Conquer Club

....

Is that supposed to be Papa BEAR holding Michael Jackson's head on a stick?

It's a commentary on how Rupert Murdoch's monopoly on mainstream media has us receiving all our news from him, with his biases. Unless I'm mistaken?

I know nothing of American broadcasting. Apart from the channels themselves.

What the hell?

sweet man. The effect with the lines to make it look like its on a TV really sells the piece.

yeah, i got it.

i think it's a great piece of work, keep it up.

yes.

....

static_ice wrote:Pretty much, and I'm trying to whack all the major media, for claiming to be politically correct and fair just because they can hire black people and women.

I don't think it really worked...

Guiscard wrote:

static_ice wrote:Pretty much, and I'm trying to whack all the major media, for claiming to be politically correct and fair just because they can hire black people and women.

I don't think it really worked...

Subtlety?

Guiscard wrote:

static_ice wrote:Pretty much, and I'm trying to whack all the major media, for claiming to be politically correct and fair just because they can hire black people and women.

I don't think it really worked...

yeah, i agree. seems more personally directed at Murdoch, than the mass media at large.

i also don't understand the commentary on black people and women... that doesn't connect for me, from that image. seems more skewering Michael Jackson... and suggesting that the "King of Pop" is a mask worn by "King of News Media"

in that vein, it suggests to me that you are criticizing Murdoch as guilty of "infotainment" -- not legitimate journalism.

but that's just my interpretation.

reminisco wrote:

Guiscard wrote:

static_ice wrote:Pretty much, and I'm trying to whack all the major media, for claiming to be politically correct and fair just because they can hire black people and women.

I don't think it really worked...

yeah, i agree. seems more personally directed at Murdoch, than the mass media at large.

i also don't understand the commentary on black people and women... that doesn't connect for me, from that image. seems more skewering Michael Jackson... and suggesting that the "King of Pop" is a mask worn by "King of News Media"

in that vein, it suggests to me that you are criticizing Murdoch as guilty of "infotainment" -- not legitimate journalism.

but that's just my interpretation.

I don't think that's Micheal Jackson, but I don't watch enough American News to identify her.

Guys... that's Robin Robinson, hence the new name Rupert Rupertson.

Ah, that makes more sense.. I thought it was michael jackson

static_ice wrote:Guys... that's Robin Robinson, hence the new name Rupert Rupertson.

Then you've found a major flaw in your work, haven't you.

....

static_ice wrote:I guess on the more universal scale, but maybe it will have more success on the local level. How much more obvious can it get from the FOX Chicago logo, the peculiar name, and the womanly business suit?

Apparently a lot more obvious.

Sorry, just wasn't a particularly good bit of satire. The message is a bit of a confused one. Unless there is something that gives it some meaning (for example, if it accompanied an article about a statement by Fox News that they are multicultural because they employ black news readers) it really makes very little sense.

Guiscard wrote:

static_ice wrote:I guess on the more universal scale, but maybe it will have more success on the local level. How much more obvious can it get from the FOX Chicago logo, the peculiar name, and the womanly business suit?

Apparently a lot more obvious.

Sorry, just wasn't a particularly good bit of satire. The message is a bit of a confused one. Unless there is something that gives it some meaning (for example, if it accompanied an article about a statement by Fox News that they are multicultural because they employ black news readers) it really makes very little sense.

To be fair, you are from England, right? Not exactly static ice's neighborhood, last time I checked.

InkL0sed wrote:To be fair, you are from England, right? Not exactly static ice's neighborhood, last time I checked.

Oh no, obviously. But I was referring to the American posters who were confused.

And yet the Canadian posters who understood.
Perhaps the message isn't the problem, but the audience instead.

Well, ultimately this piece will probably be in the next all school art show and will thus be seen by a lot more locals, and I think anyone that lives in Chicagoland who watches FOX would easily recognize Ms. Robinson. So I guess my question is, would you think anyone who never watches this show, through curiosity, be able to get the basic concept that Murdoch speaks through his anchors after a small amount of research based on what I give (however much interested curiosity they acquire from the piece aside )?

Plus, let's not forget that art is not only about the artist's message, but also about the message that the audience gets from it. So if they already know just one thing, that the mask is not Michael Jackson, is that really too confused?

New version a little rushed...


I know she looks like shit.