The few time I’ve listened to Paul Harvey’s “The Rest Of The Story” where I had first hand knowledge or reliable second hand knowledge it seems that he’s been big on stretching the facts to make his story sound better. Without the stretching he didn’t seem to have much of a story in fact.
What’s your input?
Does Paul Harvey write his own “Rest of the Stories?” If not, he’s just reading what someone prepared for him.
Just a WAG, but I believe Paul (and his writers) stretch the story to further his conservative agenda. There’s also a degree of laziness, similar to the way Dear Abby/Ann Landers repeat disproved urban legends over and over (“40 lashes with a wet noodle for me!”).
Always? No, of course not. But pretty regularly.
That’s partly his fault, and partly the nature of his business. He has to come up with an interesting anecdote every day, without repeating himself too often. That’s not a small task.
I speak from some SMALL experience- not in radio, but in writing puzzles and trivia games on-line. I know all too well how hard it is to come up with a batch of fresh questions and subjects every day for a long stretch of time. After a while, you may get desperate enough to embrace a delightful factoid that you saw on the Internet… and then find that you’ve only perpetuated an urban legend (I’ve done it myself, I’m sorry to say).
Even if you try to do your homework, SDMB regulars know very well that urban legends often work their way into respected reference books, which treat the legends as fact . I’ve fallen into this trap, when under deadline pressure. I can only imagine Paul Harvey has, too.
That doesn’t make either of us a liar or (necessarily!) a complete idiot.
His typical approach is to pad and stretch out a 30 second story so that it takes 6 minutes to deliver it. I too have caught some factual errors in his pieces. It appears his research is for the purpose of finding an engaging story, not for verifying its accuracy.
I doubt he does the research personally. I seem to recall that his son does at least some of it, and possibly the writing as well.
Isn’t Paul Harvey’s show owned by Pat Robertson?
Either way, I think he falls into the “Lyin’ for the Lord” category of people who feel it’s quite alright to distort the facts if it gets a more inspirational result. I do take him to task for not checking the accuracy of his stories, and especially for his irritating “things were wonderful in 1957 but have gone to hell since” constipated nostalgia moments. Stick to pimping bug powder and acne medicine, Paul.
astorian said:
That’s sort of what I thought. It certainly sounds reasonable. And like a lot of things in life gets easier to do the more you do it.
Thanks
Good day
Oh no, they’re all true.
And speaking of true, you can’t beat the values of the good folks at True Value Hardware…
Teetering precipitiously on the edge of the BBQ Pit…
If you go to Snopes (The Urban Legends Reference Pages) and search on "Paul Harvey, " you can find many of his stories debunked as urban legends.
The days of a Paul Harvey being able to “embellish” his reports with urban legends may be coming to an end. More and more frequently, I read about journalists being reprimanded or fired for publishing stories that have been floating around the internet.
Do you mean me? If so, I apologize. Coudn’t resist the bad joke.
In Paul Harvey’s defense… he ususally gets the day of the week correct.
Personally, I can’t take him. The pimping for the bug powder and acne medicine just makes it worse.It damages what pitifully small credibility he may have, in my opinion.
The days of a Paul Harvey being able to “embellish” his reports with urban legends may be coming to an end.
At very least the days of Paul Harvey should be coming to an end- he has to be pushing 90. (I was wrong, above; his show is owned by Billy Graham Ministries, not Pat Robertson.)
Journalists, sure, but Paul Harvey? Nah.
pravnik: Not you in specific, but the general tone of this thread (“Paul Harvey is a stupid old fuckfoon.”) suggests a trip down Pittable Lane may be in its future if a Harvey defender ever finds it, or if someone seriously pissed at Ol’ Paul wanders in.
On one of the few occasions I’ve listened to him, he did do a passable job of retelling the story of Harry Truman’s courtship of Bess, with no factual errors I could catch.
I’m inclined to think that he enjoys perpetuating urban legends for their “moral” value without any intent to mislead, just a lack of interest in proper research to validate (or invalidate) the story.
Pravnik said:
I thought this was really funny. If I’d thought of it first I’d run out and set up another name just to put it on here myself.
I see you’re a newbie, SandyHook, so I’ll let you know that setting up a new name is a bad idea. Only one name per person at a time on this board. If the joke’s too bad to be posted with your name, you’ll just have to let it go. Sorry 
Welcome to the SDMB.
Oh, and about Paul Harvey–My FIL is a big, big PH fan. Nothing you can do to convince a rabid PH fan that those stories are not 100% fact. I’d be very surprised if there is such a rabid PH fan here on the SDMB (fighting ignorance and all that), but if there is, this thread could, as others have mentioned, very well go to the Pit. Anyway, FIL said (back in March, I think) that Paul Harvey’s son was doing the shows while Paul recovered from some surgery or an extended illness or something like that. My point is, don’t expect death to make PH go away.
I think that Paul Harvey looks more for a story that “rings true”. Whether it’s actually true or not is irrelevant. This is the very definition of an urban legend, so it’s no surprise that so many tend to get featured on that show. His fans believe it, so they’re not going to call him on it, and his non-fans generally are not listening to the show anyway. So why bother with making sure the story is absolutely factually correct?