«
CC InDecider You Make the Joke Challenge - Obama is Smokin'! |
Main
| Adam Sandler Lampoons Rich British Dude You Never Heard Of »
Meet Joel Surnow, seen here sporting a soul patch and defending the necessity of torture with Samwise Gamgee on Fox News. Joel is a successful producer of "24", the hit series starring Keifer Sutherland. He's such a huge proponent of violating the Geneva Conventions that the Dean of West Point paid a trip to tell the "24" team to tone it down a bit.
So what else is going in with Joel, other than harboring dreams of making a pro-Joseph McCarthy movie? Why, he's also producing "The 1/2 Hour News Hour," a show that's turning out to be a giant stinking turd of an excuse for political satire. Don't believe us? Check out this clip of Rush Limbaugh as the President and Ann Coulter as VP.
Why even undertake such a venture? We'll let Joel explain it in his own words to that arbiter of comedy, TVGuide:
TVGuide.com: Why do you think there needs to be a conservative version of The Daily Show?
Joel Surnow: One of the things you always look to in the TV-content business is what's not out there. One of the things that's definitely not out there is a satirical voice that skews to the right as opposed to the left. You can turn on any comedy satire show on TV and you're going to hear 10 Bush jokes, 10 Cheney jokes, but you'll never hear a Hillary Clinton joke or a global-warming send-up. It's just not out there.
To which we say, OH REALLY?:
(More after the jump)
Is this what you're looking for, Joel?
Still think you're the only sad little clown in the wilderness? Try ELEVEN PAGES of Letterman "Hillary Clinton" Top 10 Lists.
In a recent New Yorker article, Surnow paints himself into another corner:
"'Conservatives are the new oppressed class,' he joked in his office. 'Isn’t it bizarre that in Hollywood it’s easier to come out as gay than as conservative? Right now, they have to be nice to me . . . But if the show tanks I’m sure they’ll kill me.' He spoke of his new conservative comedy show as an even bigger risk than '24.' 'I’ll be front and center on the new show,' he said, then joked, 'I’m ruining my chances of ever working again in Hollywood.'
If only that were a promise.
Earlier: Fox News Proves Sucking Up is Easy; Comedy is Hard
Recent Comments
Conservatives are not an oppressed class at all. What a stupid thing to say. Who'd have thought that someone who produces the show that keeps depicting muslims as bad guys and americans as good guys would be this nutty? Coming out as gay is not as easy as "coming out" as conservative, not even close. Conservatives like this idiot are whiney cowards who have to characterize themselves as the poor, defenseless minority. Really, Joel, conservatives are a minority? When was the last time a white man was fire for his race? When was the last time was paid less for his gender? When was the last time a Christian had to swear on the Qur'an? When was the last time a heterosexual was killed for his "abnormal life-style?" The DEFINITION of a social minority is an oppressed class, which precludes republiCONs because they control 2 of the 3 branches of government, and have three times the money of the opposition. What Joel means by oppressed minority is that straight, white anglo-saxon protestant males are no longer free to use slurs, create segregation, beat their wives, and put the 10 commandments up in a court of law. I can tell from the clip listed that his horrible idea for a conservative daily show is going to fail miserably, that'd be great!
Posted by Andy | Feb 15, 2007 3:40:16 PM
That limbaugh/coulter clip is like the comedy equivalent of a black hole. It's anti-comedy. It sucks all humor within a certain radius into it and crushes it into unfunny nothingness. Even most of the rightwingers at hotair hate it.
Posted by Kiefer Sutherland | Feb 15, 2007 3:41:36 PM
You know how people with eye-patches got their eye poked out? I think people with soul-patches got their soul poked out.
Posted by Jan Michael Vincent | Feb 15, 2007 5:10:48 PM
The only reason conservatives are the butt of so many jokes is because the have been the status quo since 2000. When the democrats decide to roll (or limp) into town, watch the jokes flood forth like a Hannity Tsunami. That's why Rush was only popular in the 90's, cause its no fun kicking the guy that already down (okay, it is fun, just less fun than picking on the big guys).
Posted by Steve | Feb 15, 2007 6:56:40 PM
The only reason conservatives are the butt of so many jokes is because the have been the status quo since 2000. When the democrats decide to roll (or limp) into town, watch the jokes flood forth like a Hannity Tsunami. That's why Rush was only popular in the 90's, cause its no fun kicking the guy that already down (okay, it is fun, just less fun than picking on the big guys).
Posted by Steve | Feb 15, 2007 6:56:45 PM
here in Chile, an extremely right wing air network adapted a left wing argentinian political satire show.
it's a franchise. both shows are the same. The same name. "C.Q.C. Caiga Quien Caiga. (Whoevers Falls"). And Here In Chile the extremely right wing version of the show rocks with "the people". If you codify something cool enough, put enough money on it and hype it, people buys it. The guys of C.Q.C are the faces of many ad.campaings. And are sort of socialites.
here in chile we have a socialist government. and a woman president. and the right wing show works. great ratings. I hate it. it's homofobic, christian and so badly written.
so. prepare for the half hour show not to tank, and for the cultural wars to start beating in a more pop zone.
(sorry the english. here we speak in spanish)
Posted by jose miguel villouta | Feb 15, 2007 8:31:56 PM
i don't have the heart to break it to you but the colbert report was poking fun of those who disagree with global warming, not global warming itself, so you've just helped to confrim surnow's thesis...
Posted by abybaby | Feb 15, 2007 10:12:14 PM
Conservatives are the new oppressed class? I don't know about that. But it's absolutely clear that Comedy Central would not lob a post as full of bile (and fear!) as this one at someone aiming to create a, say, gay political satire show because there isn't enough pro-gay sentiment already out there. And tossing out a few pro-gay gags on Letterman or the like wouldn't prove anything to the contrary in that case any more than Letterman's Hillary lists, etc. do here.
Your post shows mostly that Comedy Central - at least - is afraid, very afraid, of what you're fulminating against. Existing TV political satire programs are neutral and nonpartisan and make fun of everyone? Sure they are, just like the Old network news programs are and always have been neutral and nonpartisan and investigated everyone. Hey, Dan Rather and Mary Mapes are still arguing that on the unemployment line! Colbert and Stewart fill the demand for conservative comedy skits? Please. You're embarrassing yourself.
But it's Rupert Murdoch who's dancing on the Old networks' graves (including CNN) while eating their lunches. Looks likely that old devil Rupert is going to have to put on his dancing shoes again and watch those calories.
Surnow's thinking ("One of the things you always look to in the TV-content business is what's not out there.") is exactly what led Murdoch to found Foxnews. Creating a conservative political satire show is just one step beyond that. Sounds very profitable.
Cheers!
Posted by Terry Hughes | Feb 15, 2007 10:54:18 PM
about that Rush/Coulter clip...shouldn't a "comedy clip" have a joke in there? Just asking.
Posted by Hats Bagelman | Feb 15, 2007 11:00:40 PM
Conservatives (of the neo sort) get picked on because they are dumb. That's the only reason. No Rush Limbaugh philosophy necessary.
Posted by kamknauss | Feb 15, 2007 11:24:38 PM
Does it occur to the authors of this site, and many of its readers, that most conservatives don't find much on Colbert and Stewart to be very funny? And that the conservatives therefore don't watch Colbert and Stewart and kindred programs? Are such authors and readers of this site to whom that idea has not yet occurred capable of dressing themselves without professional aid?
Posted by Terry Hughes | Feb 16, 2007 12:22:57 AM
hey, abybaby, but you obviously to do have the heart, and you're wrong. means you're shitty on two parts. sorry.
Posted by poor abybaby | Feb 16, 2007 1:41:38 AM
Sweet jesus, leave it to fox news to suck the life and integrity out of everything. "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."
Posted by GlennBecksATool | Feb 16, 2007 4:01:01 AM
This show is gonna be a laugh-a-decade hit. I can just tell.
Posted by AlanSmithee | Feb 16, 2007 8:31:56 AM
Did it occur to you Mr. Hughes that a large swath of the American public doesn't adhere to strict labels of liberal and conservative? And where's the proof of your assumption that the writers on this site aren't laughing at a good jab at the so-called political left? The problem with the Fox show is that it's starting from a political agenda and trying to force it through the structure of comedy, as opposed to most of your other late night shows that start from a position of trying to be funny first. Surnow's fallacy is that he's setting his particular camp as a bunch of martyrs when comedians of all stripes have been using ALL politicians as grist for the mill. Only the willfully ignorant would suggest that there are sacred political cows who've been left untouched on late night TV.
