On The Situation, author Alan Skorski falsely attacked Al Franken
Appearing on the November 7 edition of MSNBC's The Situation with Tucker Carlson, author Alan Skorski promoted his new book, Pants on Fire: How Al Franken Lies, Smears and Deceives (WND Books, October 2005), by leveling false attacks at Air America radio host Al Franken.
On The Situation, Skorksi attacked Franken as "one of the most vicious and dishonest political pundits in the arena today." When asked by host Tucker Carlson to provide two examples of Franken's "dishonesty," Skorski referred to a portion of Franken's book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right (Dutton, 2003), in which Franken exposed Fox News host Bill O'Reilly's false claims that Inside Edition, a tabloid-style news program he once anchored, had won "Peabody awards." Skorski claimed: "What Franken used to attack O'Reilly was a news column that had nothing to do with what Franken claimed it did." As his second example, Skorski claimed that Franken "made up" Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data in order to refute nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh's false assertion that the majority of minimum wage earners in the country are teenagers. In fact, the column Skorski -- and Franken -- referred to did address O'Reilly's false claim to have won Peabody awards. Also, the BLS data clearly demonstrate that the vast majority of minimum wage earners are 20 and older -- refuting Skorski's claim that Franken "made up" the data.
On pages 67-71 of Lies (hardcover), Franken detailed O'Reilly's inconsistent positions. Franken offered three instances in which O'Reilly claimed that Inside Edition won Peabody Awards, such on the May 19, 2000, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
ARTHEL NEVILLE (former Fox News anchor): You hosted Inside Edition --
O'REILLY: Correct.
NEVILLE: -- which is considered a tabloid show.
O'REILLY: By whom?
NEVILLE: By many people.
O'REILLY: Oh, does that mean --
NEVILLE: And even you --
O'REILLY: -- we throw the Peabody Awards back?
NEVILLE: Even you -- even you would admit to that. Come on, now.
O'REILLY: No, I wouldn't.
NEVILLE: Come on, now.
O'REILLY: I would not.
NEVILLE: And despite your fight to be a hard-hitting journalist, some people would say you sold out.
O'REILLY: Well, they're crazy.
NEVILLE: You sold it.
O'REILLY: We won Peabody Awards.
NEVILLE: You got a lot of money, and you sold out.
O'REILLY: We won Peabody Awards.
As Franken pointed out in his book, the University of Georgia, which administers the George Foster Peabody awards, lists every winner since 1940; Inside Edition is not among the recipients. Franken wrote that he contacted O'Reilly regarding this inconsistency, and O'Reilly explained that it was a George Polk award -- not a Peabody -- that Inside Edition had won. Franken relayed this information to former Washington Post columnist Lloyd Grove. In his March 1, 2001, "The Reliable Source" column, Grove quoted O'Reilly admitting his mistake: "Al Franken is on a jihad against me. So I got mixed up between a Peabody Award and a Polk Award, which is just as prestigious." Franken noted on page 70 of Lies: "A couple other papers picked up the Peabody story from the Post. Newsday ran a March 8 [2001] column by Robert Reno titled 'Some Factors About O'Reilly Aren't Factual.' " From Reno's Newsday column:
O'Reilly also has repeatedly boasted of his Peabody Awards, not exactly the attitude of a maverick who shuns the approval of the media grandees who heap these Peabodies and Pulitzers on each other annually in an orgy of mutual congratulation. Actually, he has never won a Peabody.
He explains he got it confused with the Polk Award which, incidentally, he also never received but which had been won by "Inside Edition" a year before he ever joined the show.
Franken noted in his book that on March 13, 2001, O'Reilly denied ever having claimed that Inside Edition had won a Peabody and falsely asserted that Reno had lied about him. From the March 13, 2001, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: I'll give you an example. Guy says about me, couple of weeks ago, "O'Reilly said he won a Peabody Award." Never said it. You can't find a transcript where I said it. You -- there is no one on earth you could bring in that would say I said it. Robert Reno in Newsday, a columnist, writes it in his column, calls me a liar, all right? And it's totally fabricated. That's attack journalism. It's dishonest, it's disgusting, and it hurts reputations.
But on the November 7 edition of The Situation, Skorski falsely claimed that Reno's column -- which Skorski claimed to have discussed with Franken -- had nothing to do with the Peabody/Polk controversy:
SKORSKI: To make a long story short, because I've got two chapters on this one subject alone, what Franken used to attack O'Reilly was a news column that had nothing to do with what Franken claimed it did. And furthermore, he had never even read that column. Here's what happened. When Franken attacked O'Reilly, I had actually sent an e-mail over to Franken asking, what's the big deal about a misstatement over an award?
