Media Matters; by Jamison Foser
Why pay the bigot when you can get the bile for free?
In 1996, MSNBC hired Ann Coulter as a contributor. The Washington Post later quoted an MSNBC official describing Coulter's performance: "What she said was so outrageous she was immediately put on probation, and the next one was even worse." Coulter has acknowledged: "They kept firing me, but then they'd rehire me." Coulter barely lasted a year before MSNBC fired her for good for on-air comments she made to Vietnam Veterans of America founder Bobby Muller.
In 2003, less than five months after it began broadcasting his show, MSNBC fired Michael Savage for telling a caller he should "get AIDS and die." An MSNBC spokesperson explained: "Savage made an extremely inappropriate comment and the decision to cancel the program was not difficult." Just a few months earlier, then-NBC chairman Bob Wright had declared: "We strongly defend his new show as a legitimate attempt to expand the marketplace of ideas."
Earlier this year, MSNBC fired Don Imus after he made racist and sexist comments about the Rutgers University women's basketball team.
It may be tempting to conclude that, despite the ridiculous decisions to hire the likes of Coulter and Savage in the first place, the firings indicate that MSNBC understands that their violent and hateful rhetoric adds nothing of value to the public discourse.
But maybe MSNBC has simply decided that it doesn't make much sense to pay the bigot when you can get the bile for free.
On Tuesday, for example, MSNBC's Hardball featured Ann Coulter as the sole guest for the entire hour. MSNBC continues to provide a platform for Coulter's hate; the network's just stopped paying her.
During Coulter's last appearance on Hardball, in July 2006, host Chris Matthews told her, "You write beautifully," and, "You have a brilliant brain." He described her as "the picture of heaven." Then Coulter called former Vice President Al Gore a "total fag," and Matthews ended the interview by saying of Coulter, "We'd love to have her back."
Earlier this year, Coulter called Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards a "faggot" during a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). During an appearance on CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck this week, Coulter defended that comment, claiming, "I wasn't saying it on TV. I was saying it at a right-wing political convention with 7,000 college Republicans. I didn't put it on TV." Like much of what Coulter says, this wasn't true, and wouldn't be particularly meaningful even if it was. Coulter's speech was broadcast on C-SPAN, which extensively covers CPAC speeches. (Host Glenn Beck didn't point out Coulter's lie; nor did he point out that she used the same epithet to describe Gore "on TV.")
During her Monday appearance on ABC's Good Morning America, Coulter responded to a question about her CPAC description of Edwards as a "faggot" by saying, "Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So I've learned my lesson. If I'm gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."
Those comments prompted the Edwards campaign to denounce Coulter, and Elizabeth Edwards called into Hardball the next day to confront Coulter.
Coulter and her defenders have criticized the Edwards campaign for omitting the Maher portion of her comments about wishing Edwards was killed by terrorists, claiming that her comments were taken out of context. But the context she claims is missing is itself false.
Coulter misrepresented Maher's comments about Cheney. In fact, Maher didn't say he wished Cheney had been killed; he said "if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn't be dying needlessly tomorrow. ... I'm just saying that if he did die -- other people -- more people would live. That's a fact."
During the March 5 broadcast of his show, MSNBC host and former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough (FL) debunked his fellow conservatives' attacks on Maher: "Conservatives accuse Bill Maher of calling for Dick Cheney's assassination, but he didn't, and I should know. I was there." But Scarborough didn't correct Coulter when she appeared on Morning Joe, even though he and Coulter did discuss her reference to Maher.
During that same appearance on Morning Joe, Coulter falsely accused Elizabeth Edwards of lying about Coulter's November 19, 2003, column:
SCARBOROUGH: Now, I will tell you the part of that Elizabeth Edwards interview that jarred the most people -- jarred me, jarred just about everybody I spoke with -- was the part where she brought up the fact -- she said that you had written some column where you had made light of John Edwards' dead son. What's the story behind that?
COULTER: Needless to say, that is not true. And coming from people who have done what we have just seen them do in the earlier segment, I don't think they deserve a lot of credibility on this. You can look it up. It's all over the Web. It's a fabulous column, titled "The Party of Ideas," written in 2003. I had to go back and get the full gist of the column. It was about all of the Democratic primary opponents.
In the column in question, Coulter wrote of John Edwards: "If you want points for not using your son's death politically, don't you have to take down all those 'Ask me about my son's death in a horrific car accident' bumper stickers?"
Again, Scarborough did not challenge Coulter or confront her with what she had actually written; he simply accepted her assertion that Elizabeth Edwards had lied about the column.
On Thursday, MSNBC Live host Chris Jansing asked Elizabeth Edwards, "There are people who support your opinion, I'm sure you know, who say, 'Why even dignify it with a response? Why give Ann Coulter more publicity?' "
That same day, Jansing's network gave Ann Coulter publicity by hosting her on Morning Joe. Two days earlier, Jansing's network had given Ann Coulter publicity by hosting her -- alone, for a full hour -- on Hardball.
This week alone, Coulter appeared on ABC's Good Morning America, MSNBC's Hardball, MSNBC's Morning Joe, CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, and Fox News' Hannity & Colmes. (On Fox, she took a swipe at Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama: "I do think anyone named B. Hussein Obama should avoid using 'hijack' and 'religion' in the same sentence.")
The notion that the targets of Ann Coulter's hateful speech should ignore her and she'll go away is absurd. Coulter was booked on Good Morning America and Hardball long before Elizabeth Edwards confronted her. Time magazine put Coulter on its cover long before Elizabeth Edwards confronted her. NBC's Today hosted her -- repeatedly -- long before Elizabeth Edwards confronted her.
It isn't Elizabeth Edwards who gives Ann Coulter publicity. It is the nation's leading news organizations. They may claim to find her distasteful, but they keep promoting her.
And they not only provide a forum for her hate speech and let her lie and dissemble without consequence, they repeat her false attacks on progressives as though they are true.
On Today, for example, David Gregory pretended that Ann Coulter has a point:
GREGORY: You said rather pointedly that you think Ann Coulter is guilty of hate speech against your husband and others as well. If you strip away some of the inflammatory rhetoric against your husband and other Democrats, the point she's trying to make about your husband, Senator Edwards, running for the White House is in effect that he's disingenuous, especially on the signature issue of poverty, whether it's a $400 haircut or taking big money to speak in front of a poverty group. If you, again, strip away the inflammatory rhetoric, is that a real point of vulnerability that you have to deal with in this campaign?
This is complete and total bunk.
There's simply no reason to pretend that Ann Coulter calling John Edwards a "faggot" and musing about him being killed by terrorists is about anything other than Ann Coulter being a contemptible human being and a national disgrace. There's no deep point there; she's just a sad and pathetic little person.
But that isn't all: Gregory made the nonsensical suggestion that John Edwards is "disingenuous" about poverty because he paid a lot of money for a haircut. It doesn't matter how often pundits keep saying that, it's still dumb. Gregory's statement that Edwards took "big money to speak in front of a poverty group" repeated Coulter's own false claim that he "charge[d] a poverty group $50,000 for a speech." This falsehood is apparently a reference to a paid speech Edwards made at the University of California-Davis, not "in front of a poverty group." So, obviously, he didn't "charge a poverty group" (in fact, his speaking fee was offset by ticket sales.)
Ann Coulter is not only a remarkably unpleasant person, she's a serial liar. And yet NBC's David Gregory -- among other journalists -- pretends that she has a meaningful point and makes false assertions about progressives based on her lies.
That's why it would be folly for progressives to ignore Coulter in hopes that she goes away: because the media don't ignore her. They promote her. They parrot her false claims. It's also why progressives should not only denounce Coulter, but MSNBC and ABC and CNN and Time and every other news organization that gives her a platform and doesn't challenge her lies and repeats them as though they are true.
During the Wednesday edition of Scarborough Country, MSNBC viewers got a hit of another reason why it would be folly to let Ann Coulter's hate and lies go unchallenged. An MSNBC contributor said of Coulter: "I don't think she's peddling hate. And if she -- and MSNBC certainly doesn't ... because if they did, they would never put her on the air for an hour, would we, Dan?"
The MSNBC contributor? Pat Buchanan.
The same Pat Buchanan who called Martin Luther King Jr. "one of the most divisive men in contemporary history."
The same Pat Buchanan who called Adolf Hitler "an individual of great courage" and wrote a column questioning whether World War II was "worth it" and wondered, "[W]hy destroy Hitler?"
There was Pat Buchanan, paid contributor to MSNBC, repeatedly vouching for Ann Coulter:
JOAN WALSH (Salon.com editor in chief): Ann Coulter had a whole hour to herself on Hardball, and she was going to sell her books and peddle her hate on Hardball pretty much unchallenged.
[...]
BUCHANAN: Joan, let me tell you where you're wrong here.
WALSH: Yes, Pat, sure.
BUCHANAN: I don't think she's peddling hate. And if she -- and MSNBC certainly doesn't --
WALSH: "Faggot"? "Faggot"?
BUCHANAN: -- because if they did, they would never put her on the air for an hour, would we, Dan?
WALSH: Well, she wasn't on for quite a while after she called --
DAN ABRAMS (MSNBC general manager): Oh, come on, Pat. Come on.
BUCHANAN: Well, come on! I mean --
WALSH: -- after she called Al Gore a "total fag."
ABRAMS: Pat is misusing his MSNBC analyst moniker there.
WALSH: Thank you, Dan.
BUCHANAN: Look, she is very, very -- look, she's a very good debater, and she's very good on TV and good on her feet, and she's a conservative, and she's an excellent writer. [New York Times columnist] Maureen Dowd's an excellent friend on the other side.
WALSH: No. No, Pat. You're -- Pat, you know what? You're a good debater.
[crosstalk]
BUCHANAN: She's good --
WALSH: You're a good debater.
ABRAMS: [Congressional Quarterly columnist] Craig Crawford -- wait. Wait.
WALSH: She peddles hate.
ABRAMS: Let's at least admit something, Craig Crawford.
BUCHANAN: Oh, cut it out.
WALSH: No, seriously.
[...]
ABRAMS: But that glosses over -- hang on. Hang on a second. That glosses over -- Pat. Pat, what you're doing is you're cherry-picking the pure politics stuff out of what she says and ignoring the sort of unnecessary hateful words that she uses, as well.
BUCHANAN: What hateful word did she use?
ABRAMS: You know, she described him as a gay person, but using a different term.
BUCHANAN: A what? Oh, you mean, that thing?
Pat Buchanan hasn't suffered from his own history of inflammatory comments: He has repeatedly been hired to host television shows on CNN and MSNBC; he currently works as a contributor to MSNBC, where he defends Coulter from charges that she peddles hate.
If people look the other way when Ann Coulter lies and smears and insults, it will only be a matter of time before Coulter will have her own cable television perch from which she can defend the next generation of right-wing hate merchants.
Double standard?
I'm a firm believer that whatever goes around comes around, so, other than advocating physical harm, I can't think of anything anyone could write about Coulter that she wouldn't deserve.
What is most irritating is that anyone even 2 degrees to the left would have the MSM on them like white on rice if they said something even close to one of the chunks of bile this wretch spews.
Ann Coulter was only echoing Bill Maher's comments. Notice how Maher has been given a free pass by the MSM. What's more? Arianna Puff-ington even gave him his own column on that moonbat forum.And yet people here claim that the MSM is "right wing." LMAO....ask Bill Maher.
"Ann Coulter was only echoing Bill Maher's comments. Notice how Maher has been given a free pass by the MSM"........ Genghiz
Maybe you should READ the column before making your comments. Coulter misrepresented what Maher said, and MSM has had no problem spreading it.
".....Coulter misrepresented Maher's comments about Cheney. In fact, Maher didn't say he wished Cheney had been killed; he said "if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn't be dying needlessly tomorrow. ... I'm just saying that if he did die -- other people -- more people would live. That's a fact......"
"......During the March 5 broadcast of his show, MSNBC host and former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough (FL) debunked his fellow conservatives' attacks on Maher: "Conservatives accuse Bill Maher of calling for Dick Cheney's assassination, but he didn't, and I should know. I was there........"
".......But Scarborough didn't correct Coulter when she appeared on Morning Joe, even though he and Coulter did discuss her reference to Maher."
Genhiz....doesn't look like the MSM is giving Maher a pass to me.
LOL. I watched the show. Maher certainly insinuated the world would be better off if Cheney had been killed. By "not in power" he meant dead. Even Barney Frank sitting right there said he thought that was what Maher said. Watching MMFA spin and spin is hilarious. No mention of bigots Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson - wonder why?
By that standard then, did Coulter or did she not, call Edwards a fa**ot?
By that standard, did she or did she not, call for the assasination of a liberal Supreme Court justice?
Did she not say the best way to respond to liberals, if you must, is to bludgeon them with a baseball bat?
How does any of this qualify as debating ideas?
I used to like Bill Maher and I used to find Ann Coulter amusing at times. Now, i just turn them off.
I guess if I had to pick I'd take Maher. Not because I like his beliefs but I think he really believes what he says. Ann mayjust be trying to turn a buck,
I thought her deliberate use of the other F-word (as it will now be known!) was both clever and funny... first of all she was making a joke about the basketball player who went to "rehab" the modern equivalent of thought police re-education camp for having the temerity of using the word... perhaps Isaih Washington from Grey's Anatomy would have fared better had he submitted to it. The second part of the joke did not have to do with accusing Edward of being gay, but rather being effeminate, which he clearly IS! His other nicknames, Silky Pony and Breck Girl, also make this same allusion. Sorry, but it is funny... precisely because it is true. I think even gay people think men dressing as women or acting like women is a considerable source of entertainment and has been so for centuries.
No its not true. Its just what rightwingnuts are used to personal smears his other nicknames given him by the same unthinking, brainwashed morons who think that kind of thing is funny. Yeah its a big hit with the neandrathal set. Coulter segments should be sponserd by band-aids since her base must lose a lot of blood from their knuckles dragging on the ground. The problem with that is they are so stupid they probably thing the red stuff is some kind of decoration like the feces they throw on their walls.
Robin Mac.....
NO Coulter calling John Edwards a Fa**got was NOT part of a joke about the basketball player.
Her comment was to the CPAC.
FROM UPI:
".....Coulter was a featured speaker at the 34th annual Conservative Political Action Conference. Following her prepared remarks, televised on C-Span, Coulter was asked to talk about Edwards.
" 'It turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'fa**got,' (spelling altered for MMFA) so I'm kind of at an impasse -- I can't really talk about Edwards,' " she said.
'Rehab' may have been a reference to 'Grey's Anatomy' star Isaiah Washington's decision to go into rehab during a public relations firestorm after he called one of his co-stars a 'fa**got (spelling altered for MMFA).' "
_______________________________
To help you, and the others like you, understand.....I will change two words of what Ann said, and perhaps you will understand the intent of her "joke" in the way she said it.
(Instead of Edwards, the question will be about the president. Instead of rehab, the reference to prison will be a news article about a guy who recently went to prison for threatening the president.)
"It turns out you have to go into (prison) if you use the word (assasinate), so I'm really at an impasse----I really can't talk about the president.
This "joke" would be outrageous to most, even though we don't know how the word would have been used in speaking of the president, but the implication is there. The media and public would have no trouble getting the intent of this "joke". NOW do you understand?
As far as your remark about Edwards being effeminate.....this "image" was created by the right wing media. Maintaining an image, is required in public life, esp. today's public... Edwards is being ridculed for something they ALL do in one form or another....be it outrageously priced spas, trainers, hair care, wrinkle and fat removal, nails, health food chefs, or designer clothing.
You psychic (or is that psychiatric?) act remains untouchable.
Aren't you one of those who get all nasty when others "interpret" "f*g" or "f*ggot" as slurs?
anyone even 2 degrees to the left would have the MSM on them like white on rice if they said something even close to one of the chunks of bile this wretch spews.
If you weren't so far out there on the lunatic fringes of the far-left, you'd know that America's liberal media couldn't care less when one of their own says something vile.Here are only two examples out of hundreds. Just ask for more and you'll get 'em.
They certainly weren't on NPR/ABC's Nina Totenberg "like white on rice" when she said of Jesse Helms on 7-8-95 "If there is retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion or one of his grandchildren will get it.”
Newsweek said about Nina: "The mainstays [of NPR] are Morning Edition and All Things Considered. But the creme de la creme is Nina Totenberg."
Yes indeedy...the "creme de la creme" of NPR is a sick media dirtbag who wished aids upon children because she didn't like their grandfather's politics.
ABC News did nothing. NPR did nothing. She has won countless awards since then including Broadcaster of the Year by the Nat'l Press Foundation in 1998. She's a hard core leftist so her liberal friends, bosses and allies in the media ignored it.
USAToday's Julianne Malveaux said about Clarence Thomas on Nov. 4 1994 “You know, I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease.”
She wanted Justice Thomas to die because she doesn't like his politics.
USAToday did nothing.
The media are not conservative, and if you think they are, then prove it.
Just because David Brock knows very well that his credibility in DC is forever gone, and the only way to have any effect on our political process is to create an organization like this is order to try and fool people like you into thinking the media are conservative, doesn't make it true.
If you have any way to prove the media are conservative, prove it. I could ask you who the conservatives are at the major networks, but you won't name them.
As we all know, I could post poll after poll, survey after survey and study after study proving the media are overwhelmingly liberal, and all the data would be declared invalid simply because the people on this site don't want to hear the truth.
Good for the Brits by the way. I thought I'd mention it since so few of you think terrorism is a real problem.
I remember both of those comments and they were widly criticised for making them. I agree they deserved the criticism. To pretend they WERENT taken to task by the media for those statements both of which I found out about reading the criticisms is disengenuous.
Then post for me the condemnation Totenberg and Malveaux heard at the time.
Good luck.
Yeah because it should be easy enough to get articles written in 94 and 95. I REMEMBER them being roundly criticised as I said I found out about these remarks reading about them in articles critical of them
Here is something from the Boston Globe in 03
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/12/28/hate_speech_of_the_left/
Just because you guys waited a year so your base would forget then started repeating that no one said anything doesnt make it true.
I wrote:
America's liberal media couldn't care less when one of their own says something vile
-- Jeff Jacoby is a conservative columnist who has written a lot of articles about liberal media bias.
-- Finding one newspaper guy, a conservative at that, doesn't come close to refuting my contention that the mainstream media didn't give a hoot about either of these columnists' disgusting remarks.
-- You can't refute the most important point: their employers didn't care at all.
Again you bring up things from 94 and 95 I know what I remember. Also he may be a conservative but if there are ANY liberal papers in the US the Boston Globe is one of them. You guys just waited and made this meme up long after the fact and pretend it represents real events but I REMEMBER OTHERWISE.
Interesting. . . a while back I revealed that roger7, a poster here, was in fact Brett Bozell, a right-wing propagandist who has something called the media research center and a lame "watchdog" site called noozbusters.snore. Well, it seems as if max41 is another handle the un-esteemed bozo is using to post on MMFA. Look at this link to a bozo thing:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/press/2003/press20030708.asp
Note the similiarities in the writing, as well as the Malveaux and Totenberg references, which are pretty obscure unless you're a right-wingnut who can pull them out of your butt at a moment's notice. Also, like roger7 before him, ol' max41 seems to have a jones for David Brock, mirroring the envy and resentment that bozo has of Brock--
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BrentBozellIII/2002/03/22/david_brocks_bitter_little_book
To the specific points in this post, so what if you can find a regrettable comment or two from liberals, none of the people cited has the egregious track record that She-Devil does of spewing inflammatory filth time and time again and, oh, the little throw-in about libs not recognizing terrorism. That's so much bushit since the British car bomb incidents--if they are proven to be linked to Al Qaeda, which they haven't been thus far--actually give the lie to the "we're fighting them over there. . ." crap. Bottom line, bozo--uh, sorry, "max"--is that there is nobody here that doesn't recognize the serious threat of terrorism, it's just that we see clearly how the bush doctrine of pre-emptive war has been an unmitigated disaster that has exacerbated that threat.
So thats a neocon "A" teamer. Disapointing I had a couple lines waiting for Roger7. Who vill he be next time?
Chimpevil, I believe I asked Max if he was Roger last week sometiime.Many similarities;
Dismissing others sources as not acceptable or mainstream enough, when the point was that certain things were not covered by the mainstream media.
Responding to those posts with loose paraphrasing, and 3-4 word "quotes".
Most of these posts made up of several disjointed and off-topic subjects, so that when any were debunked, he could point out that some of them were not addressed.
Demands that others refute his very subjective opinions, and weirdest of all-
Unsolicited bragging about his dynamite social life, mentioning that he had not slept all night to excuse incoherence.
NOt to mention the use of solid manly screen names Roger and Max. What's next? Rod? Cliff?
1. If I were Roger7, I wouldn't admit it, as I already told you Hunt. Roger was banned because the thin-skinned posters here at MMFA hit the "flag" button whenever they're bored. A female poster I won't name has done this on several occasions because she said I was off-topic. She goes off topic routinely, and I couldn't care less. She's not a very happy person.
2. You, Hunt, said "I like Roger" not 2 weeks ago.
3. lol
4. Hunt, I asked you four times to explain why Jimmy Carter tends to hang out with and defend some of the most vile, tyrannical thugs on earth, including several who are responsible for well over 20,000 murders, and you couldn't find the courage to even try to answer even once.
5. Good luck with the intellectual cowardice, Hunt.
6. To the paranoid delusional who "proved" I'm Brett Bozell, his name is Brent, and if you're dumb enough to think that posting a few quotes that can be found on the MRC's site (without, like Hunt, having the guts to actually discuss what Totenberg and Malveaux said) is "proof" that I'm the guy who runs that organization, then I can only laugh at your paranoia and blatant stupidity.
7. When you two spineless jellyfish are ready to accept the fact that there just might be a few conservatives on the web who aren't Brent Bozell in cognito, and you find the courage you so amusingly lack in order to discuss the point of my post--the liberal Totenberg wishing aids upon kids and her fellow leftist Malveaux wanting Clarence Thomas to die--speak up, so to speak.
Neither of you want to discuss those sickening remarks because they came from liberals, and since Hunt has fled the scene like a scared little girl every time I ask him to defend Carter's behavior, I'm pretty sure I know how he'll respond.
Good luck Chump, Hunt.
p.s. Hunt, I do recall Roger telling you that he screwed up a post because it was 5am or so, and I'm puzzled as to why you'd call this "bragging". If you're old, ready to die, and have no reason to ever be out at 5am, that's your problem, not his.
Live a little, and stop whining about those who don't need this advice.
Roger wasnt bad neither are you when you are making a point instead of repeating mindless rightwing memes or just baselessly attacking liberals. Totenbergs comment was outrageous I dont care what the point she was trying to make was it was unconscionable. I dont care WHO you are. I think it is about WHAT is said and not who says it. If you are Roger that is fine with me, If you are Brent Bozo that is fine with me. You are a fairly bright poster as was Roger, I like rhetoric from brighter conservatives. It is more challenging. You sometimes even make good points. When you are not shamelessly going off topic or mischaracterizing liberals and liberal positions. My biggest complaint with many conservative posters is they seem to parrot the screechmonkeys not only word for word but also in tone since the Limbaughs and Hannities just spew out baseless assertions as if they were fact when they are more like delusions about what some non-existant characature of a liberal is like or saying they think they ought to be able to do the same and consider it making a substantial point that ought to be dealth with instead of a delusional fantasy that deserves nothing but scorn.
Can't argue with that.
Appreciate the kind words, and no, Brent Bozo doesn't live here. I think he has better things to do. More to the point, I'm pretty sure Bozell wouldn't post most of his stuff late at night as I do. He has a job, something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.
I am lucky I love my job. I am doing exactly what I wanted to do since I was sixteen going to work every day and contributing to society while making a good living to take care of my family. I am truly blessed
That was unreadable. Where was the punctuation?
I had some periods in there. Punctuation is not my strong suit then again this is not an English class. Feel free to pass on my posts.
Easy there, Max/Roger. Between shuffleboard and bingo, I didn't get to my computing machine much this weekend.But since you were nice enough to number your points, I will too;
1. Posters don't get banned because somebody else flags them, just for being boring or annoying.
2. I like you too, Max.
3. Private joke?
4. Ask Jimmy Carter why he does what he does.
5. Luck can only take me so far in dealing with your intellectual cowardice, you need to make the effort to improve yourself.
6. I don't think you're Bozell, just somebody who trusts him and uses him as a source of information.
7. The "spineless jellyfish" and "scared little girls" comments are very misguided.If every poster doesn't respond to every one of your posts, it doesn't necessarily mean they're scared of you (As I think has been explained to you, and "Roger", many times) , it may just mean you're boring or repetitive.
Many may also notice that you've had to go back 12 or 13 years for your mean liberal comments (which were not very nice things to say, IMO), to match the conservatives comments documented here daily.No need to pile on when you're out-debating yourself.
p.s. you seem to recall "Roger" bringing up his unemployed party boy lifestyle, and think that anybody who isn't impressed by that needs to "live a little".
Most of us live a lot, we just do it within the confines of the rest of our productive lives.Unless you're a trust fund kid,don't forget that somebody has to go to work to cover your disability check.
Again, I like you Max/Roger. Just toughen up, stop being so sensitive, and stay on topic, and you'll find it can be a lot of fun here.
To reply in kind:
1. MMFA's terms of service say you can be (and Roger was) banned for being flagged, just as you can be banned for flagging people too often for no reason.
2. I didn't say I like you.
3. One reason I wouldn't say that is that while you accuse me of ignoring valid sources (when your source was a quote from Jimmy Carter offered to prove why Mr. Peanut himself lost--pathetic) and of ignoring questions, I don't ignore questions. You do, and are so embarrassed by Carter's behavior that you refuse to discuss him. Your tendency to always assume the worst in conservatives belies a bitterness that's tough to watch, so to speak.
lately:
-- you have juxtaposed Coulter and child molesters
-- you've said that "pro wrestlers and conservative media personalities have very similar debating styles" based on two interviews you've seen on Fox...ok, so prob/stat wasn't your kinda thing.
-- you've lately and routinely used words like psychopath and sociopath to describe conservatives
-- you've called conservatives "the stoopidest people in the liberal blogosphere post here all the time [to defend Coulter]"
-- You've said "To think...that Cheney cares about the country would take quite an effort". Disagree with his politics all you like, but to say he doesn't care about the country is just childish and something I'd expect to read from a 20something kid. Clinton blew off the war on terror that he didn't have the balls to start, but he cared about the country. He was just asleep at the wheel, like W was for 7 months.
-- you wrote "They [GOP'ers] promise to protect them while protecting only their own interests." You sound pretty new to politics with that sophomoric silliness. Any terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11? They seem to be protecting your crowd pretty well while the left whines about the menu for prisoners at Gitmo, and complains that we're going too far to protect America while sitting back and hoping for another attack just so they can say we didn't do enough.
enough.
I think you're an emotionally maladjusted old man who isn't half as bright as he thinks he is and who has no faith in himself or anyone else save perhaps our always industrious federal bureaucracy. No rational adult can think the political opposition is that dumb, evil and uncaring.
Individuals? Yes, lots of morons out there. But you think all conservatives are like that.
Ran outta room...
5. Luck can only take me so far in dealing with your intellectual cowardice, you need to make the effort to improve yourself.
You're the guy who refuses to answer a question I've asked 5 times, but you say that about me? Clever.
6. I don't think you're Bozell, just somebody who trusts him and uses him as a source of information.
What's not to trust? I don't read the spin on Media research or his columns. MRC is mostly quotes, video and transcripts, and it's all on tape or Tivo so they don't have to weakly spin the most inane, trivial nonsense into an article as MMFA does every day.
I don't have to go back very far for great examples of bias, but if you have better examples than Totenberg wishing aids upon children and Malveaux hoping Justice Thomas dies, feel free to share.
Tavis Smiley referred to Bush a serial killer not long ago at all. Again, the MRC has all this stuff, and the fact that you don't trust something that is taken from transcripts and video (cannot be refuted and never is) says a lot about who the intellectual coward really is.
I am here at MMFA.
You can't trust/don't read MRC's stuff.
What does that say?
A closed mind is such a terrible thing to have.
Oh, you're soo funny. "Hey everybody, we need to make sure Maher is held to the same standards as Coulter!"
You know why this is lame? Because Coulter calls herself a Pundit (who aren't known for always telling jokes) and Maher is A FRIGGIN COMMEDIAN!
The media are not conservative, and if you think they are, then prove it.
We do that here daily. You just choose not to believe it.
No you don't.
Evidence. Research from universities, publications, etc.
Your problem is this: there's a ton of evidence out there, and it all points in one direction--the direction that makes this entire website moot.
No it doesnt, showing how journalists vote isnt showing media bias. There is plenty of evidence on both sides. It is too simplistic to just call the media conservative or liberal. First it doesnt break down that way and second it isnt monolithic. The overall trend of the media is a business bias. It usually trends socially liberal and economically and foriegn policy conservative. Though again it is not monolithic. Look at the runup to the Iraq war there is no possible way reconsile a liberal media with the way it acted during this runup or the kid gloves treatment Bush recieved for years. The NYTimes a supposedly liberal bastion demanded Paul Krugman not call Bush a liar even in the context of him SHOWING LIES HE TOLD. You cannot possibly show what you claim that the media is liberally biased as if flat isnt true. I wont say the media is flat out conservative because that is too simple. Until you rightwingers break out of this Manichean its black or white, left or right simplicity we wont have a frame of reference for discussing the actual issue. Arguing the subjective of this is liberal no its not yes it is just isnt productive
It's far more than "showing how they vote".
--it's showing how they vote.
--showing the names of the people/campaigns to whom they donate their money.
--it's a lot of surveys that simply ask "what are you, liberal, conservative, or other?".
There is no evidence that supports the belief that the media are anything but overwhelmingly liberal. How one can ignore 100% of all known evidence is beyond me. If you find some research that goes against my point, I'll still only say "so what? now the evidence is 99-1 in my favor, or 97-3, instead off 100%". I won't care, but I will laugh.
All the evidence on earth points towards Joe Montana being a great quarterback, Ronald Reagan being a conservative, and the fact that cats and mice don't like each other very much.
To argue, in the face of all existing, non-anecdotal evidence, that the media are not overwhelmingly liberal is no different than saying Montana sucked, Reagan was a liberal and that cats and mice just adore each other.
Overwhelming specific evidence that shows a pattern goes beyond mere anecdotal evidence which is merely a story. The media is often almost lockstep with a conservative position and the Iraq runup is just one example, the Central American policies of the 80's is another, the dealing with Bush is another. That is most definitly evidence and NO saying who they vote for or who they give money too is NOT evidence of bias only evidence of who they vote for. Journalists know they are supposed to report facts. To show bias you have to show BIAS like the runup to the war. Where were the liberal voices then? When the NYTimes and Washington post were acting like cheerleaders and conservative villians like Dan Rather was saying just tell me where to line up. How about the 2000 election when Gore was excoriated as being a liar for the sort of exagerations that have been political staples for decades while Bush was given a pass for outright lies. Now I didnt even think at the time that was a conservative bias more an addiction to whatever storyline they had built up. At the time that was Bush is not too bright but honest and Gore is calculating so anything that went outside that parameter was just ignored. However this is NOT in keeping with any liberal media. I am a liberal one that pays attention and MY agenda has NEVER been pushed by the media NEVER. You have no such evidence and what you are calling evidence falls far short of showing what you claim.
Also I forgot to adress the part about asking them if they are liberal or conservative, a more in depth study shows that most are centrists and when not consider themselves more left on social issues and more right in economic issues. Unless you internalize what the publishers and owners want its hard to get ahead in journalism it happens through sheer talent but more often it doesnt. This is study shows these things
http://www.fair.org/images/challenging.pdf
One survey from...........FAIR?
FAIR, the slightly more successful, every bit as hard core to the left version of Media Matters?
Can I use RushLimbaugh.com for my next source? That's every bit as valid (what's a Greenberg poll?).
Here's how lame this is:
At the end you'll notice a poll question about news coverage. Seventy-six percent of journalists think they do an "excellent" or "good" job of "giving the public information they need to make informed political decisions".
Yea, you read that correctly.
76% of the media think they're informing us properly. FAIR thought it would be a great idea to find out if journalists give us the info we need to make sound judgments by asking...the journalists themselves.
In no other industry would someone even think about doing that--asking professionals if they're good at what they do, and then trying to use the results of the survey as some kind of evidence.
You can hear my laughter from your living room can't you...
Whatever, the social liberals in your survey outnumber conservatives by more than 3 to 1.
There are no politicians who call themselves "fiscal liberals" (thanks to the 1954-1994 Dem spending spree the left pretends never happened) so the other part of the survey is amusing, but pointless. Even Hillary and Howard Dean and John Kerry call themselves fiscal conservatives, because no one calls themselves fiscal liberals.
I'd still say it's 100% to 0%, but if you want to claim it's now 99-1%, that's ok with me.
Tough one percent to defend though...
Your criticism is worthless in THIS context since your complaint was ABOUT what they think so exactly how else would you find that out in more specific terms than are you a liberal or a conservative than ASK THEM WHAT THEY THINK. Also just calling them a lefty outfit isnt good enough either since the site gave ALL of their methodology. An ad hominem attack on WHO they are does not address WHAT they did. That wasnt even a good try.
Also no it isnt you can keep claiming that telling me who someone votes for is proof of bias but in the real world it isnt. Ya not only dont have 100 to 0 ya got NOTHIN. Until you can explain how this liberal media keeps running contrary to liberal opinion like they did on the war, the downing street memo, the kid gloves treatment of Bush for the first five years and many more examples ya got nothin.
“LOL. I watched the show. Maher certainly insinuated the world would be better off if Cheney had been killed. By "not in power" he meant dead. Even Barney Frank sitting right there said he thought that was what Maher said.”
Perhaps you should pay more attention. The discussion was about a bomb attack on a base in Baghdad where Cheney was speaking and several anonymous comments on the Huffington site mentioned the wish that Cheney had been killed. The debate was about whether those comments should have been removed from the site (noting the well-publicized conservative outrage). After some discussion, Maher pointed out the fact that, if Cheney were indeed killed, many lives would have been saved. Since Cheney is, in fact, one of the architects of this disastrous war, which has cost thousands of lives and maimed hundreds of thousands people, it would be hard to deny Maher’s point. Note also that Maher did NOT call for Cheney’s assassination, nor did he even say he wished Cheney would die. So, MMFA is exactly right.
“Watching MMFA spin and spin is hilarious. No mention of bigots Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson - wonder why?”
You might perhaps go to the “About Us” tag for this site and read the mission of MMFA.
Maybe you should keep up on the mission of mmfa. MMFA now backs Ron Paul and attacks non-conservatives like Don Imus.
And if you watched the Maher show, Maher said the comments on Cheney should have stayed on Huffpost and he basically agreed with them. Stop the spinning.
YOU should stop spinning I DID watch the Mahar show and Pros characterization is exactly what happened.
If you could every aquire a couple of used brain cells you would be able to tell the difference between reporting WHAT is said and that it can be conservative misinformation no matter WHO says it. It is simple enough for a child to understand but apparantly not simple enough for you.
"MMFA now backs Ron Paul"
MMFA does not back Ron Paul, but they are exposing misinformation about Ron Paul by conservatives. Ron Paul, as a person who has a less-than-hawkish approach to foreign policy, has proven himself to be too far outside of the realm of right-wing happiness for the MSM to treat him like one of the boys. Their conservative misinformation about a man many call a "true" conservative is expected and, quite frankly, should have been happening earlier.
Maher said more people would be alive if Cheney were dead. No one except the most rabid Bush/Cheney apologist could argue with that statement.
Furthermore, Maher didn't say "killed". Maher didn't say "assassination". Maher didn't say "the world would be better off".
In addition, if Coulter has a problem with what Maher said, she could to take out her rage at Maher-not the Edwards family.
And for what seems to be the 20,000 time (but not the last, I'm sure)...
Maher is a COMEDIAN. What he said about Dick Cheney was in the context of his COMEDY SHOW. Ann Coulter is a POLITICAL COMMENTATOR. What she says is in the context of POLITICAL DEBATE, and she says it on cable news networks promoting SERIOUS POLITICAL COMMENTARY.
As if that was not enough- and it really should be- Maher said what he said ONCE, on his COMEDY SHOW. Ann Coulter spews garbage on one NEWS SHOW after another, day after day, week after week.
OK? Get it now? I doubt it. I'm sure the next time Coulter says something outrageously hateful- probably a few minutes from now- on a Cable News Show, the trolls here will respond with "well, what about what MAHER said?" Relevance? Who cares?
Actually, to an extent I agree with you.
I don't think Maher's comments are appropriate, and anyone in the political arena should realize anything they say about the death of a person in power can be construed as support for assassination... right or wrong. I believe Maher was wrong.
However, three things with your assertion that are troubling.
First, for some reason you seem to insinuate that what Ann Coulter blatantly said about Edwards is somehow justified by Bill Maher's statement about Cheney. That's a horrible argument.
Second, it was Maher that said what he said about Cheney, not Edwards.
Third, this kind of speech of wishing liberals dead and personally deriding them is an Ann Coulter M-O that makes her so vile.
You know what? I would love for MMFA to document all similar statements Maher has made, then put them in a list next to Coulter's. I would just LOVE to see this!!!
The size of Maher's list would be the length of a "honey-do" note from a wife while Coulter's would look somewhere close to the 400 pages of the immigration reform bill.
Yes he did he insinuated that less people would be dying had Cheney been killed, which is NOT the same thing as wishing Cheney were dead.
Leatherhelmet: What Bill Maher said has no bearing on Coulter's attacks. Agree or disagree with what he said- write into his HBO show and complain if you want. He can certainly defend himself- and is an equal opportunity satirist.
His well known political affiliation is as a libertarian. So?
Coulter gets tapped to do political commentary where she makes the most vile obnoxious attacks, and does use death a lot in her mocking whining attacks. She adds zero value to any political debate. Anyone who uses fa**&&* to refer to a politician deserves zero credibility. But she's got so much more than hasn't only been offensive, it's just "potty mouth. Wash her mouth out with soap and hang her out to dry.
Bill Maher is in no way considered part of the mainstream media. He is a stand-up comedian who has a political bent to his humor. That's a LOT different than someone whose sole source of income is writing books and newspaper columns, and is a fixture on the lecture circuit.
Did Buchanan just say that she's "balanced" by Maureen Dowd??
How many consecutive years of hatred of all liberals does it take to stop being called a liberal?
Yeah, balanced by Maureen Dowd, that's priceless...
Maureen Dowd is a hellish, bootlicking, corporate, right-wing punk.
Now now Debunked,
I would hardly say that Maureen Dowd is a hellish, bootlicking, corporate, right-wing punk........
I read her book "Bushworld" and it wasn't exactly flatering.......
Yes, she has gone precariously close to jumping into the right-wing abyss.....
Perhaps she's see's evil from both sides of the aisle and is simply exposing them in her own words?
Her latest one on Obama I hadn't read yet so I could be wrong......
But since this thread is about Ann Coultergeist and her wonderful talent of saying nothing of substance while pissing off most decent people when she does......
Putting Dowd in the same grouping as Coulter?
Thats like comparing Dick Cheney with Ron Paul...... both are conservative Republicans but I don't believe that Ron Paul is evil enough to eat his own children!
Ok, I left out Savage and Beck and all the others but I have a secret lust for Coulter......
As I told my wife (who practically kicks the TV when Coulter is on) I would leave her and marry Ann.....
Of course I'd have to find a way to get past that adam's apple of hers!
:)
You told your wife that you'd leave her for an anemic stick figure on tv? Wow, what a prize you turned out to be.
I hope your wife beats you to the punch and dumbs your sorry self for Keith Olberman.
That would be George Clooney....... not Keith that she would leave me for!
:)
Frankly I dont think Dowd has any hard and fast political loyalties. I think she writes whatever she thinks she can write the most clever column out of.
You've got a point Cap...
I was over-the-top.
That little harlot rubs me the wrong way though.
Dowd is not a right-winger.
That would be the same as O'LIElly is a "registered independent", of course? Bungle is a "compassionate conservative"? Darth isn't really Vader?
Keep trying but Dowd is not a right winger.
I agree, leatherhelmet--and may God strike me dead on the spot for that--that Dowd is hardly a right-wingnut. Instead, she belongs in the same category as Chris Matthews, an equal-opportunity trivialist who constantly dumbs down the political discourse by distilling it into discussions of earth tones and aqua velva, whose sole purpose as "journalists", as alluded to by solon, is to spotlight how oh-so-preciously clever and "inside" they are. What makes these fools particularly anathema to liberals--and thus causes them to be seen as tools of the cons--is the damage they, like others in the MSM, did to Gore and Kerry by endlessly parroting the RNC talking points about them, while, especially in Matthews' case, ignoring the glaring and fatal flaws that bush clearly exhibited. (See thedailyhowler.com for Bob Somersby's exhaustive catalogue of Dowd's and Matthews' pattern of poisonous fluff down through the years.)
After the weeks appearances of this thing frankly my wit is wilted. Gonna have to share my pain with a few news organisations. I hope they enjoy it.
It's the inabillity of the news show hosts to challenge these chronic liars that turns my stomach most.
Seriously, how can a supposedly well informed pundit sit still while somebody says "We know there was operational cooperation between Al Qaeda and Iraq" or "Yes, we did find weapons of mass destruction."
BS. There wasn't and we didn't.
yes, she is a serial liar, in person and in her books. bob somerby shreds them quite nicely. so what? it doesn't matter. not one teeny tiny little bit. that she makes stuff up as she goes along, and never, ever admits to being wrong, is why "debating" her is an exercise in futility. she doesn't care, and neither do any of the companies that pay her. simply put, she draws ratings and sells books. that's all that matters.
if the publishers and production companies were at financial risk, they'd never print a word she writes, or air anything she says. they aren't, because the bar is set so high for defamation and libel, that suing her, and them, isn't worth it. in fact, it just gives her more ammunition.
you can argue you with her all you want, point out the lies and distortions, it makes no difference, because she just doesn't care. until it costs her, why should she?
It shouldn't matter that Coulter has been invited on MSNBC. Nobody watches MSNBC anyway, so it doesn't really matter. If Media Matters is concerned about Coulter expressing her views to a HUGE audience, then they should criticize Bill O'Reilly for allowing her to come on his show on a regular basis. A large number of people actually watch his show. Virtually nobody watches MSNBC.
Over 1 billion served.
I've found myself having a different reaction to the Coultergeist lately. I used to get really annoyed, almost angry, at her stoopidity, but now that's turning more to pity.
It's sort of the same emotions I feel if I get caught watching that MSNBC "To Catch a Predator" internet predator sting show.
My first reaction is hate, but it doesn't last long before it's overcome by a mixture of pity and gratitude.
Pity that a fellow human being has ended up, through their faulty brain-wiring, substance abuse, or conscious choices, as a child molester or sociopathic propagandist.
And gratitude that I wasn't born with, or didn't develop, whatever tendencies led them down that road.
Slightly off-topic, but related to the fans and defenders of Coulter and the other right wing flying monkeys. I mean the baffling people who post here that AC is a great commentator, that George Bush won any debate, ever, that Michael Savage is an intellectual, etc.
A professional wrestler died this week, and so I've flipped the channel by Fox and other stations as they're covering the story.
At least twice, I've seen pro wrestlers as guests, defending criticism of steroid use or whatever else about the industry is being discussed.
And I can't help but notice that pro wrestlers and conservative media personalities have very similar debating styles. Short attention spans, interrupting and ignoring the remarks or questions coming from the other side, simple slogan-like sentences, and the tendency to get louder and angrier in proportion to how wrong they are.
So I'm thinking the Fox news target audience, while they may believe that Sean Hannity wins debates with his "liberal" guests by shrieking "Yes or NO!" at them, these same people may be a little confused this week, as they've seen their favorite trusted journalist in a battle of wits with a borderline-retarded steroid-addled chimp, and the chimp seems to be winning.
Huntington Beach Lefty,
Oh am I sorry I missed that. I have used the comparison of the whole RW argument/debate show to fake wrestling for awhile. (My son was a varsity wrestler in HS). I will have to see if there are any clips at You Tube.
Also appreciate your 'there but for the grace of nature, nurture, etc.' remark. This is truly the difference between the basic positions of liberals and conservatives.
If we put a fraction of money and effort into identifying what causes these problems and how to fix them as we do into developing new weapons and keeping the war machine in such an advanced state, we wouldn't need the war machine.
Thanks Jamison. As usual, an excellent analysis.
conservative...ignoring the remarks or questions coming from the other side
This from Huntington, the guy who's been asked five times now to defend Jimmy Carter's relationships with tyrants, thugs and terrorists.
He still can't find the nerve.
He sure does talk a tough game though.
I must have missed HBL's national radio show where the issue was debated. What station is it on? What time?
Heck, even *i* can do that, although I don't pretend to speak for HBL.
If you alienate your political enemies, all hell will break loose. If you attempt to communicate with them, you have a marginal likelihood of winning "hearts and minds," as the administration so aptly put it.
Jimmy Carter has appointed himself the US Embassador to the world. In order to do his self-appointed job correctly, he must be able to speak with tyrants, thieves and terrorists on a one-on-one basis - otherwise, you cannot understand their motives, their desires, and their pasts, and similarly cannot attempt to fix the problem.
The alternative, which we're currently engulfed in, is to attempt to harm them into submission - this works with organized countries, but not with tyrants (who, like Hussein, will run and hide while others die for them) or terrorists (who will replicate like cockroaches if their core message is proven true by seemingly unwarranted aggression).
Nice try.......he doesn't just "speak to" these thugs, he defends their behavior.
I am honestly curious. Can you provide quotes, in context, of statements made by him in which he defends their behavior?
Thanks.
You seem to suggest that MSNBC is the only media venue Media Matters has ever mentioned in connection with Coulter. But in fact it is one of many, including Fox "News". Also, the statement that "nobody watches MSNBC" is simply false.
And Rino (back from being in France with Tommy and AA) uses the meme uttered by Coulter herself, describing Chris Matthews show as the lowest rated cable show (that she generously went on to give a bump in ratings?). Aside from Rino's independent thought (God forbid), Annie just went on there to "double" his ratings - of course they bumped up from the previous day by only 13,000 viewers. Big bump. But that's the talking point from Anne and friends.
Now why Rino is sticking up for a repugnant person like Anne is another matter. I guess cons find their own water level and it isn't very high.
Regardless of the venue, Rino, what do you think of Ann Coulter?
As everyone knows a fire requires three things to exist: fuel, oxygen, and a kindling temperature.
News people like Jansing and Gregory apparently recognize that Ann Coulter's spotlighted excrement is actually a problem in today's American political discourse. A fire if you will. But unfortunately they believe there are only two requirements to this fire. They believe that the only things needed are Coulter's excrement and Coulter's targets to complain. They are correct in that there are only two elements required. The only two elements needed are Coulter's excrement and an extensive forum in major broadcast media.
It is interesting this discussion has gotten this far without someone bringing up Olbermann. I think there are a lot of wingers who look upon Olbermann as just simply the opposite of Coulter, so what's the problem?
I guess to hate-wingers, there is a similarity: they both talk about political events and political people.
It's just that Olbermann remains civil (even referring to Bungle as "Mr. Bush"), resorts at worst to the force of law to deal with those identified as miscreants, and maintains contact with both humanity and reality.
Coulter, on the other hand . . .
K.O. is neither civil nor intellectual. He is Ann Coulter lite.
Please find one example of KO saying anything close (which would be Coulter lite) to the rhetoric that comes out of her mouth.
This would include one example of advocating assassination, one example of converting an entire religion, one example even close to the "we found the WMDs" or "Iraq was involved in 9/11" nonsense from last week.
Please post those lies/instances where he advocated violence towards a group of religious leaders, a Supreme Court Justice, or anyone frankly.
>>>"I think there are a lot of wingers who look upon Olbermann as just simply the opposite of Coulter, so what's the problem?"<<<
The problem is that they're wrong.
Coulter's statement that all liberals are "Godless" is but one example.
>>>"I think there are a lot of wingers who look upon Olbermann as just simply the opposite of Coulter, so what's the problem?"<<<
The "problem" is Olbermann is actually intelligent & uses his intelligence to present news in a realistic, nuanced manner.
On the other hand, Coulter is dumb so all she brings to the table is playground character assassination.
As far as the problem aspect: It's a big problem when you are willing to equate a mature, talented, intelligent news person with a petulant gad about gadfly who boasts the emotional development of a 9 year old.
I also missed all those times Olbermann has been invited to share his views on other cable news shows. And when he's referred to people as "total f-gs," or when he's criticized people for "whining" about their dead children. When he does all these things, we can start calling him the Liberal Answer to Ann Coulter. Of course, he's never going to do any of those things. Fox isnt going to have Olbermann on to get shouted at, because he's too intelligent to be cornered like Alan Colmes and the other spineless, milquetoast liberals they feel comfortable with over there. And he's never going to be vicious, rude and hateful, because its not his style.
Olberman doesn't resort to outright lies and distortions and will correct a guest who misspeaks like yesterday when one said the people connected with the attempted bombings in London were "yuppie terrorists" because they could afford Mercedes.
Olberman pointed out at least one of the vehicles were stolen in Scotland.
I don't get the MSNBC, but noticed that O "won an Edward R. Murrow Award for reporting from the site for 40 days for his ABC Radio show" according to his bio. It would be interesting to compare that to awards given to Coulter and FOX news.
But, but, but they could afford to steal a MERCEDES
The bottom line: Coulter makes $$$ for everybody.
She makes $$$ for MSNBC due to a slight bump in ratings every time she's on MSNBC; she makes $$$ for herself due to increased book sales; she makes $$$ for Democrats (in this specific instance, the Edwards campaign) because her childish rhetoric inspires the liberal/progressive base to action.
When TV/media people see Coulter coming they don't see noble things like "the polluting of the public discourse"...they see dollar signs, pure & simple.
Plus everytime Coulter gets knocked around by the rare liberal willing to fight back, she always runs to her Borg alcove (ie, the Fox News studio) in order to regenerate.
Coulter's shtick is such a pure capitalist venture, few see a downside in giving her a forum in which to "speak."
That's the reality of the situation.
I couldn't agree more with your statement, "The notion that the targets of Ann Coulter's hate speech should ignore her and she'll go away is absurd."
It surely cannot be forgotten that, like the un-dead, she doesn't go away! In fact, it's been a decade since she emerged from well deserved obscurity to become the hard-edged poster girl for cable TV's rush to air ever more crude, addled, high-decibel comment about the Republican conservatives' new, Starr-centered universe of impeachment. Perhaps through some casting-call-from-hell, she suddenly was in our faces, preening, name-calling, and pushing her hate-Clinton views.
Though perhaps cannier now and even more skillful at media manipulation, she seems otherwise unchanged from what she seemed then: humorless, not very articulate, unfettered by any allegiance to fact, and with a paucity of wit, taste, and vocabulary. Early-on, she exposed all those qualities by snappishly labeling the highly educated, articulate, and energetic president of the United States a "hill-billy."
Another example of the 1990s Coulter is a quote from a Frank Rich New York Times column of that period whose subject was a moral lapse of the city's then mayor, Rudolph Giuliani. Coulter sought to make a distinction between Republican Rudy's breach of marriage vows and Democrat Bill Clinton's by declaring the difference to be, "between a dirtbag and a dirtbag and a felon."
Nor was Coulter alone in pleasing the period's hungry-for-ratings TV talk-meisters. Her sisters in the days of those impeachment-fueled 'dis derbies -- I pegged them as the Bile-Chex-for-breakfast bunch -- were Peggy Noonan, Sally Quinn, Laura Ingraham, and (the late) Barbara Olson. Those with books hawked them tirelessly. The pay-off for their largely unquestioning TV hosts was verbal mud-wrestling aimed at try-to-top-this Clinton denigration.
All these barbed-wire blondes came across as preposterous in their zeal for pleasing their conservative masters, plus pathetically hungry for self-aggrandizement. Coulter stood out as the crudest, most compromised of the lot. As now, she gives the impression of being terminally dyspeptic, as though she may've slugged down a shot glass of Clairol's Maxi-Blonde instead of dunking her head in a bowl of it.
What exactly is "mainstream media"? Bill Maher's show is on HBO, hardly going into every home in America, unlike the major networks--ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and Fox. Maher's "Politically Incorrect" show was cancelled when he said something deemed outrageous, yet Conservative outrageousness has multiple outlets in the form of Glen Beck, O'Reilly etc..........
Far be it from me to defend someone like Buchanan, with whom I disagree on every important topic, but you've taken his remarks out of context. See here: [link to www.antiwar.com] for a debunking of his remark about Hitler being courageous. What's different from saying that Hitler was courageous, and that the 9/11 bombers were courageous? It doesn't prove that he agreed with what Hitler was doing; in fact he clearly says he thinks Hitler was anti-semitic and a mass murderer.
Likewise, his questioning of whether WWII should have been fought, while completely wrong-headed, is buried within a complex argument about the spread of communism; it's not hate speech. Look it up: [link to www.worldnetdaily.com]
It's par for the course for wingnuts to wrest quotes out of context, but when a trusted progressive site like Media Matters does it, it's disappointing. There's more than enough evidence to support your thesis without having to fudge the facts.
You make a good point. As much as the left gets tarred FOR making nuanced arguments we ought to be able to look at one and not take a knee jerk approach to one.
there's no "double standard" for keith olberman vs AC. simply put, mr. olberman relies on facts to support his critiques. so much so that he, at times, actually quotes the party verbatim. ms. coulter doesn't. she has a tendency to make things up, and pass them off as "facts".
in first grade (if not earlier, at home), we were taught that knowingly telling an untruth is called "lying". that was correct, in first grade. now, if you're a right-wing political "pundit", it's known in the biz as "creative distortion", a highly prized skill amongst that set.
this is why any effort to "debate" one of their ilk, is valuable time spent, time you'll never recover, in futility. you can't win, because right off the bat you're starting at a disadvantage: you care about factual data, they don't.
once you understand this basic premise, you know why it's not worth the time or energy to confront them: they just don't care, and neither does their choir. they have no shame, because shame requires a consciounse, they lack one. they are, in essence, intellectual sociopaths.
WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA????????????????? HEY YOU RIGHT-WINGERS CAN YOU PLEASE TELL ME WHAT MEDIA ARE YOU WATCHING TO CALL IT LIBERAL? EVERYONE OF THESE STATIONS KISS THE REPUBLICAN BUTTS EVERYDAY,SO PLEASE STOP IT WITH THE LIBERAL MEDIA CRAMP. IF A LIBERAL WOULD BE SAYING THESE THINGS ABOUT BUSH WIFE OR MOTHER YOU AND THE RIGHT-WING MEDIA WOULD BE OUT FOR BLOOD ON THAT PERSON!!!!!!!!!
Labels of right-wing vs left wing are an anachronism.
It never ceases to amaze me that whenever MMFA decides to reveal the latest diatribes emanating from the likes of Ms. Annie....Ms?.... There's a distinct reason for that, WELL, everybody seems to get in a real tither. Suddenly, everyone offers up countless rationales and commentaries about what constitutes right-wing,left wing, progressive, conservative. To be sure. what Coulter continues to spew is an assault on reason couched in a bombastic rhetoric which immediately triggers a Pavlovian response, both from those who consider themselves as 'right 'or 'left'.
How anyone who in a moment of self-respective analysis can identify themselves with the term 'Conservative' AND in all good measure agree with what 'Annie' offers up is truly an irony. Why, Well, she is the chief spokesperson for a regime which has rewritten what the term 'STATIST' denotes and at the same time is an apologist for the 'Bushistas' evisceration of the Constitution, the abrogation and outright trashing of INTERNATIONAL LAW and PROTOCOLS, an administration who after some 7 1/2 years has induced a deficit which if not arrested immediately will saddle future generations of Americans with tax increases............... And you would have me believe that Annie is a Conservative..... Tell that to Barry Goldwater.
Meanwhile, Liberals and Dems are looking for their recently elected leaders to reign in what the NeoConmen have unleashed and/or with the pronouncements of Think Tanks, 'Think Dumb Tanks' like AEI, The Heritage Foundation and a slew of other alphabet-soup consortiums whose only real accomplishments have been to commission US into two non-winnable wars while at the same time the United Sates is reviled with contempt and ridicule throughout the world.
How CONSERVATIVE is that ???? How d'ya like them apples?????
Meanwhile, Liberals and Dems are looking to their recently elected majorities to initiate some relief against the most corrupt administration in US history.
Don't hold your breath!!. Both Parties are part and parcel of the same corrupt and felonious infrastructure of privilege, financial bribery and cowardly betrayal of the FOUNDERS, the American people and their own solemn and duty-bound oath of office.
As for Annie, she simply plays both ends against the middle ..... Laughing all the way to the bank.
You are good Navy Guy, always love your posts
Thank you kindly, Solon. The accolade is reciprocated to you also as I always enjoy your replies when giving a good thrashing to those of the RW persuasion WHO incidentally do not have an understanding or appreciation 'in the negative sense' of what their party has become.
As for me, these Bush years have tried the limits of my patience. Perhaps, the Republican Party will implode as it should, if for no other reason than to cleanse itself of the NeoConmen et al.
As for the labels , the only two representatives left with any integrity in my book are Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich............. Polar opposites on the political spectrum.... The Bush crowd has rewritten the book... Empire Building Dems with a big heart on the social front won't cut it either.
We are either a Constitutional Republic bounded by a charter to form a more PERFECT UNION with the aim of uplifting the prosperity for all OR an EMPIRE. History has proven to US in spades that WE cannot have both.
Our choice, Remember Franklin when asked what kind of Government have you given US??.......... To which he replied, A Republic if you can KEEP it. Well, we ARE THERE ,AS IN NOW and WE don't have much time!!
i just think media matters needs to get past this coulter thing -- i see some signs of encouragement on the tv news shows. yes many are still circus acts but just today on meet the press russert gave leahy good range to whack the white house talking points, and then later we got tavis smiley instead of some stale warhose like broder. i think there's a shift here because most folks really are disgusted wih the bushies and finally wont carry their water so slavishly. media matters needs to keep the pressure up, perhaps with some mild encouragement here and there. the mind-conditioning of recent years has left a lot of these d.c. media types with a deep-rooted fear that they will be seen by viewers as traitors for merely questioning the bush administration. i know they are weaklings but what can you do? they are coming out of it -- it's a bit like battered spouse syndrome. lets get these drones back to where at a bare minimum they need to be to let the truth keep slipping out about the bushies. nothing the bushies do will ever look good in the cold light of day. and dont worry - no one is going to be building any statues to ann coulter on public land.
At the risk of "promoting" Coulter any more than I have to - I thought I would post the interview here simply for anyone who would like to see it and/or critique it.
part 1
http://beta.redlasso.com/Community/ClipPlayer.aspx?i=c2de81c5-48ac-4591-8925-19248f1bbf0b
part 2
http://beta.redlasso.com/Community/ClipPlayer.aspx?i=f3b083e9-b185-4336-994e-da06c93eecf2
part 3 (includes Elizabeth Edwards)
http://beta.redlasso.com/Community/ClipPlayer.aspx?i=dc7a7444-f4b1-46b2-9058-c15484f4d225
What a dreadful piece of commentary. Mr. Foser complains about MSNBC having to put up with numerous "other thinking" people and having to fire them. He is currently getting all the bile he needs if he is watching Keith Olbermann. There is no more vile or bile person on TV than "Obie". I think perhaps Mr. Foser should check into what is reality and what is his fantasy for talk shows. MSNBC constantly played the Coulter piece in hopes of retreiving some ratings kick. It is sad when you put in entire MSNBC rating together and they still are short of CNN and FOX.
Sad and pathetic.!!!!