GREAAATTT BOOK. Lies and the Lying liars Who Tell them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right.

[smashp]

classic, classic book which examines How the so called liberal media gets infused with Conservative lies and half truths.

It shows that all that is needed to difuse these lies is google and Lexinexis

 

[Piano Man]

Originally posted by: smashp
classic, classic book which examines How the so called liberal media gets infused with Conservative lies and half truths.

It shows that all that is needed to difuse these lies is google and Lexinexis

Although I agree with most of what Franken says, he's not going to solve anything by pointing fingers. I mean, if I were to right a book about how crappy the "right" was, I wouldn't do in their style. Taking the high road pays off in the end.

 

[smashp]

agreed, but the book is a satire from a comic.

I personally am an independent and see the flaws in both ideologs.

 

[Bleep]

personally am an independent and see the flaws in both ideologs.

I am not sure what a independent is. In my state it means that you cannot vote in the primary. So here indepindent registerd voters give up their right to vote, not smart in my opinion.
Another thing is that whoever you vote for is forever tied to the party that they are in and the party that backed them. A candidate cannot be backed unless he/she agrees to the party platform or plank.
Forgot this the book is great and not satire, how do I know this? Bill O'really told me.

Bleep

 

[sMiLeYz]

Awesome book! Really funny...

It also shows how blatently hypocritical when the right accuse the mainstream media of being too lefty and subjective, but the right don't hold themselves to the same standard. The right media can write whatever garbage they want and past it as fact... but if the mainstream media is trying to report objectively they have 'liberal biased'.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: Bleep

personally am an independent and see the flaws in both ideologs.

I am not sure what a independent is. In my state it means that you cannot vote in the primary. So here indepindent registerd voters give up their right to vote, not smart in my opinion.
Another thing is that whoever you vote for is forever tied to the party that they are in and the party that backed them. A candidate cannot be backed unless he/she agrees to the party platform or plank.
Forgot this the book is great and not satire, how do I know this? Bill O'really told me.

Bleep

IS it better if I consider myself a "SWing" voter i have in the last 10 years voted for candidates on both sides of the isle.

but i guess i am currently a registered republican, because during our last presidential primary, i voted for mcCain

 

[chess9]

SmashP:

I just finished listening to this book while out on a 20 mile run this morning.

Franken does an excellent hatchet job on Ann Coulter and Bernard Goldberg, neither of whom have any respect for facts. Without a respect for facts, how can you know the truth? But his best point is about "loving" America. Coulter frequently says that liberals hate America, but, of course, she fails to support that notion with any meaningful fact. Franken queries: "Isn't the best relationship one grounded in truth?" Or words to that effect. The sort of thing parents say to their kids and lovers tell each other.

This lack of truthfullness is so telling about the nature of extremism. Extremists would rather support a lie with lies than face the truth. Creation "scientists", talk radio, Fox News and its ilk are busy simply making money and forking everything except the truth.

I strongly recommend this book to those who believe the media is left wing and Fox News is the truth.

-Robert

 

[Gaard]

Does anyone know if Coulter (or any of the others that Franken showed to have told an untruth ) ever come out and said "Oops, I made a mistake"?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Does anyone know if Coulter (or any of the others that Franken showed to have told an untruth ) ever come out and said "Oops, I made a mistake"?

Yes -there was an inaccuracy(date or a name or something) in her book and once the error was found I believe it was changed for the second run of the book. She was on the Mike Reagan talk show talking about her book and mentioned it, I think it was Reagan's show. Maybe it was a different one though.

CkG

 

[Gaard]

Cool. That's admirable of her. I only singled Coulter out because that's really the only part of the book I'm familiar with...I'm waiting for the pb version to come out (yes, I'm a cheapskate ).

Is this part of the book? (I found it trying to find out about whether or not Coultercorrected herself on the newspaper thing).
Franken takes the slams in stride. He walks over to a bookcase in his living room in New York and pulls out a copy of Treason, the latest book by right-wing media darling Ann Coulter. ?With her, you can open up to any random page and find a lie,? he says. To demonstrate his point, Franken flips to Page 265 and reads Coulter attacking New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. She writes, ?He blamed twenty years of relentless attacks by Muslim extremists on, I quote, ?religious fundamentalists of any stripe.?? Franken does a quick check online. What Friedman actually wrote: Requiring airline passengers to travel naked would make flights safer because ?no religious fundamentalist of any stripe would be caught dead flying nude.?

 

[cumhail]

One of the more amusing attempts to address such things came on her web site, where Coulter lambasts Franken for pointing out her error in saying that Evan Thomas is the son of Norman Thomas, a man who has run for president on the Socialist Party ticket, but failing to point out that he is his grandson. As per her column on the matter, on her web site, where she addresses the lies she is accused of by first summarizing each (in caps) and then responds to it :

I CLAIM EVAN THOMAS'S FATHER WAS THE SOCIALIST PARTY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, NORMAN THOMAS.

Franken drones on and on for a page and a half about how Norman Thomas was not Evan Thomas's father -- without saying that he was Evan's grandfather. This was one of about five inconsequential errors quickly corrected in Slander -- and cited one million times by liberals as a "LIE." Confusing "father" with "grandfather" is a mistake. Franken's deliberate implication that there was no relationship whatsoever between Norman and Evan Thomas is intentional dishonesty.

I haven't heard so much about this "lie" anymore.

What's both sad and amusing, at the same time, is how bad Coulter makes herself look to any objective (and most subjective) readers. While Franklin uses footnotes (real footnotes; not the endnotes that Coulter calls footnotes) throughout his text, rather than make readers search for hundreds of endnotes, he includes only a few in his book, all from this particular section on Coulter's use of them. And so at the end of the book, for her and anyone else to find, put there on an otherwise blank page to make them easier to find and read, are:

i. Evan Thomas is the Grandson of Norman Thomas. Did you find this
endnote? Congratulations.
ii. See how hard it was to find?

Coulter not only missed the joke, but she proved Franken's point by failing to check his endnote and find that he had, indeed, supplied the information she claims he did not. Her column, however, remains up with this error, along with at least one sloppy typo, two weeks later... odd.

In any case, it was a good read. Whether or not you like his politics, one should be able to acknowledge that he's a talented writer.

cumhail

Originally posted by: Gaard
Does anyone know if Coulter (or any of the others that Franken showed to have told an untruth ) ever come out and said "Oops, I made a mistake"?

 

[0roo0roo]

coulter only ever corrected one of her mistakes. if she had to correct the rest, she wouldn't have a book each page is a example of how to use as many fallacies as possible.

yes, i read her %#@ book, it was painful. she's so desrespectful to her readers feeding them tripe that insults their intelligence.

 

[chess9]

CAD:

Uh, not exactly! You need to read or listen to the Franken book. The woman is a COMPLETE MORON, a nut case, and very, very lazy. The only thing she has going for her are her looks. How she got into and out of law school should be investigated thoroughly. , Her book, "Slander", is nothing but one lie, mis-quote, or total fabrication after another. She is NOT Will or Buckley by any stretch of the imagination. (both of whom usually get high praise for their integrity if not their politics)

And, get this, she has a Conn and a D.C. license. Her D.C. license shows she is two years younger than her Conn license, which she would have had to have gotten at age 16. Problem is, she registered to vote at age 18 in Conn. So....that's about 3 laws broken at first glance if her D.C. license is correct, which she says it is. This wouldn't be a big deal if she weren't such a hypocritical liar complaining about all the liberal liars!

And Franken made Bernard Goldberg, who claims a liberal bias in the big news media, look like a high school kid who cheated on his Geometry exam. Goldberg wrote a book filled with quotes he got from a right wing organization but he didn't bother to check his facts. Even the N.Y. Times has fact checkers. Goldberg lied...Goldberg fried!

Ah, well, no one said the right wing has any brains....

Anyway, read the book. You can get it at the library. You know, the big building with the books in it. j/k

-Robert

 

[smashp]

Franken is a very talented writter and i admire that he went to such efforts to have a very large research team to ensure they get it right.

Franken knew that if he Mis-spoke (oreily), he would be burned alive by the right.

all those harvard grad students helping him with his research and mowing the Lawn

 

[sMiLeYz]

I read the latest Wired Article by David "Games Gone Wild" about ideas for future video games :

One of the is called "Correct Coulter" or something, and the whole purpose of the game is to disect one of her books and find one line that's not a lie, and do it within a 48 hours period, otherwise you lose. I quote, "the game is interesting because it's impossible to win."

I found that line hilarious and too true.

 

[smashp]

Ive always imagined that when Coulter dies, St peter would make her tell him the exact number of "journalistic" ( I use that word losely ) F@ckups and exactly which ones they were befor she would be aloud to pass.


Thats ok though.

Ann is the chicken Little of the right. Always YELLING that the sky is falling, yet less and less people believe her and more write her off as loony.

The only exception is she will never be telling the truth.

 

[Shelly21]

I just finshed 1/2 of the book, and I love it. I agree with almost everything he says. And I was always under the impression that the media have this liberal bias, boy was I wrong when he illustrated what happen during the 2000 election.

Totally different from Michael Moore's book.... didn't like it that much.

I'll read Ann's book to see both sides. (Perhaps I'll find it in the library first)

 

[preslove]

If you guys liked Franken, you should take a look at Eric Alterman's "What Liberal Media." Alterman has a MA in International Relations from Yale and just got his PHD in History from Stanford, so the book is pretty dry and academic, but he delves much deeper into the Conservative media establishment as well as showing its influence over the real media establishment (which he claims is neither liberal nor conservative, but easily influenced by conservative liars).

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
coulter only ever corrected one of her mistakes. if she had to correct the rest, she wouldn't have a book each page is a example of how to use as many fallacies as possible.

yes, i read her %#@ book, it was painful. she's so desrespectful to her readers feeding them tripe that insults their intelligence.

Wow, for once we agree.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: preslove
If you guys liked Franken, you should take a look at Eric Alterman's "What Liberal Media." Alterman has a MA in International Relations from Yale and just got his PHD in History from Stanford, so the book is pretty dry and academic, but he delves much deeper into the Conservative media establishment as well as showing its influence over the real media establishment (which he claims is neither liberal nor conservative, but easily influenced by conservative liars).

The example of this is franken actually says that Stuart on crossfire, even though he is a conservative, really tries to be honest and objective, yet he on a couple of instances was taken in on right wing lies and later admits that he got duped.