Lies & the Lying Liars Who Tell Them_ A Fair & Balanced Look at the Right - Al Franken [8]
You really have to keep on your toes with Ann. In her next book, Coulter will probably write, “Al Franken says Jews are ‘hateful and evil.’ ” Look for the endnote.
HOW TO LIE WITH FOOTNOTES #5:
• OVERLOAD A LEXISNEXIS SEARCH
For those of you unfamiliar with LexisNexis, it is a state-of-the-art research tool/journalistic crutch. Like any powerful instrument, LexisNexis searches can be manipulated to produce misleading results. It’s like a chainsaw, which can be used productively (say, as a prop in a movie like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre), but can also be used for evil (such as in an actual chainsaw massacre). Throughout this book, I use LexisNexis productively. In Slander, Coulter uses it to dismember the truth. Introducing . . . the Overloaded LexisNexis Search.
On page 8 of Slander, Coulter refers to a controversial 1994 Christmas Day speech given by Jesse Jackson on British TV. “The New York Times did not report the speech,” she complains. Checking the endnote reveals her methodology. “LexisNexis search of New York Times archives from December 1994 through January 1995 for ‘Jesse Jackson and Germany and fascism and South America’ produces no documents.” Well, yeah.
A more reasonable search (Jesse Jackson and Christmas and Britain) shows that, yes, of course, the Times did run an article on December 20 about the controversy using excerpts of Jackson’s speech, which was prerecorded.
Using Coulter’s technique, I can prove that no newspaper has ever covered anything. For example, I can prove the Washington Times did not cover the incident in which George H. W. Bush threw up on the Japanese prime minister. A LexisNexis search from January 1992 for “Bush and Japan and prime minister and lap and cookies and tossed” produces no documents.
HOW TO LIE WITH FOOTNOTES #6:
• JUST MAKE SHIT UP
From page 134 of Slander: “Even during the media’s nightly flogging of Iran-Contra, Reagan’s approval ratings fell only 5 percentage points, from 80 percent to 75 percent.” The endnote cites a Christian Science Monitor article from January 7, 1987. The article reports that “in last month’s Gallup poll, Reagan’s approval rating fell from 63 percent to 47 percent.” And remember, this is from people who are not only Christian, but also scientists.
So that’s how you lie with footnotes. Disgusting, huh? But it’s not just you who thinks so. Even people Coulter considers friends say she’s “a lying bitch,”3 “a horror show of epic proportions,”4 “oh, the poor thing,”5 and “a bitch.”6
3
You Know Who I Don’t Like? Ann Coulter
I’m sorry to do this to you. But I’ve just left so much good stuff out of the previous chapter. I told a friend that going after Coulter is like shooting fish in a barrel. He said, “I’ve never shot fish in a barrel. But I could imagine that after a while it could get boring.”
So, I’ll try to keep this short. First, a few more highlights:
After 9/11, she wrote in her column, which now appears on the prestigious Internet: “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.”
In the very same New York Observer article in which she called me a friend, Coulter joked to the reporter, “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to The New York Times building.” Get it?
To show there were no hard feelings, the Times invited her to comment on the Trent Lott controversy. She responded, “I don’t remember liberals being this indignant about the 9/11 terrorist attacks.”
Remember, this is coming from a woman who says “political ‘debate’ in this country is insufferable. . . . It’s all liberals’ fault.”
Coulter believes that the rules don’t apply to her. Anything she accuses liberals of doing, she can do herself, in spades.
Take her chapter, “The Joy of Arguing with Liberals: You’re Stupid!” The premise: “If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb, they would be robbed of half their