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]

Originally posted by Silicon

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]

Originally posted by 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.)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]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
Franken isn't funny.
Now THAT is hilariously ironic, considering that you are the one (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870012622#post1870012622) 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]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
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]

Originally posted by 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."
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]

Originally posted by Tricky

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]

Originally posted by Suddenly

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]

Originally posted by Suddenly
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]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
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.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


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.

No, as a comic writer. He had a long career as a writer/performer on Saturday Night live. He has been in movies and written screenplays. THe more political version of his humor is a more recent -- last 10 to 15 years.

But, ultimately, isn't that what political humor is? I mean, doesn't Dennis Miller, for example, get laughs with political humor "cussing" out folks who his fans don't like? Is Miller less of a comedian because his fans, now, tend to be more "republican"? Is his satire less or more satire because he supports the powers that be?

Though I disagree with his political views of late, I still think Miller quite funny. I find Franken can get tiresome, but I still see him as a comedy writer.

My point is, that political humor, like all humor, depends on context, experience, bias, etc. It is, in the eye/ear of the beholder. Because you don't happen to find it funny, doesn't mean that other don't or that the deliverer isn't a "comedian".

I am not sure what I am saying, but like all political humor, Franken tends to be most funny to those who agree with his premises and bias...that is the nature of the beast, it seems to me.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by 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? I'm with headscratcher4 in that Franken is really just a political humorist with his own political bias. However, I still think that Franken is much more honest and up front in his arguments and where he is coming from than his conservative counterparts, except for P.J. O'Rourke, who I still haven't read and know next to nothing about but have heard good things.

I think one of the things that really endears Franken to me is that, although the subject matter is different, he uses approximately the same argumentative technique I try to use when I have the time. He uses critical analysis of specific quotes against demostrable facts and references. I've never read Coulter or heard O'Reilly and Hannity do this. I could at least respect their views/opinions if they did.

Although on the mean side, I did find their "investigation" of the Christian college rather amusing, in a perverse little way.

[fishbob]

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

Abdul, you must be thinking of somebody else.

[Stewart Smalley voice] Darn it, people like me. You hockey puck.

[Frank Newgent]

http://www.greatertalent.com/graphics/speakers/franken.jpg


Why hasn't anyone pointed out the resemblence between Al Franken and Ernesto Miranda?


http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/04/18/miranda.rights/story.cuffs.miranda.jpg


I find Franken's take-no-prisoners
unrestrained comic hooks arresting.

[headscratcher4]

he's an insult comedian like Don Rickles.

And, while I've never been a Rickles fan, he is considered by most to be a "comedian" and a "comic actor."

My point is that you may not like either Rickles or Franken's "comic" stylings, but the fact that you don't (or I don't) doesn't make them a comic, especially if they self describe that way -- which I bet they do. The surest way to end a comic career is to not get laughs...and both seem to be getting laughs. So, methinks that makes them comics.


Also, it really would be difficult to consider "franken" an insult comedian, a'la Rickles. Rickles has never been very high on either irony or subtlety. Franken, especially in his "political" humor mode, has relied almost completely on both...the humor rests in turning the words of the oposition against their original point in an ironic fashion. Yes, there are insults, but it doesn't drive the point of the bit...and, it isn't the sort of cheap stereotyping ethnic insults that Rickles uses...it can be nasty but it isn't driven by ethnic insensitiveness rather by hypocracy.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Tricky
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.

O'Reilly's lawsuit? Musta missed that.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Ed


O'Reilly's lawsuit? Musta missed that. Technically, it was Fox New's lawsuit (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/23/fox.franken/), but general concensus is that O'Reilly spear headed it. However, after the suit was laughed out of court, O'Reilly tried to distance himself from it personally in classic spin-master style.

[corplinx]

The funniest Franken bits I've seen were his early comedy specials. Some of the writing he did for SNL was obviously funny.

I think the contention that Franken isn't funny is just nonsense. His performance at Rob Reiner's roast was great (even though his performance at Chase's roast was sub-par).

[headscratcher4]

If you've not heard it, his speech at the University of Wisconsin, Madison on the whole Fox thing is also very funny...

[Snide]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Technically, it was Fox New's lawsuit (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/23/fox.franken/), but general concensus is that O'Reilly spear headed it. However, after the suit was laughed out of court, O'Reilly tried to distance himself from it personally in classic spin-master style. And lest someone think you are saying that figurateively, I offer this article. (http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/4251033.html)

You may have to sign up, but it's worth it (IMO).