CARLSON: Right.
SKORSKI: And he told me, "Well, it's more than that. After O'Reilly admitted making the misstatement, he attacked another columnist for writing about his admission." So I just archived the article, because it didn't make sense that O'Reilly on one week would admit something and the next week deny it. And after I saw the article, I said, this doesn't say anything that Franken claimed it did. And then I even emailed the article to Franken himself. And he wrote back saying, "Well, you know, now I'm reading the article for the first time."
Skorski expressed skepticism over the suggestion that O'Reilly would say something one week, and "the next week deny it." But it wouldn't be the first, second, or even third time O'Reilly has falsely denied his own statements.
When asked by Carlson to provide "an example of a hard lie, something he [Franken] said knowing it was not true," Skorski falsely claimed that Franken "made up" and "distorted" BLS data to refute Limbaugh's erroneous claim that the majority of minimum wage earners in the United States are teenagers.
From the November 7 edition of MSNBC's The Situation with Tucker Carlson:
CARLSON: But give me example of a hard lie, something he said knowing it was not true.
SKORSKI: OK. I'll give you a great example. Al Franken's number one favorite lie is an attack he made on Rush Limbaugh, and it's been going on over a year now. And this is Franken's favorite story. It goes back to over a year ago.
CARLSON: You just got a minute, so hit me with it.
SKORSKI: Real quickly, Al Franken -- Rush Limbaugh had said that majority of minimum wage earners in America are teenagers. Franken says that he did the research with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and says that, no, the majority are adults. Long story short, I spoke to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It's in my book. And Franken made up all of the data. He cited a credible source, used it to smear Rush Limbaugh. This is his modus operandi. He cites a credible source, distorts the data, and then uses that to attack. Whether it's Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, that's what he does.
Other than claiming that he "spoke to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics," Skorski offered no evidence to support his claim that Franken "made up" and "distorted" data. Media Matters for America was unable to obtain a copy of Pants on Fire. The most recent BLS data, however, does indeed show that the vast majority of minimum wage earners in America are 20 or older. According to the BLS' "Characteristics of Minimum Wage Earners: 2004," of all wage and salary workers earning $5.15 per hour or less, only 24.8 percent are between the ages of 16 and 19. In a November 8 post on his weblog, Skorski defended his claim, writing: "On the show [The Situation] and in my book I provide the actual data and graph from the Bureau to show that Franken was wrong and his data was not even close."
Skorski also responded in his November 8 blog post to an online reviewer at Amazon.com, who posted the BLS data cited above to refute Skorski's claim. According to Skorski, "if you read the data closely, you see that the majority of minimum wage earners 'tend to be young,' proving my point." But Skorski's -- and Limbaugh's -- point was not that minimum wage earners "tend to be young." They claimed that the majority are teenagers, which, as the data demonstrates, is false.
Skorski is the director of political strategies for Political Media Inc., which boasts on its web page that it is "leading the driving the new political messages [sic]." Skorski's Political Media biography states:
Alan Skorski, a political activist for over 20 years, joined the Political Media team after a very spirited and passionate run for Congress in 2002. During Skorski's campaign run, he established many valuable contacts with leading political strategists, think-tanks, and political activist organizations. "The contacts and experience that Skorski brings to Political Media are invaluable," says Larry Ward, President of Political Media, Inc. "Alan understands how campaigns operate, their timetables, and when they get into gear. That makes him an effective part of our team."
In fact, Skorski's "very spirited and passionate" congressional campaign ended even before the Republican primary, with Skorski having raised just $24,000 (and put in more than $60,000 of his own money). Nearly all of the 17 news stories available on the Nexis database that mention Skorski give him only passing mention; those that mentioned his brief congressional candidacy tended to identify him not as a "political activist for over 20 years," but as a "wholesale candy and snack distributor." One thing Skorski did learn about "how campaigns operate" is that they must file finance reports with the Federal Election Commission; the Skorski campaign's failure to do so resulted in a $2,700 fine -- equal to more than ten percent of the total amount of money he raised.
Skorski's other brush with fame came via a March 25, 2000, Washington Post article about the controversy surrounding an exhibit at New York's Whitney Museum:
On Thursday afternoon, as hundreds of people waited in line to be among the first to view the Biennial, a lone protester stood in front of the museum, holding up a homemade poster that depicted Rosie O'Donnell, Hillary Clinton and Alec Baldwin wearing swastika armbands.
Alan Skorski, 37, wore a yarmulke, argued with museum-goers and said he was objecting to the exhibit because "enough is enough."
WND Books is the publishing imprint of WorldNetDaily.com, a conservative Internet news site.
Well either Mr. Skorski can't afford fact checkers to review his data or he is doing exactly what he claims Mr. Franken is doing. But I suppose if you repeat misinformation enough it becomes truth.
Skorski is not "repeat[ing] misinformation"; this is like, the first time I've even heard of Alan Skorski.
"Skorski is not "repeat[ing] misinformation"; this is like, the first time I've even heard of Alan Skorski." by kenkong77
What? Soooo since you've never heard of him, it's not misinformation? What are you saying? How is what he said not misinformation?
"are you saying? How is what he said not misinformation?"
Ken is trying to be tricky. He said that Skorkski is not repeating misinformation. Since this is the first we've heard of Skorski, it can be repeating. Do they think they are fooling anyone with such stupidity?
Scott Johnson - Wednesday November 9, 2005 01:38:08 PM EST
Yeah, like I cant repeat something someone ELSE said, incredibly weak.
I know I can't repeat what someone else has said.
Once again, people trying to say Franken lies are full of it. Not only that, he's way off. I hope he doesn't sell book one of his screed. Sad thing is, cons will lap it up.
Have you seen www.frankenlies.com ...
[link to www.frankenlies.com]
I'll probably get in trouble for posting it.
yeah, we've seen it many times and it's the same pile of crap.
Just curious--The Skorski thing we all know is fake, but what on frankenlies or whatever it's called is false? I just clicked on the link and visited the site for about ten minutes. Seems pretty reliable stuff. I'm probably wrong, but then again, it would be unfair and intellectually dishonest if I didn't hear the other side. So...whom should I believe? (And please provide facts.)
#16 on frankenlies takes franken to task for his chapter called "operation ignore", the fact that bush ignored many warnings previous to 9-11. it's well documented that bush did ignore the warnings and did reject initially the recommendations of the hart-rudman commission for a "national homeland security agency".
#16 on frankenlies takes franken to task for his chapter called "operation ignore", the fact that bush ignored many warnings previous to 9-11. it's well documented that bush did ignore the warnings and did reject initially the recommendations of the hart-rudman commission for a "national homeland security agency".
Excerpted from frankenlies.com Chapter 16 analysis:
The Commission’s report clearly took a LONG-RANGE outlook on how the United States should approach its national security. But Franken leads many readers to believe that the commission’s report was some urgent call for President Bush to revamp the entire national security infrastructure immediately. (See pages 117-118 of Lies (pp. 126-127 of the paperback).) In fact, the commission wrote, "We propose significant change, and we know that change takes time."2 Franken has completely mischaracterized the report from the Hart-Rudman Commission.
There was one major immediate recommendation that the commission made in the final pages of its report: "The President should create an implementing mechanism to ensure that the major recommendations of this Commission result in the critical reforms necessary to ensure American national security and global leadership over the next quarter century"3 (italics added).
What did President Bush do? On May 8, 2001, he established the Office of National Preparedness to address security reform and to "work with state and local governments to ensure their planning, training, and equipment needs are addressed."4 Vice President Dick Cheney was asked to oversee the development of the effort, including leading "a new task force to address terrorist threats."5 He was to "report to Congress by October 1, after a review by the National Security Council."6 In his statement, Bush added, "No governmental responsibility is more fundamental than protecting the physical safety of our nation and citizens."7
kenkong77 - Tuesday November 8, 2005 10:27:59 PM EST -
Vice President Dick Cheney was asked to oversee the development of the effort, including leading "a new task force to address terrorist threats."<<
Yeah, sounds impressive, except by Sept 11th it had never met a single time. Sounds like operation ignore to me
It also sounds like you are completely ignoring the excerpt I just reprinted. Explain to me in detail why it is false. I have no reason to believe it's true, but until someone with an equally specific rebuttal comes along, this frankenlies.com guy's analysis will stand.
It is obvious that if a task force is created but never meets, then in fact Bush did nothing. So Franken's opinion (and this is really a matter of analysis, hardly an issue of absolute right or wrong) seems correct.
This seems pretty clear to me. The site [link to www.frankenlies.com] looks like a fraud.
I'm not an expert on Al Franken, but some of the other points at the frankenlies site seem dubious.
"I'm not an expert on Al Franken, but some of the other points at the frankenlies site seem dubious."
It's all dubious. It's been debunked here many times.
Let's save everyone some time and energy and send them to:
[link to frankenlies.blogspot.com]
This clearly shows where the whole frankenlies site is crock of feces.
and cheney never had one meeting of his "task force".
[link to frankenlies.blogspot.com]
Yes and have you seen the lying lies of frankenlies.com rebuttal at [link to frankenlies.blogspot.com] ? They debunk everything that was said in frankenlies.com and back it up with facts. As they quote about frankenlies.com claims:
"many of them turned out partisan disagreements, rebuttals that had nothing to do with a specific claims of Al's, straw-man, arguments, and most annoyingly of all, incorrect information."
Just my two cents, but I don't think either Bill or Al are lying here just not communicating.
Franken just points out that Bill nor Inside Edition ever won a Peabody award. Both facts, so to say he is lying there is well... a lie.
Bill says that his Peabody references are a mistake, he meant Polk. Is that true? I don't know. It could be, but who knows.
The thing is when O'Reilly mentions the award I took it as him saying "we" in the sense of Inside Edition as a show he was a part of and not him personally. Bill is such an egomaniac that I don't think he would give someone else credit for an award he won. He would say "I" if he was trying to imply that he won the award or clarify that they won it while he was there. Both are missing from this discussion which leads me to believe that Bill wasn't talking about himself, but trying to defend Inside Edition and his work there. With that being the case, it would be like if Lamar Odom (currently playing for the Lakers) were to say something like "we need to start playing like how we played when we won championships" even though he was never part of a championship team.
ramsquire - Tuesday November 8, 2005 07:51:56 PM EST -
Yeah but when he said WE, about the Polk he mistook the Peabody for ( the Polk is a prestigious award but not as presitigious as the Peabody. its about like mistaking a Golden Globe for an Oscar) he was including himself in an award they won a year before he came on the show. Still sounds dangerously close to a lie to me. I guess its ok for you to give him the benifit of the doubt.
Wow. Having looked at the BLS data direct from their website, I'm just amazed that this guy has the gall to go on national television and say this, much less write about it in a book. You know Franken is going to be all over this guy, if he isn't already.
I wonder what else Mr. Skorski's got in his book, because the issues he chose for plugging his book on national TV are pathetically weak. If this is the best he's got, Franken is going to roast him into a pile of ashes.
The larger issue, which Skorski is trying to make, is that only 2% of all hourly workers make the minimum wage, which is different than the 60.1% number that Skorski says that Franken claimed. [link to alanskorski.blogspot.com]
franken never ever made the preposterous claim that 60% of hourly workers make minimum wage. can you freaking read?
"The larger issue?"
Oh my, the classic sign of a rightie who's been treed: "We actually weren't talking about that, oh no, we were talking about this other."
"We only lie to facilitate open and honest debate!"
I truly believe the poitn that he is making is rather debatable. Looking at the data you can easily make the claim that 16-19 year olds have the highest percentage of minimum wage workers. Not teenagers vs. the entire rest of workers, but teenagers vs. each age group listed. Although it is misleading to use the data the way this guy has, it is totally a lie.
I disagree. The point is that Limbaugh uses to the distortion to argue against raising min wage because, he lies, most min wage earners are teens. In reality only 25% are teens. If he were saying that, among teens, most make min wage nobody would even blink because that is obvious. Skorski is a fool and Carlson is a bigger fool because he hadn't even read the book.
You're saying that from the "Percent Distribution" column for "At 5.15," the value for "16 to 19 years" is 32.3, which is the largest number in the list.
Skorski says "Rush Limbaugh had said that majority of minimum wage earners in America are teenagers."
The 32.3 value is not a majority. Rush was wrong. Franken was correct to point that out.
So Tucker Carlson's putting on a candy salesman to refute Al Franken. And the guy comes up with two feeble, insignificant and - ultimately - erroneous factoids that constitute the underpinnings of his expose on Mr. Franken. I really, truly don't know what to say. Do the neocons have no one left in the bullpen? What's next - Bart Simpson on the Alito nomination?
I just saw Franken give a lecture last Saturday night and he mentioned this particular lie from Limbaugh. I don't quite understand how dishonest this Skorski fellow can be when all you have to do is go to the internet and find out for yourself. Just like Franken said one of his research assistants did.
Who is Skorski anyway? I never heard of him until I saw this on MMFA. I guess he wants to be a conservative commentator so he decided the best way was to follow the lead of the current crop and lie. Looks like we can look forward to more of this from him in the future.
What a dishonest dweeb.
1. Am I the only one who thinks it's kind of a 'low blow' by Media Matters to attack the man personally?
He ran a (very small) campaign and was unaware of the filing rules. He paid his fine. Big whoop. It also has no bearing on who is right about Franken.
...
2. Is there a reason Media Matters could not cite the 2000 exhibit at the Whitney Museum that Skorski protested?
Skorski appears to have been protesting an exhibit that many thought was demeaning to the Holocaust. And the Anti-Defamation League agreed with Skorski! [link to www.adl.org] Media Matters appears to be hiding this fact. Skorski was exercising his first amendment right. Is there something wrong with that?
...
3. Media Matters admits they have not even seen the book and looked at Skorski's BLS stats! ("Media Matters for America was unable to obtain a copy of Pants on Fire."
Skorski claims, "On the show [The Situation] and in my book I provide the actual data and graph from the Bureau to show that Franken was wrong and his data was not even close."
If Skorski has the facts, then MMFA could have egg on its face by already saying Skorski "falsely claimed" ...
...
4. Media Matters doesn't even address the claim that Franken never even read an article that he cited in his book (re: the O'Reilly issue).
so pointing out election violations is a "personal attack"? and calling franken one of the most "vicious and dishonest pundits" is...what?
Good questions; all should be answered by MM immediately if it wants its credibility to stop sinking any further. They've made some stupid decisions lately (i.e. three new posts [two about O'Reilly] that ended in a question mark--in other words, MM was ASSUMING their opponants were lying.), and this is another. The mention of Skorski's interactions in the protest...why, MM? Why?
I think MM was too eager to jump in and defend Franken in this case. And they couldn't get their hands on a copy of the book? It's been out since October 24, according to Amazon. That's a day earlier than Franken's new book (of which I am on page 138 as we speak, by the way--much better than Lies..., which I didn't particularly like), and I'm sure they've got multiple copies of that. Add in the gratuitous, questionable, unnecessary mentioning of Skorski's previous political protesting activities, and you've got yourself MM's new standard, which is considerably below their usual high standards.
MM is now trying to be commercially successful--they are "selling out," in a sense. Anybody notice the "Attacked by O'Reilly Again!...So Donate!" sign? Of course you have; you can't miss it, it's in red. And their new formula seems to be more personal attacks (and what the heck is up with their always-unnecessary righthand column for "stupid things republicans say"? Other sites have that stuff covered, MM!), like when they reported on Limbaugh's new girlfriend (MM, how was that relevant to anything, again?). Also there's the daily minimum average of two O'Reilly posts. If not, they'll make up for it with double that the next day. [sigh] Just had to express my thoughts, is all. Hope the rest of you are open minded enough to not always "toe the Media Matters line," to coin a very cool new phrase by me! It IS possible to be liberal and not always agree with MM, you know.
Good questions; all should be answered by MM immediately if it wants its credibility to stop sinking any further.
you conclude MMFA's credibility is "sinking" based on what evidence ?
"Good questions; all should be answered by MM immediately if it wants its credibility to stop sinking any further." --kenkong
---------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the expert advice on credibility. LOL
"MM is now trying to be commercially successful--they are "selling out,"
===========
Yeah--this site is just loaded with ads, isn't it? And the exorbitant fees Media Matters greedily DEMANDS you pay in order to view this site's content.
wow, you actually read that far into ken's post ? i can usually only stomach the first sentence, if that much. >:-)
Dear Ken,
They post so much stuff on Bill "sexual harasser" O'Reilly (my own personal and very cool name for him) because he distorts, misinforms and lies so much. As for the "commercial" part of this site that seems to be bothering you that is very easy to understand also. They are asking for donations because they are a non-profit organization.
"Good questions; all should be answered by MM immediately if it wants its credibility to stop sinking any further." --kenkong
--for some strange reason, i don't feel that you are being taken as seriously as you might like...
left045 - Tuesday November 8, 2005 08:48:41 PM EST
Is there a reason Media Matters could not cite the 2000 exhibit at the Whitney Museum that Skorski protested?<<
Maybe because it is totally irrelevant to the topic?? Ya think?
Skorski claims, "On the show [The Situation] and in my book I provide the actual data and graph from the Bureau to show that Franken was wrong and his data was not even close."<<
Not necessarily in fact not likely, he made certain claims on the show like whether or not a certain newspaper article cited by Franken contained a reference about O'Reilly claiming he won a Peabody and that Frankens claim that most people who make minimum wage are NOT teenagers. THAT information is publicly available. No matter what he pust in his book about the article or the Bureau of Labor statistics they cannot CHANGE what is IN the article or the BLS
I know it feels like an attack, but it's simple biographical information with a tiny additional bit of snark.
The biographical information is relevant because his organization boasts about his background on their webpage. If Skoroski doesn't want his credentials examined, perhaps he should have that page tweaked a bit.
One more reason to avoid getting important information from the television. What a pile of garbage cable TV has turned out to be.
I personally feel that the O'Reilly Peabody thing is a complete nonissue. It doesn't really matter to me that O'Reilly allegedly "lied" about it. Besides, why would O'Reilly lie about an award when the show got an award that was just as noteworthy? There is no advantage for O'Reilly to gain from lying in this case. None. It's always been funny to me to see that Franken has never examined the motivation (or rather, in this case, the complete LACK THEREOF) behind O'Reilly's "scandalous lies."
It isn't prestigious? Molly Ivins said so at the Book-Expo thing ("And I'll have you know that the Polk is a very prestigious award."). Are you saying she's a liar, too?
And my ultimate question still stands: What would O'Reilly have achieved from lying about the name of an award a show he once did won while he wasn't even working for that show when it won the awards? Hmm?
kenkong77 - Tuesday November 8, 2005 10:05:22 PM EST
It is prestigious, it is not AS prestigious, the Peabody is the MOST prestigiuos award for broadcast journalism, as I said earlier its about like mistaking a Golden Globe for an Oscar, a GG is nothing to sneeze at but it ISNT an Oscar, same with the Polk and Peabody.
Further, a peabody is not as prestigeous as a polk:
[link to hcs.harvard.edu]
O'Lielly said that nobody could find a transcript saying he won a Peabody. I wonder if he scoured all the transcripts looking for the phrase "I won a Peabody." Because as long as he said "We won" he can claim that he was talking about the show and not himself.
If he was interested in being forthcoming, he'd point out the following:
a) The award was a Polk, not a Peabody.
b) The show won the award after he left, and the award is relevant only because it shows that Inside Edition had some credibility (or at least it did after he left).
Instead he seems proud of his ability make everyone who listens to him stupider.
I think if I wanted funding to write a book or make a film I would approach one of these deep pocketed neocon fronts and declare that I am writing an anti-Al Franken book or filming an "answer" to Fahrenheit 9/11. The checkbooks would open and the sweet gravy train would come to the station. Research, Schmeasearch!
Firstly, I am suspicious of ANYONE who gets a book published by WorldNutDaily. I find it amusing that anyone would write a book attacking Franken for "distorting facts" and have the breathless timerity to defend Limbaugh (LMAO!!!). However, if you check [link to www.bls.gov] it does seem to support the assertion that most minimum wage workers are teenagers. Correct me if I am wrong, but the BLS numbers seem to actually be on Skorski's side. This issue is too important to have bizarre assertions flying hither and yon. We know the working poor and working class in general are under attack by the right. We must be careful to be accurate when we are battling these idiots and morons.
weezie, it says "Minimum wage workers tend to be young. About half of all hourly-paid workers earning $5.15 or less were under age 25, and about one-fourth were age 16-19." [emphasis added]
One-fourth were teenagers. That is not a majority. Rush was wrong. Franken was right. Skorski is full of it.
Exactly, and only someone trying to distort reality or who can't figure out percentages very well would have a problem with it.
The methods used in both Frankenlies.com and this guy are typical of right-wingers who call other people liars. Their logic basically amounts to little more than, "Franken says his book cover is blue, BUT IT'S TURQOISE! He's such a big liar that he can't even be trusted to talk about something as simple as color. If he'l lie about that he'll lie about anything and therefore his whole book is a lie."
YOu see it all the time. Franken/Moore/Any lefty will say Bush ignored a memo blatantly warning about 9/11 which crossed his desk on Day X...and right wingers will respond with "the memo was not dated Day X, it was dated Day Y" then use that to go on a rant about how the left is liars and smear merchants. Yet they will never once address the claim directly or the fact that the date on the memo is irrelevant to when the President got it and so on.
This is the same for all "Person on the Left" lies websites and claims by right wingers. Ironically, the people they accuse of being liars typically are using facts. They just know their fellow right-wingers are such fanatics they can't think rationally for themselves or bother to look up the actual facts.
Wouldn't it be good journalism before granting an international viewing audience to an author that is making allegations that but for New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 US 254 (1964) and its progeny would be clearly defamatory, if false, to check the author's allegations against recorded history? MediaMatters managed to do so in a short period of time following the blatantly inaccurate statements by Skorski on Tucker Carlson's show, and its resources are miniscule in comparison with those of MSNBC.
Yes, yes it would be good journalism. What does that have to do with Tucker Carlson?
Very comical Sagra. I agree, "good journalism" should not be included in the same discussion with Tucker Carlson or MSNBC (to paraphrase John Stewart, the network that does not deserve all of its call letters.) Using distortion and lies is a fact of life on the right (at least in the right media.) In my opinion, what makes this so effective is the utter lack of critical thinking and or analysis by the consumers of the right wing media.
Unfortunately, MMFA is wrong. O'Reilly indeed did not claim that HE won Peabody or Polk.
Please, issue the correction and be more accurate in the future.
It's shown correctly in four different places in the MMFA article. That's not exactly an effort to mislead.
MMFA wrote:
"On pages 67-71 of Lies (hardcover), Franken detailed O'Reilly's inconsistent positions."
Since O'Reilly did not claim to have received P award, O'Reilly's position on the issue has not been inconsistent.
MMFA quoted Reno's false claim that O'Reilly boasted of HIS P award. Without correction.
MMFA repeated Franken's claim without correction:
"Franken noted in his book that on March 13, 2001, O'Reilly denied ever having claimed that Inside Edition had won a Peabody and falsely asserted that Reno had lied about him."
Then they quote O'Reilly in support of the above, but - suprise! - O'Reilly did NOT deny that IE won Peabody. He denied that HE claimed to have won it.
Obviously, MMFA is not trying to mislead, but they're severely confused on the issue.
"Obviously, MMFA is not trying to mislead, but they're severely confused on the issue."
I disagree. O'Reilly clearly NEVER said that HE won the Peabody. He did say that Inside Edition won the Peabody (the Polk is the correct award) in defense of the SHOW from someone who tried to call the SHOW tabloid journalism. The article O'Reilly refers to is a LIE in that the author claims that O'Reilly said that HE won the Peabody. That claim by the author is demonstrably false, but mmfa obfuscates that point and again falsely smears O'Reilly. I'm no O'Reilly fan 'cause i think he's kind of a dunce. However, mmfa and Franken are flat out lying on this whole issue. There's a lot of stuff out there to nail O'Reilly on... but this Peabody/Polk thing shouldn't be considered a part of it.
"However, mmfa and Franken are flat out lying on this whole issue."
Nope. No lie. O'Reilly claimed the show won a Peabody, it didn't. That's the lie. Franken called him on it, then O'Reilly obfuscated the point by saying, "I never claimed that 'I' won the Peabody". What a joke he and his defenders are.
Reno claimed that O'Reilly said just this - that he personally boasted about winning Peabody. The claim is incorrect and borders on lying. O'Reilly did not obfuscate the issue, he correctly pointed out that Reno's claim is false. O'Reilly's mistake (not a proven lie) about Peabody is a non-issue, he even admitted it was a mistake, so there was nothing to obfuscate.
And even if you were correct on all points, it doesn't change the fact that MMFA is wrong and should issue a correction.
For the record: I do think that O'Reilly is inveterate liar and I respect Franken.
"And even if you were correct on all points, it doesn't change the fact that MMFA is wrong and should issue a correction."
You've shown no such thing. By the way, if you didn't notice, the article isn't about Reno. It's about this fellow's lying book about Franken.
> You've shown no such thing
I sure did.
[link to mediamatters.org]
You failed to refute a single point.
> By the way, if you didn't notice, the article isn't about Reno.
By the way, if you didn't notice, I never claimed it is.
PS: And you have the gall to call others obfuscators!
Here's a clue, russian. When O'Reilly says 'We', he's not speaking French. He said "We won Peabodys", as in "I and at least one other person won Peabodys".
So where's your Peabody, Bill?
Oh, I meant Polk.
So Where's your Polk, Bill?
See, that's the lie. If he had won it, he would've known what it was. But the show won it for a story done AFTER he left, so he was never part of 'WE'. HE didn't win squat. The show got some journalistic integrity AFTER he left. If you can't see that, you're hopeless.
It's says something when a show replaces its host with Deborah Norville, and the show GAINS respectability.
He didn't say "I won P". He said "we", which means IE. He said "we" since he was part of IE staff. At WORST it may be slightly inaccurate choice of words (only because at the time the award was won he wasn't the part of staff), but that is open to interpretation - after all, Bill WAS part of IE and IE DID win the Polk award. Since his whole point was about IE's respectability, not about himself, there's nothing wrong with saying "we".
So MMFA is still wrong.
russianliberal,
C'Mon.I would rather MMFA be wrong on some typo or puncuation error than be wrong in the facts about a story like FOX NEWS.C'Mon.If Media Matters is ever wrong about anything,they will list it right here on this site under CORRECTIONS...So,big deal.C'Mon now.
Words have meanings, russian. If I say 'We're going to Wendy's.' I mean 'I and other people are going to Wendy's' I don't mean 'This group is going to Wendy's, and I am no longer a part of this group, so I'm not going'.
If he had said "Inside Edition won Peabody Awards", he would have been mistaken, because they won Polks, but he would have been more correct. He was not part of that achievement. When O'Reilly left Inside Edition, 'We' became "They'. He was not a part of Inside Edition anymore, and he was not a part of the story that won the Polk Awards. I don't try to take credit for things that happen after I'm not a part of them, but Bill did. He said 'We' won Peabody awards, including himself in the achievement directly. WE as a collective won Peabody Awards. I and other people at Inside Edition won Peabody Awards. Then he compounds it by saying he never said it, which MMFA shows, time and again, he does frequently. If he'd just said he mispoke, about the Peabody and giving the impression that he had won the award, the story would have gone away a long time ago.
There's a simple way to settle this: Where's Bill O'Reilly's Polk Award? If he can show it, which he never has, then he's not a total liar in this case. But he won't, because he can't.
You're wrong, and I was correct, you are hopeless.
Handsome Pete - Thursday November 10, 2005 10:53:50 AM EST
Exactly, it would be like Eric Dickerson talking about the Rams, the team that drafted him and saying WE won a Superbowl even though they won it AFTER they traded him.
Demonstrably false to whom? Not to me in that I cannot for one second believe that O'Reilly's comments were presented by Franken or the "Newsweek" reporter out of context with the way in which he presented them (i.e., I do not doubt that he included himself in that "we" comment, to lend credence to his otherwise tabloid carrer.) With respect to this whole line of discussion, pointing out "lies" by mmfa and or Al Franken is a tactic used by those in the right media to "prove" that lefties are dishonest - to wit, picking through the minutia to find a contextually meaningless point to prove that someone is "lying." To me this is akin to stating that someone who states that Notre Dame won a football contest by one point when, in fact Notre Dame won by two points, is lying, thus Notre Dame did not win at all.
I don't think there's any evidence of lying here on part of MMFA OR O'Reilly. It is easy to see why exactly MMFA and Franken got confused.
So O'Reilly's pinning his credibility on the difference between "I won a Peabody" and "We won a Peabody?"
I think that's what Al would call a liesel.
"We won a Peabody" means IE won a Peabody. "I won a Peabody" means O'Reilly won a Peabody. MMFA still wrong.
russianliberal - Thursday November 10, 2005 02:43:00 AM EST
WE includes O'falafel. Since the show did NOT win a Polk OR a Peabody while he was with it, even your point doesnt stand up. He included himself. To be accurate he should have said IE won a Polk. SO he was wrong by claiming a more prestigious award, he was wrong again by including himself when he had no justification for doing so and if he had come clean and explained the whole thing, something like what I meant was IE, not WE, won a POLK not a PEABODY, I mispoke, that would be one thing. THEN it wouldnt rise to the level of misinformation, he didnt, it is. He was NOT accurate by ANY reasonable standard.
Russian, you're spinning. I don't think O'Reilly would appreciate that. He'd kick you out of the No-Spin Zone.
I saw the program, and couldn't believe my ears. MSNBC should be ashamed to allow Carlson, without even reading the book, to have an unknown wacko on their airtime. Carlson did mention that he would be willing to have Franken on the program, so I think Al should take them up on it.
Skorski is just another pathetic Republican apologist. Do these people have anything but fabricated attacks on Al Franken and Michael Moore? I find it interesting that they focus their attacks on people who are NOT actual politicians. More evidence that Bush and the rest of the Republican cabal are all about putting up a good facade.
....
This guy's a genius. Excuse me, I mean money-grubbing, no-talent, parasitic, whore.
On a side note, when did Al Franken get to be such a threat to the right? He "smears," he "attacks," he "mocks," ... name the verb. Why it's outrageous that a public figure would behave this way! It's irresponsible! It's meanspirited!
Um, hellooo ....
Even if they believe Franken is the anti-Christ (I happen to think he's a fairly good natured and reasonable fellow), fulls of lies and distortions, where are they when Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, Malkin, Medved, Savage, Schlesinger, Novak, Buchanan, Robertson, et al (notice I didn't even include the somewhat rational conservatives like Kristol, Will, Cavuto, etc.) are smearing and attacking? Oh, it's only an "attack" when you disagree with it. Otherwise it's "telling it like it is."
Puhleeze. And conservatives have the gall to cry "liberal hypocrisy."
Also, note the numbers here: An opinion network bloated with angry (and in Coulter's case, unhinged) conservatives vs. one moderately liberal former comedian with a radio show. And they're up in arms over HIM?
He became a threat when he began to reveal their lies with with sourced thruth usually readily available to the masses. He became dangerous to them when they knew his audience is growing.