With Fox News providing it so much publicity that you’d have to think the author should send them a nice fruit basket, Al Franken’s “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right” is out in stores. The case (for a temporary injunction –GH) was tossed out of court by a judge who dismissed it by saying, “This is an easy case” and ruled that in no way, shape or form could the book possibly cause confusion in the marketplace.
The most hilarious line to come out of the proceedings was the Fox attorney who, when faced with the fact that satire and parody have First Amendment protection, opined about the book’s cover, “This is much too subtle to be considered a parody.”
You have to love that. A title as subtle as a brick through a window, but Fox attorney’s consider it “too subtle to be considered a parody.” Yup, this is definitely the irony-blind network that bills itself as “fair and balanced,” all right. Of course, no one expects Franken’s book to be fair and balanced: That’s kind of the point. Franken doesn’t mean it; Fox does.
I’ve bought my copy and expect to be reading it within the next couple of days.
PAD
• 
So many of you are missing the point! You think FNC shouldn’t be able to use the phrase “Fair and Balanced” because YOU think they aren’t. It doesn’t matter if they called themselves “Blue and Sweet”. Equal sweetener may be upset, but FNC trademarked the phrase.
But what the hëll. Some of the posters here probably were on the jury that awarded the woman millions of dollars for placing a hot cup of coffee from McDonalds in her lap and spilling it, figuring that McDonalds is a big evil corporation and deserves to lose, no matter what.
>>So many of you are missing the point! You think FNC shouldn’t be able to use the phrase “Fair and Balanced” because YOU think they aren’t. It doesn’t matter if they called themselves “Blue and Sweet”. Equal sweetener may be upset, but FNC trademarked the phrase. <<
Posted by Jeff @ 08/24/2003 09:28 PM ET
Actually, you are missing the point. Just becuase they trademarked a common phrase does NOT mean they have sole control of it. Their case was weak, and they got slammed for it.
Further, if they kept at it, they could effectively lose control of it. It could be declared ‘unprotectable’, and the Judge hinted at that in the case too. It’s way too early to be doing a case like this. It’s an important feature of such a case to show that most people think ONLY of the company when they hear the phrase. Clearly, that hasn’t happened yet.
And if Fox doesn’t get smart soon, it may never happen.
Here is Byrd’s actual words:
“They are much, much better than they’ve ever been in my lifetime,” Byrd said. “I think we talk about race too much. I think those problems are largely behind us…I just think we talk so much about it that we help to create somewhat of an illusion. I think we try to have good will. My old mom told me, ‘Robert, you can’t go to heaven if you hate anybody.’ We practice that.”
“There are white ņìggërš. I’ve seen a lot of white ņìggërš in my time; I’m going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I’d just as soon quit talking about it so much.”
http://zebco.blogspot.com/2002_12_01_zebco_archive.html
A couple other examination of these words are here http://www.blackelectorate.com/articles.asp?ID=337 and here http://hnn.us/articles/1220.html
Byrd has said many things about the war on Iraq that I agree with but I think that his use of those words and his former membership with the KKK should stop him from being in the leadership of the Democratic party. That being said I think that Byrd has learned from the past and continues to try and correct past mistakes.
As for Fox, I cannot see how it is “fair and balanced.” I have little patience for those on the right and turn them off. I hope to see Al when he is in Kansas City in October.
Ezrael: Using the ‘n’ word isn’t automatically racist, no matter what anyone would have you believe. How did he use it? Was he denoucing it or was he endorsing it?”
You are 100% correct yet still missing the point. If Byrd were a Republican he would have been crucified.
2 years ago California Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamente let loose some type of Freudian slip at the Black Trade Unionists annual dinner, using the n-word. People walked out, more were offended. Where was the mainstram media?
What if Bustamente was a Republican? Would the oh so “Conservative ” media have let it slide??
Also, google this subject and notive how when Byrd and Bustamente are named, there are many times where no party affiliation is mentioned.
Since some have mentioned the ‘n’word and whether it automatically makes one racist I have a somewhat amusing tale: About 4 years ago I lived in Washington D.C. and during a meeting between the mayor’s cabinet and other local officials in which they were discussing some proposed spending, a member of the mayor’s cabinet said that the group needed to stop acting so “ņìggárdlÿ”. Well, needless to say that some of the persons present at said meeting were so upset over a word that “sounded like the ‘n’word” that within days the mayor had to ask for the gentleman’s resignation. This despite the fact that the word “ņìggárdlÿ” means “stingy”. The fact that it sounded like the ‘n’ word was enough to for this guy to get the axe. Before anyone freaks out on me please look it up in your dictionary first. Thanks.
Yeah, I remember the ‘ņìggárdlÿ’ incident as well. It still staggers me that somebody could lose their job because other people are so linguistically challenged!
Someone here said …
“I don’t know if a politician could make a more bald-faced lie.”
It doesn’t get much worse than “Lyin'” Brian Mulroney. Canada’s Progressive Conservative Prime Minister from ’84 to 93.
At a press conference, he said something about how some provincial premiers’ desire to set up their own tax laws on some things would cause headaches for the federal government. When immediately questioned about it, he denied saying it. He then repeated it.
As one reporter commented, “something must have gotten lost in the translation from Politician-to-English.”
You are 100% correct yet still missing the point. If Byrd were a Republican he would have been crucified.
And if Clinton were a Republican he would have gotten away with having mistresses. So what? Each side has their particular image and it may be unfair, but I don’t see why Republicans should be able to get away with more than Democrats do. Ask Gary Hart about how liberal the media is. Hëll, the media freaking hired G. Gordon Liddy!
I have to admit, it seems a bit like whining to me. Ooh, the media abuses us! The media’s unfair to us! The media’s unfair to everyone. And it’s often unfair in the most sensational manner possible. Perhaps if Democrats didn’t keep getting caught with tail on the side, and Republicans weren’t seen as bigots, they’d catch less flak. (I’m fully aware that plenty of Republicans have tail on the side, and plenty of Democrats are bigots.)
As I said, my biggest problem with Fox is their pretense. I think CNN actually *attempts* to be raving áššhølëš equally, but Fox saves it for the lefties. You see it on their morning show, on O’Reilly’s “Cut his mike!” tantrums, it’s not even subtle. I also really, really don’t see how you can trademark “Fair and Balanced.” I just don’t get it. Like I said, is “How are you” next?
CNN: How Are You?
Since you don’t have to be Alanis Morrisette to see the irony in apologizing for lying right before publishing a book called Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them
You do realize that the only thing ironic about her song about irony is that nothing she mentions in it is actually ironic.
Since you don’t have to be Alanis Morrisette to see the irony in apologizing for lying right before publishing a book called Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them
You do realize that the only thing ironic about her song about irony is that nothing she mentions in it is actually ironic. >>
No, I’ve never heard that.
that *would* violate the separation between church and state
You know, I keep on hearing about this thing, but I’ve never found it in the Constitution.
Travis
(who is a liberal, believe it or not)
It amazes me that instead of just stating that Trent Lott is just as a big a loser as Robert Byrd, the two warring political factions of this country always get into some juvenile argument that basically boils down to “well if it was okay for your guy to be racist then it should be okay for our guy to be racist too”.
They are both idiots who should not be given seats of power in their respective parties or in our government.
J Robert Haga wrote:
<>
After that embaressing revival meeting disguised as a free speech demonstration that Judge Moore and his gang put on today I wouldn’t be throwing stones at Cali.
At least their Governor’s race has Gary “Whatchoo Talkin’ ‘Bout” Coleman.
It was a mistake for FNC to pursue a lawsuit in this matter. “It’s time to return Al Franken to the obscurity that he’s normally accustomed to,” Fox News spokeswoman Irena Steffen said.
I got the book today, and the store had a big display for it.
I asked the cashier how it was selling, and she said “Its selling like crazy.”
“Time to return him to the obscurity he’s used to.”
Ha! I say, Ha!
I hate to break it to FOX, but this isnt his first #1 bestseller, and it won’t be his last.
Who are being played like puppets on a string by the owners of said media…who are almost all quite conservative (Um, did you think the Pulliams, Hearsts, Chandlers and Knights [who own the majority of the nation’s daily metropolitan papers] are liberal????)
Fiscally, no. Socially, yes. Only an idiot would think that social conservatives, people who place family values and the like as top-of-the-heap priorities, would run crap like “Paradise Island”, “Temptation Island”, and “That 70s Show”.
A true social conservative wouldn’t try and run his or her network with this much basis on sex within the themes of the programming. But Rupert Murdoch would.
He’s no conservative. What he is is knowledgeable of what will make him a profit.
He knows that it’s _more profitable to create a news network that would slant slightly right and engage a relatively untapped audience than it would be to try and compete directly with Ted Turner’s CNN and the MSNBC colossus. He’d lose money competing for the same audience and he knows it._
Murdoch would do many things to protect his investments and make his investments gold but that doesn’t mean he’s a conversative.
Don’t tell me that the people who run and plan air “Who Wants To Marry a Multi-Millionaire?” and “Mr Personality” are strong conservatives. Well, you can but don’t expect me to take you seriously afterwards.
Interestingly enough, no matter how the owners vote, the editors and writers tpyically vote democrat and the articles are usually slanted that way…. I can’t take your “the owners are conservative so the newspapers must be too” argument seriously either.
I however do believe that conservatives have very little conscience and less access to morality than most human beings so I said what I believe
That I, a fiscal and social and quite political conservative, go out of my way to not harm people and to actually help people at times… means nothing? Does it mean I’m not conservative? Hëll, no.
You’re telling me that I have no conscience. If I had no conscience I’d have a lot more money, I’d hurt a lot more people’s feelings, and I’d care a lot less.
So I have a conscience. I do care about my fellow man. I am a moral human being. I go out of my way to clean up the environment. I believe in conservation of resources. And I know this is true. This is life. This is how I act from day to day.
So what you believe is flat out wrong. You couldn’t be more wrong if your dogma was “the sky is red”.
CJA
What political party did he join?
He formed the Dixie-crats, to my recollection.
CJA
I hate to break it to FOX, but this isnt his first #1 bestseller, and it won’t be his last.
That has nothing to do with obscurity. Al Franken is more famous for being Stuart Smalley then he is for these little books. Yes, they’re best-sellers…. but how many people in this country read books? A lot less than the people who watch(ed) Saturday Night Live.
(I can’t name a person off the top of my head, whom I know personally, that buys stuff of the NYT best-seller list.
Heck, name off the top of your head the top five best-sellers before and after the lawsuit and then tell how me how it affects obscurity.)
Al Franken is less obscure appearing on the Today Show this morning and for appearing on the Today Show this morning then he would be for publishing a book that’s preaching to the politically left choir.
“Al Franken is less obscure appearing on the Today Show this morning and for appearing on the Today Show this morning then he would be for publishing a book that’s preaching to the politically left choir.”
If that’s true, why did Fox even bother trying to sue him?
“If that’s true, why did Fox even bother trying to sue him?”
A couple of reasons off the top of my head.
– They don’t like to have their lawyers sitting idle
– They don’t like the precedent going unchallenged.
The latter isn’t as far-fetched as it sounds. I’m brought to mind the instance of the Mighty Disney Empire suing a high school back in the late 80s because they’d had the temerity to show one of the Disney films without permission.
But what the hëll. Some of the posters here probably were on the jury that awarded the woman millions of dollars for placing a hot cup of coffee from McDonalds in her lap and spilling it, figuring that McDonalds is a big evil corporation and deserves to lose, no matter what.
Posted by Jeff @ 08/24
Oh, I’m certain they were, maybe at least 15 or so of them…
Grem-
You are 100% correct yet still missing the point. If Byrd were a Republican he would have been crucified.
Perhaps there is a reason for this. Perhaps, it is simply, much more believable that the term is being used in a defammatory way when a conservative does it. Sad, isn’t it, but it just goes to show that if you ally yourself with racists, homophobes, abortion clinic bombers, etc. that you may have to try harder not to be considered one.
Grem-
[Previous entry: “THE SPIDER-MAN WHAT NOW?”] [Main Index] [Next entry: “OKAY…I DON’T GET IT.”]
08/23/2003 Entry: “LIES AND MORE LIES”
With Fox News providing it so much publicity that you’d have to think the author should send them a nice fruit basket, Al Franken’s “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right” is out in stores. The case (for a temporary injunction –GH) was tossed out of court by a judge who dismissed it by saying, “This is an easy case” and ruled that in no way, shape or form could the book possibly cause confusion in the marketplace.
The most hilarious line to come out of the proceedings was the Fox attorney who, when faced with the fact that satire and parody have First Amendment protection, opined about the book’s cover, “This is much too subtle to be considered a parody.”
You have to love that. A title as subtle as a brick through a window, but Fox attorney’s consider it “too subtle to be considered a parody.” Yup, this is definitely the irony-blind network that bills itself as “fair and balanced,” all right. Of course, no one expects Franken’s book to be fair and balanced: That’s kind of the point. Franken doesn’t mean it; Fox does.
I’ve bought my copy and expect to be reading it within the next couple of days.
PAD
Replies: 73 comments
I’ve been waiting for this book since I saw that Franken/O’Reilly fight on C-SPAN. Franken picked O’Reilly apart, and O’Reilly fell for it, and acted liked a fool. C-SPAN used to have the video available on their web site, you’d think they’d repost it, but I couldn’t find it on their website.
Posted by Todd @ 08/23/2003 12:12 PM ET
Actually, Peter, I believe “fair and balanced” is intended as a joke. Unlike a book by, say, Bill O’Reilly, Franken actually will provide a fair and balanced assessment of conservative media.
That’s the irony of the whole case. Fox News, which is generally not fair and balanced, is suing Franken for the use of the phrase “fair and balanced” on a book that will be fair and balanced – or at least, more fair and balanced than your average Fox News program.
While Coulter or O’Reilly might fill their books with incendiary hyperbole and largely unresearched junk, Franken, while certainly making a sarcastic crack or two, will most likely undertake an extensive deconstruction of some of the big conservative lies.
Incidentally, I think an ideal companion for Franken’s book is Joe Conason’s “Big Lies,” which also just came out.
Posted by JC @ 08/23/2003 12:33 PM ET
There haven’t been too many days recently when I woke up in the morning and was really proud to see the wheels of American justicew work the way they should. But between the news of Fox’s lawsuit being thrown out and Chief Justic Moore of Alabama being suspended for not getting rid of the Ten Commandments monument that he snuck into the Judicial building in the dead of night, well, it’s a pretty good day. On the latter though, how is suspending Moore with full pay considered a punishment? If somebody gave me what amounted to a paid vacation, I wouldn’t feel tremendously injured.
As for the Franken lawsuit, my own personal favorite line was Fox talking about the need to protect ‘our talent.’ The are many words that come to mind when I think of Bill O’Reilly, but ‘talent’ is certainly not one of them.
Ironically, during this website’s 8/13 post titled ‘Fair and Balanced,’ I made the point that this was all a carefully orchestrated plan on Franken’s part to get some extra publicity at the expense of Fox, who fell into his trap hook, line and sinker. As I write this, Franken’s book is now listed as #1 on Amazon, and I wonder to myself, if I (and no doubt many other readers of this site) could see this coming a mile away, why couldn’t Fox’s team of high-powered lawyers? I’m just picturing Franken and his editor sitting around, talking about how they can sell copies of his next book:
Franken: I know, let’s put Bill O’Reilly on the cover, along with a title about Lying Liars.
Editor: But won’t that piss him off? He’ll probably get Fox News to sue us!
Franken: That’s exactly the point. We’re obviously protected by the First Amendment as a piece of satire, so the suit will get thrown out. Meanwhile, we’ll get tons of publicity on all the other news stations, Fox and O’Reilly will look stupid, and we’ll sell thousands of extra copies.
Editor: But it’s so obvious! Won’t Fox or O’Reilly realize they’re being suckered?
Franken: Of course not. They’ll be so angry, they’ll come out with guns blazing and never know what hit them.
Or words to that effect.
Posted by Joe Nazzaro @ 08/23/2003 12:58 PM ET
Franken is still an unfunny knob.
Posted by AnthonyX @ 08/23/2003 02:50 PM ET
….And do not get me started on the fair and balanced left-minded mainstream media.
Posted by AnthonyX @ 08/23/2003 02:53 PM ET
“….And do not get me started on the fair and balanced left-minded mainstream media. “
Who are being played like puppets on a string by the owners of said media…who are almost all quite conservative (Um, did you think the Pulliams, Hearsts, Chandlers and Knights [who own the majority of the nation’s daily metropolitan papers] are liberal????)
Posted by Roger Tang @ 08/23/2003 03:07 PM ET
There is the alternative….that Fox was more than aware that the book wouldn’t damage them in the least. Think about it….Franken isn’t going to change many minds with this book. He’s more or less preaching to the converted. Those who read it aren’t watching Fox News anyway! But…Joe Blow on the street has heard about the suit…and his interest is piqued. What does he do? To be bluntly honest….he’s much more likely to watch something for free than he is to pay $20.00 for a book.
I honestly don’t care one way or the other about Fox or Franken. I find both to be less than entertaining. But I’m not so sure that Fox wasn’t tickled at the prospect of CNN, MSNBC and the Networks spouting FOX NEWS everytime they mentioned this suit. I think Fox played Franken.
Posted by Mike L @ 08/23/2003 03:56 PM ET
And how is Fox News unfair and unbalanced again? Let’s look at the Prime Time line-up, which are the most important hours. O’Reilly is an avowed independant who takes both conservatives and liberals to task (he’s not exactly a big fan of Jeb Bush or Ashcroft). And he also butts heads with the Christian Right over gay adoption. Sure he comes down hard on liberals, but I think he pretty much comes down pretty hard on all politicians.
Next up is Hannity and Colmes- 1 die-hard Conservative and 1 die-hard Liberal. That seems pretty balanced to me.
Anf finally you have Greta Van Susteran, formerally of CNN (before they basically traded her for Paula Zhan), and I don’t really know her politics, although I doubt she is a hardcore conservative.
So, it looks like to me that they have a pretty wide mix of hosts heading up their line-up.
I’m a Fox News and MSNBC kinda’ guy. They basically present the issue and have 2 guests from opposing sides present their argument. Then they let us make up our own minds. Maybe you need an editorial page of a newspaper to tell you what to think (not speaking to you specifically PAD, using the “general you” here), but I basically like the way Cable News sets up the issues. If they wanted to be truly biased, they wouldn’t present the opposing view.
Posted by Dan Nguyen @ 08/23/2003 04:04 PM ET
Mike L, I don’t know that I can agree with you. True, Fox News probably wouldn’t mind the extra attention, but if most of it is negative and full of derision, I can’t see that would be all that useful. On the other hand, Franken managed to get hundreds of thousands of dollar’s worth of free promotion that the publisher never could have got otherwise. The fact that Franken’s book is now listed at number on sort of proves my earlier point. If you were to show me that Fox News viewing figures have spiked in recent weeks as a direct result of their frivolous, I’m more than happy to support your point as well. I just wish this suit took place in the UK, where the loser has to pay court costs for the winner, which has sunk a number of sanctimonious politicians in recent years.
Posted by Joe Nazzaro @ 08/23/2003 04:44 PM ET
I’ve been waiting for this book since I saw that Franken/O’Reilly fight on C-SPAN. Franken picked O’Reilly apart, and O’Reilly fell for it, and acted liked a fool.
I thought it was Franken who looked like a fool (actually ‘madman’ would better describe his behavior) when he and O’Reilly got into it at that book expo panel. And Franken definitley did not pick apart O’Reilly in the least — of course, maybe that video clip I saw of the confrontation was doctored by the Right to put a different spin on what really happened. 😉
Posted by Dennis V. @ 08/23/2003 05:37 PM ET
Perhaps Fox News could trademark Wholly without merit, both factually and legally as their next slogan…
Posted by Joe Littrell @ 08/23/2003 05:53 PM ET
Or how about: ‘Fox News: much too subtle to be considered a parody.’ I don’t think anybody else is using that one at the moment.
Posted by Joe Nazzaro @ 08/23/2003 06:09 PM ET
No, no. To be nice, Al will let Fox use one of his slogans:
“Fox News: Because we’re good enough, we’re smart enough, and gosh darn it people like us”
Posted by David Serchay @ 08/23/2003 06:34 PM ET
Personally, I find both O’Reilly and Franken to be shrill arrogant, self appointed members of the “intellectual elite.” That either of them get any attention at all is a sad comment on the level of discourse in this country.
Posted by Jamie @ 08/23/2003 07:14 PM ET
“maybe that video clip I saw of the confrontation was doctored by the Right to put a different spin on what really happened” -Dennis V.
I’m a CSPAN dork. I watch it like other cable addicts watch The Food Network. Therefore I actually witnessed the incident as it was shown, without clever editing (I don’t think CSPAN actually can afford an editor/machine with which to make edits). The clips shown since have been very misleading. O’Reilly was made to look like a fool, spouting personal insults after stating “this should not devolve into personal insults” or something like. It was stupid. Stupid on both parts, really, but Franken at least would occasionally cite facts and sources during his personal invective. O’Reilly spent his time sounding like the bitter kid on the playgroud who just got beaten by the rules he’d set up. He did not show much intelligence in his retorts, while Franken occasionally would. Either way, I found the entire exercise amusing to watch. The spin since has been ridiculous.
Seriously, folks. CSPAN is a lot more fun to watch than you think. Especially when Sen. Robert Byrd is speaking to the Senate.
Posted by suncat @ 08/23/2003 07:16 PM ET
I’m also I c-span dork. I love listening to Byrd speak. I also get a big kick out of watching the British Parliment.
Posted by Emily @ 08/23/2003 07:44 PM ET
I was browsing through the Borders book store at Kip’s Bay last night after a press screening of Once Upon a Time in Mexico (ugh!), and flipped through the book. Next time I’m there, I’m definitely buying it.
Posted by Luigi Novi @ 08/23/2003 08:24 PM ET
Luigi Nova said:
“I was browsing through the Borders book store at Kip’s Bay last night after a press screening of Once Upon a Time in Mexico (ugh!)”
Is “OUATIM” really that bad? I rather enjoyed “El Mariaci” and “Desperado” and was looking forward to the 3rd installment…
):
Posted by Steve @ 08/23/2003 09:18 PM ET
What Fox News seems to be forgetting is that Al Franken is an entertainer, and entertainers love attention.
If you don’t believe me, watch the California Governor election.
Posted by Jason Froikin @ 08/23/2003 09:32 PM ET
I can’t wait to read Franken’s book, myself. You’re right, PAD, Franken should send Fox a fruit basket, or offer to pay for the court costs from the lawsuit, as the publicity was golden to him. I’m not sure, but I don’t think Franken’s book would have hit #1 on Amazon’s best seller list so quickly were it not for this silly suit.
Posted by Elie Harriett @ 08/23/2003 09:38 PM ET
Franken was smart enough to make THIS the big story, which thankfully pushed off the alternate one where he had to apologize for trying to embarrass Ashcroft by sending him a letter claiming to be from some abstinence only sex program–or some such silliness. It was on the letterhead of another group who, evidently, didn’t much like getting used for a cheap gag.
Since you don’t have to be Alanis Morrisette to see the irony in apologizing for lying right before publishing a book called Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them it was a very very savy move to get another story going. And Fox, the big dopes, fell for it.
Incidentally, why don’t liberals start collecting all the instances where Fox News engages in right wing bias? Shouldn’t be hard, to hear them talk. Conservatives do it all the time and manage to find enough to keep a few websites packed full of “Items of the Day” and the like.
Roger Tang’s comments about the general conservative nature of many publishers may well be correct but I’m not sure of the significance–Wasn’t Rupert Murdoch at one time the owner of the Village Voice? Didn’t seem to matter much in terms of content, as I recall
Posted by Bill Mulligan @ 08/23/2003 09:49 PM ET
From JC…
While Coulter or O’Reilly might fill their books with incendiary hyperbole and largely unresearched junk, Franken, while certainly making a sarcastic crack or two, will most likely undertake an extensive deconstruction of some of the big conservative lies.
So, what’s it going to be? A satire/parody or something that’s researched to achieve a point? If it’s the latter, then I can’t see how Franken can claim the satire/parody angle.
And both Coulter and O’Reilly do research their books, and give their own conclusions. They just don’t have to rip off other’s slogans, layouts and names to sell their books.
Posted by Jeff @ 08/23/2003 09:59 PM ET
Personally, I find both O’Reilly and Franken to be shrill arrogant, self appointed members of the “intellectual elite.”
They weren’t self-appointed. What, didn’t you see the memo that went around when they were appointed? I know I got the memo. Did the rest of you get the memo?
PAD
Posted by Peter David @ 08/23/2003 11:48 PM ET
I got the memo; it’s just that I generally ignore anything written in crayon. With lots of cross-outs.
Posted by Joe Nazzaro @ 08/24/2003 12:01 AM ET
“Thats what happens when you miss staff meetings, doctor”
James T Kirk
Posted by Steve @ 08/24/2003 12:43 AM ET
Two things, first I don’t see how Fox ever thought they had any chance of winning to begin with. “Fair and Balanced” is term that is in basic jouralism 101. I always thought that it was kind of arrogant (and lazy) of Fox to adopt it as their slogan in the first place. They couldn’t think of anything more original? It’s like the Sea Monkeys getting pìššëd øff if Al Franken titles his next book “Just Add Water.”
Second, (in pseudo responce to an earlier post) I was a little bit disappionted about Chief Justice Moore being suspended. To be quite honest, I think far to big a deal is being made about the whole thing. So he’s got the 10 commandments there. So what? Most of fundimental laws that this and almost every other society has are based on the 10 commandments. Thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, etc, etc… I’m all for separation of church and state, but come on, stripped of any relgious affilation, the 10 commandments are not a bad set of guidelines to live your life by. I mean it’s not like he has a picture of a vengeful God with the caption “Sinners prepare to burn” over his desk or anything…
Posted by Russell @ 08/24/2003 03:25 AM ET
So, what’s it going to be? A satire/parody or something that’s researched to achieve a point? If it’s the latter, then I can’t see how Franken can claim the satire/parody angle.
As Fat Tony once said: “It’s funny ’cause it’s true.”
The most important part of satire/parody is irony, and nothing presents politics in a more ironic light than the truth.
While I don’t expect Franken to be completely unbiased (he always seems too happy to mention his friendship with Clinton and Gore), I do believe the point of his books is to satirize the many other political books out there which play on emotion, not truth. The best way to do that is to expose them with facts.
Posted by Robb P. @ 08/24/2003 04:56 AM ET
Seriously, folks. CSPAN is a lot more fun to watch than you think. Especially when Sen. Robert Byrd is speaking to the Senate.
Posted by suncat @ 08/23/2003 07:16 PM ET
Robert Bird is my hero. He constantly disabuses conservatives of the idea that they are anything but selfish, evil and wrong–as well as bad for the continued advancement of the human race.
I am always surprised how in terms of real morality–that is what is actually good, for others, for the environment, for anyone other than rich bášŧárdš–ŧháŧ the conservatives are always on the side of the devil.
Doesn’t anyone else realize this?
Grem-same one as on Geoff Johns message board.
Posted by Gremlin @ 08/24/2003 05:49 AM ET
I love Fox and I hate Fox. I love Fox because they gave a home (for a while anyway) to some of the best shows I have ever seen. All the Chris Carter shows (yes, I even liked the few Harsh Realms I saw), Futurama, The Critic, Family Guy, the early season of Malcolm. Next season the only reason I’m bothering to watch Fox is The Simpsons.
I hate Fox’s News shows. I hate the fact that Cops hasn’t had an original plot in years. (Face it, it’s staged.) I hate the fact that they paid a lot of money from some nutjob producer to air the Alien Autopsy, then a few years later got their money’s worth by recycling the footage for The World’s Greatest Hoaxes. Oh yeah, and not doing anymore animated Tick episodes after the brain swap one.
Posted by Jess Willey @ 08/24/2003 07:06 AM ET
Gremlin –
I’m as liberal as anyone. I watched in horror as O’Reilly proposed that the United States of America should emulate Soviet Russia and build a gulag and I often find myself yelling until I’m hoarse with outrage at a lot of the things that those of the politically conservative persuasion can often so blandly propose.
And I’ll bet they feel the same way about me.
