really any point having this discussion (just to be absolutely clear: I'm *not* claiming that there have been other murders of journalists, however I do see Daniel Pearl as a precedent that can be directly traced back to the contemporary myth of widespread media bias, and I don't think that its only perceived Western, First World sympathisers that are at risk).

In summary: I think that Fisk's point is that the culture surrounding journalism has changed to a point where they are no longer safe in their work. This is a result of the widespread use of actual or perceived bias as a reference point for criticising their writing. Death threats (or "well-deserved ribbing", as I'm sure you'll describe it the next time you're at the end of some) are one point on a scale of violence that ends in murder. The death of Daniel Pearl illustrates this.
posted by bifter at 11:43 AM on May 14, 2002


"Well thanks for the heavy distortion, which is either deliberate or ignorant - I'm not sure I like it either way. I meant exactly what I said, which on re-reading seems perfectly clear."

What distortion? I re-read your sophistry, and it still makes no sense - just lots of ambiguities and cliched appeals in the name of common humanity.

"Contributing to a situation where a point-of-view opposed to your own is uniformly portrayed as "bias" (ie unfairly favouring the opposing point of view) irrespective of any actual evidence to indicate that this is the case enables a situation where journalists are no longer seen as objective, but are perceived as allies of one side, and consequently enemies of the other: ie ostensibly legitimate targets for extremists and militias."

I never criticized his right to freely express himself. Just don't get your panties in a bunch if people disagree with your analogy, which is very inaccurate.

"This was clearly the situation with Daniel Pearl and, I'm afraid to say, is a danger for any ME correspondent including Robert Fisk."

No, this wasn't the situation with Daniel Pearl. Was Pearl targeted by his fanatical murderers for what he wrote? No! He was murdered for what he was. It's not like his killers believe in objectivity.

"If you really, truly, honestly contend that there is no party other than the Palestinians or their sympathisers who are capable of similar acts then there's not really any point having this discussion ..."

Where in the world did I suggest that?

"In summary: I think that Fisk's point is that the culture surrounding journalism has changed to a point where they are no longer safe in their work. This is a result of the widespread use of actual or perceived bias as a reference point for criticising their writing. Death threats (or "well-deserved ribbing", as I'm sure you'll describe it the next time you're at the end of some) are one point on a scale of violence that ends in murder. The death of Daniel Pearl illustrates this."

How can you even compare the political climate in which educated residents of a developed, democratic First World nation make fun of a reporter who "understands" why a mob attacked him (IMO, Fisk is brain-dead) with the utter paranoia and pure hatred of tribal militants of a largely illiterate nation such as Pakistan?
posted by Stumpy McGee at 12:46 PM on May 14, 2002


Well, at risk of indulging a troll even more, I'd love to hear some sort of reasoning behind the following accusations:

1. My sophistry.
2. Robert Fisk's braindead status.

Glad to hear that you also seem to have all the answers regarding the motives of Daniel Pearl's murderers. Top bit of armchair punditocrasy.

Post-mortem props to everyone else for what was previously a pretty civilised thread.
posted by bifter at 3:01 PM on May 14, 2002


I noticed that you did not even address any of my points. Good job.

"Well, at risk of indulging a troll even more, I'd love to hear some sort of reasoning behind the following accusations:"

Thanks for your kindness, master.

"1. My sophistry."

OK, re-read what you wrote:

"The end result of endless accusations of bias is the creation of a victim culture on both sides, which can only serve to undermine the chances of reconciliation, put the lives of journalists such as Robert Fisk or Daniel Pearl in danger from over-credulous fanatics and make good journalism more of a rariety than it is at the moment."

It was fine until you decided to draw a comparison between Fisk and Pearl (in the sentence above, "or" can only function as a conjunction used to indicate a synonymous relationship between two terms). I don't recall Pearl ever being decidedly on any side - he was doing a story on Islamist militants in Pakistan when he was butchered by them. Are you telling me that Fisk faces the same problem when he goes to interview some hostile middle-aged American? I don't think so.

"2. Robert Fisk's braindead status."

Re-read this:

"In early December, I was almost killed by a crowd of Afghan refugees who were enraged by the recent slaughter of their relatives in American B-52 air-raids. I wrote an account of my beating, adding that I could not blame my attackers, that if I had suffered their grief, I would have done the same."

Do you want more proof?

"Glad to hear that you also seem to have all the answers regarding the motives of Daniel Pearl's murderers. Top bit of armchair punditocrasy."

Where did I say that I have "all the answers"? Did you even read that BBC link that I provided?

"Post-mortem props to everyone else for what was previously a pretty civilised thread."

Hey! This thread is not dead yet, Mr. Pallbearer.
posted by Stumpy McGee at 4:56 PM on May 14, 2002


It's just pining for the fjords.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:47 PM on May 14, 2002


Fisk's a fool and I just find this whole thing hilarious. Good for Malkovich.

Why do They hate Fisk? We need to examine the things Fisk has done that could engender this kind of reaction. Let's look for the root cause...
posted by Hieronymous Coward at 1:48 AM on May 15, 2002


Geesh! It's amazing what happens when you leave your screen for a day.
For what it's worth I find it curious that people feel the need to threaten or at best ridicule writers that they disagree with.
It's just plain lazy and Malkovich took the laziest route - jokey threats aimed at getting laughs in a student debate.
A more challenging method would have been to take on Fisk at his on game and write something better.
posted by zimbobzim at 1:57 AM on May 15, 2002


Oh, re comparable cases,
(1) in 1998 Alec Baldwin said on national TV that Rep. Henry Hyde and his entire family should be stoned to death. Baldwin, alas, is not currently in prison or even in France.
(2) Spike Lee said NRA director Charlton Heston should be shot.
(3) Craig Kilbourn called for snipers to kill Pres. George W. Bush then added, "Hell, I’ll do it myself."
(4) Others...?

Conclusion: Hollywood types shoot their mouths off all the time, saying far worse things than the current affair, with little/no consequence. Fisk's a whiner.
posted by Hieronymous Coward at 1:59 AM on May 15, 2002


oops - "to take on Fisk at his own game" - is what I meant to say
posted by zimbobzim at 2:00 AM on May 15, 2002


Hey! This thread is not dead yet, Mr. Pallbearer.

That's what they say after every hijacking.

--BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!--
posted by crasspastor at 2:06 AM on May 15, 2002


"That's what they say after every hijacking.

--BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!--"


Why don't you just shut the fuck up?
posted by Stumpy McGee at 9:09 PM on May 21, 2002


« Older   |   Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments