Oh, don’t actually give an example. That would be too “spot on” wouldn’t it. :rolleyes:
My favourite part of that other thread: a young elucidator doesn’t know what “gut-busting” means. 
Just ribbin’ ya.
I thought I just did.
The first comment isn’t stupid, it’s dishonest. It’s a little funny, but only because of how untrue it was in retrospect. “That depends on what your definition of is, is,” however, is hilarious, and people make fun of this quote all the time. I don’t know what rock you’re living under if you haven’t noticed this. It’s in all those “stupidest things said by politicians” books and calendars and things.
Scylla look at the time stamp - he posted that at the same time you’d posted your example. he was clearly (and quoted) a prior post of yours.
Yeesh, 8 hours later and a simulpost. Yes Scylla, I take it back.
I actually wouldn’t give the leeway you did. While the first chapter has some satirical descriptions that can slide truth wise, there are specific touchstone facts and I kind of felt that mention of the study was one of them. I thought it was distorted (the way he glossed all talk radio hosts together) but I wouldn’t have expected it to be polar opposite to what he said. Did she give him a bum steer or did he just twist it?
With all the people that hate his guts I’m surprised this is the first I’ve really heard of it (and well into this thread).
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by rjung *
**I don’t recall Bill Clinton snubbing the UN or starting a war over Monica Lewinsky, do you? **[/QUOTE
Ooh! Ooh! I do!
Remember, he fired some cruise missiles at facilities being used by some guy named Bin-Madden or something.
I seem to remember he got accused of trying to distract everyone from the Monica thing by wagging the dog.
So, was Bin-Madden (or whomever) a big deal or just an attempt to cover up a blowjob?
-Joe, loves the term ‘cognitive dissonance’
Yeah, I know. I was just giving him a hard time for being impatient and condescending.
No problem. In fact the simulpost offered me the opportunity for a smart-ass come back (which I of course took.)
Now I feel guilty for your being nice about it.
No probs. I’m actually remarkably reasonable.
Thanks for finding that Scylla, and thanks to Sofa King for digging that up. It certainly appears that Franken was at least wrong, if not lying.
I do notice that Franken quotes one of the researchers, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, and not the study itself, which Sofa King points out was released after Franken’s book. In addition to Franken simply lying, it’s also possible that Jamieson made statements based on preliminary results that turned out to be in error that was later fixed, or for some reason she was lying herself. I wouldn’t hazard a guess as to which of the three scenarios are the most likely.
I wonder what Jamieson has to say on the subject; has she ever claimed to be misquoted, or explained the disparity in what she said and the final results of the study? I did some Googling, but no dice. I didn’t look at every link found though; there was a lot of them.
Scylla, Franken is certainly wrong. But this does not appear to be a “definite falshehood [sic]”. As Sofa King noted, the study was completed after the book’s publication, and Franken’s conclusions were based on a statement from one of the researchers involved in the study.
Of course, it would be a lie if what Jamieson actually said is different from what Franken implies she said, or if Jamieson herself was lying about the results.
Cheddar and Rev:
Seriously though, I don’t have a problem with it, and I think the level of intent is moot. Franken’s book is obviously a bit toungue and cheeck, and as political humor he has considerable license, and needn’t be any more accurate than a “based on a true story” Lifetime movie.
It seems pretty clear to me from the 12 pages I’ve read that he’s making fun of himself and paryoding the more rabid liberal elements as he goes.
The scary thing are the moronic types who read it as Gospel and say “Oh Yes, this is very true.” I don’t think that they realize that they’re also being made fun of.
I guess I would only call it a lie if you were assuming that the book was written straight.
I’m of the mind that one who makes a living pointing out the lies of others should be called out on their own lies. I never bought the argument that humorists and the like get license. If he deliberately misquoted Jamieson I’d like to know.
slight highjack: Why are the two most prominent “liberal” pundits being discussed these days (Al Franken and Michael Moore) basically humorists?
Well, I tracked down what appears to be the official channel for emailing Al Franken, and asked what the deal was with the Kathleen Hall Jamieson study. If I get a response, I’ll post it here.
OK, next, Scylla, you say that he lied about what “ditto” means. Can you be more specific?
Good deal Max, thanks! I suppose with his new book out now and on the bestseller list, though, that channel is likely pretty congested.
FTR, Franken himself acknowledges the error. See page 11 of Lies, etc. I’d like to see any of the targets of his book (O’riley and the Peabody fiasco, for example) come forward with apologies or retractions on their own “inaccuracies”.
Attrayant, can you summarize what Franken says about the error?
Revtim, I believe he acknowledges that he was mistaken about the political knowledge of talk radio listeners (not necessarily Rush specifically), and says “I regret the error”.
I don’t have it in front of me, but I’m pretty sure that’s the gist.
Nah. I’ve joined the school of asking questions. That’s why I asked him one. Sometimes a question is a statement, but sometimes it’s just a question.