Ðámņìņg them as ‘on the side of the devil’ does absolutely no good at all, just as when Anne Coulter calls us all traitors because we don’t fall into lockstep she is being an inflammatory jáçkášš. Calling them all ‘selfish, evil and wrong’ is the same as saying that the conversation is over, because no one wants to keep talking to someone who says this kind of thing about them. Granted, oftentimes I get ready to spit blood at all the insults I get from the Hannity’s and O’Reilly’s of this world and their supporters…people who assume my opinion is less valuable because it disagrees with theirs and is therefore founded purely in politics, whereas their differing opinion is in fact grounded in truth. That outrages me. It irritates me. It infuriates me.
It does not excuse acting in the same fashion. It would be nice to believe all those who have a different opinion are monsters (and no, you didn’t actually say that they were, merely that they were evil and on the side of the devil) when in fact they are people doing the best they can in many cases to grapple with very hard, very complicated issues.
For one thing to stand as an example, as much as I personally want us to get out of Iraq (because I believe that the resentment levels there are too high for us to ever reconstruct the country…an idea seemingly shared by our own government) I don’t disagree with the idea that it is in fact our responsibility to do something to help rebuild the country we bombed and shot up. Those that argue we have to stay to rebuild have a good and valid point, and to dismiss them as evil is the same kind of shortsighted black-and-white view of the world that leads us often into massive trouble.
Of course there are evil Conservatives. And evil Liberals. And evil Libertarians, and Green Party Members, and Discordians, and Anarchists, and Capitalists. The evil comes not solely from any one political party or viewpoint, but entirely from each individuals freedom to choose how one will live. And attempting to live honestly and with integrity isn’t a trait held solely by any faction.
I realize I got up on my soapbox here. I’ll get down now.
Posted by Ezrael @ 08/24/2003 07:31 AM ET
1. Wasn’t Robert Byrd a paid recruiter for the KKK? How come Trent Lott is hung for making a stupid comment that has to be extrapolated to imply he is a rascist, but Byrd who was PAID by the KKK gets no mention in press? This is a rhetorical question because I already know the answer to this: he is a democrat and on the side of angels as far as most mainstream media is concerned (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN), which leads to my 2nd point.
2. The reason so many liberals hate Fox news is that they have gotten so used to their one sided agendas getting the only serious air time by the other networks. Its so subtle, all the time. Recently the CBS showed interviews of different people who gave their opinion of separation of church and state. The persons who believed absolutely no religious association with the government should be the standard were all articulate, calm, clean looking individuals. Then to be “balanced” CBS interviewed persons who disagreed and they were almost all red necks,looked like Yo Sammity Sam, and had no coherent thought process. Now for the casual viewer who has put no effort into researching the issue, who is going to be more persuasive? Couldn’t CBS find anyone on the side of Roy Moore who was more articulate and looked at least like they’d taken a bath in the past week? The answer is Yes they could have, but the folks at CBS news couldn’t possible conceive anyone other than a red neck siding with Judge Moore.
Posted by Rocky @ 08/24/2003 09:25 AM ET
While I don’t expect Franken to be completely unbiased (he always seems too happy to mention his friendship with Clinton and Gore), I do believe the point of his books is to satirize the many other political books out there which play on emotion, not truth. The best way to do that is to expose them with facts.
What? So, you’re saying that emotion is fact, but truth isn’t the way to expose someone elses work you don’t agree with? Ooooookay.
Posted by Jeff @ 08/24/2003 09:35 AM ET
Ezrael, good points, I however do believe that conservatives have very little conscience and less access to morality than most human beings so I said what I believe. Yeah, I know it wasn’t open minded as we are supposed to be as liberals etc. But that open-mindedness has been what has gotten us into so much trouble in the past. Conservatives–those that work toward a conservative agenda and those who support them are destroying everything that America stands for, the environment and making our country into an unsafe haven for terrorists. I could play the game of saying oh yes, but they are human beings and should be treated as such, but that time is pretty much over and now us liberals have to question thw why’s how’s and wherefor’s that conservatives have gotten away with for so long.
Grem–oh and the difference between Byrd and Trent Lott is that one no longer is a rascist.
Posted by Gremlin @ 08/24/2003 09:57 AM ET
Fox News should get a percentage of sales of Al’s book. Okay, they shouldn’t, but Fox gave them absolutely fantastic publicity — they made themselves look foolish and gave headlines to a book largely about making them look foolish. “This is much too subtle to be considered a parody.”
Amazing, how stuff that would never be believable if fiction happens in real life.
Someone suggested having the Ten Commandments posted isn’t bad, because they’re a good guideline and basis for many laws. Unfortunately, that *would* violate the separation between church and state — and it’s there for a reason. When most people argue for bringing religion to schools, they’re arguing to bring *their* religion. Does anyone think Chief Justice Moore would post a Jewish prayer, or Islamic beliefs? And how should non-Christians feel when they read “I am the Lord your God. Thou shalt have no other gods but me”? The separation of church and state allows people to worship (or not) in their own way, not so one belief can be forced on them.
Posted by James Lynch @ 08/24/2003 10:40 AM ET
I just read Frankin’s book yesterday. There are quite a few bits in it that are dámņ funny, and not just in the “liberal bashing conservatives” vein.
But it seems some people don’t get the point of the book (which is a bit odd considering the title). This isn’t a book about conservative media bias (though it touches on that) not is it an attack on conservative views (though it dabbles in that). It’s about conservative lies, and Frankin does a pretty good job pinning down lies by people like Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity and demonstrating how they were clearly intentional lies designed to mislead and confuse people.
And for all you Right-Wing fools who keep bringing up Robert Byrd because Sean and Rush Limbaugh tell you too, Strom Thurmond ran for U.S. President as a segregationist. Thurmond then left the Democratic Party because it wasn’t racist enough for him. What political party did he join? I’m sure you can figure it out.
Mike
Posted by MBunge @ 08/24/2003 11:30 AM ET
Russel says:
I was a little bit disappionted about Chief Justice Moore being suspended. To be quite honest, I think far to big a deal is being made about the whole thing. So he’s got the 10 commandments there. So what? Most of fundimental laws that this and almost every other society has are based on the 10 commandments. Thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, etc, etc… I’m all for separation of church and state, but come on, stripped of any relgious affilation, the 10 commandments are not a bad set of guidelines to live your life by.
How exactly do you strip religion out of “I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me”??
Let’s take a look at the ten commandments and see how many are actually the law of the land.
1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
Not only is this NOT the law of the land, it is ILLEGAL for it to become the law of the land.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
Not the law of the land.
3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day.
Some states still have “blue laws” but most do not. Federally, not the law of the land.
4. Honor thy Father and thy Mother.
I’d like to see cops try and enforce this.
5. Thou shalt not kill.
Finally! One that actually is the law of the land. One out of five so far.
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
This may still be in the books in some states, but if it is, it is never enforced. Federally, not the law of the land.
7. Thou shalt not steal.
Two out of seven! The Law of the land.
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Give them a half point for this one. It is illegal if you are under oath. Maybe half is too much. Of all the lies told in this country, what percentage do you think are told under oath?
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife.
Another one I’d like to see cops try to enforce.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s goods.
Jealous of your friend’s new sportscar? Kinda wish it was yours? You’re under arrest!
