Franken, Al - Lies & The Lying Liars Who Tell Them

VIP免费

2024-12-06 0 0 2.14MB 283 页 5.9玖币

侵权投诉

LIES

(And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them)

A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right

AI Franken

A NOTE FROM THE AUTHOR

Although I wrote this book in a spirit of dispassionate inquiry, I cannot expect my

critics to respond in kind. My right-wing detractors will undoubtedly tell you that I'm an "ob-

noxious prick—a "smug asshole," and a "clear and present threat to our national security." I

will not stoop to dignify such calumny with a response, except to say that Condoleezza Rice

should watch her mouth.

More imaginative critics might charge that, "like Newt Gingrich, [I] had an affair

with a Supreme Court justice." This kind of attack, which is totally irrelevant to the political

content of this book, exposes how desperate my enemies have become. As the great Joseph

Welch said to Joe McCarthy, "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left

no sense of decency?"

Unlike Senator McCarthy and his intellectual heirs, Ann Coulter and Howard Stern, I

do have a sense of decency. And that is why I've decided to reveal a "dirty little secret" about

this book that my critics are too lazy and stupid to figure out on their own. I acknowledge—

no, I proudly acknowledge—that I did not write this book alone.

No author ever writes a book entirely by himself. That would be impossible. Just ask

Dennis Rodman or John Updike. Like making a movie or building a long suspension bridge,

writing a book is very much a team effort. And that is why I think it's important to state

clearly, right up front, the methodology used to research this book, and to give credit to the

ragtag bunch of Harvard misfits I've come to affectionately call TeamFranken.

It all started when Harvard's Kennedy School of Government asked me to serve as a

fellow at its Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy. After my varied and

celebrated career in television, movies, publishing, and the lucrative world of corporate

speaking, being a fellow at Harvard seemed, frankly, like a step down.

I couldn't think of anything less appealing than molding the minds of tomorrow's

leaders, unless it was spending fireside evenings sipping sherry with great minds at the Fac-

ulty Club. Yawn.

To my surprise and delight, though, all Harvard wanted me to do was show up every

once in a while and write something about something. That gave me an idea.

"Would it be okay if I wrote a scathingly partisan attack on the right-wing media and

the Bush administration?"

"No problem," Harvard said absentmindedly.

"Count me in," I replied. "From now on call me ‘Professor Franken.’”

"No," Harvard said, "you're not a professor. But you can run a study group on the

topic of your choosing."

"Great," I said. "I've got the perfect topic: Write My Son's Harvard College Applica-

tion Essay."

"No," they said. "Harvard students already know how to write successful Harvard ap-

plications, Al. We want you to teach them something new."

Harvard was right where I wanted it. "How about if the topic is: How to Research My

Book?"

"Sure," Harvard said. "Most of our professors teach that course. Why, in the Bio-

chemistry department, most of the graduate level courses are-"

Harvard was boring me. "I gotta run, Harvard. Thanks."

From among the seven hundred students who applied for my study group, I chose

fourteen intellectual heavyweights. Some undergraduates, some from the prestigious Ken-

nedy School of Government, and one from the Harvard School of Dentistry, just in case. This

was TeamFranken. Like the X-Men, each had his own special power. And each had a story.

There was Bridger McGaw, a Gore campaign veteran still sore from getting burned in

Florida. Madhu Chugh, with a mind as insatiable as her name is unpronounceable. Emmy

Berning, an ultra-feminist with a stunning resume-and a figure to match. Ben Kane and Ben

Wikler, "the Bens," TeamFranken's gay gladiators, whose fierce love for each other fueled

their ceaseless advocacy of justice for gays, lesbians, the transgendered, bisexuals, and man-

on-dog enthusiasts, such as Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum. And the rest.

There were fourteen in all. Tough, smart, and deeply committed to coming to my

Cambridge apartment once a week to eat a delicious hot meal cooked by my wife, Franni.

I felt like I had fourteen children. My fourteen Harvard research assistants. And like

every good parent, I loved each in a different way. Some I loved like the irrepressibly mis-

chievous child who doesn't do his homework. Others I loved like the good, deserving child

who does all of his homework, mows the lawn, and ghostwrites the chapters. And still others

I loved "more" than the rest, the way a parent secretly chooses favorites and undermines the

self-confidence of the others.

No, I wasn't a perfect leader. But what counts for me, and I hope for you, the reader, is that

this book brings to a new level the politics of personal destruction that have come to define

our era. Because with fourteen researchers, I could do something that my targets seem inca-

pable of doing-get my facts straight. Nothing highlighted the need for painstaking research

and factchecking more than the hiring process itself, which I had conducted on the basis of

hearsay and guesswork. For example, the "Bens" turned out not to be gay. And one, Owen,

wasn't even named Ben.

Thanks to TeamFranken, you can rest assured that almost every fact in this book is

correct. Either that, or it's a joke. If you think you've found something that rings untrue,

you've probably just missed a hilarious joke, and should blame yourself rather than me or

TeamFranken.

Enjoy.

INTRODUCTION

God chose me to write this book.

Just the fact that you are reading this is proof not just of God's existence, but also of

His/Her/Its beneficence. That's right. I am not certain of God's precise gender. But I am cer-

tain that He/She/It chose me to write this book.

This isn't hubris. I'm not saying this in an egotistical way. God didn't choose me be-

cause I'm the greatest writer who ever lived. That was William Shakespeare, whose work I

have a passing familiarity with. No. I just happened to be the right vessel at the right time. If

something in this book makes you laugh, it was God's joke. If something makes you think,

it's because God had a good point to make.

The reason I know God chose me is because God spoke to me personally.

God began our conversation by clearing something up. Some of George W Bush's

friends say that Bush believes God called him to be president during these times of trial. But

God told me that He/She/It had actually chosen Al Gore by making sure that Gore won the

popular vote and, God thought, the electoral college. THAT WORKED FOR EVERYONE

ELSE," God said.

"What about Tilden?" I asked, referring to the 1876 debacle. "QUIET!" God snapped.

God was angry.

God said that after 9/11, George W Bush squandered a unique moment of national

unity. That instead of rallying the country around a program of mutual purpose and sacrifice,

Bush cynically used the tragedy to solidify his political power and pursue an agenda that pan-

ders to his base and serves the interests of his corporate backers.

God told me that Bush squandered a $4.6 trillion surplus and is plunging us into defi-

cits as far as God can see. And that Bush squandered another surplus. The surplus of good-

will from the rest of the world that he had inherited from Bill Clinton.

And this was pissing God off.

He/She/It was right. But it sounded like a lot of work. "Look, God, I'm flattered, but I

think you got the wrong guy. The kind of book you're talking about would require months of

research."

And God Said, "LET THERE BE GOOGLE. AND LET THERE BE LEXISNEXIS."

"Very funny, God. I use Google all the time." "YES, I KNOW," God said. "FOR

HOT ASIAN TEENS." "You must be thinking of my son, Joe."

"AL? I'M OMNISCIENT."

"Okay, okay." I changed the subject. "It's just that I can't do this book myself."

"LEAVE THAT TO ME," God boomed. And that's when Harvard called.

I had my Nexis, I had my Google, I had my Harvard fellowship, and I had my four-

teen research assistants. I sat down to write. Nothing.

So I got on my knees and prayed for guidance. "How, God, can I best do Your work

through this book? Who, dear Lord, is the audience for a book like this? And what's a good

title?"

God answered, "YOU KNOW THOSE SHITTY BOOKS BY ANN COULTER AND

BERNIE GOLDBERG?"

"The best-sellers that claim there's a liberal bias in the media?" I asked.

"TOTAL BULLSHIT," God said. "START BY ATTACKING THEM. HE'S

CLEARLY A DISGRUNTLED FORMER EMPLOYEE, AND SHE JUST LIES. BY THE

WAY, THERE'S SOMETHING SERIOUSLY WRONG WITH HER." "That's pretty obvi-

ous."

"SO GO AFTER THEM, THE WHOLE LIBERAL BIAS MYTH, AND THEN GO

AFTER THE RIGHT-WING MEDIA. ESPECIALLY FOX."

"Okay, God, I'm writing this down."

"THEN USE THEM AS A JUMPING-OFF POINT TO GO AFTER BUSH. YOU

KNOW, BIG TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH, SURGING UNEMPLOYMENT, IGNORING

EVERYONE BUT HIS CORPORATE BUDDIES, SCREWING THE ENVIRONMENT,

PISSING OFF THE REST OF THE WORLD. THAT STUFF. AND THAT'S YOUR

BOOK."

"Got it. One last thing. Title."

"HOW ABOUT BEARERS OF FALSE WITNESS AND THE FALSE WITNESS THAT

THEY BEAR?"

"Hmm. I, uh, I'll work with that."

Hummus

Asking whether there is a liberal or conservative bias to the mainstream media is a little like

asking whether al Qaeda uses too much oil in their hummus. The problem with al Qaeda is

that they're trying to kill us.

The right-wing media tells us constantly that the problem with the mainstream media

is that it has a liberal bias. I don't think it does. But there are other, far more important, biases

in the main stream media than liberal or conservative ones. Most of these biases stem from

something called "the profit motive." This is why we often see a bias toward the Sensational,

involving Scandal, and, hopefully Sex or Violence, or please, please, pleeeze, both.

And there's the Easy-and-Cheap-to-Cover bias, which is why almost all political cov-

erage is about process and horse race and not about policy. Why have an in-depth report on

school vouchers when two pundits who've spent five minutes in the green room looking over

a couple of articles Xeroxed by an intern can just scream at each other about the issue on the

air?

There's the Get-It-First bias. Remember the 2000 election? I believe there were some

problems there associated with that one. Pack Mentality. Negativity. Soft News. The Don't-

Offend-the-Conglomerate-That-Owns-Us bias. And, of course, the ever-present bias of Hop-

ing There's a War to Cover.

Does the mainstream media have a liberal bias? On a couple of things, maybe. Com-

pared to the American public at large, probably a slightly higher percentage of journalists,

because of their enhanced power of discernment, realize they know a gay person or two, and

are, therefore, less frightened of them.

By the same token, I'll bet the media were biased during the Scopes monkey trial. But

they were professionals and gave the Noah's Ark side a fair shake.

But to believe there is a liberal political bias in the mainstream media, you'd have to

either not be paying attention or just be very susceptible to repetition. Yes, we've heard it

over and over and over again. For decades. The media elite is an arm of the Democratic Na-

tional Committee.

Anyone notice the mainstream media's coverage of Clinton? For eighteen months, it

was all Monica, all the time. There were just a few news organizations that did not succumb

to this temp tation, and I like to cite them whenever I can: Sailing magazine, American Gro-

cer Monthly, Juggs, and Big Butt (which is ironic, because I think Big Butt had a story).

How about the 2000 presidential campaign? Remember in the first debate, Al Gore

said he had gone down to a disaster site in Texas with Federal Emergency Management

Agency director James Lee Witt? Actually, it turned out that he had gone to that disaster with

a deputy of James Lee Witt. As vice president, Gore had gone to seventeen other disasters

with James Lee Witt, but not that one. The press jumped all over him. There were scores of

stories written about how Gore had lied about James Lee Witt. It was as if James Lee Witt

had been the most popular man in the United States of America and Gore was lying to get

some of that James Lee Witt magic to rub off on him.

Contrast that with the media's reaction to this Bush description of his tax cut in the

very same debate. Bush said, "I also dropped the bottom rate from fifteen percent to ten per-

cent, because, by far, the vast majority of the help goes to the people at the bottom end of the

economic ladder."

"By far, the vast majority ... goes to the people at the bottom." That is what George W

Bush told America. The truth is that the bottom 60 percent got 14.7 percent. Gee, that's a

pretty significant misstatement, don't you think? More important than whether a Texas fire

was one of the seventeen disasters you went to with American icon James Lee Witt. So what

was the reaction of the liberal mainstream press?

Nothing.

Do I believe that this was because the mainstream media has a conservative bias? No.

I just think the attitude of the press was "He doesn't know! He doesn't know! Leave the man

alone! He doesn't know!"

But, of course, he did. Which is why George W Bush said he doesn't mind being

"misunderestimated." Because by "misunderestimated," Bush means being underestimated

for the wrong rea son. The media thought he was kind of stupid. He isn't. He's just shame-

lessly dishonest.

The mainstream media does not have a liberal bias. And for all their other biases men-

tioned above, the mainstream media—ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, The New York Times, the

Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, and the rest—at least try to be fair.

There is, however, a right-wing media. You know who they are. Fox News. The

Washington Times. The New York Post. The editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal. Talk

radio. They are biased. And they have an agenda.

The members of the right-wing media are not interested in conveying the truth. That's

not what they're for. They are an indispensable component of the right-wing machine that has

taken over our country. They employ a tried-and-true methodology. First, they concoct an

inflammatory story that serves their political goals. ("Al Gore's a liar.") They repeat it. ("Al

Gore lies again!") They embellish it. ("Are his lies pathological, or are they merely mali-

cious?") They try to push it into the mainstream media. All too often, they succeed. ("Tall

Tales: Is What We've Got Here a Compulsion To Exaggerate?" New York Times, October 15,

2000.) Occasionally, they fail. (Despite their efforts, the mainstream media never picked up

the Clinton-as-murderer stories.) But even their failures serve their agenda, as evidence of

liberal bias. Win-win. You got to admit. It's a good racket.

