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)?