Posted by Meiyouren | Feb 16, 2007 9:08:04 AM
I've never watched "24" because, from the publicity, it seemed a bald case of capitalizing on exaggerated post-9/11 terrorism fears.
Surnow isn't a conservative. He's despicable.
Posted by RickinSF | Feb 16, 2007 10:03:57 AM
Some time ago, maybe a couple of months, I saw an item on Newbusters.org. That's right, Newsbusters, the right wing answer to MediaMatters. Anyway, it detailed a study done that showed, over the month of October, 2006, the Daily Show's jokes were pretty much evenly split betweeen Democrats and Republicans. The most common object of their barbs? John Kerry.
The article's main complaint was that the show was ovrwhelmingly negative. Overwhelmingly negative! When was the last time anyone saw satire that was positive?
I think three things are illustrated by this
1. If you make fun of liberals, you're just telling the truth.
2. If you make fun of conservatives, you're biased.
3. Those in the world who don't get it make it miserable for those who do.
Seriously, take the time to go to Newsbusters and read that item. It will make your brain hurt.
Posted by ChazzAzz | Feb 16, 2007 10:25:36 AM
Anyone who's seen a clip of "The Unfunny Comedy News Show" or whatever they are calling it can vouch that Surnow supports torturing people...
Posted by Jupiter 8 | Feb 16, 2007 12:40:38 PM
Meiyouren and ChazzAzz:
Murdoch created Foxnews after reviewing a study demonstrating (1) a very large majority polled perceived the Old mainstream media to be left-biased compared to the general public, (2) a substantial proportion of people polled perceived the Old mainstream media to be left-biased compared to that person, and (3) that perceived political bias is a very significant factor used by many people in choosing which media to view. Insisting that Stewart and Colbert are the like are nonpartisan is just wrong and sad, and resembles the feckless insistence of the Old mainstream newsmedia that THEY are nonpartisan. To the extent perceptions of bias are at issue, how YOU perceive these shows is irrelevant; what matters is how the PUBLIC perceives them. Insisting to the contrary did not keep Murdoch from snatching the Old newsmedia lunches, and it won't work now.
If "the problem with the Fox show is that it's starting from a political agenda and trying to force it through the structure of comedy" then Fox could easily make a bundle. Deliberate political humor and satire often does make a bundle. Or have the authors of this site and its readers reached the point where they think "All in the Family," "Maud." other Norman Lear efforts, and tons of political humor going back many thousands of years were "just trying to be funny" and didn't start from a political agenda?
Mostly what your comments and this post demonstrate is yet another reason why Rupert Murdoch is a multibillionaire and you guys are struggling to make your mortgage payments.
Among other things you harp on that don't matter a rat's patoutie:
1. Whether "a large swath of the American public doesn't adhere to strict labels of liberal and conservative." These are useful categories for commercial calculation.
2. Whether there is "proof" that the writers on this site aren't laughing at a good jab at the so-called political left. Further, the writers of this site clearly indicate that the three videos to which this post links are "good jabs at the left." They are not. They are ambiguous pulled-punches at most. Pathetic.
3. Whether the Fox show is "starting from a political agenda and trying to force it through the structure of comedy." See Norman Lear and many, many others.
4. Whether most other late night shows start from a position of trying to be funny first. Please. This is just embarrassing.
5. Whether "comedians of all stripes have been using ALL politicians as grist for the mill." It's all in how many punches are pulled. "Nice day to be nude?" The punch in that one is not even visible.
6. Whether "there are sacred political cows who've been left untouched on late night TV." And Old mainstream newsmedia would sometime roast a Democrat. So what?
7. Whether the Daily Show's jokes were pretty much evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. It's all in how you tell them. Pseudo-metrics purporting to show "nonpartisanship" of the Old newsmedia didn't save them, and they won't help now.
8. Whether the most common object of Daily Show barbs was John Kerry. Groan. Are liberals ever going to peel the Kerry/Edwards stickers off their bumpers?
Cheers!
And good luck making those mortgage payments!
Posted by Terry Hughes | Feb 16, 2007 1:19:45 PM
And, O, yes, if we're referring to how Newsbusters views Colbert and Stewart, perhaps we might take a look at a few Newsbuster posts on the matter. Here's a typical one (http://newsbusters.org/node/9242):
"The November 15 edition of 'The Colbert Report' on Comedy Central offered more proof of comedian Stephen Colbert's ineffective charade at pretending to be a conservative. The hatred for conservatives comes through loud and clear as Colbert mocked Rush Limbaugh's addiction to Vicodin and compared him to mass-murder-inspiring Charles Manson. Minutes later, he invited Al Franken to do a victory dance for Democrats, and Franken chanted 'We took the House and Senate' as he thrusted his pelvis to cheers and applause."
Gee, that doesn't read like an endorsement of Colbert's nonpartisanship. Does it?
Posted by Terry Hughes | Feb 16, 2007 1:32:27 PM
1. Whether "a large swath of the American public doesn't adhere to strict labels of liberal and conservative." These are useful categories for commercial calculation.
I disagree, I think they are actually divisive labels used by people like you to help you group people to hate. And by people like you, I mean left as well as right.
2. Whether there is "proof" that the writers on this site aren't laughing at a good jab at the so-called political left. Further, the writers of this site clearly indicate that the three videos to which this post links are "good jabs at the left." They are not. They are ambiguous pulled-punches at most. Pathetic.
I laughed at the TDS clip. And I'm willing to bet you did too at at least one of those three things listed above. If you didn't go through all 11 pages of top 10 lists before writing that, you're just a liar. Either way, could you show me a TDS clip against the right that is more virulent than the Hillary bit listed above? One that doesn't, as you say, pull a punch?
3. Whether the Fox show is "starting from a political agenda and trying to force it through the structure of comedy." See Norman Lear and many, many others.
Agreed.
4. Whether most other late night shows start from a position of trying to be funny first. Please. This is just embarrassing.
I actually don't know what you're talking about here, so I'll stay neutral...
5. Whether "comedians of all stripes have been using ALL politicians as grist for the mill." It's all in how many punches are pulled. "Nice day to be nude?" The punch in that one is not even visible.
Well, you may have a point about ONE clip. Congratulations.
6. Whether "there are sacred political cows who've been left untouched on late night TV." And Old mainstream newsmedia would sometime roast a Democrat. So what?
So what? If you agree with that statement, then you are admitting defeat! Grow a pair!
7. Whether the Daily Show's jokes were pretty much evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. It's all in how you tell them. Pseudo-metrics purporting to show "nonpartisanship" of the Old newsmedia didn't save them, and they won't help now.
"It's all in how you tell them." Are you saying something about pulled punches again? My friend, you need to do a butt-load more research before making blanket statements like this.
8. Whether the most common object of Daily Show barbs was John Kerry. Groan. Are liberals ever going to peel the Kerry/Edwards stickers off their bumpers?
As you have no actual point here, I end my post, suffice to say, I sold my car last month with the bumper sticker still on.
Posted by AnswersToTerry | Feb 16, 2007 1:40:56 PM
(No)AnswersToTerry:
All of your fulmination is not going to keep Rupert Murdoch from snatching another big lunch. Enjoy your new used car!
Cheers!
Posted by Terry Hughes | Feb 16, 2007 1:52:15 PM
No car any more at all! I'm one of those nasty environmentalist hippies, but thank you for the sentiment.
Tell you what. I'll meet you here in two weeks, if That show has been picked up for a third episode (only two have been bought so far), I will concede this debate.
Posted by AnswersToTerry | Feb 16, 2007 2:02:22 PM
No car any more at all! I'm one of those nasty environmentalist hippies, but thank you for the sentiment.
Tell you what. I'll meet you here in two weeks, if That show has been picked up for a third episode (only two have been bought so far), I will concede this debate.
Posted by AnswersToTerry | Feb 16, 2007 2:05:25 PM
The issue of bias in the media is a large and confusing one, and as it pertains to comedy, the situation is even harder to discern.
I think that whichever party is in power at a given time is the likeliest to be skewered by comedians. However, it seems like a fact that comedians and commentators such as Stewart, Colbert, and various late night show's writing staffs are liberal in their political views. A great litmus test lies in listening to the live studio audience reaction to political jokes. Skewering Republicans will likely result in uproarious laughter and cheers, whilst poking fun at Democrats gets polite chuckles or boos.
I think it's unhealthy for media outlets to have any political agenda or bias, or to create this sort of two-sided choice in comedy. But reading this site and hearing the opinions of those bashing this announcement should make it clear that those of a liberal bias are oblivious to the fact. If we want to avoid creating an unfunny conservative leaning show, then the other shows need to change, fess-up, or make some room for other opinions.
Those of a liberal mindset can't recognize their own political stripes, as they associate heavily with like-minded individuals. When people with different or opposite political beliefs come in contact with them, they argue it's not a difference of political opinion, merely right vs. wrong. Very infuriating.
Posted by Goldwater | Feb 16, 2007 2:26:34 PM
If you want some funny, no-pulled-punches video jabbing the left (and as a bonus demonstrating some of the conceits of bad left-wing TV), take a look at Stall 60:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srnnAaMltQA
Too bad NBC yanked the SNL lampoon of Hillary's double-talk from Youtube. Now THAT was a dead-on roast. The video is gone, but some of the choice bits of text are available here: http://newsbusters.org/node/10287
But none of that makes SNL non-partisan!
Posted by Terry Hughes | Feb 16, 2007 2:41:58 PM
I'm pretty sure this Terry Hughes guy is a liberal parody of a wingnut. Most folks this clueless already have their own show on Fox.
Posted by Stu | Feb 16, 2007 2:53:35 PM
Imagine watching this without the Brady Bunch era laughtrack. The Daily show will be to Half Hour News Hour as Saturday Night Live was to Fridays...
Posted by roman | Feb 16, 2007 3:33:15 PM
Stu:
You are absolutely correct! I'm not real, just a liberal parody of a wingnut. You got me fair and square with your brilliant mind and witty writing!
Gee, I should have realized that anybody so clueless as to suggest that Stall 60 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srnnAaMltQA) and the SNL Hillary lampoon (http://newsbusters.org/node/10287) were actually FUNNY had to be a parody. How could I have made such mistakes.
O, BOO HOO!
By the way, what's "Stu" short for? Don't tell me now. I may not be real, but I'm not Stupid.
Posted by Terry Hughes | Feb 16, 2007 4:50:08 PM
You know, Terry, I think I'll just back away slowly and not make eye contact. Enjoy your weekend.
Posted by Stu | Feb 16, 2007 5:51:02 PM
Given the seething anger in your comments, it's a really good idea that you're accepting treatment, Stu. But you should lose the snarl ... so unbecoming. We wouldn't want you losing control and getting all unhinged just because somebody said something you don't agree with again. Messy, messy. Remember how long it took to clean up last time. Please, keep it up, take your medication, too (now, now ... ALL of it) and do have that good weekend! However, because it's important to be honest with the recovering, I have to say that I'm glad not to be in the room with you.
Cheers!
Posted by Terry Hughes | Feb 16, 2007 6:07:04 PM
Oh, Terry. You were so much more clever earlier on this string. Why sink to such subpar ad hac insults now? You would have been better off not going for the last word.
Posted by michael | Feb 16, 2007 6:58:38 PM
For a news channel that pushes itself as Fair and Balanced, although most people know better than that, they picked a really fast way to really kill any doubt people might have otherwise had. Surnow proclaims that there is no political satire against people like Hilary Clinton and other Democrats, which is not true and can be easily proven false in many different skits and videos. The problem that seems to be stemming from this show is that it's a complete smear against democrats and liberals - and most particularly Democratic hopefuls for the 2008 ticket. And when it comes down to it, whether this show fails or not in the long run for being a blatant rip off of SNL, if it helps the GOP in the 2008, the show will have done it's job. It's just going to be the new dumb 'Fahrenheit 9/11' ploy to try to sway votes away from one party to another.
The smear campaign begins.
Posted by xdustinx | Feb 16, 2007 7:34:17 PM
Michael:
I have no interest in insulting Stu, as such. But his comments ARE very angry - and for no reason other than simple disagreement. Someone who asserts the non-reality of those who disagree ("Terry Hughes ... is a liberal parody of a wingnut") and suggests they are animals ("I'll just back away slowly and not make eye contact") are well and appropriately served with a more personal, pointed reply, including for his own sake. Not accepting that those who disagree are real people is humorous ... so long as one is not within arms' reach of such a person.
Whether I'm clever or not, Murdoch still cleans up.
Enjoy your weekend.
