Well, in the
entire 206 pages [of Slander], she never actually makes a case for any conservative issues.
Not school vouchers, not supply-side tax cuts, not privatization of Social
Security. The entire book is filled with distortions, factual errors, and
vicious invective-slander, if you will-bolstered by the shoddiest research this
side of the Hitler diaries.
-Al
Franken, from Lies...pg.
9
For Ann's personal
responses to Al's specific claims against her (in her own words), visit: http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/100803.htm.
In Lies, Al Franken observes an erroneous claim made
by Ann Coulter, saying that she, in an attempt to discredit the New York Times,
argues that they did not report the death of Dale Earnhardt (at least on the
front page) the day after it occurred. Mr. Franken points out that this simply
is not true, using an illustration of the Times front page published the day
after Earnhardt's death. The New York Times did in fact publish a front-page
article about the incident the day after its occurrence. Al is undoubtedly
correct on this matter. What he does not mention, however, is that the
statement appears only in the first edition of Ann's book, and was corrected
before the release of Lies. Even the Times has to print a retraction from time to time. Ann
goes into far more detail about this controversy in her defense page, available
at the above link.
As would be
expected, Al also uses the hypocrisy card to accuse Ann Coulter. He notes her
assessment about the downfall of debate in America, while at the same time she
makes such bold ad hominem attacks as "Liberals hate America" and
"Liberals are crazy." This is an extremely valid observation on his
part, but it's certainly hitting below the belt, especially for a man who has
made a career out of the claim, "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot."
But let's not argue the philosophy of argumentative reason. It should be noted
that Al Franken, in his list of Coulterisms, did not include her famous
"Liberals hate conservatives" zinger. Why not? It's hard to say,
really, but I find it interesting that Al Franken is one of the writers who
contributed to the I Hate Republicans Reader, available at amazon.com or at your fine
local book retailer. Hmm...perhaps there's a method to this nutcase's madness.
To continue with
my point, I wanted to include a list of outrageous hyperboles in Franken's own
writing, to illustrate that such bold generalizations are intended to serve a
purpose in this area of literature. Unfortunately, though, Al Franken is a
"satirist," and therefore does not feel that he is accountable to the
same standards as other political commentators. So it would be useless for me
to point out such bold Al Franken statements as "You cannot have too many
'Rush is fat' jokes," and of course the classic idiocy about the
Republican Party being racist (Lies...pg. 256-57), "stupid bastards" (pg. 354), and
"in the thrall of Lucifer" (Rush...pg. 254). I don't hold these comments again
him. I simply mean to illustrate that childish personal attacks are,
tragically, the nature of the partisan war. Conservatives are guilty of it, and
liberals as well, but it doesn't make Ann Coulter (or Al Franken, for that
matter) a nutcase, and it certainly doesn't make her a liar (which I thought
was the thesis of Al's argument against her). Does it make her a hypocrite?
Well, yes, actually. She is callous, cold-hearted and one-sided. That's why we
love her. You can think of her as the Al Franken of conservatism (but much
prettier). Unlike Al, though, Ann uses solid facts to support her rants. Let's
move on.
Al Franken is
passionate about exposing Ann Coulter. He devotes three chapters to her, after
all, and continues to refer to her periodically throughout the book, including
the very final sentences, which consist of a Coulteresque endnote that refers
to his first chapter about her. It is her endnotes that serve as his prime
argument against her, and the topic on which he places the most emphasis.
Franken asserts that Ann Coulter deceives her readers with ambiguous endnotes,
many of which lead nowhere, and most of which are blatantly twisted or taken
out of context. He makes this argument in his six "How to Lie with
Footnotes" (Lies...12-16)
observations.
To be fair and
give him the benefit of the doubt, I decided to choose ten of Ann's endnotes at
random (one from each chapter) and put their validity to the test. I did not
use the ones illustrated in Franken's book, because Ann deals with those in her
personal rebuttal, which again, you can read by clicking on the link at the top
of this page. I simply opened my copy of Slander to the endnotes section,
closed my eyes and pointed to random entries. I then compared them to the text
on which they are referred, and logged on to the Nexis (a favorite database for
both Ann and Al) with my glorious student ID number to track down the articles
(also with some help from Google and Metacrawler). Here are my results:
Chapter 1, Endnote
#15
Ann illustrates the brash, anti-flag waving sentiment by certain liberals after 9/11. She quotes director Robert Altman as calling the practice a "joke." I have learned that it is an exact quote, in its exact context. In fact, he actually says far worse things, and Ann easily could have built an entire case around him, but she did not. This is the exact opposite of how Al Franken perceives her notation tactics, and it is the exact opposite of how he organizes his own arguments.
