Gee Cue Eye Cue (457 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: -0.5 on 5 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by riggyrow (View user info) at 2004-09-17 13:26:43 EDT
I understand the general antipathy toward cut-n-pastes around here, but I really felt the need to share this. Sometimes the gullibility or, in this case, the sheer stupidity of people just about overwhelms me.
By Erik Wemple
If you want to discover just how dumb your readership is, try running a parody. In its August issue, GQ published a piece titled "Bush: The Missing Year." A dead-serious-sounding subhead suggested that this men's style mag was wading into Seymour Hersh journalism:
"The Whereabouts of George W. Bush During a Twelve-Month Period in 1972 and 1973 While He Was Supposedly Serving in the Air National Guard Have Become a Controversial and Seemingly Unanswerable Question. Until Now. A GQ Investigation Reveals the Unbelievable Story of What the Future Commander in Chief Was Doing Then—And for Whom."
The "eight-month investigation" by staffer Jason Gay produced this whopper on Bush's activities: He was serving in the "Special Undercover Missions Service (SUMS), an elite air-force agency specializing in national security and acts of espionage." SUMS personnel, reports GQ, are bound by "lifelong confidentiality agreements," which may account for the official silence on Bush's whereabouts during the disputed period.
Now, if that's not too much of a stretch, the GQ piece thereafter veers full-course into the outlandish, leaving little question about its parodic content. It claims that Bush:
• trained bodyguards of Monaco's crown prince "how to fire assault rifles while waterskiing in tuxedos";
• disguised himself as a roadie named "Bo Bannister" to infiltrate the Rolling Stones, whom the federal government suspected of un-American activities;
• employed "fraternity-style gags" to disrupt the Viet Cong, including stuffing a banana into the tailpipe of the car of Viet Cong negotiator Le Duc Tho; and
• could be Deep Throat.
GQ received "hundreds" of letters on its fantasy scoop, according to Gay. Some came from Bush partisans who interpreted the piece as a slam on the commander in chief. Liberal detractors, says Gay, chided the magazine for "doing Karl Rove's job for him."
Yet the juiciest stuff comes from all the folks—up to a third of all responders, says Gay—who failed to sniff out the parody in the story. As the unpublished and unedited examples below demonstrate, Americans never let common sense stop them from signing on to the latest conspiracy theory.
The following are summaries of actual letters received by GQ:
• Applauding the "terrific expose" on Bush, one reader noted that perhaps now the public would understand why the president cannot "expose all the details of his service while in S. U. M. S. U. M." The reader said the SUMS revelations cast a new light on the president: "George W. Bush, and anyone serving in Vietnam are heroes. Where was Bill Clinton?" asked the reader.
• A particularly outraged reader asked for a congressional inquiry into the leakers of the SUMS scoop. "This is a bomb shell—a nuclear bomb shell—much bigger than Novak's exposure of a CIA wife's identity," wrote the reader.
• A media-savvy reader asked the logical question: Why hadn't the mainstream press jumped on this bad boy? "Has the magazine...gotten to Bill O'rielly and some of the CNN and FOX people on this, or will this information be the best kept secret in town," demanded the reader, who urged GQ to push the story to the "next level."
• A reader steeped in classic-rock history congratulated the magazine on its "wonderful scoop on the prez." But the reader noted that its "Stones-related facts are a little askew," and on the basis of this, questioned whether one of GQ's FBI sources was giving the magazine the straight story.
• A "political writer" for a publication whose name was withheld by GQ wrote in to ask for more information about the Bush-as-undercover-agent story. The writer claimed to have searched for more information online and found "nothing." "What a startling counterpoint to Michael Moore's perspective!" wrote the political reporter.
• One earnest and well-informed reader thanked GQ for its conventional wisdom-debunking piece on Bush. However, the reader expressed concerns about the banana-in-the-tailpipe claim. "I saw Myth Busters on The Discovery channel, and they replicated putting a banana, even a potato, in the tailpipe of a car. It did not stall, but it shot it out like a blow gun," wrote the reader.
Christ on a crutch, what in the hell is wrong with people.
User Reviews
Submitted by Norman (user info) at 2004-09-17 15:27:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
once more.
Submitted by Norman (user info) at 2004-09-17 15:26:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
..and again.
Submitted by Norman (user info) at 2004-09-17 15:26:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
FUCK, sorry.
Submitted by Norman (user info) at 2004-09-17 15:26:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
This sure doesn't deserve the negative rating it has.
Submitted by KoolMang (user info) at 2004-09-17 14:41:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment