Letter to Gary Trudeau

The BBQ Pit
121

Good Lord, Izzy.
Here, for the humor impaired, is Trudeau’s apology, deconstructed to remove all forms of irony:

GT: Many thoughtful readers, including those sampled above, have expressed an interest in the “Presidential IQ” story, an internet hoax which was portrayed as factual in a recent strip.

Xlation: Many clueless readers have mistaken the satirical story line in my last Sunday strip as an assertion of fact on my part.

GT: *This 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.

Xlation: It’s true that I apply the same standards of accuracy in entertainment as do other satirical outlets, a standard which is no more stringent than that applied by many popular commentators.

GT: Trudeau takes full responsibility, acknowledging the use of fictional material from an outside source instead of simply making it up as he usually does.

Xlation: Serves me right for using someone else’s joke.

GT: The creator deeply apologizes for unsettling anyone who was under the impression that the President is, in fact, quite intelligent.

Xlation: I realize my portrayal of the relative intelligence of Mr. Bush is bound to upset many of his supporters, but that is still my strong impression.

122

IzzyR: …having been caught passing off an UL as fact…

Don’t forget that Trudeau equally “passed off as fact” in the very same strip the outrageous allegations that Karl Rove discussed this UL with Bush and that Bush mistakenly claimed that he “didn’t have any writings”! And the Doonesbury strip previous to that “passed off as fact” the hideously inaccurate claim that a Bush advisor informed the President that the only easily available stem cell line was being sold out of a Minnesota bar! My goodness, I hope you intrepid debunkers of factual inaccuracies in comic strips are feeling well rested: you’re going to have an awful lot of letters to write.

123

Xeno

Here’s how I see it:

GT: Many thoughtful readers, including those sampled above, have expressed an interest in the “Presidential IQ” story, an internet hoax which was portrayed as factual in a recent strip.

Xlation: Yeah, it’s true that a lot of people are upset at my actions, but look at what kind of jerks those people are, anyway.

GT: This 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.

Xlation: And Matt Drudge has no business making a big deal about it - he himself is just as inaccurate.

GT: Trudeau takes full responsibility, acknowledging the use of fictional material from an outside source instead of simply making it up as he usually does.

Xlation: I’m just a wild and crazy guy anyway, ha ha ha.

GT: The creator deeply apologizes for unsettling anyone who was under the impression that the President is, in fact, quite intelligent.

Xlation: Even if my facts were wrong, I’m right that Bush is indeed a moron, and those who think otherwise are deluded fools.

Do you agree that the AP and Fox treated it as an admission of error? Do you agree that his e-mail to his editor implied such (as well as this editor’s comments)? Explain these, for the humor impaired.

Kimstu

As bup said:

Generally speaking, it is not hard to discern which is the serious information and which is the exageratory add-on. It is obvious in this case as well. To most people.

124

(Now how much would you pay?)

Answer to first question: I agree that the AP reported the apology without editorializing, and that Fox treated it the way you would expect Fox to treat it.

Answer to second question: I’m still giggling over “usually reliable source.” (Trudeau’s a friggin’ comic genius!) The editor sounds like a fairly effective public spokesperson. Tell me, Izzy; what do you think the editor meant about Trudeau usually being good at “his own kind of fact checking”?

125

I’m not sure what distinction you are drawing between the AP and Fox. They both treated it in the same straightforwarded manner. Maybe you just enjoy an opportunity to get a dig in at the “right wing” network.

And is ackowledging that something is sarcastic “editorializing”? Someone who does not wish to “editorialize” must present all sarcastic remarks as true ones?

Yeah, imagine coming up with such a clever term as that. Hilarious. Hey xeno, when I begin my stand-up career, I want you in my audience.

But this does open up a new line for arguments in debates. Any statements that contradict one’s position are to be dismissed as incredibly hilarious jokes. The possiblities are endless…

He meant that a regular column would have some standard rules in place as regards to fact checking. E.g. the “two sources” rule. By contrast, Trudeau is not subject to the normal standards, due to the fact that his column is a blend of fact and fiction. But when he does present facts, he does make an effort to ascertain that these facts are true, though his efforts may not go through standard channels or follow accepted methods. These are normally sufficient, but in this case they let him down.

126

Izzy, when are you going to understand that Trudeau was being satirical? He credited his audience with enough intelligence to know that he was using this fictitious device to mock Dubya.

127

IzzyR: Generally speaking, it is not hard to discern which is the serious information and which is the exageratory add-on. It is obvious in this case as well. To most people.

So you’re arguing that Doonesbury maintains some kind of hard-and-fast distinction between factual premises and absurdist fantasies, in order to be able to accuse Trudeau of dishonest journalism when a part that you’ve identified as “factual premises” isn’t sufficiently accurate? Sigh. One last time:

IT’S.
A.
COMIC.
STRIP.

But hey, if you want to go on gleefully arraigning a cartoonist for the errors in the subjectively-determined “factual part” of his strip, have a blast. Don’t forget to complain about his “misreporting” of the Pentagon missile defense tests, too! C’mon people, everything presented in the strip is subject to exaggeration, distortion, and outright invention, for either humorous or rhetorical purposes (or both). Pretending that there is some kind of rigid dividing line between “exaggerated add-ons” and “serious information”, and that it is somehow a breach of journalistic ethics for Trudeau to misrepresent the latter, is simply ridiculous.

128

IzzyR: But this does open up a new line for arguments in debates. Any statements that contradict one’s position are to be dismissed as incredibly hilarious jokes.

And when you explicitly identify your debates as being merely vehicles for political rhetoric and comedy, Izzy, we will be happy to let you laugh off anything that contradicts your position, because we’ll know in advance that factual accuracy and logical reasoning are not the goals of your posts. (Did we perhaps miss a disclaimer from you along those lines earlier in this thread? Given the silliness of what you’re trying to argue, I’m beginning to wonder.)

129

Well you are right that this is indeed what I hold to be true. But that is not the focus of my interest here (I only pointed this out in response to your criticism of my statement that Trudeau had been caught etc.)

I did not participate in the debate over Trudeau’s inaccuracy, and am not tremendously interested in the subject. My interest here - and my posts - concern the ability of people to twist words and meanings in incredible ways in order to avoid having to simply admit that they were wrong. Though this too is beginning to fade a bit. Maybe its too much in one shot.

Wow, that’s a real thigh slapper there, kimstu. I see you have been influenced by that “friggin’ comic genius” himself. Keep them coming, a career awaits. (And be sure to remember - xenophon in the audience).

130

IzzyR: *Wow, that’s a real thigh slapper there, kimstu. I see you have been influenced by that “friggin’ comic genius” himself. *

Thenk you, thenk you, I am here all ze week! :slight_smile:

131

I find the fact that you perceived my comment as a “dig” at Fox quite telling, but predictable. (Get someone else to explain that one to you, as it wasn’t sarcastic humor. I’m the sarcastic humor explainer.)

Trust me. You don’t. It’s not that I wouldn’t be supportive as a friend (I would); I just don’t think you should quit your day job unless you’re gonna do something you’ve got a natural “feel” for. How well do you sing?

(See? There’s an example right there; a comedian woulda said something like "So, xeno, next time instead of refuting your argument, I’ll just tell you I’m ‘still giggling over it’. You friggin’ genius. :rolleyes: ")

Let’s do the numbers on the “reliable source” joke, m’kay? Now stay with me, because sometimes comedy is not pretty and these concepts can be frightening to the uninitiated.

I’m going to list the two funniest (to me) aspects of Trudeau’s quoted email remarks to his publisher. (These, of course, are MHO. IANACartoonist, thus YMMV; however, AFAIK YANAC either, so you may BIOYA if YMV’s. QED.) You are free to find other humorous aspects afterward if you’d like (hint, hint).

Humorous aspect 1: Trudeau is a satirical cartoonist who’s just been publically accused of “inaccuracies” in a fictional portrayal of a private conversation between the President and an advisor. He provides the classic excuse given by press secretaries and political columnists since “spin” was invented: “Er, a usually reliable source unaccountably misled Mr. Trudeau on this occasion…” In doing this, Trudeau evokes memories of both Reagan’s frequent Reader’s Digest type gaffes and Gore’s memorable “exaggerations”. In the absurdity of the context, this works brilliantly.

Humorous aspect 2: Trudeau’s “usually reliable” sources and “fact checking house” are pretty much Trudeau himself, as indicated in the rest of the story. This would make his remark both sardonically self-deprecatory and consistent with the sarcastic tone of his direct “apology”.

Any other requests?

132

I can understand defending the comic strip, but cannot conceive of how that graceless non-apology can be excused. GT might have chosen to ignore the mistake or he might have pointed out that, “It’s a comic strip.” He might have issued a real apology – the normal thing for an adult to do when he makes a mistake.

But, to issue an attack on Drudge, Limbaugh, Bush, and those who don’t think W is an idiot in the guise of an apology was pathetic. GT’s “apology” could only be funny to someone filled with hate for W and Republicans.

I always enjoyed “Doonesbury.” It’s such a clever, well-drawn, appealing strip. Now, when I read it, it will be hard not to think of the mean-spirited little man who creates it.

133

Ummm, if he knew it was false then why didn’t he just make something up? I think Trudeau simply got fooled on this one. It happens, especially if the flasehoods somehow meet our expectations…liberal/conservative or otherwise.

134

december, the point is that Trudeau did not owe anyone an apology for the strip. It would be like someone criticizing Dennis Miller for comparing Mike Ditka to Nietzche; what kind of apology do you think they’d get?

135

december: I can understand defending the comic strip, but cannot conceive of how that graceless non-apology can be excused.

It’s a joke. However, if you don’t find that a sufficient “excuse” for whatever needs to be excused about it, I’m not going to contradict you: the “gracelessness” or offensiveness of such public comments is not really something that can be evaluated by an objective standard. You think Trudeau is graceless and mean-spirited, and you are perfectly entitled to your opinion. All I was trying to point out was that, whatever his level of grace or taste or liberal bias or hatred of W. or shoe size or anything else, it is absurd to demand any minimum level of factual accuracy in a comic strip, even one that deals with actual political issues.

136

Tretiak: Ummm, if he knew it was false then why didn’t he just make something up?

Ummm, if he doesn’t care about maintaining factual accuracy in his strip, then why should he mind using something that he knows to be false, for humorous effect? And if he does care about maintaining factual accuracy, why would it be better for him to make something up, which would also be false?

137

Good try, gobear, but this won’t fly. I agree with **Tretiak’s **explanation. That UL was widely believed by those who found the conclusion to their taste. Many of my Democrat relatives believed it. A dear cousin of mine chided me for having voted for someone with a 91 IQ.

When Jay Leno makes moron jokes about W, he’s just kidding. But, GT seems to seriously think that W is dumb. No doubt, many of his fans agree with him. He let those people down by falling for this UL.

GT must have been pretty embarassed that in this case he was the dummy, the one who was taken in by a crude hoax. In his embarassment, GT put out a nasty statement. As Kimstu and xen point out, maybe he didn’t have to apologize. But, once he chose to do so, he should have apologized.

138

This makes no sense to me. If he knows it is false then clearly it should make no dfference if he just made something up. So why didn’t he, why did he appeal to some false internet report if he knew it to be false? He either used it because he thought it was true or because it was funnier than making something up. Well it doesn’t make it any funnier so it seems to me he thought it was true.

I don’t think it was malicious, he just got hoodwinked.

139

W is no smarter or dumber than any of his fellow conservatives, isn’t that right conservatives?

140

wha…:confused:
err, uh…:confused:
bu…:confused: