The right to free speech doesn't mean that the world is your posterboard. Litter and graffiti is not magically transformed because it has political speech on it.

I am really offended and frustrated by the depiction of the woman in this cartoon. Big boobs, blank stare...it's offensive. The issue is right on. I'm down. But I'm actually really hurt by the illustration of the woman. Why not have the anchor be a man? Or if it was a woman on the nightly broadcast that delivered the report then why not at least have her fully covered. Because a woman delivered a story that is bullshit on a network that is rotten she has to be a depicted as a ditz in tight close and big boobs? Ugh.

Let me catch you up, because you must have been born this morning...the cartoon is a satire. Fox News (and CNN, MSNBC...) "use" sex to get middle-aged, fat, balding, scared working class, lo-IQ men to accept and obey their point of view. Fox News, can't even go a segment without making a sexual innuendo. That is the rule book from their CIA mind-control rule book.

If your offended, please direct it towards Fox News, not at the creative artist who drew this poster (merely, the messenger).

And don't forget, 9/11, was an inside job!

this poster is incredibly offensive on a couple of different levels:
1) it offends and alienates every blond woman with large breasts that has ever been called or been made to feel like a "blond bimbo"
2) it puts the news persons physical appearance on center stage - do you see the dead Iraqis in the poster? i don't, all i see is breasts.
3) it puts the person who is delivering what is a really angering news story (and is thus the object of some spiteful feelings from this audience)in a sexualized position. this makes it so that the target of the audience's anger is a sexualized woman. the last time that i checked having anger pointed in a sexualized manner was called SEXUAL VIOLENCE (in other words things like rape, stalking, harassment, etc). last time i checked sexual violence was not appropriate or funny or okay to use in political messaging for those professing to work for social justice

Actually it does.

One standard for your cause and another for someone else's? Last summer Indymedia was up in arms over corporate advertisements chalked on public sidewalks. But I guess that was different free speech because you didn't like what was being said?

I find it amazing that: #1 people write the posters are offensive because it is "litter and graffiti" while over a million bodies rotting is "not offensive?"; #2 Fox News choices "Ditz of both sexes" to deliver news, that is a priority on that "news station". Obviously the Fox viewers pay more attention to big boobs and ditzy people rather than bodies of children, women, old, and whole families piling up inside Iraq and rotting or the bodies of our soldiers coming home to rot.

Like in trying to hawk or sell something for a profit. Does ANSWER have a new line of cosmetics or dog food we haven't heard about? The attacks on ANSWER only make it look like an embattled victim and bring it even more support. If that is the states intention, its working

Now slime on back down to Little Brownshirted Troglodytes.

... and cleanse the public airwaves from the pestilence of Murdochtiasis. More shrimps on the barbi, mate?

QUOTE: "this makes it so that the target of the audience's anger is a sexualized woman. the last time that i checked having anger pointed in a sexualized manner was called SEXUAL VIOLENCE (in other words things like rape, stalking, harassment, etc)."

This seems to me to be quite an overstatement. Accusing Mike's drawing of being or promoting a form of sexual violence akin to rape, stalking, and harassment?

I'd first note that these criticisms themselves assume that a drawing of a blond, busty female is inherently portraying an "blond bimbo" -- how is that assumption and assertion different from what Mike is being accused of here, exactly? The "blank stare" is wide cartoon eyes -- again, another stereotype being assumed, because the assumption itself is a mere stereotype based on the fact the woman is blond and busty?

The fact is, FOX News regularly employs females who fit a certain standard look, and while I don't know if the specific news story was delivered by them, I do know of a couple of FOX News female anchors who indeed have the short blond hair and are on the "busty" side. That they often wear clothing to accentuate their physical look is also true -- as it is for many, many other news stations and local newscasts as well.

Perhaps Mike was indeed not merely demonstrating the manner in which the Iraqi death-toll was ignored in favor of a story bashing ANSWER, but was also demonstrating the fact that FOX and other news outlets incorporate the "attractive news anchor" into their propagandizing. Does anyone actually dispute that this happens? If we all know it is a tried-and-true method, then why is Mike being attacked for mocking it alongside the sort of stories it is used to promote while overshadowing other less "savory" stories?

I'm surprised anyone said the breasts are "center stage" -- the lines and shadow on the clothing don't make the breasts prominent at all, they are below the "horizon line" of the drawing (where viewers' eyes traditionally fall when first viewing an image) whereas the face and words occupy the prominent position of the drawing.

I'm also surprised that anyone suggests the image directs the viewers' "anger" at a "sexualized woman" -- sorry, but if you think that activists tend to transfer their anger over one million dead Iraqis from the information to the explict gender of the person delivering the report, and particularly that such anger would not only be gender-transfered but done so in a sexual manner, I have no idea what sort of view of activists you have or with whom you have done your activism, but my guess would be perhaps the Freepers?

I don't just say that as a joke -- there are key elements of that post that seem to indicate a certain attitude towards activists:

* "the object of some spiteful feelings from this audience" -- ahh, anger at the news story of one million dead Iraqis is being called "spiteful feelings", and it comes "from this audience"... that's a rather telling combination of sentiments.

* "the last time that i checked" -- this one's a bit less obvious, but if you scan the comments trolls usually post around here, you will see that this is one of their favorite phrases; not necessarily a huge "tell", but suggestive when combined with the other questionable statements in the post, especially since it comes right before this next one...

* "in political messaging for those professing to work for social justice" -- again a sort of back-handed remark at activists, especially coupled with the early remark about "spiteful feelings from this audience".

Not saying absolutely that I think this is just a troll pretending to be an woman angry at the image, but trolls frequently love to come around here and pretend they are something they aren't (female, black, an activist, smart, etc). So just something to keep in mind. If the poster is NOT a troll in disguise, then my earlier remarks still hold true, plus the use of comments like "spiteful feelings" is perhaps at LEAST as offensive as the things about Mike's drawing that offend her (again, our anger over the news story stems from "spiteful feelings"? really??).

Lastly, Mike's art frequently feature a look that is sometimes intentional caricature -- this is no different. I do not think it was intended to be offensive; I don't think most viewers look at it and immediately just see breasts; I don't think activists who see it will transfer anger towards women in a sexually violent manner (a HUGE leap, and itself not just a small bit horribly offensive in its commentary about activists-as-sexually-violent-offenders); and I don't think that any degree of evocation of a "blond bimbo" in the image is any stronger than the automatic assumption and interpretation of the image being made as a "blond bimbo" because she's blond and has large breasts.

"One standard for your cause and another for someone else's? Last summer Indymedia was up in arms over corporate advertisements chalked on public sidewalks. But I guess that was different free speech because you didn't like what was being said?"

You assume any of us think there's any legitimacy in personal liberties like freedom of speech being granted to inanimate corporations. I have always been 100% opposed to granting ANY civil liberties to corporations as if they are people, while they assume NONE of the usual liability a person would assume (a person kills another person, they get charged with murder; a company kills people, and they don't). Moreover, advertising in order to drum up monetary profits for said company is NOT akin to individual citizens exercising their freedom of political speech -- and courts have long recognized very clear differences in speech generally, in terms of granting stronger protections to political speech. So the comparison is illegitimate, and the views of activists in this matter are not hypocritical.

HOWEVER, your own views just might be sheer hypocrisy -- IF you personally DO support the right of corporations to draw on sidewalks and plaster walls and other items in cities with ads, then how can you possibly not support ANSWER and other activists' rights to do likewise? You will perhaps claim you personally don't oppose activists posting fliers etc, but generally speaking I think we all know you'd be full of crap if you made such a claim.

Just so folks know Fox 5 news has several blonde female reporters!

I notice the video captions are of White activists posting their signs on Georgia Ave NW by Howard University. Why not post those signs on Observatory Circle or by Sibley Hospital. Long after you've left the city, your signs continue to pollute the Black community. I'm tired of pulling them down.

I haven't been involved in this discussion, but I've got to say that reading Drew Poe remark that "this seems to me to be quite an overstatement" was one of the funnier pot calling the kettle black moments I've had in a long time. Thanks for that.

If that steams you, you should be even angrier having to look up at a building named the WHITE HOUSE, occupied by a white rich racist prick, who has less intelligence than a dog.

Real Black men don't get upset about the name of the White House. Also, real Black men don't say "Bro".

Are you trying to insult me? I would need to know you for your insults and attacks to mean something to me. Real Black men don't get upset over ignorance, we disregard it.

I left a relevant comment about the status of DC Indymedia that was not hidden, but apparently outright deleted.

Please remove Indymedia's name and logo from the top of this website. It's a farce. This site doesn't comply, by any stretch whatsoever, with the requirements of being a member of the Indymedia network.

It'll be a shame of DC Indymedia has to be the first site that needs to be forcefully voted out of the network.

great poster, Mike.

i saw the clip from it on the main page and thought it was satire of Hillary Clinton and the mainstream media's hoopla about her cleavage a few weeks ago.

y'all remember that old Glen Fry song from the 80's?

"bubble-headed bleach blonde, comes on five, she'll tell ya bout the plane crash with a gleam in her eye" Dirty Laundry!

keep up the great work!

and for all y'all who don't like political posters, move to friggin' China you unamerican scum. they don't allow that over here. If you can't handle freedom, leave.

Damn' sure do, man. What a great ol' song. I've had it stuck in my head all goddamn' week.

kick 'em when they're up, kick 'em when they're down…!

…y'know the boys in the newsroom got a running bet!
Get the widow on the set…!

I'm going to get something off my chest here, and I'll say in advance that it's with all due respect to any friends and comrades reading this who I've worked with since A16 — hell, since before Seattle, even. You know who you are.

(ahem)

I'm going to keep this as short and to the point as I can — I hope — as I consider any time spent on this huge, wretched, stinking heap of rotting red herring that is the whole Cartoon Female Objectification Pissfight to be time utterly wasted.

I'm appalled to the goddamn' bone to see that so many "activists" (spit) are so totally unable to understand the real issue here — indeed, to even understand where the real struggles and real enemies are in general — because their brains are so totally soaked in the party line that they don't have enough neurons left to formulate a single original, free thought. This is the kind of mindless "thinking" that's made the US Left a worldwide laughingstock — and I mean, among other Leftists.

If these people have issues with the news networks objectifying women by putting nothing but a bunch of cheesy tarts on the air, why the hell don't they take it to MSNBC, take it to Fox, take it to CNN — just don't get all over my goddamn' case about it, because I'm just calling this shit as I see it.

They're as bad as the goddamn' Christians…they exude an attitude that says "we hate sex, we hate sexuality, we hate eroticism, we hate womens' bodies, we hate beauty, we hate art". These are the kind of people who raise hell over college professors hanging copies of Titian's "Odalisque" in their classrooms because it Objectifies Women (spit).

They harbor a mentality no different from John Ashcroft who, apparently, is so sexually repressed that he couldn't even handle the bare breasts on a marble statue of Lady Justice, and blew a chunk of the DOJ budget to have a cover made for them, to the tune of about ten thousand dollars. Yeah, that's right, ten grand of your tax money and mine, to COVER UP THE TITS ON A GODDAMN' STATUE. I'd invite anyone here to show me how the modern edition of shrieking, bitching, howling, self-absorbed, PC dogma-fixated, shark-jumping Amerikan Feminism is any different from the censorious Christians, or the goddamn' Taliban, for that matter. Hell, there's even a post up here from some Feminist(tm) suggesting that the anchortart in the cartoon be "fully covered" — in just those words. So, what, do you want me to draw a version of her in a goddamn' burqua, then? In your dreams. Afghanistan is about five thousand miles that way. Please, fucking go there, if you have that big a problem with cartoon cleavage.

Jayzus. Here, the government of this city is doing its level best to suppress public dissent, one million Iraqi dead, and these people are shitting themselves over THE TITS ON A GODDAMN' CARTOON CHARACTER. And, you know what's really sad, what really kills my ass dead is that these goddamn' groupthinking drones really do think they're radicals.

That's right. They think…they're…RADICAL. (spit)

I think that if the antiwar/antiglobalization cargo cults want to find out why the Working Class(tm) and Black America(tm) don't want to "follow" their middle-class collegiate white asses, they should take Bob Dylan's advice and Stand Naked in front of the mirror and take a good hard look. Here we are with the best chance over of finally dismantling the status quo, and the only thing the US Left can do is to spout weak-assed shopworn dogma, anguish over stupid bullshit and just generally act like a bunch of goddamn' losers.

Now, I normally don't let this kind of shit bother me — hell, I don't even read the comment threads on my stuff most of the time — but here we are with free speech being seriously threatened by the State in this city, and the only thing these goddamn' college poseurs can do is bitch about the tits on a goddamn' cartoon character…and at my age, I just don't have the emotional energy to spare to put up with these fucking people anymore.

Phew. There. I'm done. Thanks.

This poster is terrible.

If not in DC, then where else could there be protest signs.

Fox did a good job advertising the sign's existance, and the sign's important message. Iraq is for war-contract-criminals to make BIG $$, printed by the terrorist organization, the Federal Reserve.

Iraq is the training ground for our "new" Gestapo police state force cops. Have you noticed how many ex-troops are now cops? These guys are Huge steroid freaks, who will kill your grandma if ordered.

Fox News will eagerly cover the story of watching these anti-American "cops" smash our heads in violation of Freedom of Speech.

This is the plan. 9/11 was done by our own government - face the facts.

I left a comment here which wasn't party-line Stalinist, so it was deleted.
I'm not sure why the "rights" of irrelevant Red fascist organizations, who are living off of irrevocable trust funds set up for them by confused socialites in the 30's are worth censoring anarchists for. MAybe the editors can explain?
Let me try again:
FOX news and Int'l ANSWER are both on the wrong side of the social war, but at least FOX news is amusing, and occasionally relevant. ANSWER doesn't have either problem.
As an anti-authoritarian, to me, those may as well be nazi or democrat posters, and not worth mounting a symbolic defense over.
Besides, who cares about their posters, or their "action". Whether 5 people show up or 500,000 people show up, it will have absolutely no impact, except on DC traffic patterns.