Al Franken and satire

[Upchurch]

I'm about half way through Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liers Who Tell Them".

It cracks me up when B'ORe claims that it isn't satire. Take for example this bit from the introduction where Al recounts his conversation with God where God was telling him to write the book.

"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."

and

"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."

How could that not be satire?

 

[Silicon]

I think O'LIE-LY's problem is that he can't actually articulate his position very will, since his anger gets in his way.

But I think he gets upset because Al makes political points, and people believe him, but he can hide behind the satire thing if you call him on it.

O'Liely does the same when he says that he's only joking when he tells all those guests of his to "Shut Up!"

It's a pretty lame tactic if it's not actually funny.

 

[Michael Redman]

Franken doesn't "hide" behind the satire. It isn't claiming to have talked to God that pisses off the right, it's the pointing out of facts they find inconvenient. His critics don't call him on those facts, but instead launch into ad honinem attacks based on his satirical style.

 

[corplinx]

Re: Re: Al Franken and satire

O'Liely does the same when he says that he's only joking when he tells all those guests of his to "Shut Up!"

I'm not going to defend Bill "im a big mark for myself" O'Reilly about his stubbornness or his tendency to be a bore.

However, the Bill O'Reilly "shut up" article I have seen copied and pasted here and other places is pretty lame. It recounts every time Bill has used the phrase "shut up" even when it isn't directly to someone in reference to what they are currently saying (which you or I would consider rude). The Glick example is a good example of what most people mean when they think of "telling someone to shut up". That is, you interrupt someone and tell them to shut up.

 

[Tricky]

I've been reading it too, and it quite a mixed bag of real research, deadly satire and outright parody. Like his "Rush Limbaugh" book there is a whole graphic novel section about the "ChickenHawks", Cheney, Bush, O'Reilly et. al. in Iraq. (Not bad, but I'd still give the nod to C4TS's Wanko comics.)

But the facts he digs out, while presented with sarcasm, are not classic satire. He simply shows where Coulter, O'Reilly, Hannity and others have made deliberate misstatements. I can see why those targets, who are probably not likely to read the whole book, might simultaneously (and scizophrenically) claim that it isn't satire and that Franken is hiding behind the satire.

Quite obviously, Team Franken (he gives all the research credit to the people who actually did it) has found some very interesting skeletons in the Lying Liars' closets and they are furious about having them exhumed.

I honestly thought about waiting untill the second printing so I could see what Franken said about O'Reilly's lawsuit. Great satire material there.

 

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Franken isn't funny.


It's another case of the horribly unfunny trying desperately hard to laugh..


It's like someone telling a joke and then after no one laughs (because its not funny) the joketeller goes on for 15 minutes explaining the joke. He's certain no one understands and that's why they didnt laugh........the sad part is that they understood, it just wasnt funny.

yessir.

 

[headscratcher4]

Franken isn't funny.

And yet, he has made a prosperous career for himself as a comic writer.

Funny is in the ear of the hearer. I don't happen to find the Three Stooges funny (anymore) but I wouldn't claim that they are not funny, just not to my taste. Never got Bob Hope, but I know he's an Icon (funny? Someone else wrote all his material...all he did was choose and deliver).

My only point is that he is a comedian...you may not like country music, but it is music.

 

[Upchurch]

I've been reading it too, and it quite a mixed bag of real research, deadly satire and outright parody. Like his "Rush Limbaugh" book there is a whole graphic novel section about the "ChickenHawks", Cheney, Bush, O'Reilly et. al. in Iraq. (Not bad, but I'd still give the nod to C4TS's Wanko comics.)

I read the Rush book first and I thought the ChickenHawks chapter was kinda lame. I must not have gotten to that chapter in the new one yet. The problem I had with the Rush book is that most of the references weren't fresh in my mind. Since the stuff Franken is talking about in Lies is fresh in my memory, maybe it'll be more amusing.

But the facts he digs out, while presented with sarcasm, are not classic satire. He simply shows where Coulter, O'Reilly, Hannity and others have made deliberate misstatements. I can see why those targets, who are probably not likely to read the whole book, might simultaneously (and scizophrenically) claim that it isn't satire and that Franken is hiding behind the satire.

I was flipping through TV last Friday and caught a second of Franken on some talk show (maybe Leno?) and apparently O'Reilly was scheduled to be on the show the next week or so. Franken challenged O'Reilly to point out what facts in his chapter about his are factually wrong. I wish I had seen more of the segment and I would love to see how O'Reilly responds.

 

[Tricky]

Franken isn't funny.

Now THAT is hilariously ironic, considering that you are the one who thought Ann Coulter was doing a comic monologue when she said of Muslims:

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
---Ann Coulter

You appear to have a macabre sense of humor. Maybe you could regale us with your side-splitting collection of 9/11 jokes.

 

[Upchurch]

It's another case of the horribly unfunny trying desperately hard to laugh..

Which of his books did you read, NTW?