So out of the TEN commandments, two point three of them are the law of the land. Yeah, this judge isn’t doing anything wrong. 😉
-Greg
Posted by Greg Sullivan @ 08/24/2003 11:34 AM ET
Thank you James Lynch, for putting your finger on the whole Ten Commandments situation. How would local Christians feel if a Jewish judge, with a few supporters in the middle of the night, sneaked a two-ton monument commemorating the Torah into the lobby of their justice building. How about a Muslim bringing in a monument of the Koran? In either case, I suspect it would be defaced, destroyed or removed within hours.
Incidentally, I believe Al Franken is appearing on the Today Show tomorrow (Monday) morning. Should be worth setting the VCR for.
Posted by Joe Nazzaro @ 08/24/2003 11:50 AM ET
Wasn’t Robert Byrd a paid recruiter for the KKK? How come Trent Lott is hung for making a stupid comment that has to be extrapolated to imply he is a rascist, but Byrd who was PAID by the KKK gets no mention in press?
Er… If it gets no mention in the press, how did you find out about it?
Posted by Joe Littrell @ 08/24/2003 12:09 PM ET
Man I love hearing about American Politics. It is do dámņ funny.
Posted by Jason Wingert @ 08/24/2003 12:50 PM ET
How would local Christians feel if a Jewish judge, with a few supporters in the middle of the night, sneaked a two-ton monument commemorating the Torah into the lobby of their justice building. How about a Muslim bringing in a monument of the Koran?
The fact remains that nobody has done that.
This is a Christian judge in the South, that feels that what he thinks is more important than what everybody else thinks.
Posted by Craig J. Ries @ 08/24/2003 01:02 PM ET
I should also add that every time I hear the whole “fair and balanced” crap out of Fox, I want to laugh out loud.
I don’t know if a politician could make a more bald-faced lie.
Posted by Craig J. Ries @ 08/24/2003 01:03 PM ET
GREMLIN: “Ezrael, good points, I however do believe that conservatives have very little conscience and less access to morality than most human beings so I said what I believe.”
The tolerance of the left. The openmindedness HA! I love this guy, for you are the atypical extreme lefty.
Posted by AnthonyX @ 08/24/2003 01:09 PM ET
Grem–oh and the difference between Byrd and Trent Lott is that one no longer is a rascist.
Senator Byrd used the “n” word on Meet the Press a few years ago; Trent Lott has not done so. Lott said what he did (carelessly, of course) to make an old man feel good about himself.
Regardless, the liberals made no issue about Byrd They would have crucified any conservative.
Liberals are fair and balanced, you see….
Posted by Jamie @ 08/24/2003 01:20 PM ET
Chief Justice is an elected position in Alabama. Judge Moore is doing exactly what the voters want him to do. He’s got what he wanted:
–A paid vacation. 9suspension)
–Hemakes himself look good by standing up to the “evil forces” aainst the fine Christians in the state of Alabama.
–He’s in position to run for Governor.
He’s played things perfectly. Either he wins, and keeps the Comandments, or he loses and has the position to run for higher office.
Posted by Jamie @ 08/24/2003 01:25 PM ET
The last time I discussed the ‘fair and balanced-ness’ of FOX News (or, let’s be blunt, the clear and obvious lack of it), the only argument I heard back from my fellow debaters was that ‘It’s perfectly balanced if you judge it against the liberal and left-wing networks’.
Which kinda makes my point for me. It doesn’t make FOX fair or balanced. it just makes sure that someone who watches every news channel will probably end up with a mean average/fair and balanced view.
NOT the same thing and hardly something for FOX News to crow about.
“FOX News, letting you get a fair and balanced view if you watch CNN, BBC, SKY and us on the same day” just doesn’t have that ring to it.
John
(who thanks God – but not in an open court house – that here in the UK we have the likes of SKY News and the BBC’s Jeremy Paxman)
Posted by John Mosby @ 08/24/2003 02:49 PM ET
On the subject of The Ten Commandments, one can only be glad they were written in age before spin doctoring.
Otherwise there’s be so many get-out clauses, exceptions and vague comments open to the retro-interpretation of the day, that it would take a tablet the size of Mount Rushmore to get the first few in.
John
Posted by John Mosby @ 08/24/2003 02:59 PM ET
http://www.booktv.org/feature/index.asp?segid=3630&schedID=196
This link will take you to what appears to be the entire C-Span broadcast, though I have not watched the entire viewing. If the link does not work, then do a search for
Franken/O’Reilly fight on C-SPAN
on Google.
Hope this helps!
Will
Posted by Will @ 08/24/2003 04:45 PM ET
Grem–oh and the difference between Byrd and Trent Lott is that one no longer is a rascist.
Senator Byrd used the “n” word on Meet the Press a few years ago; Trent Lott has not done so. Lott said what he did (carelessly, of course) to make an old man feel good about himself.
Regardless, the liberals made no issue about Byrd They would have crucified any conservative.
Liberals are fair and balanced, you see….
Posted by Jamie @ 08/24/2003 01:20 PM ET
Using the ‘n’ word isn’t automatically racist, no matter what anyone would have you believe. How did he use it? Was he denoucing it or was he endorsing it? Was he promoting his recently released album? (That’s a joke.) My point is that we could judge Lott’s context by the fact that he was endorsing how things would be better if Strom Thurmond had become President. That’s contextual. Provide the context for the Byrd quote, or tell me how I can procure a transcript (does Meet The Press still have them? What episode was it? Do you have it on tape? Can you get me the Episode number?) so that I can judge it for itself.
As far as I can tell, no Liberals trademarked the phrase ‘fair and balanced.’ How the hëll do you trademark a common phrase? What’s next? “How are you” is a trademark of Conglomerate Industries?
The persons who believed absolutely no religious association with the government should be the standard were all articulate, calm, clean looking individuals. Then to be “balanced” CBS interviewed persons who disagreed and they were almost all red necks,looked like Yo Sammity Sam, and had no coherent thought process. Now for the casual viewer who has put no effort into researching the issue, who is going to be more persuasive?
Posted by Rocky @ 08/24/2003 09:25 AM ET
Well, hëll, Rocky, when both CNN and FOX News went out of their way to find anti-war protestors who looked like they slept on a VW Bus for the past thirty years, where was the effort to find articulate, calm, clean-looking individuals? Think they don’t exist on that side, or are you willing to accept that people at protests tend to be less rational sounding. Moore’s supporters outside the Supreme Court building were the source of many of those interviewees…the people holding pickets and shouting about how this is going to touch off the next American Revolution. The interviews are going to come from as close to the news event as can be arranged.
FOX News is considered extra-specially reprehensible by a great many people not because they’re conservative, but because they pretend *not* to be. Personally, I liken them to the 700 Club. At least Robertson doesn’t pretend to be impartial. And in case it matters, I think CNN, NBC, CBS et al have a *Conservative* bias. Conservatives have always dominated the media by the expediency of ownership.
Posted by Ezrael @ 08/24/2003 05:52 PM ET
Half of this has turned into a Judge Moore discussion, and as an Alabama native, I thought I’d jump into the pond too.
Point One: A little history; Roy Moore was elected as a reaction to Harold See’s unlawful campaign against him. Judge See was eventually suspended because of his campaign. Roy Moore wasn’t the best candidate at the time, just the better of the two. At least he hadn’t broken the law. Yet.
Point Two: Please notice that most of Roy Moore’s supporters are NOT Alabama natives. The Montgomery Advertiser had an article today which discussed this fact. George Wallace and Roy Moore are NOT tourist attractions for this state. If you want to see what this state is about come to Mobile Bay and tour the USS Alabama; visit the Space And Rocket Center in Huntsville; enroll your high school student at the Academy of Arts & Science in Birmingham, ranked as one of the best public high schools in the nation; or visit Point Mallard in Decatur, the first wave pool in the nation. End of rant, but some of us are proud to be here and get a little riled when our own citizens run off the tourist.
Where was I? Oh yeah, Point Three: It’s generally agreed that Roy Moore is simply using this platform as a stepping-stone for the governor’s office. Re-casting himself as the new George Walace seems to be the image he’s chosen to achieve that goal. This is, for the most part, a conservative voting state and people with political aspirations are certainly aware of this. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.
Point Four: At least it ain’t California! What is with you people and actors?
Posted by J Robert Haga @ 08/24/2003 07:41 PM ET
Provide the context for the Byrd quote, or tell me how I can procure a transcript (does Meet The Press still have them? What episode was it? Do you have it on tape? Can you get me the Episode number?) so that I can judge it for itself.
No transcript, but ere’s an article on it. Sen. Byrd used the term “white ni–er” as an insult.
http://hnn.us/comments/6185.html
Can’t mistake that as anything positive. Can you show me where Lott has used the word–or where Byrd was criticized like Lott was? Did Democrats demand Byrd to resign? Did *anyone* demand he resign? I have doubts, but I am open to correction.
Posted by Jamie @ 08/24/2003 08:47 PM ET
So many of you are missing the point! You think FNC shouldn’t be able to use the phrase “Fair and Balanced” because YOU think they aren’t. It doesn’t matter if they called themselves “Blue and Sweet”. Equal sweetener may be upset, but FNC trademarked the phrase.
But what the hëll. Some of the posters here probably were on the jury that awarded the woman millions of dollars for placing a hot cup of coffee from McDonalds in her lap and spilling it, figuring that McDonalds is a big evil corporation and deserves to lose, no matter what.
Posted by Jeff @ 08/24/2003 09:28 PM ET
>>So many of you are missing the point! You think FNC shouldn’t be able to use the phrase “Fair and Balanced” because YOU think they aren’t. It doesn’t matter if they called themselves “Blue and Sweet”. Equal sweetener may be upset, but FNC trademarked the phrase. <<
Posted by Jeff @ 08/24/2003 09:28 PM ET
Actually, you are missing the point. Just becuase they trademarked a common phrase does NOT mean they have sole control of it. Their case was weak, and they got slammed for it.
Further, if they kept at it, they could effectively lose control of it. It could be declared ‘unprotectable’, and the Judge hinted at that in the case too. It’s way too early to be doing a case like this. It’s an important feature of such a case to show that most people think ONLY of the company when they hear the phrase. Clearly, that hasn’t happened yet.
And if Fox doesn’t get smart soon, it may never happen.
Posted by Max @ 08/24/2003 10:04 PM ET
Here is Byrd’s actual words:
“They are much, much better than they’ve ever been in my lifetime,” Byrd said. “I think we talk about race too much. I think those problems are largely behind us…I just think we talk so much about it that we help to create somewhat of an illusion. I think we try to have good will. My old mom told me, ‘Robert, you can’t go to heaven if you hate anybody.’ We practice that.”
“There are white ņìggërš. I’ve seen a lot of white ņìggërš in my time; I’m going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I’d just as soon quit talking about it so much.”
http://zebco.blogspot.com/2002_12_01_zebco_archive.html
A couple other examination of these words are here http://www.blackelectorate.com/articles.asp?ID=337 and here http://hnn.us/articles/1220.html
Byrd has said many things about the war on Iraq that I agree with but I think that his use of those words and his former membership with the KKK should stop him from being in the leadership of the Democratic party. That being said I think that Byrd has learned from the past and continues to try and correct past mistakes.
As for Fox, I cannot see how it is “fair and balanced.” I have little patience for those on the right and turn them off. I hope to see Al when he is in Kansas City in October.
Posted by Jeff Oakes @ 08/24/2003 10:11 PM ET
Ezrael: Using the ‘n’ word isn’t automatically racist, no matter what anyone would have you believe. How did he use it? Was he denoucing it or was he endorsing it?”
You are 100% correct yet still missing the point. If Byrd were a Republican he would have been crucified.
2 years ago California Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamente let loose some type of Freudian slip at the Black Trade Unionists annual dinner, using the n-word. People walked out, more were offended. Where was the mainstram media?
What if Bustamente was a Republican? Would the oh so “Conservative ” media have let it slide??
Also, google this subject and notive how when Byrd and Bustamente are named, there are many times where no party affiliation is mentioned.
Posted by AnthonyX @ 08/24/2003 10:27 PM ET
Since some have mentioned the ‘n’word and whether it automatically makes one racist I have a somewhat amusing tale: About 4 years ago I lived in Washington D.C. and during a meeting between the mayor’s cabinet and other local officials in which they were discussing some proposed spending, a member of the mayor’s cabinet said that the group needed to stop acting so “ņìggárdlÿ”. Well, needless to say that some of the persons present at said meeting were so upset over a word that “sounded like the ‘n’word” that within days the mayor had to ask for the gentleman’s resignation. This despite the fact that the word “ņìggárdlÿ” means “stingy”. The fact that it sounded like the ‘n’ word was enough to for this guy to get the axe. Before anyone freaks out on me please look it up in your dictionary first. Thanks.
Posted by Rocky @ 08/24/2003 11:46 PM ET
Yeah, I remember the ‘ņìggárdlÿ’ incident as well. It still staggers me that somebody could lose their job because other people are so linguistically challenged!
Posted by Joe Nazzaro @ 08/25/2003 01:38 AM ET
Someone here said …
“I don’t know if a politician could make a more bald-faced lie.”
It doesn’t get much worse than “Lyin'” Brian Mulroney. Canada’s Progressive Conservative Prime Minister from ’84 to 93.
At a press conference, he said something about how some provincial premiers’ desire to set up their own tax laws on some things would cause headaches for the federal government. When immediately questioned about it, he denied saying it. He then repeated it.
As one reporter commented, “something must have gotten lost in the translation from Politician-to-English.”
Posted by The StarWolf @ 08/25/2003 08:55 AM ET
You are 100% correct yet still missing the point. If Byrd were a Republican he would have been crucified.
And if Clinton were a Republican he would have gotten away with having mistresses. So what? Each side has their particular image and it may be unfair, but I don’t see why Republicans should be able to get away with more than Democrats do. Ask Gary Hart about how liberal the media is. Hëll, the media freaking hired G. Gordon Liddy!
I have to admit, it seems a bit like whining to me. Ooh, the media abuses us! The media’s unfair to us! The media’s unfair to everyone. And it’s often unfair in the most sensational manner possible. Perhaps if Democrats didn’t keep getting caught with tail on the side, and Republicans weren’t seen as bigots, they’d catch less flak. (I’m fully aware that plenty of Republicans have tail on the side, and plenty of Democrats are bigots.)
As I said, my biggest problem with Fox is their pretense. I think CNN actually *attempts* to be raving áššhølëš equally, but Fox saves it for the lefties. You see it on their morning show, on O’Reilly’s “Cut his mike!” tantrums, it’s not even subtle. I also really, really don’t see how you can trademark “Fair and Balanced.” I just don’t get it. Like I said, is “How are you” next?
CNN: How Are You?
Posted by Ezrael @ 08/25/2003 01:32 PM ET
Since you don’t have to be Alanis Morrisette to see the irony in apologizing for lying right before publishing a book called Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them
You do realize that the only thing ironic about her song about irony is that nothing she mentions in it is actually ironic.
Posted by Scavenger @ 08/25/2003 03:25 PM ET
Since you don’t have to be Alanis Morrisette to see the irony in apologizing for lying right before publishing a book called Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them
You do realize that the only thing ironic about her song about irony is that nothing she mentions in it is actually ironic. >>
No, I’ve never heard that.
Posted by SER @ 08/25/2003 04:12 PM ET
that *would* violate the separation between church and state
You know, I keep on hearing about this thing, but I’ve never found it in the Constitution.
Travis
(who is a liberal, believe it or not)
Posted by Travis @ 08/25/2003 06:41 PM ET
It amazes me that instead of just stating that Trent Lott is just as a big a loser as Robert Byrd, the two warring political factions of this country always get into some juvenile argument that basically boils down to “well if it was okay for your guy to be racist then it should be okay for our guy to be racist too”.
They are both idiots who should not be given seats of power in their respective parties or in our government.
Posted by Derek! @ 08/25/2003 07:12 PM ET
J Robert Haga wrote:
<>
After that embaressing revival meeting disguised as a free speech demonstration that Judge Moore and his gang put on today I wouldn’t be throwing stones at Cali.
At least their Governor’s race has Gary “Whatchoo Talkin’ ‘Bout” Coleman.
Posted by Derek! @ 08/25/2003 07:20 PM ET
It was a mistake for FNC to pursue a lawsuit in this matter. “It’s time to return Al Franken to the obscurity that he’s normally accustomed to,” Fox News spokeswoman Irena Steffen said.
Posted by Darin Wagner @ 08/25/2003 08:14 PM ET
I got the book today, and the store had a big display for it.
I asked the cashier how it was selling, and she said “Its selling like crazy.”
“Time to return him to the obscurity he’s used to.”
Ha! I say, Ha!
I hate to break it to FOX, but this isnt his first #1 bestseller, and it won’t be his last.
Posted by Steve @ 08/25/2003 11:33 PM ET
Who are being played like puppets on a string by the owners of said media…who are almost all quite conservative (Um, did you think the Pulliams, Hearsts, Chandlers and Knights [who own the majority of the nation’s daily metropolitan papers] are liberal????)
Fiscally, no. Socially, yes. Only an idiot would think that social conservatives, people who place family values and the like as top-of-the-heap priorities, would run crap like “Paradise Island”, “Temptation Island”, and “That 70s Show”.
A true social conservative wouldn’t try and run his or her network with this much basis on sex within the themes of the programming. But Rupert Murdoch would.
He’s no conservative. What he is is knowledgeable of what will make him a profit.
He knows that it’s _more profitable to create a news network that would slant slightly right and engage a relatively untapped audience than it would be to try and compete directly with Ted Turner’s CNN and the MSNBC colossus. He’d lose money competing for the same audience and he knows it._
Murdoch would do many things to protect his investments and make his investments gold but that doesn’t mean he’s a conversative.
Don’t tell me that the people who run and plan air “Who Wants To Marry a Multi-Millionaire?” and “Mr Personality” are strong conservatives. Well, you can but don’t expect me to take you seriously afterwards.
Interestingly enough, no matter how the owners vote, the editors and writers tpyically vote democrat and the articles are usually slanted that way…. I can’t take your “the owners are conservative so the newspapers must be too” argument seriously either.
Posted by The Blue Spider @ 08/26/2003 12:22 AM ET
I however do believe that conservatives have very little conscience and less access to morality than most human beings so I said what I believe
That I, a fiscal and social and quite political conservative, go out of my way to not harm people and to actually help people at times… means nothing? Does it mean I’m not conservative? Hëll, no.
You’re telling me that I have no conscience. If I had no conscience I’d have a lot more money, I’d hurt a lot more people’s feelings, and I’d care a lot less.
So I have a conscience. I do care about my fellow man. I am a moral human being. I go out of my way to clean up the environment. I believe in conservation of resources. And I know this is true. This is life. This is how I act from day to day.
So what you believe is flat out wrong. You couldn’t be more wrong if your dogma was “the sky is red”.
CJA
What I will say is that you are being used by those that you vote for. They are using your sense of morality to accomplish the things that will make them the richess. Morality to the conservative machine is a bizarre monster, it serves the richest. You want to tell me how your morality matches those that traded drugs and guns for a war in Nicaragua, how our poorest are allowed to starve and become undereducated, how guns are sold to and training is given to shadowy military groups like the Taliban–in the name of oil? Conservatives can only claim morality in the loosest of terms, dying and killing for oil is not morality, lying to congress for revenge and oil is not morality–fighting for the rights of ten commandment sculptures everywhere is not morality. The fact of the matter is that those who are in the conservative elite have sold you out, each and every one of the people who actually believe in the values of family and religion etc. You were sold out for money and its just a matter of time before the lies and deceptions are so painfully obvious that even Ðìçk Cheney will have to admit to them openly and before congress. I’m sorry, because, you know, Republicans are a good political party–it was when they became a lifestyle choice and claimed the name “conservative” that it all went to hëll.
Grem-
“Some of the posters here probably were on the jury that awarded the woman millions of dollars for placing a hot cup of coffee from McDonalds in her lap and spilling it, figuring that McDonalds is a big evil corporation and deserves to lose, no matter what.”
No, that’s not how that decision was made. The “short” version of this that made all the news skipped a number of key facts, including that McDonalds was selling coffee that was so much hotter than coffee is normally served, it was inherently dangerous for any use, including drinking; that they knew they had a problem with burns at that temperature, and had faced hundreds of complaints over it. Even the judge who lowered the punitive damages called McDonald’s actions “wreckless, callous, and willful”. For more information on this case, see http://www.atlanet.org/ConsumerMediaResources/Tier3/press_room/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx
It was a mistake for FNC to pursue a lawsuit in this matter. “It’s time to return Al Franken to the obscurity that he’s normally accustomed to,” Fox News spokeswoman Irena Steffen said.
Well, yes… The same level of obscurity as his fellow speaking panelmates, no doubt.
Conservative elite?
What are you talking about?
I can understand the who…. but I can’t understand the what.
and is this really a dispute of the notion that I can be conservative and not a murdering oil baron…. simultaneously?
Or is it an admission that the argument “conservatives are immoral because they are conservative” argument is malarky?
Franken’s book is very funny. By the way, he admitted that he occasionally lies, “but only when I have to.”
Bill Freivogel
Chicago, Illinois
Forgiving a liar is okay. Be it President, legislator, or comedian.
I’d even say that the act of forgiveness is good at any point in time.
But are lies justifiable? Can they be? From President to comedian to legislator to actor.
Yes. Respectively and individually.