Posted by Terry Hughes | Feb 16, 2007 8:48:01 PM
You guys are PATHETIC!!! So what if the conservatives want to make fun of the left? They've been putting up with your crap for YEARS!!! Wow, it's funny how being the 'punch-line' should only be reserved for the Right - simply sad Liberals, just sad. Losers.
Posted by Lefft-Wingers . . . | Feb 16, 2007 9:00:49 PM
You guys are PATHETIC!!! So what if the conservatives want to make fun of the left? They've been putting up with your crap for YEARS!!! Wow, it's funny how being the 'punch-line' should only be reserved for the Right - simply sad Liberals, just sad. Losers.
Posted by Lefft-Wingers . . . | Feb 16, 2007 9:02:53 PM
The fox skit and stall 60 are both not funny at all. Backing away slowly and not making eye contact is not referring to you as an animal, it is just nobody wants to talk to you, they want to exit without having a pointless argument that may turn violent. (supported by your arm's reach comment) Perhaps I don't understand the Christian references. Why is it funny that the waitress is a Christian? I honestly don't know. How is it funny that people actually believe in church and state being interrelated? That isn't funny, it is frightening. When Mr. Stewart was making fun of Mrs. Clinton, it was funny because her slogan is terrible. To be honest, your writing skills are not of highest standards, which makes you appear less intelligent. I am not attacking you, I really think trying to improve your communications skills will help you as a person.
Posted by ben | Feb 16, 2007 9:45:09 PM
Stall 60 is not funny at all? Whatever you say, Ben. But maybe you might want to Google up some of the sites that have linked to it - sites that DO think it's funny and aren't conservative in any sense. Do you think maybe this insensitivity on your part might have something to do with your own political views, just a little bit? Do you think maybe OTHER people's political views might affect what THEY think is funny as political satire, too? Do you think that maybe a lot of conservatives don't think Colbert and Stewart are funny, for example? And do you think that just maybe a lot of conservatives would watch the Fox show you think is bad and unfunny and dumb because they think it's good and funny and smart, the same way they think Limbaugh is good and funny and smart in enough numbers to make Limbaugh stinking rich - a lot richer than you are or ever will be even if you win the lottery? Baby steps, Ben. Baby steps.
"Backing away slowly and not making eye contact is not referring to you as an animal." Please read these sites to understand what Stu was saying and then post another comment if you still want to raise the point:
Dog: http://www.ussartf.org/dog_bite_safety.htm
Bear: http://www.the-great-outdoors.net/
Wild pig: http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/smc/department/home/0,2151,5556687_10575174,00.html
Cougar: http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/56683.html
Other animals: Do a Google.
"They want to exit without having a pointless argument that may turn violent. (supported by your arm's reach comment" Ah, yes, Ben. But the violence is all on the side of the person who admits he may have trouble controlling himself if he makes eye contact.
"Perhaps I don't understand the Christian references." Ben. there's no "perhaps" about it.
"To be honest, your writing skills are not of highest standards." Well, Ben, when you're right, you're right - and I can't write, at least not well. What can I do? Everything you say is true. The ugly truth has been dragged from me here: I'm not real - a mere liberal parody - and I'm an unintelligent, illiterate animal. And there's worse, if only you could see it: I'm fat and hairy as a bear.
But I have soul. I can only hope for help and pity from those like yourself who are closer to God and know how to construe HIS will in an always non-frightening and soothing manner consistent with the ethical system of their choice.
Posted by Terry Hughes | Feb 16, 2007 11:45:28 PM
OOPS the Cougar link is a dud. Try this one:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:vNuZ-mFXCMcJ:www.freenewmexican.com/news/
56696.html+Backing+away+slowly+and+not+making+eye+contact&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=30&gl=us
Posted by Terry Hughes | Feb 16, 2007 11:55:52 PM
Stall 60 is not funny at all?
/agree
ask me if i think - i claimed to be insensitive? i think democrats represent me? what?
ask me if i think - people think differently??? no way
ask me if i think - people think differently??? no way
ask me if i think - people watch fox? omfg
tell me there exists a person who makes more than me
Meet Joel Surnow, seen here sporting a soul patch and defending the necessity of torture with Samwise Gamgee on Fox News. Joel is a successful producer of "24", the hit series starring Keifer Sutherland. He's such a huge proponent of violating the Geneva Conventions that the Dean of West Point paid a trip to tell the "24" team to tone it down a bit. 
| Permalink:
| Comments (51)