You're also pretty conservative (as I am fairly liberal) and are probably seeking an opinion that would justify your own beliefs. If FOX takes Franken as high as the Supreme Court, then he'd be doomed. I think the vote would go against him.....oh, let's say 5-4. From what I read, Bill O'Reilly was seething (and still is) about the BookExpo (someone finally crossed him up; how DARE Al Franken speak against me!) and is the one who really pushed for the lawsuit. Al Franken will watch his bank account balloon. Again, thanks, FOX. Keep up the bad work.
This is absolutely hilarious, an editorial written by poor little O'Reilly who apparently can't take the heat. I swear I can't make this crap up: Calling Al Franken a satirist is a farce In a few weeks, the Fox News Channel will celebrate its seventh birthday awash in publicity and success. From virtually nothing, the organization that employs me has risen up to become one of the most powerful news agencies in the country. This is a stunning achievement, but it's also one that has engendered bitterness and controversy. Fox has succeeded by mixing a populist-traditional, pro-American editorial posture with lively debate that includes voices the traditional network news organizations would never allow airtime. The accusation that Fox is a conservative network is pure propaganda. Poll after poll has demonstrated that Fox's audience is across the board, ideologically and demographically. The latest survey taken by Mediamark Research finds that more ultraconservative viewers watch CNN than Fox. But facts don't matter to the Fox haters who are, themselves, primarily ultraliberal. The dominance of Fox in the cable news world has shattered the stranglehold the left had on TV news for decades, and that has caused fear and loathing in some political circles. Using liberal-leaning newspapers and publishing houses, the critics of Fox have unleashed defamatory personal attacks on me and other Fox news analysts and have attempted to denigrate the entire network. If Fox News crashed and burned tomorrow, these people would toast marshmallows in the flames. Now Fox News is striking back by putting the demonizers on notice that they will be held responsible when they violate trademarks or launch defamatory personal attacks on Fox personnel. It is simply a sorry joke to see a political activist like Al Franken labeled a satirist by The New York Times. Attempting to smear and destroy the reputations of those with whom you politically disagree is not satire. If that were the case, Richard Nixon's Watergate plumbers would all be writing for "Saturday Night Live." Fox News has become the highest-rated news network on cable because we feature lively debate and all honest voices are welcome. We don't do drive-by character assassinations, and we don't denigrate opposing points of view by launching gratuitous personal attacks. Fox's presentation is in the tradition of the raucous town meeting where passion and conviction are on display. We challenge people of all political persuasions. It makes me sick to see intellectually dishonest individuals hide behind the First Amendment to spread propaganda, libel and slander. But this is a growing trend in America, where the exchange of ideas often degenerates into verbal mud wrestling with intent to injure. The poo-bahs at The Times know what a smear campaign is, but apparently, if it's directed at an enterprise the paper disapproves of, it's okay. I wonder how The Times' editorialists would react if their faces graced a book cover accompanied by the word "liar." Oh, right, they'd consider it satire. This country is a better place because Fox News has succeeded. Now there is a wider range of thought and expression available 2-4/7. But the country is worse off because of the brutal repercussions of that success. A nation that prides itself on diversity of opinion and acceptance of differing political points of view is being subjected to an orgy of media defamation and sometimes outright hatred. And satire has nothing to do with it. Originally published on August 18, 2003
I love it. He's arguing that those who "slander" Fox News can't handle a difference of opinion, meanwhile, he writes an entire article whining about people who have a different opinion than him.
Fox striking a blow for downtrodden multibillion dollar mega corps. Anyone who says another person is "hiding behind the first amendment" doesn't understand the first amendment.
Yeah, that was my favorite quote too, that was just priceless for so many reasons. It's like shooting a man in the street in broad daylight after accusing him of "hiding behind the second amendment."
as if we didn't already know he's a moron who has no concept of the history of journalism, muchless free speech
Here's a line-by-line critique (from www.blogcritics.com) of O'Reilly's "Talking Points Memo" from The O'Reilly Factor on 8/17/03: It was reported last week that Fox News Channel is suing writer/humorist Al Franken for copyright infringement over his forthcoming book, "Lies and Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right." Fox allegedly filed the suit at the behest of talk host and longtime Franken nemesis Bill O'Reilly, who engaged in a shouting match with the comic on C-SPAN the other month; they probably let him write the lawsuit too, as its full of Factor-esque mean-spirited references to Franken being "shrill and unstable," as well as "intoxicated," and "not a well-respected voice in American politics." The suit, of course, has had the unintended consequence of sending Franken's books sales through the roof; in two days he's moved from #84 to #1 on Amazon.com. FNC is attempting to obtain an injunction to prevent the book's release over Franken's use of the phrase "fair and balanced"- which is, of course, clearly a parody of Fox's laughably inaccurate tagline and won't confuse anyone old enough to read. Even though he's a St. Louis Park (MN) native like me, I'm far from a fan of Franken's; his politics are way to the left of mine and besides, he hasn't come up with anything funny since that whole "Politicians Who Have Showered With Blacks" thing, and that was almost a decade ago. But there's little doubt that he's in the right here- clearly, it's Fox and O'Reilly who are being shrill and mean-spirited, and it's only a poetic justice that the advance Franken will get for his next book likely quadrupled in the last three days. O'Reilly struck back against Franken's denials in his "talking points memo" on The Factor last night, reproduced on his website. Since its so audaciously hypocritical and hysterical, and the closest Mr. O has ever come to self-parody, I hearby offer a fisking: In just a few weeks, the FOX News Channel (search) will celebrate its seventh anniversary, awash in success and publicity. In that short period of time, we have become one of the most powerful news organizations in the USA, an amazing accomplishment. That is true, and Fox deserves credit for putting together such an effective operation in such a short period of time. They may have done so while piggybacking on the fiction of "fairinbalanst," but nevertheless... But that success has caused an incredible amount of anger among some in the elite media An entire network (owned by a massive multinational corporation) just sued one guy. But it's the one guy who's "the elite," right? And their attacks on us have now resulted in legal issues, such as trademark infringement and defamation. Little bit of hypocrisy there on Bill's part- he spends just about every night on his show being critical of everyone under the sun, but yet he's awfully quick to sic his lawyers on anyone who dares be critical of him, whether it's Franken or the proprietors of OReillySucks.com. Then there was that infamous column where O'Reilly bashed "the internet" for saying mean things about him, and called for the creation of a federal "cyber police." And besides, for someone who b****es all the time about the nefarious influence of "the trial lawyers," O'Reilly sure seems to sue people an awful lot. The main point here is that trying to hurt a business or a person because you disagree with what they say is simply unacceptable in America. It is? Say what? You mean a person like Ludacris? Or like Jesse Jackson? Hillary Clinton? The ACLU? O'Reilly ran an obnoxious, self-righteous, and borderline-racist crusade against Pepsi and Ludacris, a business and a person who said things with which O'Reilly disagreed. - and his boycott against them was not only acceptable, but Bill did it himself! Trying to hurt a business because you disagree with what they do or say is "not acceptable"? By that rationale, the Montgomery Bus Boycott was "un-American." And besides, O'Reilly's nonstop Hillary- and Jesse Jackson-bashing, justified or not, has gone miles beyond anything Franken has done- much less in a book that hasn't been released yet. Vigorous debate is embraced by us, You mean like on "Hannity & Colmes," which, as TomPaine.com has said, is about as "fair and balanced" as a Harlem Globetrotters game? It is simply a joke for The New York Times to editorialize that fabricated personal attacks are acceptable under the banner of satire. If I'm not mistaken, the Supreme Court has said exactly that- but then Bill couldn't imagine going through a whole monologue without mentioning the New York Times. I wonder if The Times thought that Donald Sagretti (sic) was funny when he manufactured dirt to hurt Richard Nixon's political opponents. Actually, I always thought Segretti, whose name O'Reilly can't be bothered to spell correctly, was quite a funny guy- he coined the term "rat****ing" (which always gives me a chuckle), made common practice of releasing stink bombs in polling places during voting, he had a funny haircut, and he was played in the movie by Robert Walden, who starred in the TV show "Lou Grant" and later appeared alongside O.J. in the film "Capricorn One." Plus, Segretti had the cajones to run for an California judgeship in 1995, and despite having gone to prison and been disbarred for his Watergame misdeeds, even resurfaced in 2000 as the Orange County co-chairman of John McCain's presidential campaign. Besides, I love O'Reilly's hubris in comparing Franken's silly book- and the Times' innocuous editorial in defense of it- to Watergate. I guess The Times editorial board would be yucking it up if their pictures appeared on a book cover accompanied by the word "liar." Well, that's likely to happen whenever the Jayson Blair book comes out; the NYT would be wise to just ignore it, if you ask me. There's no question that many of the attacks launched against FOX personnel are designed to injury and demean. But what about the attacks launched by FOX personnel, and lobbed at liberals and centrists more or less every day? I've walked by News Corps' headquarters on Sixth Avenue a few times and now that I think about it, it does look sort of like a glass house. It's unfortunate, but in this country, if you're successful or famous, many courts will allow defamation, slander and liable(sic) to go unpunished. Aw, that poor, rich, famous, Bill O'Reilly. It must be so hard, when you attack people for a living, to have to deal with all the attacks... my heart bleeds. But once again, that's not the issue here. The point is accountability. We are shining a spotlight on the haters and the enablers. On second thought, maybe Bill and Ludacris have something in common after all- Luda doesn't care much for "the haters" either. Talking Points cannot understand how people could side with the defamers and their pals. In other words, it's a big mystery to O'Reilly why he's not universally loved by all. Listen up Bill- you may think you're God's frickin' gift, but dude- you're not above criticism. And when you go too far, as you do often, people are gonna push back. Everyone gets free speech, not just the people you agree with. When you send your lawyers after anyone who dares call you on your bull****, it makes you look like a whiny little child. And now Franken gets to sell 'Lying Liars' as "the book Fox News doesn't want you to read." But it's important to know just who these people are. For as Don Corleone once said, "kept your friends close, but your enemies closer." First Watergate, now "The Godfather"- O'Reilly really is stuck in 1972. And that's The Memo. The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day... No, I'd say the Most Ridiculous Item of the Day was, in fact, the Memo.
Oral Arguments Set in Fox-Franken Suit By HILLEL ITALIE The Associated Press Tuesday, August 19, 2003; 10:55 AM NEW YORK - Oral arguments have been scheduled for Friday for the Fox News Channel's lawsuit against humorist Al Franken. U.S. District Judge Denny Chin set the date after a brief hearing Monday. Last week, Fox sued the former "Saturday Night Live" performer and his publisher, the Penguin Group, to stop them from including "fair and balanced" in the title of his upcoming book. The trademark infringement lawsuit seeks to force Penguin to rename "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right. It also asks for unspecified damages. Fox registered "Fair & Balanced" as a trademark in 1998. Penguin, in court papers filed Monday, said the suit is "lacking in merit" and "antithetical to free expression concerns protected by the First Amendment." So far, the legal action has only helped sell the book, which for the past week has been in the top 10 on Amazon.com. Penguin originally planned a print run of 250,000, but announced Monday that it had ordered an additional 40,000 copies. "The extra printing is definitely a result of the interest generated from the lawsuit," said Penguin spokeswoman Lisa Johnson. Penguin also moved up the publication date from Sept. 22 to the end of this week, meaning books will likely be on sale by the time of Friday's hearing. Franken and Bill O'Reilly, the popular Fox news host, have publicly feuded and the lawsuit includes highly personal criticisms. The news channel described Franken, an author and liberal commentator, as "neither a journalist nor a television news personality. He is not a well-respected voice in American politics; rather, he appears to be shrill and unstable. His views lack any serious depth or insight." Fox alleged that Franken was "either intoxicated or deranged" when he attacked the network and O'Reilly at an April press correspondents dinner. The lawsuit also says that Franken has been described as "increasingly unfunny." "As far as the personal attacks go," Franken responded last week, "when I read `intoxicated or deranged' and `shrill and unstable' in their complaint, I thought for a moment I was a Fox commentator. "And by the way, a few months ago, I trademarked the word `funny.' So when Fox calls me `unfunny,' they're violating my trademark. I am seriously considering a countersuit." Neither Franken nor O'Reilly attended Monday's hearing.
I just started reading this book and I'm a 1/4 through it. I haven't seen anything that makes him seem like a prick, care to elaborate?
I just purchased Al Franken's book today. It's great, and a very interesting read. Earlier tonight I saw Scarborough Country on MSNBC. They had a substitute host who lambasted Al Franken for sending a letter to John Ashcroft asking him to talk about pre-marital sexual encounters. The letter he read was really funny. Anyway the substitute host criticized Franken for using letterhead from the Kennedy School of Govt. He claimed that it was dishonest of Franken to use letterhead that he wasn't supposed to have. Well this is the kind of lie that Franken talks about in his book. Doing a minimal amount of research(I read the sleeve of the book's cover) I found out that Al Franken served as a Fellow with Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. It looks Franken had every right to use the letterhead. I don't know if it was careless journalism on the substitute host's part, or intentional spin to discredit Franken. Either way these kinds of attacks only help Franken prove his point.
The letter and the apology he wrote was on the smoking gun website if youwant to see it. What it was wasa that he was a shorenstein fellow at harvard, but they got pissed when they found out he wrote a letter to the AG on their letterhead, implying that they endorsed it or put him up to it. So he wrote one saying that he wasn't speaking on their behalf and apologizing.
Al Franken's book is really interesting. O'Reilly isn't the hardest hit by Al, though. He does point out Bill's lies or mistakes, and further lies that Bill has used to cover them up. They are well documented have been fact checked to make sure. But both Coulter, and Sean Hannity get the treatment more. Perhaps that's because their lies, are more blatant, or stupid, or in Hannity's case he's just more mean spirited. An interesting thing about 'Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them' is explained in the preface. All of Al Franken's evidence is very thoroughly researched. He explains that he really wanted to shed light on the way people mentioned above and others operate. In order to do that he had to make sure his facts were correct. If anyone is interested in uncovering lies told by Hannity, Coulter, or O'Reilly it's worth the read. Even if you like any or all of those people, but just want to know the truth it's worth the read.
Poor Bill... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95484,00.html Judge Rejects Fox News' Request for Injunction on Franken Book Friday, August 22, 2003 NEW YORK _—_A federal judge on Friday denied Fox News Channel's request for an injunction to block humorist Al Franken's (search)_new book, which uses the Fox slogan "fair and balanced." U.S. District Judge Denny Chin said Fox's claim was "without merit, both factually and legally." The network had argued Franken's book -- "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" -- could trick some consumers into believing the book is associated with Fox. The book's subtitle is "A fair and balanced look at the Right." Fox trademarked "fair and balanced" in 1998. The book went on sale nationally Thursday -- moved up from its September rollout date because of publicity from the lawsuit. Penguin added 50,000 copies to the book's original run of 270,000 after the suit was filed. The cover features Franken, in a business suit, standing in front of a television monitor showing pictures of President Bush (search), Vice President Dick Cheney, conservative pundit Ann Coulter and Fox host Bill O'Reilly. The lawsuit described Franken as a "C-level political commentator" who is "increasingly unfunny." It suggests he was "intoxicated or deranged" when he confronted a table of Fox personalities at a correspondents' dinner in April. "He is not a well-respected voice in American politics; rather, he appears to be shrill and unstable," the suit says. "His views lack any serious depth or insight." News Corp. is the parent company of the Fox News Channel, which operates Foxnews.com.
If the opinion is anything like that quote, the people at Fox will cut their losses within the next week and dismiss this silliness.
Amazon has a deal where you can get Al's book along with "Big Lies" by Joe Conason for a discount. It'd be cool to see two books on the bestseller list and have it be done one book at a time rather than the bulk purchases rich Cons make for authors like Coulter.
“In addition to thanking my own lawyers,” Franken said, “I'd like to thank Fox's lawyers for filing one of the stupidest briefs I've ever seen in my life.”
