« Think I’ll Buy Me a Football Team | Home | Democrats: We Should Be Attacked First »
He’s Bad Enough, He’s Dumb Enough, and Doggone It, He’s A Liberal Idiot.
By Matt Margolis | August 11, 2003
When did the memo go out that said that Al Franken actually had something to say? Not only that, but since when has anyone considered him worth listening to?
Apparently this moron who sees the world only through cloudy leftist eyeglasses has managed to spew out yet another book that is already got space reserved in the Bargain Books section of your favorite bookstore.
Al Franken has an upcoming book titled “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right.”
All joking and politics aside, does any thinking person expect to believe with a titled like that Franken is going to present a �fair and balanced look� at anything?
Not only is his attempt to present his �book� as an objective piece completely absurd, but also his blatant attempt to imitate the slogan of Fox News Channel is even worse.
Now of course, Al Franken is the type to think Fox News is a one-sided, right wing biased station. All the power to him. I have yet to see him criticize CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS for being one-sided, left wing biased stations, but then again he is the �fair and balanced� one right?
Al Franken, and any other moron who wants to call Fox News biased clearly ignores the fact that CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS are all owned, hosted, and run by liberals. To suggest that these stations can run in such a manner, but Fox News can�t, for being allegedly conservative.
To address the �conservative bias� of Fox News, one must take an objective look at the programming� from all angles. Bill O�Reilly, for example, may be a conservative, but he�s never kept liberal guests from coming on his show. People like Al Franken look at Fox News and only see Bill O�Reilly. People like Al Franken look at Fox News and see Sean Hannity. I look at Fox News and see Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes. A right wing host, and a left wing host � with both left and right wing guests.
Moving on�
Now that we�ve established why anyone who suggests Fox News isn�t �fair and balanced� is a moron, and why someone like Al Franken who thinks he is �fair and balance� is an idiot, lets get to the real news here.
I say great! Franken is ridiculing the concept of being �fair and balanced� by putting it next to his name, By attaching his name to the phrase �fair and balanced� (which is trademarked by Fox News Channel) he�s blemishing the reputation of Fox News.
Al Franken has a lot of nerve. He�s a slimy liberal nitwit. He�s bad enough, he�s dumb enough, and doggone it, he�s the latest addition to the MattMargolis.com Liberal Idiots List.
Topics: Liberal Idiots |
Related Posts:
August 12th, 2003 at 9:04 am
FYI–Drudge has more on the story now
August 12th, 2003 at 2:59 pm
Im still in a state of shock that Fox managed to copyright “Fair and Balanced” in 95′ no less.
August 12th, 2003 at 8:34 pm
The last time I checked, Al Franken was a comedian and political satirist.
There is no “joking and politics aside” with anything he does or writes because, well, see my first sentence of this comment.
Do you really take anything he or a publicist might be saying about the book as anything but humor or an attempt to garner interest in the book before it gets out to store shelves?
As far as using the term “fair and balanced” in his book title - look at the media attention it has gotten him and his book already. People are going to go out and buy the book just to see what all the hubub was about.
Al Franken is out to make a buck off of his book, looks like he’ll probably do so…
August 13th, 2003 at 12:19 pm
Just because you’re a comedian dosn’t mean you can’t have political views and stances, and with that can be a compleat and total boob. Look at Michel Moore.
August 13th, 2003 at 1:09 pm
He can certainly have political views, etc., but he, like ever other hollywood leftist can’t present themselves as experts in politics, they are no different than you or me with an opinion, and there is no regard for thaking their opinions as if they were highly regarded in their politics.
blah blah if that makes sense.
August 16th, 2003 at 4:55 pm
Al Franken’s biggest problem is that he thinks he’s the bastion of truth, objectivity, and intelligence. If anything, he’s the polar opposite of that. Not to mention he was never that funny.
August 25th, 2003 at 9:13 pm
Frankin has the #1 selling book right now on Amazon. Fox dropped the suit due to it’s preposterousness. Frankin ripped O’Lielly a new a** on C-SPAN. And guess what neo-con idiots… we’re commin at ya
In the words of the great GWB.. Bring it on 
August 25th, 2003 at 9:47 pm
I’d take you on any time Yeah Yeah.
Al Franken is as stupid as you are. Come out from your blanket on anonymity and just try to say something truthful, or something that makes sense.
It’s time for you to bring it on. You can’t sit there with a grin on your face and pretend like you’re almighty and victorious when you’re not.
You bring it on. I eat liberals like you for breakfast.
August 26th, 2003 at 8:44 am
Your article is either (A)great satire, in the same vein as Al Franken’s work, or (B) You’ve TOTALLY missed the point. In either case, your article had me ROTFLMAO.
Thanks for the good laugh,
Rob
P.S. I’m willing to go out on a limb and guess that it’s B, and go out further and guess that you’ve not even read the work that you are attacking.
August 26th, 2003 at 12:09 pm
I’ve seen Al Franken on television, and I’ve flipped through his book. His work as disguised as satire, but clearly is meant to be taken seriously by the individuals who would waste their money buying it.
August 28th, 2003 at 9:35 am
So you’re making definitive statements about a work that you’ve only “Flipped through”? Much like the people he writes about, you won’t let facts, and knowlege of the subject get in the way of your criticism. Before you comment on the validity of his book, maybe you should read it? Otherwise you are making statements out of ignorance. You make his point for him.
Rob
August 28th, 2003 at 10:01 am
I should have said: You won’t let the your ignorance of the facts, and your lack of knowlege of the subject get in the way of your criticism.
August 28th, 2003 at 12:28 pm
You may interpret “flipped through” however you choose to. However, that doesn’t change the fact that Al Franken’s book is really not meant to be satire. If it were, than you wouldn’t be calling it “facts,” you’d be calling it “entertainment.”
Further, if Franken’s book was merely satire, I highly doubt he’d have needed 14 researchers from Harvard desperately looking for flaws in the Right. Al Franken is, without question, trying to make a case. He’s not trying to be a funnyman - however, he inserts plenty of jokes, puns, etc. etc. to try and hide behind the label of “satire.” Franken is using his “satirist” label as a means to hide behind the First Amendment when he attacks the Right.
Don’t even try to accuse me of “lack of knowledge.” If you thought I was just an ignorant person on a power trip you wouldn’t be posting comments on my blog.
August 28th, 2003 at 1:10 pm
Okay, lets say you have knowlege of the book. When you “Flipped Through it, you must have come up with some specific complaints. Please, rather than making generlizations, enlighten us on what exactly you have problem with what he has written.
Rob
August 28th, 2003 at 1:36 pm
Maybe you should also get a knowlege of your own vocabulary.
From Dictionary.com
sat·ire
A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.
The branch of literature constituting such works. See Synonyms at caricature.
Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.
August 28th, 2003 at 2:12 pm
Anyone that can talk anything Al Franken says seriously must be living in the bizarro world. Mr. Stuart Smalley is satirist, not a politician, not a historian, not a member of the intelligencia. WWhy would you trust his opinion on anything? Just because he has hollywood fame, doens’t make him an expert on politics, it’s merely a means to get your unintelligible voice heard.
August 28th, 2003 at 2:37 pm
Java,
Are you too going to make uninformed gernalizations, or are you going to talk about the specific work in question? Could it be you are commenting on his work without even evaluating it?
Rob
August 28th, 2003 at 3:36 pm
I’ve seen his work….. He wasn’t good, he was not smart, and doggone it, I didn’t like it.
August 28th, 2003 at 3:45 pm
Can you name a specific work, and a specific example? Again your generalizations are not very convicing? Since you commented on this specific work, how about providing your insite on this work? Or can it be that you are making blind attacks, witht he work sight unseen?
Rob
August 28th, 2003 at 5:32 pm
Rob, I see no justification whatsoever for anyone to respond to your “challenge.” I’ve never seen one person here in my blog, or elsewhere criticize Ann Coulter’s latest book, “Treason” after having actually read it. Further, what point is it for anyone to come up with points ‘x’ and ‘y’ explaining our position, when you’ll just find someway to dismiss it just because you think you’re right. Sorry, but don’t me to waste my time trying to prove something to you. I don’t expect anyone else to waste their time trying to prove something you.
