Rumors of Cap'n Crunch's Death Greatly Exaggerated by FOX News

Flickr user israelavila
You wanna hate FOX News even more? Two days ago, they published a story under the headline "Food Police Kill Cap'n Crunch." It wasn't even original reporting, but rather a HuffPo-esque news-aggregator blurb that printed a story from AOL's DailyFinance blog. That story's headline is significantly different--"Is Cap'n Crunch Easing Quietly Into Retirement?"--and the story pointed out Quaker Oats hadn't promoted the mascot for the beyond-sugary cereal in years, that Michelle Obama is targeting bad kiddie-eating habits, and that Capn' Crunch topped some egghead's list as the least nutritious kid's cereal on the market, amazingly beating even Froot Loops. Ergo, another liberal conspiracy is browbeating America.

Oh, if only Cap'n Crunch really were walking the plank (I was always more of a Lucky Charms guy, anyway) . . . but he's not.

Unlike FOX News, Ad Age is a responsible publication that actually bothered to get a quote from Quaker Oats, who said not only that they are not planning to kill off the Cap'n, but also that they just created a Facebook page for him.

Geez, folks, if FOX News lied to you about cereal, you really think they're going to state the truth about American foreign policy?

Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
Cereal Killer
Cereal Killer

R.I.P to the Capn'

Im going to go tear up the roof of my mouth with sugar pellets right now!


Didn't need anymore reason to hate them, but I'm not surprised they would report on something before checking their sources to ensure the truth.


SHUT UP!!!!!!

Vi Personi
Vi Personi

"Read my post before you comment, please!"

How about if you watch the news shows on Fox for more than a couple hours a year before you comment on their lies! LIES! LIES!!? Or can't you get past bias?

>Geez, folks: if FOX News lied to you about cereal, you really think they're>going to state the truth about American foreign policy?

I hate to take your mind off an important topic like cereal, but you could learn some serious lessons about the mainstream media's serial liars by becoming a regular reader of, for example, the Wall St. Journal opinion pages. Or can't you get past bias?

To use a technique from Bill O'Reilly's "man on the street"-style interviews:

Fox Interviewer: "You say that Fox lies about American foreign policy. Can you cite an example?"

Demonstrator/Student/Passerby: "So many lies, I wouldn't know where to start."

Fox: "Well, how about giving us just one example."

D/S/P: "You're all a bunch of liars, man!"

[That's almost verbatim from a recent interview and not only typifies people at demonstrations but is only moderately less sophisticated than the professional liberals with dissenting views that O'Reilly, unlike CBS/NBC/ABC, has on his show every night.]


My thoughts about your post:You hold up Wall St. Journal opinion pages as some sort of lesson to be learned about the mainstream media's serial liars, and ask "can't you get past bias?" The WSJ is biased, especially the opinion page. All opinions are biased. But, how can you call one side "liars" and compare it to an opinion page? Are you saying that it's the "opinion" of the WSJ that the mainstream media is lying? Or does the WSJ opinion page do fact checking on the mainstream media? Your argument is confusing,,, like comparing the proverbial apples and oranges.

Same thing with your comment on O'Reilly's show. He'd be the first to tell you that his is a news commentary / analysis show, and that's why he has people with dissenting views as guests. Network news doesn't have guests. Their weekly news discussion programs (Meet the Press, Face the Nation, This Week) certainly do feature guests of different and dissenting views. Like I said earlier, comparing apples and oranges.

Now Trending

From the Vault