Bad Reporter by Don Asmussen

Bad Reporter

Recommended

Comments (12) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Another Dave

    Another Dave said, 4 months ago

    Reminded me of this, for some reason. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZej3K1BCJg

  2. Hugh B. Hayve

    Hugh B. Hayve said, 4 months ago

    A horseburger! A horseburger! My kingdom for a horseburger!

  3. TheTrustedMechanic

    TheTrustedMechanic said, 4 months ago

    @Another Dave

    Almost as creepy as a clown. Okay, maybe creepier.

  4. prrdh

    prrdh said, 4 months ago

    Well, that explains why the MacDonald clan sided with Henry Tudor.

  5. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, 4 months ago

    I never liked the Burger King when they made him into that masked creature.

  6. Chikuku

    Chikuku said, 4 months ago

    Richard III was innocent! He did not murder his nephews! Will Shakespeare’s play of Richard III is a bunch of lies! Read “The Daughter of Time.”

  7. fritzoid

    fritzoid said, 4 months ago

    My interest in Richard III is as a literary character, not as an historical figure.

  8. TheWildSow

    TheWildSow said, 4 months ago

    @Chikuku

    Any of Kate Sedley’s books, too.

  9. blackash

    blackash said, 4 months ago

    @Fritzoid My interest in Richard III is as an historical figure and not a literary character. Shakespeare was more a propagandist than historian. But then Shakespeare probably wasn’t really Shakespeare, was he? More likely he was Edward de Vere the Eighth Earl of Oxford.

  10. hippogriff

    hippogriff said, 4 months ago

    blackash: Of course, how could a mere tradesman’s son ever do anything creative. It must have been a nobleman. And the media always tells the truth!
    – brought to you by the Committee for the Junta of the 1%.

  11. fritzoid

    fritzoid said, 4 months ago

    @blackash

    Shakespeare was a dramatist, not a propagandist, and he didn’t let historical facts get in the way of a good story.


    “Richard Crookback,” twisted in body and mind, was the “official story” of the time; it’s not like Shakespeare made the characterization up out of whole cloth. History plays were popular on the Elizabethan stage, and audiences always love a good villain. And certainly there was no way a fledgling playwright (Richard III was one of Shakespeare’s first produced plays) would put on a play which challenged the Tudors’ claim to legitimacy.


    And if you want to go into the “Authorship Question,” I’ll oblige, but it would fill all available space…

  12. John W Kennedy

    John W Kennedy said, 4 months ago

    A) Shakespeare probably believed his version of Richard to be honest—it was what he found in the history books available to him. The propaganda had been written and was in place before he was born.

    B) Richard was certainly innocent of a good many things, but when it comes to the princes in the Tower, I have yet to see an adequate defense against the fact that when the question was raised in his lifetime, he stonewalled. I suspect he managed to convince himself that it was “for the good of the kingdom”; God knows men before and after him have done the same.

    C) OMIGOD NO! Not the “authorship question”. Kill it! Kill it with fire!

  13. Refresh Comments.