Chapter 2, Endnote
#42
Ann describes a
Democratic National Convention event attended by famed feminist Gloria Steinem
in which condoms were given as party favors. "No way!" I said.
"That can't be true. She must have misunderstood the article." Lo and
behold, I tracked down the article, and I quote, "...people at the [People
for the American Way] do were handed a party favor they could use: Right to
Choose condoms printed with the relevant Web Address." The article,
entitled "For a Good Time, Call the Democrats," is available at
sptimes.com. Another score for Coulter!
Chapter 3, Endnote
#29
Ann quotes the New
York Times in praising Senator Jim Jeffords for abandoning the Republican
Party. Nothing profound, but all true and well-represented in Ann's
description.
Chapter 4, Endnote
#18
Washington Post
reporter Tom Shales makes harsh accusations against Bias author Bernard Goldberg, calling him a
number of names (which Ann quotes) and just, all around, verbally thrashing
him. Ann is even so kind as to provide the website where the article can be
read, and it is exactly as she claims it to be.
Chapter 5, Endnote
#1
Oh my god, she
nailed it again! In this particular paragraph, she is describing the liberal
accusations of a right-wing bias in the Fox News Network. The target of this
endnote is FAIR (Fallaciously Attempting to Incriminate the Right), and their
attacks on FNC. The article can be read at http://www.fair.org/press-releases/fox-release.html,
and once again, it is exactly as Ann represents it to be. No misquoting, no
distortion of context, just clear, black-and-white journalism.
Well, we're
halfway through my examination of the Slander endnotes, and so far I haven't seen any of
the deceitful tactics Al describes. But let's keep going, shall we? Maybe the
latter chapters will prove useful.
Chapter 6, Endnote
#51
Ann accurately
quotes Time Magazine in a brief critique of Bernard Goldberg's success. Still
nothing fishy going on. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/notebook/0,9485,1101020128,00.html
Chapter 7, Endnote
#69
A direct quote
from U.S. News about George W. Bush being "not the sharpest knife in the
drawer" (which I think they stole from SNL). Ann uses this as part of an
illustration about constant attacks from the media on Bush's intelligence. The
article reads, "Is Dubya dumb? Is George W. Bush not the sharpest knife in
the drawer? We know he doesn't know Slovakia from Slovenia, Greeks from
'Grecians,' or that there is no 'standard' version of the Ten Commandments..."
So on and so forth.
Chapter 8, Endnote
#59
Ann accurately
describes a Washington Monthly article that defends Al Gore as having been
misrepresented by the media. But don't take my word for it. Read it for
yourself: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0004.parry.html
Chapter 9, Endnote
#103
Ann quotes the
Washington Post about the alleged fall (or centralization) of the religious
right. The quote is direct, and she is simply describing how many people in
recent years have discredited what some call the Christian right as no longer
having the influence that it once did.
Conclusion,
Endnote #3
Ann quotes Senator
Ted Kennedy on his support of federal sentencing guidelines along with Strom
Thurmond. She is pointing out how such guidelines were important to liberal
Democrats. The quote makes it very clear that Ted Kennedy is a strong
proponent, and so Ann has done it again. She has used direct quotes to back up
all of her claims and arguments, and she has done it with perfect accuracy.
Well, as it turns
out, Al Franken's prominent "endnotes" argument has fallen apart at
the seams. His attempt to shatter her credibility by pointing out the use of
deceitful endnotes is about as solid as diarrhea, and I hope that my use of
scientific method to make this point has at least helped you to see that there
really are two sides to every story.
"But
wait!" you say. "You only listed 10 endnotes out of 780! You probably
searched dozens to find the few that were accurate!"
Okay, if I were
blinded by my predispositions and absolutely determined to glorify Al Franken,
I would probably grasp at that argument, too. I should remind you, though, that
I used 10 endnotes to illustrate my point. That's about the same number that Al
Franken used (and 9 of his were completely worthless). And believe me, I hardly
have the time or the interest to sift through dozens of articles in search of
the most accurate. I spent over an hour just tracking down the above 10, and I
have a very short attention span.