From IzzyR’s update:
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! And we all know how reputable and unbiased FOX news is.
Hot off the Associated Press wire, for tomorrow’s newspapers:
PHILADELPHIA (AP) — “Doonesbury” creator Garry Trudeau has apologized — sort of — for a Sunday strip that cited an Internet hoax that said George W. Bush had the lowest IQ of any president in the last 50 years.
The strip depicted a purported conversation between an unseen Bush and an adviser in the White House. It cited a purported ranking of presidential IQs based on public statements and writings.
In the “study,” Bush was said to have an IQ half that of Bill Clinton and a little more than half the average presidential vocabulary.
The “Doonesbury” Web site acknowledged that the ranking was an Internet hoax and said that citing it was “a regrettable error, although perhaps inevitable, given that this feature uses the same fact-checking house as ‘Saturday Night Live’ and The Drudge Report.”
As if this hasn’t come up before.
Come on, people. Lets have a sense of proportion here. It’s a comic strip. I can’t help but tell you all that during the Eisenhower Administration my father regarded President Roosevelt, President Truman, Joe Stalin and Walt Kelly as the greatest threats to the continued existence of the Republic. I think that the Columbus Dispatch and Fulton Lewis, Jr. agreed with him. What’s next? Do we start fact checking Judge Parker?
This is the 100th Anniversary of the shooting of President McKinley at the World Expo in Buffalo. My grandfather gave ol’ Bill a smallpox shot.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Spavined Gelding *
**
Mallard Fillmore is the Carrotop of cartoon strips. Our local paper gave it a brief tryout, and it cratered. Fuck 'em.
Limbaugh implied Clinton was somehow culpable in the death of Vince Foster. G. Gordon Lizard recommended shooting Federal agents in the head so as to foil thier body armor. How much outrage do you recall?
What pisses off the right i2 thier utter lack of a satirical source. P.J. O’Rourke is the closest they’ve got, followed by the above-mentioned ruptured duck. Pathetic. Tough shit, they got money and power, we need all the help we can get.
If George were actually and clearly smart, everyone would have known right away that it was fictional. If he had said the same thing about Clinton, no one would have given it a thought. It is the very plausibility of the thing that makes it so injurious. Of course Clinton is smarter than W. Your gym socks are smarter!
As to Trudeau, I’ll never forget that Sunday, when it bleakly seemed as if the Forces of Darkness would have us by the short and curly now and forever. Then seeing that full color layout with Zonker telling the kid in the sandbox about the kind man who was rewarded with his weight in “primo Pakistani hash”.
Sometimes, all it takes is that one flower breaking through the concrete.
Well, I’m only disappointed that I wasn’t the reason for the apology, and also that Mr. Trudeau hasn’t personally responded to me (yet).
However, Mr. Trudeau: Apology accepted.
That was a joke too. A little stab at the Drudgster!
Uh, Bill H., I suspect you should read Trudeau’s actual “apology” a bit more closely. (Full text on the link I posted last evening.)
You are welcome to accept the apology, of course, but. . .
I’m unsure of what you mean with this. Do you accept that the rug has been pulled out from under the claims of you and your fellows that it was only a comic strip and was not presented as an actual fact? It should be evident from the apology that Trudeau actually believed the study was real, and was therefore presenting it as an actual fact.
It is true, however, that he was not gracious in his apology. Some people are like that.
andros:
Perhaps you should have tried Barbara Ann Boopstein.
Anyway, if Trudeau would like to tell people that the things he cites in his strip are known fictions, then I guess I don’t have to seriously consider what he had to say about the missile-defense test last week, do I? (Not that he was being entirely truthful there, either, but big surprise there…)
Ummm . . . well, on her birth certificate . . .
Aw shit. I suck.
Izzy, did you read the statement? Hint: it was a joke. It is entirely evident that Trudeau knew all along that the “study” was bogus. And it’s also obvious that he’s as amazed as I am that anyone would think it was factual.
Yes, I read the statement, and think your interpretation is completely absurd. Amazingly so, in fact. Now a question for you - did you read my link?
All part of the joke?
:shrug: I think so.
Rather, Trudeau used the UL knowing it was ludicrous, then had to backpedal (and quite sarcastically) when he realized he had underestimated American gullibility.
IzzyR: *It should be evident from the apology that Trudeau actually believed the study was real, and was therefore presenting it as an actual fact. *
Hmmmmmm. In the first place, as I pointed out before, claiming that anything in the Looking-Glass Land of Doonesbury is being seriously “presented as an actual fact” is a little dubious. In the second place, here is the actual “apology” from tomndebb’s link, with the comments that prompted it:
I have to agree, the “admission of error” (and everything else) here is pure sarcasm, and Trudeau was well aware all along that the material was fictional. However, if some of you folks see it as an actual retraction and apology, and are pleased that at least something has been done to correct what you considered an intolerable inaccuracy, I’m happy for you.
Well, now that the vicious slander of George W. Bush’s intelligence in a hard news forum like Doonesbury has been apologized for, I trust Bill H will also demand a retraction and apology if, say, a well-known religious broadcaster sells a video that accuses the president of murder?
Hmm…so apparently Garry Trudeau has perfected a subtle sort of sarcasm that has eluded numerous people including Fox News, the Associated Press, the senior editor at UPS which distributes the strip, and, in fact, apparently, everyone except those whose posts on the subject would be undercut were they to take it seriously. Is there a pattern here?
hmm,
The “apology” notes that Trudeau uses the same “fact-checking house as Saturday Night Live and The Drudge Report”. That would certainly be an indicator of just how seriously he is treating this.
He then takes “full responsibility” for borrowing the joke instead of inventing it, himself. I seem to remember this point being made earlier in the thread.
He then apologizes to anyone who was “under the impression” that the President is intelligent. That surely looks like a heartfelt apology to me.
I think the issue has already been done to death. I just didn’t want Bill H. to go out in public and announce his satisfaction with the “apology,” only to be ridiculed for believing it.
tomndebb
It was clearly not a “heartfelt apology”. Obviously, having been caught passing off an UL as fact, Trudeau decided to soften the blow by pointing to some nasty letters he had gotten from conservatives, taking some jibes at the Drudge Report (who first pointed out his gaffe) and at Bush’s intelligence again.
So it wasn’t a classy apology, as might be expected from a guy of Trudeau’s ilk. But as noted before, many people resort to this type of technique in similar circumstances.
What is is is an admission and retraction.
Izzy, do you expect people to apologize for questioning Dubya’s intelligence? We’d be having a Day of Atonement every day until January 20, 2005.
I could care less who apologizes to who. I am interested in the “interperetation” of Trudeau’s “apology - sort of”. I find the spin being put on it here strangely interesting.
I think Bill H. knew the apology was a joke; he was
just showing he had a sense of humor. Maybe he’ll check in
soon and set it straight, but I think his post wherein Bill
was sorry he wasn’t quoted, is the wink to us that he’s in
on the joke.
I think Trudeau was taken in by the UL, too, and is trying
to pretend like he wasn’t.
Trudeau, like Leno, Conan O’Brien, et al., usually takes a
factual setup and then makes a hyperbolic joke about it, so
I bet a lot of people did take it seriously.
Since I am a flaming liberal, and bristle whenever I hear
W. speak, I wish somebody would do an analysis of
his vocabulary size.