# Letter to Gary Trudeau **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 3, 2001, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-gary-trudeau/79474 "2001-09-03T03:13:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2001, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-gary-trudeau/79474/41 "2001-09-03T17:33:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RickJay \* > \*\* > After I read this thread I found an IQ test online and did it. I got 110. Well, there goes my 135 theory, huh? I was disappointed in my score and did another one. I got 121. If IQ tests worked, I should have gotten closer scores, don’t you think? Or is 11 a normal difference? I can feel my IQ dropping already. \*\* I am usually the first one to criticize IQ tests when the subject comes up, but I feel obligated to play for the other team for a moment here. For an IQ score to have any merit or meaning _at all_, it must be your result on a standard test administered by a trained psychologist. An IQ score you get from an online test is worthless, as is an IQ estimate based on writing samples (as in the comic). While there are many valid criticisms of IQ testing and the use of IQ scores, the fact that your score varied on an online quiz is not one of them. ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a5b964/32.png) [@Bill\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_H)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2001, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-gary-trudeau/79474/42 "2001-09-03T17:35:14Z")
There are a lot of people in this world who can cling to beliefs in the face of raw facts. You know, the “My magic book says it’s so and I don’t care how many scientists disagree” mentality. That mindset doesn’t bother me; there are plenty of people in my life who make it through life powered by emotion rather than logic. Hell, my mother isn’t the most facts-driven person in the world and I love her anyway. But when it comes to rational debate of important issues, I avoid such people, and that’s one of the things I appreciate about this board: the over-abundance of fact-driven people. And so it makes me sad to see their lacking in this thread. I just wish one defender would step up to the plate and say, “Yeah he made a mistake, but he’s generally very good about keeping things factual.” And I would agree with that; in general Trudeau does good research, not just in technical detail but in social nuances. I think of his columns about the Dot Com world, or the current Stem Cell world. But you guys comparing it to Broom Hilda and asking “What’s the big deal?” do nothing for your cause and make you look silly in the process. I see someone above actually implied that facts don’t even matter on the Op/Ed page, since it’s only opinion. As I say, such “facts don’t matter” people are fine people, but please stay out of the intellectual sandbox. Go back to your coffeeshops and change the world. ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2001, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-gary-trudeau/79474/43 "2001-09-03T17:50:42Z")
**Bill H.** , if Trudeau was using an actual, real-world, study in error, then yes, he should be criticized for it. I honestly thought he had invented it in order to make his point. Facts do matter, and the cited instance of the fraudulent ANWR termination story is a good call. [sub]My shoes can STILL beat W at Scrabble, even with a 50 point handicap.[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![custard\_dragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c5a1d2/32.png) [@custard\_dragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/custard_dragon)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2001, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-gary-trudeau/79474/44 "2001-09-03T18:06:50Z")
Facts matter, but so does paying attention to the other person’s argument. If you reread my post you will see that my point was that OP/ED pieces play fast and loose with the facts quite often. It seems odd that one should jump on a cartoon and demand more of it than of an OP/ED piece. Cartoons should logically have a lower standard of accuracy than OP/ED pieces. Yes, although Trudeau usually footnotes accurate information, it is becomming clear that he misjudged many readers’ common sense by printing this without a disclaimer of some sort. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2001, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-gary-trudeau/79474/45 "2001-09-03T18:17:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by custard dragon \* > \*\*Facts matter, but so does paying attention to the other person’s argument. If you reread my post you will see that my point was that OP/ED pieces play fast and loose with the facts quite often. It seems odd that one should jump on a cartoon and demand more of it than of an OP/ED piece. Cartoons should logically have a lower standard of accuracy than OP/ED pieces. > \*\* Of course some op/ed pieces play fast and loose with facts to make a point. That’s why they are on the same page (or section) as Letters To The Editor…where the reader can write in to rebut the op/ed piece. I think that’s what Bill H is doing here (even though I disagree with his particular analysis of the strip in question). Editorial cartoons are on the same page as test op/ed pieces for the same reason…and are open to the same rebuttal process as text based pieces. If one accepts the premise that Doonesbury is a form of editorial cartoon (a debatable point, to be sure) than why isn’t it open to the same sort of criticism as other editorial cartoons and text based opinion pieces? I consider Bill H’s point to be the equivalent of of writing a Letter To The Editor complaining about the “facts” used in an opinion piece by Clarence Page, Ellen Goodman or William F. Buckley. ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a5b964/32.png) [@Bill\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_H)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2001, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-gary-trudeau/79474/46 "2001-09-03T18:24:57Z")
**beagledave** wrote > [@](#): > > I consider **Bill H.**'s point to be the equivalent of of writing a Letter To The Editor complaining about the “facts” used in an opinion piece by Clarence Page, Ellen Goodman or William F. Buckley. As do I. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2001, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-gary-trudeau/79474/47 "2001-09-03T18:33:50Z")
Excuse the following hijack. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gobear \* > \*\* you would have picked up by now that you are universally detested on this board. \*\* I just couldn’t let this pass. Comments like this are…well, they are just so wrong on so many levels. But I’ll keep it as simple as possible. Gobear, I have nothing whatsoever against you, or for you for that matter. But this kind of “Everybody hates you” bullshit drives me nuts. You don’t know everyone on this board, and you absolutely do not know how everyone on this board feels about anything, much less how they feel about Chas. E. You know that a few vocal people have attacked him publicly and that you personally detest him, and that’s all you know or are likely to ever know. You have a right to say how YOU feel. You can, if you insist, speak to the fact that some others feel similarly. But here on the SDMB, where we supposedly fight ignorance, it is an ignorant, untrue, and frankly immature statement to say to anyone else: “You are universally detested on this board.” Not to mention the fact that it’s just fuckin’ ugly. Hijack over. stoid ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a5b964/32.png) [@Bill\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_H)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2001, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-gary-trudeau/79474/48 "2001-09-03T18:40:27Z")
**custard dragon** wrote > [@](#): > > If the full color strip does appear on the OP/ED page (frankly this seems unlikely) it is even clearer that this is an opinion, not a news story. There are a lot of people out there using made up facts to support opinions across the spectrum in serious OP/ED pieces. A writer of OP/ED pieces who quotes fake sources will not go far. It’s that simple. Phony sources cause lack of respect; lack of respect causes death. In the journalism world, making up facts is very much frowned upon. In fact, the discovery of made up facts by others is very much smiled upon. > [@](#): > > It just seems strange to attack a comic, which is clearly a meant to be a JOKE. Do you really believe that Mr. Trudeau’s exclusive (or even principal) interest is to make people laugh? Do you really believe that influencing people’s views and behaviours is not part of his agenda? Do you really believe that of other political comentators as well? I personally do not believe you are that naive. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2001, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-gary-trudeau/79474/49 "2001-09-03T18:56:34Z")
From the Snopes link provided by **Bill H.** : > [@](#): > > . . .this is just another spoof that was taken too seriously. > > The piece is simply a political jibe, made obvious by its ranking all the Democratic presidents of the last several decades as having high (even exceptionally high) IQs, while ranking all the Republican presidents from the same time frame as average to moderate in intelligence, with the current president and his father assigned below-average figures placing them at the very bottom of the list. So the _facts_ are that Trudeau took a known spoof that is ridiculous on its face and ran with it. I suppose those who are morally offended by _any_ repetition of a UL might choose to be offended. Given that **Doonesbury** is _based_ on spoofing the current scene (with special attention to politicians), the absolute worst charge of which he can be convicted is a lack of originality. I cannot believe that anyone literate enough to appreciate **Doonesbury** , (appreciate meaning to understand, not to enjoy), is foolish enough to believe that the “study” was real or that Dubya has a “below average” IQ. ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a5b964/32.png) [@Bill\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_H)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2001, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-gary-trudeau/79474/50 "2001-09-03T19:02:27Z")
**tomndebb** , are you serious about that post? Snopes says it’s a particularly dumb urban legend, and you take that as evidence that it’s good? That has got to be the silliest piece of logic I’ver ever heard. ---
**Author:** ![custard\_dragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c5a1d2/32.png) [@custard\_dragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/custard_dragon)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2001, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-gary-trudeau/79474/51 "2001-09-03T19:16:44Z")
I will repeat - facts are important. I honestly believe, however, that there are a variety of modes of persuasion. A rational argument, built from facts is one mode. A joke can persuade as well, but it does so in a very different way, one that can be based on emotions and not reason. Until I read some of the arguments in this thread, I thought it was well established that daily newspaper cartoons should not be viewed as a source of information, but as a forum for humor. Yes, this humor might be persuasive, but I thought that any rational person would look elsewhere for factual reasons to support his or her argument. The “study” in the cartoon in question seemed patently absurd to me. Not only is the concept of I.Q. pretty thoroughly discredited, but the idea of determining I.Q. from a president’s writing is silly. Besides, what is this the thesis of Trudeau’s “persuasive” argument anyway? That W is stupid? Those who believe he is have thought so for a long time; those who believe he isn’t are not going to be convinced by a “study” whether it is published in the funny pages or the New England Journal of Medicine. The UL’s perpetuated by opinion columnists are presented as evidence for a serious thesis. The McDonalds’s coffee story is used to justify tort reform. The claim that our tax refunds will have to be paid back next year is used to criticize Bush’s budget plan. Using a patently absurd study to make the silly point that W is dumb is a totally different mode of persuasion, and anyone who honestly cannot tell the difference is unprepared to participate in democracy in ways far more fundamental than having bad information. ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a5b964/32.png) [@Bill\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_H)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2001, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-gary-trudeau/79474/52 "2001-09-03T19:46:51Z")