I know what your response to this is going to be - quite frankly I don’t care. I’m not going to let this thread be a back and forth pointless debate over what is simply a difference in opinion.
You’re not going to change anyone’s opinion on this, nor am I going to change yours.
August 28th, 2003 at 6:42 pm
Nice side step, but I have not commented on Ann Coulter’s book, and I have not written an article about it. I would not do so without having read her work. That would be WRONG. It would have been just as wrong as what you have done.
I guess my first impression was right, You will not let your your lack knowlege of the subject get in the way of your criticism. You charge that Franken is being dishonest, and spreading misinformation, but with the same article, you do the very thing you claim to be so wrong. Don’t worry, you’ve alreadly proven something to me.
Rob
August 28th, 2003 at 7:07 pm
Dude, you are so misguided it is laughable.
I never suggested that you commented on Coulter’s book.
I’m so glad you can claim to be Mr. Informed-On-Everything, however, it takes more than a ego-boosting remark to have an effective argument.
You have no right to criticize me for “lack of knowledge.” You have no idea. You want to believe that is that case, because you’ve built yourself up on questioning the information of others, rather than trying to make an argument supporting your position.
I’ve seen Al Franken on TV, I’ve read excerpts of his book, read interviews etc., etc., etc… What do I need to prove to you? Nothing. I’ve already made my case that Al Franken is a liar.
Your continued presence on my blog further validates my position and point of view. You dismiss me as someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but you keep coming back… hmmm…
So, you’re wrong, as usual. I have nothing further to say about Al Franken. If you want to try to make a case for Al Franken, than make a case for Al Franken. If you want to continue to criticize me when you obviously have no idea what you’re talking about, than just expect your comments to be deleted.
August 31st, 2003 at 2:55 pm
Matt Margolis,
If you are unfamiliar with Franken’s book, you shouldn’t try and discuss it. It makes you loook foolish.
August 31st, 2003 at 4:42 pm
I know it makes you feel good to say that, but the Franken defenders who have been posting comments here have yet to offer any attempt of legitimate defense of Al Franken - they’ve only offer attempts to discredit my ability to have an opinion on Al Franken.
Needless to say, the Franken defenders are no better than Franken himself.
September 2nd, 2003 at 1:13 am
In case you hadn’t realized, Al Franken’s use of “fair and balanced,” is exactly that - ridicule. He does this a lot you’ll find, if you read the book. It comes with being a comedian. As a bookseller, I can tell you we sold out of our copies in the first 2 days. This one is going to rocket up the NYT bestseller list… far from bargain book bin. Just though I’d set the record straight!
September 2nd, 2003 at 10:06 am
One thing that needs to be considered is in what capacity is Al Franken pushing this book. Is it supposed to be the work of a “comedian” - in which case the material is to accepted as his comedy routine that should not be taken seriously and only for entertainment value - or is he actually trying to suggest that he has a legitimate thing to say about politics.
Now, I’ve seen the book, read parts of it, and read relevant stories & interviews regarding the book, and it is clear to me, that Al Franken is attempting to have a legit left wing political book - and is using his status as a “comedian” as a means to attack people and spread propagande, while simultaneously hiding behind the First Amendment at the same time.
That is my opinion.
September 17th, 2003 at 1:17 pm
I’m about two-thirds of the way through Al Franken’s book. Pretty funny stuff. Though I’m confused as to what “propaganda” he’s spreading…maybe someone could enlighten me? Is it propaganda about Bill O’ Reilly’s lying about party affiliation in order to back up his claims of impartiality? Or when Franken quoted the president of Fox news saying he resigned because Roger Aisles was planning on finding every liberal in the organization and firing them? No, perhaps it’s when Franken reprints Sean Hannity’s “economic charts” and has an actual economist explain how ridiculous they are.
