Franken “Admits” A Mistake In Order To Gain False Credence

A study conducted at the University of Pennsylvania [Call-In Political Talk Radio: Background, Content, Audiences, Portrayal in Mainstream Media, “A Report from the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania”] showed that people who listened to Rush Limbaugh and/or other political talk radio programs, “have higher levels of knowledge and correctly think they have higher levels of knowledge than non-listeners.”

That would be a blow to Franken, right? Wouldn’t you think?

No. Feeling irrationally triumphant over the results of the study, Franken claimed, “Limbaugh listeners thought they were the best informed and yet they were the least informed.”

Just to be sure, let’s check with the study again:

Limbaugh’s audience is no more or less knowledgeable or active than the audience for moderate/liberal or conservative talk radio.

And one more time to make absolutely sure:

Regular political talk radio listeners are more likely than non-listeners to consume all types of newsmedia (excepting TV news), to be more knowledgeable about politics and social issues, and to be involved in political activities. This is true regardless of the ideology of the hosts of the programs to which they listen.

So Franken thought he was informed about the study, but he wasn’t. It turns out Limbaugh’s listener’s were better informed than those people who didn’t listen to talk radio at all, and just as informed as other listeners to talk radio (which is mostly conservative anyway).

This ordinarily would not be ironic. However, the fact that Franken was accusing Limbaugh’s listener’s of thinking they were informed while not actually being informed–when it was actually Franken who thought he was informed but wasn’t actually informed–is pretty ironic, don’t you think?

As ironic as it is on it’s face, it is made even more ironic by Franken’s gloating. Like when he says:

…why would people so woefully lacking in the basic facts of an issue think they were the best informed? Social scientists call the phenomenon “pseudo-certainty.” I call it ‘being a [expletive deleted] moron.’

In fairness to Franken, he has sort-of admitted that his claim was inaccurate. (Lies, p.11)

He did not apologize. Instead he attempted to minimize his moronity, saying, “In the final version of the study, the findings showed that people who listened regularly to political talk radio were able to identify the President more frequently than I had given them credit for.”

It seems the whole reason Franken admitted the mistake was to utilize a deceptive technique mastered by Bill Clinton and used to discredit conservatives.

When asked about having sex with Jennifer Flowers, Clinton admitted having past problems with his marriage but denied the Flowers story. Here’s why. Admitting to a problem or mistake lends sympathy and credence. People think you are telling the truth because you are admitting to having done something wrong. Later, Clinton used the trick again but that time admitted to the Jennifer Flowers allegations while denying other allegations.

So Franken admitted to having made a “mistake”–without really apologizing or admitting the depth of the “mistake”–so people would believe he is honest and go along with what he says in his new book. See how it works?