The latest legal battle over a name: Fox News vs. Al Franken (1 Viewer)

[Aaron Reynolds]

I wonder how well an Al Franken book would sell if he didn't link himself to someone or something much more popular than him. I wouldn't have known he had a new book if he hadn't used the phrase in the title that led to all this.

I don't know, but why should he not mention what his book is about in the title? It's probably the best way to tell people what's inside your book. Without knowing anything else, the title "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right" tells me that the book is going to be humorous criticism of right wing media from a decidedly left wing standpoint, and I didn't have to know anything about Al Franken to get that.

 

[John_Berger]

I can't stand Al Franken and his ilk, but I have to completely side with him on this one. Using similar phrases to show some kind of relation has been going on since the dawn of marketing. Agree with him or not, he's using parody.

Rather than suing, Fox News should be doing what they can to discredit anything he says in his book. Instead, they've succeeded in bringing a hell of a lot of additional sales of that book.

Good move, Fox. :rolleyes

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

I was reading excerpts from Fox's legal document on Yahoo! News, and I have to say, it sounds more like they're trying to make Franken mad or get a rise out of him than actually put together a lawsuit with a chance of success. What does the insinuation that Franken was drunk at a public event have to do with whether or not the title of his book is a misappropriation of Fox News' intellectual property?

It's like they're playing into his hands.

 

[Paul_Medenwaldt]

E.P. Dutton is the publisher of Frankens book. I wonder if any large company owns them?

Doesn't Murdoch (Owner of Foxnews) own several publishing houses?

Follow the money trail.

Paul

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

That would be way too funny. It would have to end with the revelation that Franken and O'Reilly have been best buddies since kindergarten, though.

 

[Michael Reuben]

It would have to end with the revelation that Franken and O'Reilly have been best buddies since kindergarten, though.

Franken was a college classmate and close friends with one of my college roommates. He was always hanging around our dorm, and I can assure you that O'Reilly was nowhere in sight.

M.

 

[Paul_Medenwaldt]

They're part of the Penguin Group

Which is owned by Pearson

I'm going for a conspiracy here

Any publicity is good publicity.

Its unfortunate the popularity of this book will be because of curiosity and not because it may or may not be a book worth reading. Foxnews and O'Reilly should of just let it be and did what Rush did and not give it a second thought. The only thing that was positive about Frankens first book was that Rush decided to get in shape.

Paul

 

[Jeff Kleist]

My only hope is that at least some of the people drawn to it by the controversy will figure out exactly what Fox News does, and stop watching them

Oh who am I kidding

 

[Alex-C]

If there is justice in this world, Al and Bill will end up link-to-link on a Mississippi chain gang a-la Burt Reynolds and the young offender trying his darndest to impress him in The Longest Yard.

 

[Jay Heyl]

People like O'Reilly typically do. Franken can and will run rings around him in any debate.

Oh, please! Have you ever heard Franken try to actually debate anything? Logic is a completely foreign concept to Franken. I'm not a fan of O'Reilly, but he would totally clean Franken's clock in any kind of real debate. Having Al Franken as a mouthpiece for the left does a grave disservice to the thinking people on that end of the political spectrum.

 

[Cees Alons]

Oh, come on guys. You know better than going this route.

Please stay away from political debates here.

Cees

 

[Peter Kim]

Franken can and will run rings around him in any debate.

Saw a debate on MSNBC a few months back (Donnahue?) between Al Franken and some other conservative pundit (I forget his name) which showed the complete opposite.

Franken's ineptitude was glaring, so much so that it was almost uncomfortable watching a man skinned alive, completely unable to factually support his argument. He was slackjawed as the pundit berated him for manufacturing points to support his argument against the war in Iraq.

I've learned that there is a group of people that can 'debate' from a stone's throw, manufacturing factually-lite arguments in a sterile environment absent of scrutiny.

Pulled away from safe harbors and sycophantic entourage and subjected to pointed analysis from erudite observers, these people initially shield themselves valiantly with scripted platitudes. Right or left, these groups eventually wilt as their 'strategem' is swiftly exposed as demagoguery.

I didn't know much about Al Franken prior to that broadcast, but upon viewing, I saw that he occupies this group...and he embarrassed himself as a result.

Dogma to the point of blindness...afflicts both ends to no good.

 

[Philip Hamm]

Oh, please! Have you ever heard Franken try to actually debate anything? Logic is a completely foreign concept to Franken. I'm not a fan of O'Reilly, but he would totally clean Franken's clock in any kind of real debate. Having Al Franken as a mouthpiece for the left does a grave disservice to the thinking people on that end of the political spectrum.

Never mind the fact that Franken was facually correct, and that O'Reilly had blatantly lied about winning a Peabody Award, which he NEVER WON, multiple times!

Read all about it here!

 

[Mark Schermerhorn]

I don't view Frankken or O'Reilly as people who are really good at articulating the arguments for the political views they hold. Frankken is primarily a humorist, O'Reilly is primarily a media personality. I'd rate them both as average debaters. I've never read any of Frankken's books though, they might be better.

 

[SteveA]

I have read books by both Franken and O'Reilly. I read "The O'Reilly Factor" by Bill O'Reilly and "Stuart Smalley's Daily Affirmations" by Al Franken. The former was an interesting and mildly amusing book. The latter was obviously the work of a demented and deeply troubled individual.

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

The personal comments and hyperbole in the legal action lead me to believe that Fox News lawyers intended to slander Franken (which, ironically enough, they could get sued for) to discredit his book (of which both the title and content are satire, a 1st Amendment right). Instead it went from the high hundreds on Amazon to #1. What a bunch of numbnuts. Of course, it could be a joint publicity stunt for Franken and/or O'Reilly (I wouldn't put it past either of them).

Franken was one of the best writers for Saturday Night Live during their glory days (i.e. before the mid-90s), and I think a lot his public personality is as much an act as Stuart Smalley (the "demented and deeply troubled individual" mentioned above) was. While O'Reilly has made a name for himself as a blowhard (I mean, the guy insulted a man who lost his father in 9/11 because he wasn't "patriotic" enough), Franken has enjoyed taunting him, and by extension Faux News.

I can't wait to see how it turns out. Color me a liberal, but I hope Franken whoops some ass on this one.

Addendum: Just as a reminder, the "Fair and Balanced" Fox News has used it's ticker to direct insults at protesters and successfully proved they have the right not to tell the truth in court. I think that the possibility is pretty high that insults and untruths abound in Franken's book . I loved "...Big Fat Idiot", and I'm definitely picking this book up.

 

[JasenP]

Franken can and will run rings around him in any debate.

This seems to be the rule rather than the exception when I've seen Al in action. ...big fat idiot was absolutely hilarious and horrifying at the same time.

 

[CharlesD]

If FOX News wanted to discredit Franken & his book in the eyes of the potential buyers of the book, they should have praised it, not flung insults at the author.

They would have to be delusional to think that someone who might buy a book by the author of "Rush Limbaugh is A Big Fat Idiot" would decide not to buy the book based on, for instance, Fox News calling Franken "shrill and unstable". If on the other hand FOX called the book an "interesting and accurate look at how the corporate-ownded media accurately reports the facts" it would turn potential buyers away in droves.

 

[Michael Reuben]

The personal comments and hyperbole in the legal action lead me to believe that Fox News lawyers intended to slander Franken (which, ironically enough, they could get sued for)

Believe it or not, statements made in a court filing in New York are privileged against claims of libel (not slander; that's for spoken words).

M.

 

[Patrick Larkin]

I think Franken's book would have sold well regardless of the "publicity." Michael Moore's last book sold amazingly well - before the Oscar speech - and is probably attributable to the fact that most of America is moderate to liberal. That's not what the Fox people would like you to believe, however.