Project Wonderful Banner

Sunday, February 14, 2010

2009 Golden Ellipses: Least Helpful Asterisk

And the winner is...Invisible Protestors.


The nominees for Least Helpful Asterisk are:

10 comments:

D Johnston said...

Least helpful asterisk is a tough one, as all of Tinsley's footnotes are useless. I went with the second one, mostly because he doubled down by citing Michelle Malkin and YouTube - not even a particular video, just the site. Of course, the whole point of the footnote in that case was to demonstrate how widespread the allegations were. Ergo, the asterisk was entirely gratuitous. Excelsior!

I hate chuck asay said...

Michelle Malkin is such a perfect choice that no other option should come close. It features multiple sources, all incredibly vague, and dubious, none of which the reader can check, because there is no point of reference within them. He shows no empathy for the supposed victims of these mysterious incidents, because he is a sociopath. He draws Obama standing in front of a microphone, because he hates technology, even, simple amplifiers.

It highlights everything that is wrong with Bruce Tinsley: He hates the poor, the working man, and, since minorities are more likely to be poor than whites, every other race. He exaggerates wildly, and makes ridiculous accusations about his enemies--i.e, everyone in the world--while ignoring their, actual, flaws.

I assume that Tinsley derived this comic from the incident where policemen tased a protestor during a town hall meeting--meaning, therefore, that he hates the police. Policemen have very difficult and dangerous jobs, and though some, like the ones in that incident, may go too far, that is true of every job. We should, also, remember that dealing with potential criminals is very stressful, and stress causes men to behave irrationally--in other words, Tinsley, fuck you, even, the most corrupt policeman is better than you.

Regarding the others:

Fox News: Is this footnote supposed to prove that Obama has an enemies list, or that he might add me to it? I cannot tell, because I have to watch the last three years of Fox News's programming in order to find the source!

Oh, Really: This footnote is barely more legible than last year's reference to John McCaGwn--I mean, John McCaslin.

Go Read It, I Didn't: Newsbusters is about exposing fake stories, right? How naive is Tinsley?

Word Verification: Micrato, a perfect description of Tinsley's brain, and heart.

CW in LA said...

Another tough choice - all very vague references, and all from very dishonest sources. I was going to go with the Fox News one because it's also the most leviathan-like, rendering the footnote particularly unhelpful.

But the one about the million supposed teabaggers pissed me off the most, so I did the conservative-approved thing and heeded my gut.

I hate chuck asay said...

Sorry, I confused the fourth and fifth examples.

Go Read It, I Didn't: Sorry, Tinsley, we should not be putting anyone to work. Your heroine, Ayn Rand is right: Anyone who is not rich is a lay idiot, and should not receive any support. I, really, appreciate the reference to the unimpeachable New York Times, conveniently abbreviated--no reader could, ever, be confused by abbreviations--home of such brilliant reporters as Jayson Blair, Howell Raines, Clark Hoyt, and Michael Gordon. This footnote is, only, excelled by the one I, previously, detailed.

deepbeep said...

When a cartoon claims Obama puts innocent senior citizens on an enemies list and cites "Fox News", and doesn't make the list... you know there's a glut of horrible asterisks this year.

I'll have to go with CW on this one. In Invisible Protesters he cites NewsBusters, a notoriously unreliable right-wing propaganda blog that could be shown in schools as a model for confirmation bias.

The two cartoons on the subject also led to my shortest and longest posts ever.

I also voted for Invisible Protesters because it's the easiest lie to debunk; it shouldn't take anyone more than 5 minutes to figure out the claim is completely fabricated. I'm surprised Tinsley couldn't squeeze that into into the 80 hours of research he has to work with.

Kip W said...

It's routine for Tin to claim validation by pointing at the Usual Gang of Idiots. He takes it a step further by claiming that eventheliberal New York Times backs him up, secure in the knowledge that his readers won't go there because they can't possibly have enough holy water and lucky rabbits' feet to feel safe looking at such a den of (presumed, unproven) lie-beralism. So I voted for Michelle Malkin.*

*No, I didn't.

HT said...

I'm going by the size of the lie over the general uselessness.

Most of these have rather useless sources, however, I'll forgive the Fox News ones because, while I hate Fox Noise, they can kinda-sorta tell the truth now and then. The New York Times, same thing, but to be honest, I rarely touch a newspaper these days, so I can't testify on that source. That leaves that mess of "sources" in "Michelle Malkin" that I can't even read, and Newsbusters, the most idiotic place to get a "source" yet.

Then, with that out of the way, I have to go with "Invisible Protesters", because that was just plain wrong in every way, AND was one of the single biggest aggravations I had last year in the conservative bias machine. It made me more mad in that there was a BIGGER gay rights protest in the same area not long after, and Fox, after crying and whining how the "liberal media" missed 1.93 million non-existent protesters, they give that event TWO SENTENCES at fucking best.

So, there is my logic. I've put more effort in my thinking for this and Tinshley ever will for a single comic.

rewinn said...

Invisible Protestors is the funniests since it was disproven the very day it came out, making the asterisk useless, but I went with the NYTimes jobs study because the asterisk was intended to reference a study that, as DaveyK noted, contradicted Brewsky's claim, making the asterisk of negative utility.

But it's a true hall of shame, no lie there!

Two million protesters LOL!

Randy said...

Well, I like to be informed before I cast my vote, so maybe someone can confirm or deny that the last source in the Michelle Malkin footnote is The Onion News (Network)? It's hard to tell at that resolution, but that's what I get out of it. If it is, then there's the issue of whether that makes this the hands-down winner, or crosses over into self-parody. I'm not sure Tinsley's capable of that, but I'll cross that bridge if/when I come to it.

Kip W said...

Randy, sad to say, I believe that's the Union-something. Union-News, maybe.