From the article:
Q: I didn't realize the lawsuit moved up the release of the book. What was the thinking there?


A: To take advantage of the enormous publicity that was generated by their dumbass lawsuit and our subsequent victory in court. Fox was literally laughed out of court. Now usually when you say someone was literally laughed out of court, you mean they were figuratively laughed out of court. Not in this case. People came from miles around to see this historic First Amendment case and laughed throughout the hearing.

[Zero]

WHat I find is funny is that the criticism of Franken from the right-wing basically rests on two points: he is mean-spirited, and he is not funny. No one on the right seems to be willing to tackle the facts...maybe because they simply can't attack Franken's book on its factual content?

And, as far as Franken and O'Reilly being similar, all I can say is that at least Franken doesn't pretend to be a journalist onn a cable 'news' channel. Also, Franken actually won the Emmys that he claims to have, unlike O'Reilly's Peabodys that he didn't win and lied about.

[Marc]

I certainly wouldn't object to good satire poking the failings of librals. I'm sure there is plenty of material out there. But it would have to be based on the facts, which Franken's book appears to be.

and I did find the book to be funny

[Luke T.]

I saw Franken on Saturday Night Live a long time ago. He usually appeared with a sidekick whose name I forget. I used to think they were stupid and unfunny.

I've never cared for Franken's humor or political view. I don't find him unfunny because he is a liberal, though. There are plenty of liberal pundits who have made me laugh.

Fox screwed up bigtime by suing Franken. For two reasons. The first being that suing him over a phrase is unbelievably stupid and so contrary to free speech it boggles the mind. The second is that Franken has always been a bit of a nobody until now. Fox just elevated him by calling attention to him. They sold his books for him.

[Snide]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I saw Franken on Saturday Night Live a long time ago. He usually appeared with a sidekick whose name I forget. I used to think they were stupid and unfunny.

I've never cared for Franken's humor or political view. I don't find him unfunny because he is a liberal, though. There are plenty of liberal pundits who have made me laugh.

Fox screwed up bigtime by suing Franken. For two reasons. The first being that suing him over a phrase is unbelievably stupid and so contrary to free speech it boggles the mind. The second is that Franken has always been a bit of a nobody until now. Fox just elevated him by calling attention to him. They sold his books for him. Tom Davis.

They were excellent in "Trading Places."

Their gimmick once was, "The comedy team that weighs the same."

They told Letterman one night, "We were at the carnival, and when the weight guesser saw us, he fell off his chair!"

:D

edited to correct spelling

[Snide]

Originally posted by Luke T.
The second is that Franken has always been a bit of a nobody until now. As compared with Limbaugh et al as a political influence, which I think you meant, then yes. Otherwise no.

edited to add "et al"

[Zero]

For those of you who don't like Franken's humor, go out and get Joe Conason's latest book, Big Lies, which lays out the same facts in a drier fashion.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Zero
For those of you who don't like Franken's humor, go out and get Joe Conason's latest book, Big Lies, which lays out the same facts in a drier fashion.
And if you want fact-filled and funny, check out Molly Ivins' Bushwhacked (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375507523/qid=1070996609/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-7532266-5017646) (co-written with Lou Dubose). Molly is a full-time political columnist and is justifiably proud of usually getting it right, though I have seen her print corrections something I have seen few columnists do, at least in their own columns. (They usually let the newspaper handle it.)

But her writing style is wonderfully folksy but sarcastic, without going strictly for laughs, as Franken does.

(And for the record, the funniest thing Franken was ever in was The Rutles (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rutles), though he only had a bit part.

[Skeptic]

WHat I find is funny is that the criticism of Franken from the right-wing basically rests on two points: he is mean-spirited, and he is not funny.

Unlike the right-wing pundits, famous for their sense of humor and benevolence towards those who disagree with them, I suppose.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Zero
WHat I find is funny is that the criticism of Franken from the right-wing basically rests on two points: he is mean-spirited, and he is not funny.

Originally posted by Skeptic
Unlike the right-wing pundits, famous for their sense of humor and benevolence towards those who disagree with them, I suppose.
Um... did you mean left-wing pundits, or are you just reiterating Zero's point?

[Dorian Gray]

Um.... no, the statements stand like they are.