Special Note April 26: Jon Kyl has apparently decided to leave his "hyperbole" off the congressional record. The "well over 90 percent" has been "erased".
Hyperbole is exaggeration…For example, to describe a very long car trip, I might write, "I'd been driving for about a hundred years when I finally came to a fork in the road." This is dramatically more descriptive than "I'd been driving for a very long time when I finally came to a fork in the road." Since the reader knows it's impossible for the writer to drive for a hundred years, it becomes clear that hyperbole is being used. This particular hyperbole is also a good example of comic irony.
Wikipedia: Hyperbole… is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally…Hyperboles are exaggerations to create emphasis or effect. As a literary device, hyperbole is often used in poetry, and is frequently encountered in casual speech. An example of hyperbole is: "The bag weighed a ton."… Hyperbole helps to make the point that the bag was very heavy, although it is not probable that it would actually weigh a ton.
According to dictionary.com, hyperbole is defined as “an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as 'to wait an eternity' "…as further confirmed by the definitions above.
Recently PolitiFact (PF) ruled “False” on a statement by Republican Senator Jon Kyl that “Abortion services are ‘well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does.' " His office’s response to CNN with regard to the remark that it was “not intended to be a factual statement” was greatly mocked (by Stephen Colbert et al). My conservative counterpart was quick to claim that the explanation was “the definition of hyperbole” along with “… to illustrate that Planned Parenthood, an organization that receives millions in taxpayer dollars, does subsidize abortions.” It seems to me that was in reality a great way to cover up something meant to mislead, or what might be called “backpedaling.”
So the questions for Kyl’s “not intended to be factual” statement become: Can we expect that those watching Kyl’s speech would know for certain that it’s impossible for over 90 percent of Planned Parenthood’s services to be abortion? In other words, if you weren’t told it was an “exaggeration for purposes of illustration”, would you have known it was when you heard it the first time? Was the 90 percent figure enough to "evoke strong feelings" or create a strong impression (or did you just question it like PolitiFact)? Secondly, why didn’t Kyl just say it was hyperbole or intended to be an exaggeration, instead of admitting it was just not intended to be factual (but rather used for “illustrative” purposes)? In my Facebook commentary, I said I knew that was not true because I used Planned Parenthood’s services when I was in college. But would someone not familiar with Planned Parenthood know this? Would they repeat it to others as if it was true (a PF criteria for looking at evaluating statements)?
In looking at the dictionary.com definition, can Kyl’s statement be taken literally, as opposed to the definition that hyperbole cannot be intended to be taken literally? Yes, it certainly can. If Kyl had said something like “…and we all know Planned Parenthood has been doing abortions since the beginning of time” or “…and we all know Planned Parenthood has done a gazillion abortions” I would agree those were hyperbole. But that’s not what Kyl said. His statement had a level of truth that was not discernible as an exaggeration. In fact, whether he clarified it later is not the point here. The point is it should have been immediately recognizable as hyperbole if it was hyperbole.
When one looks at the PolitiFact Lie of the Year, that the new healthcare law most Republicans refer to as “Obamacare” represents a government take over, the selective use of hyperbole becomes apparent. PF looked into it and ruled it wasn’t a government takeover, but we hear people like Michele Bachmann call it the “crown jewel of socialism” which is certainly hyperbole. Bryan White has written extensively that government takeover with “Obamacare” is not hyperbole, that government takeover is reality. It’s a matter of opinion whether it’s reality; my position has been to question where the line is, that once crossed, makes it a government takeover. To me, this is what distinguishes the notion of it being hyperbole, because I’ve never been able to find convincing evidence of where and when there is literally a government takeover. PolitiFact's crew never ruled on Bachmann’s “Crown Jewel of Socialism” hyperbole, because they could see the hyperbole as well; just as is stated in their principles, they “recognize that in the world of…political rhetoric…there is license for hyperbole.”
Which brings me around to grading “Grading PolitiFact” with a “Flunk” on this for inconsistent application of rhetorical devices—in this case, hyperbole—because of ideology. If PolitiFact Bias wants to prove that PolitiFact is indeed biased through Grading PolitiFact, it cannot practice such inconsistencies, even by admitting its bias openly, because no one will take it seriously except other Conservatives looking for affirmation.
No comments:
Post a Comment