I’ve combed the internet looking for claims or statements that Franken has misused quotes or accounts in order to back up his position (or “spew propaganda”). I’ve found one story, mentioned all over the web, about the abstinence letter to Ashcroft, which was clearly a prank. Which he apologized for in letters and on national television. But, because he’s a comedian, of course he can’t be telling the truth! Duh! Only career politicians or pundits can! So the answer is that even though his book is rapidly shooting up the best seller list, it’s that pesky liberal media letting him off the hook.
October 11th, 2003 at 12:26 am
You and your Republican warriors just don’t get it do you? Its over, the once dumb asses know. They found out everything, Leverage, economies of scale etc. How can you you keep capitalism now that they want more and the fence to the other side is riddled with peek holes. My friends join us, lets socialize everybody. Believe me there will still be money to be made and hidden, it is of course the american way. But the other goofs who buy our system don’t have to know that. Why can’t you a holes see it. lets stop tryinbg to sell this dying philosophy of trickle down to ourselves, we got smarter, lets sell it to others and make money off them. Oh wait, we’re doing that already. Leave the poor people here alone, lets fuck with some cambodians again.
Why is colmes so unatractive compared to hannity? Why does he seem like such a pussy? Because it is a right wing show. And who are you kidding aluding to equality, one left one right, its seans show, period. Why doesn’t murdoch hire some one with balls? Because Sean would be put in his place, a make believe reagan world, where my friend did not die cause he was poor.
October 13th, 2003 at 10:31 am
Ener, do you even know what you’re saying? You simple defense and advocacy of socialism is proof of how little you know about how it works.
Also, is the only way you can explain Colmes’ inability to counter anything Hannity says is that he is “such a pussy” or whatevre excuse you choose to make. Do you really think Colmes would be doing the show if he felt he was being shortchanged?
October 21st, 2003 at 2:26 pm
All those networks, cnn, cbs and the others are right-wing. If you don’t see that… well you probably do see it and you are lying like most victims of conservative inbreeding.
October 21st, 2003 at 2:32 pm
We Report, You Get It Wrong
By Jim Lobe
Inter Press Services
Asia Times
Friday 03 October 2003
The more commercial television news you watch, the more wrong you are likely to be about key elements of the Iraq War and its aftermath, according to a major new study released in Washington on Thursday.
And the more you watch the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News channel, in particular, the more likely it is that your perceptions about the war are wrong, adds the report by the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA).
Based on several nationwide surveys it conducted with California-based Knowledge Networks since June, as well as the results of other polls, PIPA found that 48 percent of the public believe US troops found evidence of close pre-war links between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist group; 22 percent thought troops found weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq; and 25 percent believed that world public opinion favored Washington’s going to war with Iraq. All three are misperceptions.
The report, Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War, also found that the more misperceptions held by the respondent, the more likely it was that s/he both supported the war and depended on commercial television for news about it.
The study is likely to stoke a growing public and professional debate over why mainstream news media - especially the broadcast media - were not more skeptical about the Bush administration’s pre-war claims, particularly regarding Saddam Hussein’s WMD stockpiles and ties with al-Qaeda.
“This is a dangerously revealing study,” said Marvin Kalb, a former television correspondent and a senior fellow of the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
While Kalb said he had some reservations about the specificity of the questions directed at the respondents, he noted that, “People who have had a strong belief that there is an unholy alliance between politics and the press now have more evidence.” Fox, in particular, has been accused of pursuing a chauvinistic agenda in its news coverage despite its motto, “We report, you decide”.
Overall, according to PIPA, 60 percent of the people surveyed held at least one of the three misperceptions through September. Thirty percent of respondents had none of those misperceptions.
Surprisingly, the percentage of people holding the misperceptions rose slightly over the last three months. In July, for example, polls found that 45 percent of the public believed US forces had found “clear evidence in Iraq that Hussein was working closely with al-Qaeda”. In September, 49 percent believed that.
Likewise, those who believed troops had found WMD in Iraq jumped from 21 percent in July to 24 percent in September. One in five respondents said they believed that Iraq had actually used chemical or biological weapons during the war.
