Think “The Onion” When Lying, Says Roger Ailes

[20score]

The Heritage Foundation, in conjunction with Fox News have passed out a talking points memo stating that pundits should no longer feel constrained by reality when lying. The memo, titled ‘Say Whatever’ is being touted as vindication for those on the right who have never felt inhibited by the laws of nature or historical facts when trying to make a point. Jonah Goldberg in particular, author of Liberal Fascism, was ecstatic about the memo’s circulation. “See, I knew that lies can be effective no matter how ludicrous,” said Jonah Goldberg. “Hitler was a liberal – FDR made the depression longer… Hell, the title of my next book is McCarthy: Winner Of Two World Wars.”

Roger Ailes has added an addendum to the memo targeting the talking heads at Fox News. “With people like Larry Elder and Jonah Goldberg proving that no matter what is said, some people will buy it,” said Roger Ailes. “We at Fox are willing to take the next step and finally throw out that grain of truth that has been confining us. This is the natural progression of lies. Think ‘The Onion’ when proving a point. Everyone at the station is already saying that it is undisputed fact; FDR prolonged The Depression by seven or eight years. Of course that would mean he would have had to end it before his policies went into effect – but nobody checks. So, the more preposterous the better. Obama's inattentiveness as a state senator caused the 9/11 attacks. Kucinich is responsible for the economic meltdown. Torquemada was a liberal commie. Liberals are pro-slavery… You get the idea.”






By: 20score

[MADem]

1. You need to offer a link. nt

[20score]

4. I put in a byline.

So that people wouldn't ask for a link.

[MADem]

7. Are those two paragraphs your own work? Is that what you mean? nt

[20score]

9. Yes. It's mine.

[MADem]

12. Ah ha! Well, of course you don't need a link, then.

I thought you might have grabbed it from Jonah Goldberg or one of those types....

[Greyskye]

8. I don't think our definitions of 'byline' are the same.

http://desktoppub.about.com/od/glossary/g/byline.htm
Definition: The byline is a short phrase or paragraph that indicates the name of the author of an article in books, magazines, newspapers, newsletters, or other publications. In some cases, bylines may be used to give credit for photographs or illustrations.

The byline commonly appears between the headline and start of the article, prefaced by the word "By" or "From" or other wording. The byline could also appear at the end of the article, sometimes as part of a mini-bio of the author.

============================================

A Google search of keywords in your OP didn't give me any relevant hits. So I guess this is satire? It's hard to tell these days. :shrug:

[20score]

10. The key words are 'commonly' and 'sometimes.'

Readers Digest among others but the byline at the end. That's the way I want mine done. I would rather not have anything there, but I am always asked for a link, then arguments ensue. So, just recently started the byline.

[Greyskye]

15. I completely missed it.

I'm so used to ignoring posters sigs that I missed it, separated from the OP by all of that whitespace.

[MADem]

19. Well, that could have to do with the addition of the word "BY"

and a colon, at 2:46.

Not your fault, to not see what was not there.

I was under the impression that the screen name (which is all that was there originally) was a "sig line" of sorts, as some do.

[Greyskye]

22. ah, no wonder. Thanks.

I could have sworn that there was no 'by:' originally, and I missed that he edited his post.

Poor netiquette that, making that particular edit without pointing out what the change was; since it is at the root of most of the replies to the OP. :eyes:

[MADem]

25. I agree.

Not sporting. And I'm tossing "bullshit" because I dare to point it out? I can deal with being the bad guy!

Eh. Whatchagonna do?

Hopefully he'll live and learn.

[MADem]

18. No they don't. I'm looking at a Reader's Digest, and that's not how they do their articles.

Their bylines come after the title of the article, and they are structured per the above example.

They will put an author's name after a little quote from the individual, for example:

Neither a borrower nor a lender be--Shakespeare

But that isn't a byline--it's an ATTRIBUTION.

Here's an example of how READER'S DIGEST, and most other publications, handle a BYLINE:


Interview with Emma Thompson
The Oscar-winning actress feels the pain of her lovelorn characters, but her real life is full of laughter.
By Robert Abele

The underlined bit is the BYLINE.

That's right from READER'S DIGEST, BTW....

And here's the link: http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/interview-with-emma-thompson/article109460.html

[20score]

20. Jesus, I already said signature.

Back off already.

Can you argue on other's threads from now on?

[MADem]

21. No, you said byline. And then you added By: to your post. after the fact.

Look, nothing wrong with effing up a bit. We all do. But don't make shit up. It hurts your credibility. And don't get annoyed when people ask for clarification.

You were not clear. Your post looked like a cut/paste from a blog or article, without a cite. As you know, cites are required here so we can read the full article.

Your "sig" at the bottom, before you added the "By:" after the fact, looked like a permanent sig line. Don't get annoyed because people were confused when you weren't clear. Just straighten it out, and move on. No harm done.

[20score]

23. No, see comment #16.

Now, I'm pretty much done with you and your bullshit.

[MADem]

24. I saw that. My comments still stand.

Touchy, aren't you?

:hi:

[MADem]

14. He wrote it himself.

I think he thinks putting his screen name at the bottom is the same as a byline, though it isn't.

[20score]

16. Okay, signature then.

[Submariner]

2. These are the same republican assholes that make a huge stink

about following the 10 commandments, aren't they? And one of the 10 is "I shalt not LIE" I think. Hypocrites!

[meegbear]

3. Is this a story or a rant?

[20score]

5. .

[ihavenobias]

6. K & R, thanks for the satire. And at the risk of sounding like a broken record...

you know just how terrible conservatives/Republicans are when a piece like this gets mistaken for an actual news article!

[20score]

11. Yeah, I know. But I really tried to make this unmistakable. And thanks!!

[FiveGoodMen]

13. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if something quite like that really HAS been communicated

It may be satire here, but I doubt that the reality is much different.

These people love to lie. I think they see it as a sign of intellectual superiority that they can fool so many. In a way, that may be accurate.

[20score]

17. Me either. If there wasn't a lot of truth to this, it wouldn't work.

In fact, they pretty much are doing this, just not in the open.

[unblock]

26. except they don't call it "lying".

they call it "truthifying".

[hvn_nbr_2]

27. The confusion on this thread is not the OP's fault.

It seems that most of this thread is devoted to confusion about whether the poster wrote it him/herself or is quoting someone else, rather than about the original satire in the post. That confusion is not the fault of this OP or of the confused responders on this thread but rather is the fault of a brazillion other lazy posters who are too lazy, rushed, or just plain dumb to bother telling us that they're quoting someone else when they are.

Normally, when I read a post, I assume that the poster wrote what they say, unless they tell me otherwise. However, we've become so accustomed to lazy posters who quote articles without giving us any indication that they're quoting someone else that if something is good, we assume that the poster didn't write it and is quoting someone else. Other times they mix their own words with the words that they're quoting and I can't tell which is theirs and which is quoted.

Frequently I read a post, thinking most of the way through, that the poster wrote it and gradually realize that it doesn't make sense that the poster could have written it. It's really disorienting sometimes. Other times, they put the first four paragraphs in the post, with no explanation, and sometimes the first four paragraphs don't make anything at all clear, but the poster still doesn't give a bit of summary to tell me what the heck they're talking about or why I should be interested in following their link. Still other times, they mix their own words with quoted words, leaving me to try to figure out the jarring context switches when they switch from quoting to writing their own words, with no indication that they're switching or which is which.

Simply putting a link somewhere in a post does not indicate that everything else in the post is a quote and certainly doesn't indicate which parts of a mixed quoted/original/analysis/summary is quoted. Is it so hard to add quotation marks around a quote? Or to learn to use the blockquote form in the HTML lookup table that is on every "post" page, like this?

Fourscore and seven years ago...

Then as a result of our being accustomed to trying to interpret lazy posters' postings, an original poster has to spend most of their thread explaining that, yes, they really wrote what they wrote.

Quoting something without clearly indicating which parts are quoted is just flat-out plagiarism, even if there's a link. Because no one can tell which, if any, parts of the post are quotes and which are original. In my opinion, the DU four-paragraph rule should be amended to also require a clear indication of what is being quoted from whom. A clear indication could be the blockquote form, an introductory line such as "So-and-so says in this link or some hardcopy article or whatever that..." with the quoted part inside quotation marks, or at least simply quotation marks and a link. Anything less than that is a violation of the copyright holder's rights.

[punkin87]

28. Funny post! K & R. Too bad some tried to ruin it with nitpicking.

[11 Bravo]

29. I'll just concentrate on the fact that this is funny as Hell, and let the nit-pickers obsess ...

about misplaced commas, etc.