**custard dragon** wrote > [@](#): > > Those who believe (Bush is stupid) have thought so for a long time; those who believe he isn’t are not going to be convinced by a “study” whether it is published in the funny pages or the New England Journal of Medicine. Oh, my friend. Surely you’ve heard of the concept of advertising. Surely you’re aware that billions of dollars are poured into advertising. Surely you’re aware that the specific and exclusive goal of advertising is to modify peoples behaviour. Tell me, my friend, tell me that you really believe that every penny of that money is wasted because words do not cause actions. Or please retract your assessment that words that attempt to cause changes in behaviour do not. ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a5b964/32.png) [@Bill\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_H)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2001, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-gary-trudeau/79474/53 "2001-09-03T19:51:30Z")
**custard dragon** wrote > [@](#): > > Using a patently absurd study to make the silly point that W is dumb is a totally different mode of persuasion, and anyone who honestly cannot tell the difference is unprepared to participate in democracy in ways far more fundamental than having bad information. What would you have thought of Trudeau doing a strip based on the disproven urban legend that Bush refused to sell his house to blacks? Is that ok as well? If it’s ok to base it on a disproven urban legend, then is it ok to make up one? How about if he did a strip about Bush raping someone or committing some other atrocity, and throwing in names and dates that look authentic? Is that ok? ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2001, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-gary-trudeau/79474/54 "2001-09-03T19:59:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bill H. \* > \*\*[ > If it’s ok to base it on a disproven urban legend, then is it ok to make up one? How about if he did a strip about Bush raping someone or committing some other atrocity, and throwing in names and dates that look authentic? Is that ok? \*\* Bill… can you cozy up to the idea that anybody who bases their understanding and opinions of the world on cartoons, no matter how political, gets what they deserve out of life? Can you stop for a moment and consider that such people are so utterly clueless to begin with that altering the cartoons because of their cluelessness is sorta like shutting the barn door months after all the animals have not only escaped, but have gone on to live freely and breed? stoid ---
**Author:** ![Ukulele\_Ike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/df788c/32.png) [@Ukulele\_Ike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ukulele_Ike)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2001, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-gary-trudeau/79474/55 "2001-09-03T20:03:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bill H. \* > \*\*is it ok to make up one? How about if he did a strip about Bush raping someone or committing some other atrocity, and throwing in names and dates that look authentic? Is that ok? \*\* Heavens, no. That would be a lot like, er, what a number of Republicans did between 1992 and 2000. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2001, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-gary-trudeau/79474/56 "2001-09-03T20:32:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ukulele Ike \* > \*\* > Heavens, no. That would be a lot like, er, what a number of Republicans did between 1992 and 2000. \*\* He shoots! He Scores!! And the crowd goes wild!!! ---
**Author:** ![custard\_dragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c5a1d2/32.png) [@custard\_dragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/custard_dragon)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2001, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-gary-trudeau/79474/57 "2001-09-03T20:53:16Z")
> [@](#): > > Oh, my friend. Surely you’ve heard of the concept of advertising. Surely you’re aware that billions of dollars are poured into advertising. Surely you’re aware that the specific and exclusive goal of advertising is to modify peoples behaviour. ummm…Did you read my post? I thought I was very clear that humor was a form of persuasion; my main point was that, like most advertising, it is persuasion not based on facts, and not EXPECTED to be based on facts. Is it wrong to advertise using emotions and suggestions and not facts? Must every public discourse which relates to political figures be stricly and verifiably factual. Ugh! What a tiresome world that would be. > [@](#): > > What would you have thought of Trudeau doing a strip based on the disproven urban legend that Bush refused to sell his house to blacks? Is that ok as well? I should have made it clearer that this argument has forced me to think carefully about why I think the cartoon was OK. A key point is that the thesis of the cartoon isn’t substantive, therefore claims made either way don’t have to be entirely factual. Blatent racism is a substantive issue. The claim that Bush refused to rent his house to blacks WOULD be likely to sway people’s opinions one way or the other on that issue. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2001, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-gary-trudeau/79474/58 "2001-09-03T20:55:13Z")
> [@](#): > > Snopes says it’s a particularly dumb urban legend, and you take that as evidence that it’s good? The point is that is was _so_ implausible that any rational person would realize that it was a joke. He specifically did _not_ latch onto a UL such as the one that had Bush violating fair housing laws. Had Trudeau used the housing discrimination one, then I would have been upset because it would have seemed plausible to some people. That would have been a low blow. (Something on the order of Jerry Falwell and Rush Limbaugh promoting the “Clinton Death List” (for which I am _sure_ you wrote to each of those worthies, chastising them for propagating a serious lie).) Did you write a similar letter to Trudeau when he did his “exploration” of Reagan’s brain? That, too, was based on a reported story going round at the time. Of course, in those primitive times, we expected people to recognize jokes when they were painted with such a broad brush as to be incredible. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2001, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-gary-trudeau/79474/59 "2001-09-03T20:58:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > \*\*The point is that is was _so_ implausible that any rational person would realize that it was a joke… \*\* In all honesty, I don’t find it at all implausible. I really do not. ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a5b964/32.png) [@Bill\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_H)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2001, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-gary-trudeau/79474/60 "2001-09-03T21:08:05Z")
**custard dragon** wrote > [@](#): > > The claim that Bush refused to rent his house to blacks WOULD be likely to sway people’s opinions one way or the other on that issue. Whereas the claim that his IQ is 91 would not? The fact is that political cartoons are designed to influence people’s political views, and therefore have an ethical responsibility to not lie. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-gary-trudeau/79474.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-to-gary-trudeau/79474.md?page=4)