In determining what factors could create the misperceptions, PIPA considered a number of variables in the data.
It found a high correlation between respondents with the most misperceptions and their support for the decision to go to war. Only 23 percent of those who held none of the three misperceptions supported the war, while 53 percent who held one misperception did so. Of those who believe that both WMDs and evidence of al-Qaeda ties have been found in Iraq and that world opinion backed the United States, a whopping 86 percent said they supported war.
More specifically, among those who believed that Washington had found clear evidence of close ties between Hussein and al-Qaeda, two-thirds held the view that going to war was the best thing to do. Only 29 percent felt that way among those who did not believe that such evidence had been found.
Another factor that correlated closely with misperceptions about the war was party affiliation, with Republicans substantially “more likely” to hold misperceptions than Democrats. But support for Bush himself as expressed by whether or not the respondent said s/he intended to vote for him in 2004 appeared to be an even more critical factor.
The average frequency of misperceptions among respondents who planned to vote for Bush was 45 percent, while among those who plan to vote for a hypothetical Democrat candidate, the frequency averaged only 17 percent.
Asked “Has the US found clear evidence Saddam Hussein was working closely with al-Qaeda”? 68 percent of Bush supporters replied affirmatively. By contrast, two of every three Democrat-backers said no.
But news sources also accounted for major differences in misperceptions, according to PIPA, which asked more than 3,300 respondents since May where they “tended to get most of [their] news”. Eighty percent identified broadcast media, while 19 percent cited print media.
Among those who said broadcast media, 30 percent said two or more networks; 18 percent, Fox News; 16 percent, CNN; 24 percent, the three big networks - NBC (14 percent), ABC (11 percent), CBS (9 percent); and three percent, the two public networks, National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS).
For each of the three misperceptions, the study found enormous differences between the viewers of Fox, who held the most misperceptions, and NPR/PBS, who held the fewest by far.
Eighty percent of Fox viewers were found to hold at least one misperception, compared to 23 percent of NPR/PBS consumers. All the other media fell in between.
CBS ranked right behind Fox with a 71 percent score, while CNN and NBC tied as the best-performing commercial broadcast audience at 55 percent. Forty-seven percent of print media readers held at least one misperception.
As to the number of misconceptions held by their audiences, Fox far outscored all of its rivals. A whopping 45 percent of its viewers believed all three misperceptions, while the other commercial networks scored between 12 percent and 16 percent. Only nine percent of readers believed all three, while only four percent of the NPR/PBS audience did.
PIPA found that political affiliation and news source also compound one another. Thus, 78 percent of Bush supporters who watch Fox News said they thought the United States had found evidence of a direct link to al-Qaeda, while 50 percent of Bush supporters who rely on NPR/PBS thought so.
Conversely, 48 percent of Fox viewers who said they would support a Democrat believed that such evidence had been found. But none of the Democrat-backers who relied on NPR/PBS believed it.
The study also debunked the notion that misperceptions were due mainly to the lack of exposure to news.
Among Bush supporters, those who said they follow the news “very closely”, were found more likely to hold misperceptions. Those Bush supporters, on the other hand, who say they follow the news “somewhat closely” or “not closely at all” held fewer misperceptions.
Conversely, those Democratic supporters who said they did not follow the news very closely were found to be twice as likely to hold misperceptions as those who said they did, according to PIPA.
October 21st, 2003 at 2:48 pm
CNN–right wing? i almost shit my pants that was so fucking funny…
October 21st, 2003 at 5:15 pm
not as bad as fox but no way near fair and balanced. perhaps you should try watching the BBC i think you’ll notice the difference. but of course the BBC is owned by communists right?
October 27th, 2003 at 8:26 pm
Matt, give it up. You come across as someone who hasn’t got a clue. It doesn’t matter how you catergorize franken’s book, it’s funny, it exposes many, many lies from the right that are well documented. you have a bias that prevents you from viewing the truth so give up already!