 

[Yahweh]

There is something about Political humor that I just dont understand...

 

[Skeptic]

People, people, people... you're missing the point. You seem to believe that Franken or O'Reilly's point is to get people to talk about the truth, or who is lying among the politicians, or what the president knew, etc. The real point of both of them is to get people to talk about THEM. They are, at bottom, entertainers masquarading as "fearless fighters for the truth" against the "evil distortions by our political opponents".

It doesn't really matter who the target of the polemics is--the right or the left. It is the polemics itself that is the product, both for O'Reilly and for Franken. People tune in to the "O'Reilly factor' not in order to find out what he--or his interviewees--think, but to hear him accuse people of lying. People buy Franken's book not because they care what he thinks, but because he accuses other people of lying.

Imagine, for a moment, that their opponents would disappear. If all of (say) Tolstoy's or Michelangelo's critics had suddenly disappeared, they would just go on writing and painting. If Franken's or O'Reilly's opponents disapperared, they'd be out of a job in a minute, because they won't be able to insult anyone anymore, and nobody really cares what THEIR views are.

I believe both sides here. O'Reilly and Franken call each other a liar--and they are both correct. Both, needless to say, distort the truth and paint their opponents in the worst possible light--because otherwise nobody would care what they say.

To sum up, Franken and O'Reilly are NOT opposites. They are really clones of each other: the "I'm-right-he's-an-idiot" pundit we all grown to know and love, as the FOX channel's ratings show.

 

[Upchurch]

Sceptic,

I agree that they both do pretty much the same thing. The difference is that Franken doesn't pretend to be anything other than a political satirist/humorist out to make a few bucks and push his opinons out there while O'Reilly, Coulter, Hannity, etc., present themselves serious presenters of facts and news.

As a sceptic, that is what I object to. It is esentially a scam to present misinformation as fact and squelch critical thinking. Franken also makes up BS, but he clues you in by saying "This is BS."

 

[Tricky]

Sceptic,

I agree that they both do pretty much the same thing. The difference is that Franken doesn't pretend to be anything other than a political satirist/humorist out to make a few bucks and push his opinons out there while O'Reilly, Coulter, Hannity, etc., present themselves serious presenters of facts and news.

As a sceptic, that is what I object to. It is esentially a scam to present misinformation as fact and squelch critical thinking. Franken also makes up BS, but he clues you in by saying "This is BS."

But it is the admitted satirist/humorist who makes a great deal more effort to check his facts. Sure, he spins them the way that suits his political bent, but he doesn't make them up. If it's true that Franken challenged O'Reilly to find factual errors in his book (and O'Reilly has a week to do so), then I'd have to say there is a significant difference in them; One of them is a much bigger liar.

 

[Suddenly]

But it is the admitted satirist/humorist who makes a great deal more effort to check his facts. Sure, he spins them the way that suits his political bent, but he doesn't make them up. If it's true that Franken challenged O'Reilly to find factual errors in his book (and O'Reilly has a week to do so), then I'd have to say there is a significant difference in them; One of them is a much bigger liar.

I think P.J. O'Rourke is a better example of a "conservative" version of Al Franken. They both are first and foremost humerous writers, but both that make interesting points usually based on decent evidence.

O'Reilly is just a punk who really wishes he were smart, and for some reason thinks his having a TV show proves he is.

 

[Upchurch]

I think P.J. O'Rourke is a better example of a "conservative" version of Al Franken. They both are first and foremost humerous writers, but both that make interesting points usually based on decent evidence.

The guy who lent me Franken's book on Rush also recomended P.R. O'Rourke. After I finish Lies I'm going to see if I can borrow one of his books.

O'Reilly is just a punk who really wishes he were smart, and for some reason thinks his having a TV show proves he is.

Ya know, under it all, I think O'Reilly really is a smart guy. He just lets himself get bogged down in his own politics and ego to be intellectually honest.

 

[Tricky]

I think P.J. O'Rourke is a better example of a "conservative" version of Al Franken. They both are first and foremost humerous writers, but both that make interesting points usually based on decent evidence.

O'Reilly is just a punk who really wishes he were smart, and for some reason thinks his having a TV show proves he is.

Actually, I'd pay good money to see a debate between Franken and Dennis Miller. They're both SNL alums and both have made me laugh out loud many times.

 

[Marc]

Just finnished this book today.

Personally I know next to nothing about politics. I found the book very interesting and a good peek in. Certainly lowers my opinion of many people, not that I had a high opinion of Bush and crew to begin with.

So Upchurch, what do you think after finnishing it?

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Al Franken isn't a satirist, he's an insult comedian like Don Rickles.

Al Franken is different from Don Rickles in two particulars. He's political, and he isn't funny.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

And yet, he has made a prosperous career for himself as a comic writer...

No. He has made a prosperous career out of cussing out folks who his fans don't like.

More power to him if he can make money that way, but it's still not funny.