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
• 
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.
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.
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.
Franken is still an unfunny knob.
….And do not get me started on the fair and balanced left-minded mainstream media.
“….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????)
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.
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.
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.
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. 😉
Perhaps Fox News could trademark Wholly without merit, both factually and legally as their next slogan…
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.
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”
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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…
):
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.
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.
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
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.
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
I got the memo; it’s just that I generally ignore anything written in crayon. With lots of cross-outs.
“Thats what happens when you miss staff meetings, doctor”
James T Kirk
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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?
Man I love hearing about American Politics. It is do dámņ funny.
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.
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.
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.
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….
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.
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)
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
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
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.
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?
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.