October 28th, 2003 at 12:31 am
Ray,
I have more of a clue then you obviously have. Do you really think Al Franken is the bastion of objectivity? Please. You can read his book cover to cover as much as you want, and believe what he says without questioning it if you choose you. Hey, I guess it’s easier than thinking for yourself, right?
Ann Coulter recently published a column responding to Al Franken’s allegations in his book. You can read it here.
Wake up and smell the coffee Ray, Al Franken twists, bends, and distorts things no less than anyone he accuses of doing the same - he probably does even more so. Al Franken is so blinded by his bias that he sounds absolutely stupid when talks. He has a beef, and doesn’t care about the full truth, he only cares about the truth as he wants to see it.
October 28th, 2003 at 3:45 pm
Matt. how come youre so blind? your fox is lying to the people. a study shows that foxviewers are mostlikely to get facts wrong about the war.
the questions were:
1)Has the US found clear evidence Saddam Hussein was working closely with al-Qaeda”?
2)did we find wmd?
3 did world public opinion favor Washington’s going to war with Iraq
obviously all three are misperceptions.
For each of the three misperceptions, the study found enormous differences between the viewers of Fox, who held the most misperceptions, and NPR/PBS, who held the fewest by far.
Eighty percent of Fox viewers were found to hold at least one misperception, compared to 23 percent of NPR/PBS consumers. All the other media fell in between.
CBS ranked right behind Fox with a 71 percent score, while CNN and NBC tied as the best-performing commercial broadcast audience at 55 percent. Forty-seven percent of print media readers held at least one misperception.
plus a whopping 45% of fox viewers believed all three while only four percent of the NPR/PBS audience did.
October 29th, 2003 at 12:52 am
R, your answers:
1. We have found plenty of evidence to support that there was a link between Hussein and al Qaeda. However, to suggest that such a connection was necessary to take action again Iraq is stupid - especially since one argument I hear from liberals is that we should have attacked North Korea… Has there been any proof connecting North Korea to al Qaeda?
2. If you read David Kay’s testimony, you’ll find that there was an adundance of evidence proving Iraq was in violation of UN Resolution 1441, and for people like you to have faith in Saddam Hussein’s “honesty” shows just how blind you are.
3. Why the fuck should we care what France, Germany, and Russia think? That’s what it comes down to. The world at large is not represented by left wing flower power protesters.
Your poll cited is flawed based on the way it’s framed by the organization that did the poll.
Has it ever occured to you that perhaps more viewers of Fox have read this story?
If you want to believe the poll you cited is a good indicator of faulty reporting by Fox, that’s fine. — Obviously that is your misperception.
October 29th, 2003 at 4:44 pm
Matt you said:
did bush call you personally or did fox make you believe this? I havent seen it on the news.
“the find was sensational” thats a bit incredible isnt it considering the media attention it got? Maby this explains the 71% of cbs viewers getting facts wrong.
this link is not necessary, there are other things like ‘clear and present danger’. however the link was suggested before the war to convince the people. so it is important to prove it.
the argument is that n-k was a bigger threat. so if we had to attack a country it should be n-k sooner than iraq.
i havent denied this. but a violation of a resolution does not mean you can attack. The use of force is only legal if the resolution explicitly mentions it as the consequence of non-compliance.
so the resolution must say either ‘use of force’ or ‘all necessary means’. this was not the case in 1441.
france has a conservative gouvernement. but thats beside the point. international cooperation is very important. us cannot do everything on its own. why do you think bush is begging for money? anyway my point was that fox did not paint an honest picture about the support in the world. again to convince the people that the war was good.
the poll means nothing to you? have you ever excepted a poll with a result you did not like? please get real. how can we have a discussion if you simply deny a indepentant poll?
October 29th, 2003 at 5:06 pm
The poll itself is flawed by determining on its own what was a “misperception.”
If you can’t understand that, then there’s no point in furthering this discussion.
October 30th, 2003 at 8:49 am
so there are no facts? did you just read the last sentence or was it to complicated for you to respond to someone who actually gives arguments to support his claims in stead of just saying his opinions are the truth like you and other rightwing lunatics.