They used these tactics to cripple Clinton's presidency. They used them to discredit

Gore and put Bush into office. And they're using them now to silence Bush's critics. Bush is

getting away with murder-just like Clinton did. See? That's how insidious the right-wing mo-

dus operandi is. Even I bought into the Clinton murder thing there for a second. And that's

my point. We have to be vigilant.

And we have to be more than vigilant. We have to fight back. We have to expose

those who bear false witness for the false witness bearers that they are. And we have to do it

in a straight forward, plainspoken way. Let's call them what they are: liars. Lying, lying liars.

Hence the title of this book: Al Franken Tells It Like It Is.

Ann Coulter: Nutcase

I know. You think the chapter title is a little harsh. But, believe me, in Coulter's case,

"nutcase" is more than justified. I should know. You see, Ann and I are friends.

I personally wasn't aware of that myself until I read it in the New York Observer. They

did a profile of Coulter when her bile-filled, relentlessly ugly best-seller Slander topped The

New York Times list. And for some reason-I guess to establish her bona fides as just a lovable

gal about town-she told the writer from the Observer that she was "friendly with" Al Franken.

I found that odd. I have met Ann Coulter once. At a Saturday Night Live party. When

she introduced herself to me, I made what in retrospect was a terrible mistake. Instead of say-

ing, "Ann Coulter! You're a horrible person. Ooooh, I just hate you!" or something along

those lines-instead, I was cordial. For maybe a minute or two.

That is the sum total of my personal interaction with Ann Coulter. And yet, to her, it

was enough to include me on a very short list of people she's "friendly with." Pathetic, to be

sure, but no more dishonest than every other word that comes out of this woman.

Coulter, for those of you lucky enough to not have been exposed to her, is the reign-

ing diva of the hysterical right. Or rather, the hysterical diva of the reigning right. Coulter has

appeared on shows like ABC's This Week, Good Morning America, Hardball, Larry King

Live, and The Today Show, to complain, among other things, that conservatives don't get on

TV enough. Her books, like her TV appearances, consist of nonstop rabid frothing. Her first,

High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton, put her on the radar as an

up-and-coming liar.

Her next book, Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right, argues that liberals

use lies and shrill accusations to debase political discourse in America. It's a fascinating exer-

cise in dishonesty, hypocrisy, and irony of the unintentional sort.

Let's get right to some examples. And there are examples and examples and examples.

Take the dramatic conclusion of Slander. After 206 pages of accusing liberals of, among

other awful things, being elitist snobs, she trots out her crowning piece of evidence: proof of

The New York Times's disregard and contempt for what real Americans care about.

The day after seven-time NASCAR Winston Cup champion Dale Earnhardt died in a race

at the Daytona 500, almost every newspaper in America carried the story on the front

文档加载中……请稍候！
如果长时间未打开，您也可以点击刷新试试。

下载文档到电脑，查找使用更方便

5.9 玖币 0人已下载

立即下载 VIP免费下载

摘要：

LIES(AndtheLyingLiarsWhoTellThem)AFairandBalancedLookattheRightAIFrankenANOTEFROMTHEAUTHORAlthoughIwrotethisbookinaspiritofdispassionateinquiry,Icannotexpectmycriticstorespondinkind.Myright-wingdetractorswillundoubtedlytellyouthatI'man"ob-noxiousprick—a"smugasshole,"anda"clearandpresentthreattoourna...

展开>> 收起<<

Franken, Al - Lies & The Lying Liars Who Tell Them.pdf

共283页,预览10页

还剩页未读，继续阅读

声明：本站为文档C2C交易模式，即用户上传的文档直接被用户下载，本站只是中间服务平台，本站所有文档下载所得的收益归上传人(含作者)所有。玖贝云文库仅提供信息存储空间，仅对用户上传内容的表现方式做保护处理，对上载内容本身不做任何修改或编辑。若文档所含内容侵犯了您的版权或隐私，请立即通知玖贝云文库，我们立即给予删除！

Franken, Al - Lies & The Lying Liars Who Tell Them

相关推荐

开通VIP享超值会员特权

作者详情

相关内容

热门标签

举报选择: