Better late than never: NBC acknowledges Coulter attacks on 9-11 families were "over the line"
Introducing an NBC Nightly News report on right-wing pundit Ann Coulter's appearance on Today, Brian Williams said that controversial comments Coulter made about the widows of victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were "over the line -- the line that is shared by just about everybody because some things, it turns out, are still sacred."
Introducing a June 7 NBC Nightly News report on right-wing pundit Ann Coulter's June 6 appearance on NBC's Today, anchor and managing editor Brian Williams said that controversial comments Coulter made on that show about the widows of victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were "over the line -- the line that is shared by just about everybody because some things, it turns out, are still sacred." Coulter -- who, the Nightly News report stated, "believes everything she says and writes" -- criticized the 9-11 widows on Today for "speak[ing] out using the fact that they're widows" and "using their grief" and "the fact that you lost a husband" to make "a political point while preventing anyone from responding."
Coulter's June 6 appearance on Today was, as Media Matters noted, her third appearance on that show in eight months, despite her documented history of false and inflammatory statements, especially against progressives.
The Nightly News report also quoted former presidential adviser David Gergen, who said that "it's almost as if [Coulter]'s a figure in a circus" because of "the ugliness of the charge that she's making, the ugliness of the words that she's using that are drawing attention to her."
From the June 7 edition of NBC's Nightly News:
WILLIAMS: Tonight, we're going to go off the air with a report on civility in American life. The explosion in our media, our deafening national noise level, and our changing mores have made this a much different era in America than the one our parents grew up in. And just when you think it seems like there are no limits on anything, someone comes along and makes a comment that goes over the line -- the line that is shared by just about everybody because some things, it turns out, are still sacred. The story tonight from NBC's Mike Taibbi.
TAIBBI: Conservative pundit Ann Coulter was front-page news today for what she's written about some 9-11 widows, that "[t]hese broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities." And for what she said about them to the Today show's Matt Lauer.
[begin video clip]
LAUER: If you lose a husband, you no longer have the right to have a political point of view?
COULTER: No, but don't use the fact that you lost a husband as the basis for your being able to talk about it.
[end video clip]
TAIBBI: Coulter was on the Today show to push her latest anti-liberal book --
[begin video clip]
COULTER: There's an important book that comes out today, Matt.
LAUER: What's the name?
[end video clip]
TAIBBI: -- already an Amazon.com best seller. But the interview kept returning to Coulter's attacks on the 9-11 widows. She called them "harpies" and wondered whether their husbands had been planning to divorce them.
From a statement from four of the widows: "[t]here was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive," "no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again. We adored these men and miss them every day."
Coulter says she believes everything she says and writes. But had she gone too far? Former White House adviser David Gergen:
GERGEN: It's the ugliness of the charge that she's making, the ugliness of the words that she's using that are drawing attention to her. But it's almost as if she's a figure in a circus. And you're saying, "Oh, my God. Can you believe that?"
TAIBBI: Still, the tempest was a trigger for a Red-Blue debate today on MSNBC, with criticism for Coulter from both sides. A conservative radio voice --
DOM GIORDANO (radio talk-show host) [video clip]: I think it was shameful what she said, [MSNBC host] Chris [Jansing], but I do think that these widows have attacked President Bush.
TAIBBI: -- and a liberal counter voice.
SAM GREENFIELD (radio talk-show host) [video clip]: I think she's a sad, pathetic, unhappy person.
TAIBBI: All the fallout from a television exchange --
[begin video clip]
COULTER: Look, you're getting testy with me.
LAUER: No, I'm just -- I think it's a -- I think it's a --
COULTER: Oh!
[end video clip]
TAIBBI: -- likely to be remembered well beyond the impact of some ill-tempered sentences in print. Mike Taibbi, NBC News, New York.
Palin, the press, and her "no más" moment
Media Matters: Limbaugh's Off the Wall spin on Michael Jackson's death
Howard Kurtz's wasted opportunity
When conservatives complain to nbc they act, when so called liberals complain they simply ignore.
NBC= Nationalized Broadcasting Network
"No, but don't use the fact that you lost a husband as the basis for your being able to talk about it. "
WTF?
I went to the garage and struck my head several times on all sides with a 3-pound hammer and this is still one of the dumbest f.cking things I've ever heard.
Any which way you cut it, Ann is true face of the GOP: hateful, bitter, vile, and disgusting.
I salute those courageous Conservatives who have come out against her. To those that have and continue to defend her, shame on you.
Maybe the "liberal" media will finally stop lobbing softballs at here and either take her to task for her bitter hatred or just ignore her altogether.
"Maybe the "liberal" media will finally stop lobbing softballs at here and either take her to task for her bitter hatred or just ignore her altogether."
Softballs? Give me a break. You've hit her with all you have and haven't slowed her down one bit. You people are amazing. One moment you're defending people like Colorado professor Churchill who refered to the 9/11 victims as "little Eichmans" and now these same vistims are off limits! Keep it up Ann!
Funny how you try to point out hypocrisy of people defending Churcill while criticizing Coulter, while at the same time you criticize Churchill while defend Coulter. Not too bright.
Meanwhile, you can't use the same one incident to brush off dozens and hundreds of comments on the right. The mass of outrageous commentary from one side is not offset by one comment from Churchill, especially when his underlying point (that U.S. foreign policy was the root cause of the attacks) was perfectly legitimate.
Sure, tote the good liberal line, blame it on America! It's what I expected.
It's not about "blaming America". It's about recognizing flaws and trying to correct them. If you brush off any criticism of U.S. policy in such a manner, then you can pretend that the U.S. is perfect, that we are always right and everyone else is always wrong. You may like to believe it, but it's an unhealthy, delusional way of viewing the world.
And it doesn't mean the terrorists are "right" either. Just because our foreign policy is wrong in many areas doesn't make all reactions to that right, any more than terrorism being wrong makes all reactions to that right. Both sides can be out of line at the same time, as the Bush administration proves so well.
" Just because our foreign policy is wrong in many areas "
Really? Care to provide us with an example of wrong foreign policy that would warrant killing 3000 people on 9/11?
"Both sides can be out of line at the same time, as the Bush administration proves so well."
Out of line? Is that what you consider killing 3,000 people?
"Care to provide us with an example of wrong foreign policy that would warrant killing 3000 people on 9/11?"
I didn't say it was warranted. You're still being simplistic.
"Out of line? Is that what you consider killing 3,000 people?"
To say the least, sure. I'm not saying the two sides are equivalent, the terrorists are much, much worse. That doesn't mean we're angels and correct in everything we do both before or after 9/11.
I get this line of reasoning all the time from my conservative acquaintances (almost verbatim). It's nothing but one straw-man after another.
"So you're in FAVOR of killing 3000 people?"
"So you think bin Laden is justified?"
Um, no, and no and f*ck you for asking such stupid questions. They aren't really questions at all, just attacks and smears with a question mark at the end. This person has nothing to say.
Absolutely nothing to say...Pride in America is one thing, but pure blind harping ignorance is what is being displayed here.
how Iraq has anything to do with 9-11? There was no WMD there was no AlQueada connection- both admitted by this administration- Saddam was not a threat to our country. Please explain without resorting to questioning my patriotism, manhood and/or intelligence, unless of course you are a rebpublican parrot, in which case you shall be ignored.
they include getting our airfield and forces out of OBL's 'homeland' of Saudi Arabia. And if you wish you may go there and hunt for it...and guess what? Dumabay closed it for him.
That along with how we meddled in Iran in the 50's proping up a dictator that resulted in his own over-throw and the installation of a thocracy. Gee that was the far-right leaning CIA and Bush Sr.'s doing.
there are two root causes that begin with out policies with the result that we are now mired in not just Iraq but iran and the entire Middle East.
Please do try to pay attention one of these days.
How about MK Ultra; COINTELPRO; the illegal wars we have waged against brown and yellow-skinned peoples all over the world for centuries, to steal their national resources and lives; Nicaragua; Haiti; Panama, Iran, Lebanon, Cuba, Libya, and the tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of innocent Iraqis murdered as collateral damage to punish Saddam for listening to the American diplomat who told him that America had no interest in interferring with "internal" Arab conflicts like his invasion of Kuwait. America has brutalized foreign nations for years, especially if the native peoples are not white. Those planes were simply the very visable "Chickens coming home to roost."
You are making a universal statement out of a qualified one. "in many areas" may not include whatever it is that invoked 9/11. Something did, that's for certain. Justified? Well, I'm still waiting for a rational individual to be elected into the White House who will be able to dissect the issue with a great deal more insight to the glaring problem of "perception" of American foreign policy. What we have now is an idealistic zealot who once said (no lie--it was on June 16, 2005), "I'm the master of low expectations." Since Georgie-boy apparently doesn't know what diplomacy means, we are presently doomed to live in an unending quagmire of suspicion and hostility--even amongst ourselves. Bush 43 is a buffoon of tragic proportions.
Overthrow democratically elected leaders like Mossedegh and us liberals should be polite enough to forget about it and not bring it up. Nothing excuses vile terrorist acts against civilians. That doesnt mean its not relevant to bring up the fact that different actions might have had and might in the future have different consequences. Your very dumb attempt to put any criticism of US foriegn policy off limits is blind conformity and brainwashed servility. You are welcome to it. Just because you have downloaded half your brain cells (never up to decent standards anyway) at Orwells memory hole doesnt mean we are obligated to do the same.
"That doesnt mean its not relevant to bring up the fact that different actions might have had and might in the future have different consequences."
And what different actions are you referring to? I know in my heart that you liberals will come up with something America has done wrong, somewhere in this world, to explain away why 19 barbaric animals killed 3,000 people!
The difference between conservatives and liberals is that liberals want to see the rationality behind things. Conservatives believe that anyone that does not conform to their own philosophy is simply irrational (or evil) by definition.
Conservatives want to believe that the terrorist motivations were utterly irrational. In other words, there was no rational cause for their actions, because they are just plain crazy or evil.
Liberals believe that nearly everything has a cause and effect based on some form of reason that may include patterns of thought and values that are vastly different from our own.
When you hear liberals explain what they think are the underlying reasons (by the terrorist rationale) for what they do, you mistake that for "explaining it away" or some justification for their actions.
It is not any more a justification than a doctor telling you how you got cancer and how to keep it from spreading. If he tells you that you got cancer because you are too obese, he is not in any way justifying the cancer. Is he?
The problem with trying to view issues as a conservative is that you can only view the problem by first assigning strict moral judgements on everything before you analyze the data.
How far would we get in science if we believed that cancer was simply irrational (a creation of the devil himself) and if you get it, you should just resign to God's Will or fate.
It is a good thing that good scientists don't have your outlook.
that rationalizaton of the terrorists and trying to evaluate and understand their motives does absolutely nothing to promote the liberal agenda. you don't fight terror with psychoanalysis.
How is it that you will know that terrorism is defeated using your kill 'em all approach?
Do you honestly believe you can kill all of them?
To continue the cancer analogy: Is the cure for cancer to simply keep cutting it out when it occurs?
Understanding how these things occur and why they occur can contribute towards solving the problem.
If you don't understand the fact that just trying to kill all of the terrorists will only create more of them, then you cannot be helped.
the cure for cancer is to find out the cause and destroy it. you don't treat it with an aspirin. same analogy with terrorism. good points.
The best way to destroy cancer is to find out the root cause and to prevent it from occuring again or to make it always benign when/if it does happen.
and the best way to prevent it is to destroy it. remove the environment that allowed it to be created and thrive. make it a living hell for it to rear it's ugly head again. be as healthy and strong as possible.
It is no cure for cancer. It may make it less likely, but some of the world's fittest people still get it.
Even fit people benefit from knowing the underlying cause(s) of cancer.
I am currently working in a cancer epidemiology program; the best way to deal with cancer is to prevent it in the first place. The epidemiologist’s aim is to identify environmental and behavioral causes of cancer and then prevention programs are developed to educate patients on preventing exposure to known carcinogens and thus you PREVENT the cancer. (We also try to facilitate access to the health care system for those who lack resources to have routine medical follow up). Many cancers still have no known cause and in those instances the aim is to develop screening programs so that the cancer can be detected early enough to cure it. But yes if a cancer is present you have to destroy it. This is the typical epidemiologic model to eradicate any disease and guess what? Programs to prevent the disease and programs to treat disease in those that have the it exist concurrently. They don't cancel each other out.
It is also essential that if you are ostensibly going after cancer of the Afghanistan, to avoid chopping off your Iraq for no good reason.
NOT TO SMOKE which doesnt have to involve destroying tobacco fields.
how EXACTLY will you destroy the sun? We are working on the atmosphere and water to try to keep the cancer causing crap you righties love to dump, but the sun is always shining and according to your unthought-out statements you feel that it is an enemy to be destroy...
Montgomery Burns: [stuffing money into his wallet] No, not while my greatest nemesis still provides our customers with free light, heat and energy. I call this enemy... the sun!
Since the beginning of time man has yearned to destroy the sun. I will do the next best thing...block it out!
-- The Simpsons
Actually, the cure for cancer is to poison the body to the point where all the cancer dies, hoping the body itself will have enough strength to survive. The percentage of patients who die from the "cure" is well documented. Pretty lousy analogy, bud.
Not a cure, bud. Nice try.
"you don't fight terror with psychoanalysis"
No. But you CAN learn how to prevent terrorism with psychoanalysis.
But you go ahead with your "shoot first, ask questions later" approach. You'll run out of bullets before you eradicate terrorism.
What do you think Sun Tzu meant in perhaps the most famous treastice on war ever written the Art of War when he said KNOW YOUR ENEMY? If you REALLY think understanding motivations and the way people think in no way helps to defeat them, I dont even know what to say
Without the full support of the population either. Any nation that chooses war when half the population opposes it, is doomed to fail. We've allowed emotions to sway policy and strategic planning. Military leaders have been told to sit down and shut up, while civilian theoreticians have been calling the shots. Their policies have led us to the middle of a Civil War. We are now in a position that prevents us from winning without alienating the rest of the middle east for generations to come. We are as divided a nation as we ever been. Those in power and their shills in the media shout down any opinion that conflicts with the opinion of the administration. Everyone who doesn't support them is a traitor and no one is free to speak their mind. If opposition to them is considered treason, then I'm a traitor and proud of it.
Wonderfully written and well thought out post. You sound like you've attended one of those "liberally biased" Universities.
It sickens me when Conservatives put their illogical spin on just about everything. They fail to include any sort of logic in any of their morally superior arguements. I cannot believe that anyone would purchase anything by Ann Coulter. This is a miserable vile woman spewing her venum to overcome her own insecurities. Misery loves company, and that certaintly applies to fans of this hag .. er hack.
Overthrowing democratic regimes and installing dictators Amnesty International called the worlds worst torturer. That is a pretty good example of things we ought not to do, that might inflame even decent people to hate us. Not invading a country our own CIA said had no connection with international terrorism for a decade based on lies is another example. Nothing of course justifies killing innocents. Nothing and I never even insinuated it did. In fact I said directly nothing does. Your sophistry would embarrass a reasonably bright ten year old
"You've hit her with all you have ...."
How many times has she been sued for slander? 0
How many times has she been fined by the FCC? 0
How many times has she been denied access because of her views? 0
When she gets a Howard Stern pulled on her, then you can say we are hitting her hard. Until then, STFU.
--"You've hit her with all you have and haven't slowed her down one bit. "--
She's doing a fine job of "slowing" herself down--all on her own. Even conservatives are denouncing her despicable remarks and realizing she's nothing more than a hate-mongering, lame, one-trick pony. She is hindering--not helping--your cause. If you were smart, you'd hope she would be slowed-down. But because you're in love with her, you're too blind to see it.
Ward wrote an editorial just after 9/11 that , rightly, noboy ever env noticed until some fright-winger digging for something, anything to smear someone with grubbed it out.
Meanwhile Ann the man was on NATIONAL TV shouting and gloating and doing her best to make money off the dead people and their widows.
In other words, you have no clue what you are talking about.
I don't accept this mea culpa from NBC. THEY PROVIDED A PLATFORM FOR HATE SPEECH AND HELPED THIS SHREW SELL BOOKS! While we on the left may attack the current administration, we refrain from slandering ALL conservatives. Like liberals, they are not monolithic. An attack on GW's policy does not translate into an attack on America or conservatism.
NBC is replete with this type of ratings and percei ved "balance" maneuver and I encourage other media sensitive types to switch to CBS, which is the lesser of three evils in terms of corporate interferance in the news.
exactly. NBC is trying to burn the candle at both ends.
And they still had to shoehorn in a conservative "pundit" railing against the "attacks on President Bush" as if BushieCo's actions are above reproach. It was a half-assed apology at best, since her comments were too outrageous to ignore. The report attempts to lump it in with the general "incivility" in society.
They can apologize until they are blue in the face. The fact is, they gave Coulter a national platform to spread her venom.
Coulter is now #1 on Amazon's book sale list, and I believe #3 on the NY Times bestseller list.
They helped a hatemonger make money and promote her book, and they're probably thrilled with all the attention it is getting. Attention and controversy = ratings to these people, and they couldn't care less if you are watching because you hate the commentator, or watching because you love them.
My guess is they were already planning Coulter's next appearance while they gave this "apology".
How soon will Coulter be back on an NBC, CNBC or MSNBC outlet to spew her venom.
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but the only show I believe Ann won't be on is Hardball and that is not because of any stupid things she has said. Matthews asked her a question on his show about some topic and Ann replied something like, "I thought we were gonna talk about my new book?" Ann pouted for the rest of the segment and I am pretty sure Matthews hasn't invited her back.
Might have something to do with every right-wing website advertising how to get AC's new book FREE.
than the commodification of a "worthy victim.” What makes Coulter’s remarks against widows more sacred than her derogatory comments about liberals? It is not the liberals sending American Service members to their deaths, nor liberals who are murdering Iraqis. There were some widows (actually I only read about one, the one who supposedly was boo hooing over wasting millions of dollars) who exploited their husbands (I’m sure some wives died too) death, and there was some liberals who voted for the war, but the fact is “all” is never the case. That is Coulter’s crime, --demonizating a group by implying, suggesting, brainwashing, that it is “all” and the other side of “all” is her side, and that side is nothing more than perfect Christians.
She could have went to Desert Storm, why didn’t she? I served in Desert Storm; I am a 43-year-old female. She deserves nothing but personal attack. Everyone wants to play nice, playing nice with these warmongering chickenhawks have gotten us nowhere. She needs to be called on the carpet for the coward that she is.
Ann Coulter, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, GWB, Cheyney and the rest of the Chickenhawk war promoters are good at only two things evasion and invasion. To a man they've all avoided serving in their generations wars, yet they'd be the first to question the patriotism of someone who did serve. I'm amazed and ashamed that so many veterans support these people in their perpetual war program. You would think that after what they themselves went through, that they would work to see that their children's world would be a better place. And that those children would never have to be involved in the madness of war.
I hope that Coulter's comment will be the self-inflicted wooden stake driven into whatever passes for her heart.
According to Bram Stoker after you use the stake, you must also fill the mouth with garlic and then cut off the head. Exposing the remains to the light would also be helpful. No need to be careless.
"I hope that Coulter's comment will be the self-inflicted wooden stake driven into whatever passes for her heart."
I had tears in my eyes when I read this, and it wasn't because I was sad.
Unfortunately, it's more like one more nail in the coffin of rational discourse. Coulter is what you call a leading indicator when it comes to the coarsening and dumbing down of political speech. Don't expect her to lose face time on TV because her comments are vile. That's her whole schtick and those who book her know it. She's "edgy" and "contoversial," and therefore she sells.
The MSM gives people like Coulter a soapbox and a megaphone, and then act shocked when they say crazy things. This reminds me of when MSNBC hired Michael Savage a while back and then behaved surprised when he told a listener that he hoped he would die of AIDS. Anyone who listened to the Savage Wiener's radio show for 10 minutes could have predicted his behavior on television, but mainstream news networks want the supposed ratings boost that such troglodytes bring (actually, many are ratings poison) without sharing any responsibility for what they put on the air.
NBC gets publicity and gets to look like the moral good guys because Matt Lauer challenged her outrageous assertions and Brian Williams called it "over the line." Ann Coulter gets a national venue to sell her books to the sorts of people who buy them. Media Matters gets a no-brainer to report. Everyone wins. Oh, except for the families permanently scarred and now doubly exploited for publicity. Other than them, everyone wins.
June 6 - Spouting off/hate speech/general stupidity spewed by Ms. Coulter.
June 7 - Retraction. Ms. Coulter is found by NBC to be nuttier than an outhouse rat.
Now, thats actually a pretty good turn around time. Especially to devote a segment to it. While its quite easy to see why Ms. Coulters comments are offensive and inane, I must give credit to NBC for putting this on their nightly news.
Maybe I am not seeing what everyone else sees, I see a network correcting an error, and doing so well. Maybe I am wrong?
She's not " nuttier than an outhouse rat", she's crazier than a peach orchard boar.
I would tend to agree with your assessment more if it had been a mainstream conservative who had surprisingly crossed a line and NBC apologized for it. But it's no secret Ann Coulter held these views (They were in the book she was plugging!). So NBC deliberately broadcasts an offensive, outrageous ratings-grabbing segment and then feigns regret that we had to witness it.
Today Show: How can you rebuke Coulter? On what grounds?
NBC Big-wig: I'm shocked, shocked to find that Ann Coulter venom-spewing is going on in here!
[an accountant hands NBC Big-wig a pile of money]
Accountant: Your profits, sir.
NBC Big-wig: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much. [aloud]
NBC Big-wig: Everybody out at once!
if all neocons and Republicans were to be supporative of Coulter, NBC would have never attempted an apology. It is because the NeoCon/Republican party is sensing a splintering of their party, and a possible defeat in November that the media machines are pumping out apologies when an agenda is 100% serviced. They know that Ann Coulter cannot be an either/or. Because if she was an either or, it would be that NeoCons/Republicans support her (they do not throw their own under the bus, they benefit too much from a shill like Coutler) and that would give Liberals the green light to point out that the NeoCons/Republicans are truly the representation of cruel.
when an agenda is not 100% serviced.
When is the line crossed from merely being informed and seeing the BS in our world and actively looking for it. (Mountain out of a molehill.) It seems on this matter here NBC is damned if they do and damned if they dont.
If NBC ignores this, they are accused of allowing Ms. Coulter to spew her hate bile all over the national airwaves.
If NBC did what they did, and gave an extra side. They are accused of "Burning the candle at both ends" and "servicing the agenda."
Maybe this is just a case of something being done right?
The answer was to never have Coulter on their station at all.
If a nutty left-winger wrote a book saying 9/11 victims were cheering the deaths of their family members, that the only way to talk to a conservative was with a baseball bat, that the National Review should be nuked, and that Republicans are Godless, without a soul, love killing and murder, etc., etc., would the Today Show have them on as a guest?
Coulter has stated the right-wing equivalent to all of these things, then was given a forum to spread her venom on the extremely popular Today Show.
Why have someone like her on at all? It's not like she is giving reasonable political commentary. Even conservatives who reviewed her book said the entire thing is one big rant. She offers nothing in the way of legitimate debate on issues.
There are PLENTY of very reasonable conservatives (even ones selling their book) they could have had on if they felt the need to discuss politics or certain issues, but their real goal was to shock their audience and cause controversy in order to increase their ratings.
and bravo! I remember the entire right wing up in arms after 911 when a reporter called bush a coward for hiding in a bunker while guliani was active. That guy got fired. Has he ever had a job in reporting again?
Turn about is REAL FAIR play!
while i have stated that coulter's comments are just more of her phoniness, this is a real dilemma for many liberals. on one hand, they would never be happy with this apology, they want her burned at the stake on national tv. yet on the other hand, if she were to just shut up and go away, then who would they hold up as the "mainstream conservative" poster girl while lumping all conservatives in with her invective comments. be careful what you wish for. if all the nuts from both sides were suddenly silenced, as many "say" they would love, then real and substantive debate would have to be engaged in instead of finger pointing at lightning rods like coulter and the like. and how would talk radio and forums like this survive? hello - it's called bread and butter.
I for one can HONESTLY say I want them to go away - all of them. Ann and the like and this political nastiness is a new phenomenom and like it or not it started on the fringes of the right. I've followed politics all of my adult life and I'm 48 years old, and I've never seen anything like this. I don't like it. I don't know how old you are but I remember the time before this, God it is possible to have a debate without hating your opponent or believing that they are evil personafied because they disagree with you.
I have been political all my life I am 49 and have never seen this level of invective which started with the right and Clinton. Never. It hasnt been like this since I have been keeping up and I would love for it to go the way of the Dodo
i just don't get it. many of you say you wish ann would go away and you would welcome more civility in the discourse today. yet that totally flies in the face of the shrillness often associated with many of the comments here?? and please don't say that you are merely responding or that "she has a national voice, and she started it". i would venture to say many of you wouldn't accept that excuse from your misbehaved children, and it's lame here as well. the best way to rasie the level of disagreement through respectability is to stop it in it's tracks and rise above it in these and other threads.
I believe this hate/political discourse started with lee atwater and his infamous willie horton campaign. The right, it seems to me, thrives on division and this type of discourse. Politically it has worked, but are there long term consequences? I think it limits who we have as leaders. As for the shrillness on this site no one on this thread is a national voice. I would love to see rational/contextual discourse on TV without shouting, emotion laden BS, and professional pundits. Without labels of republican or dem, right/left. As jon stewart told these jackasses said "stop you are hurting the country". For example I would like to hear conversation abour Zarqawi's death and its impact without hearing about Bush's victory over terror or Berg's father.
i don't disagree with the atwater and willie horton thing. but that was a long time ago and the discourse has gotten much worse since then. it has gone from being political to very personal, with attacks coming from all sides. i believe much of the reason is our 24 hours news channels and their need to fill airtime. how much real news is there? not enough so much of the time is filled with pundits and authors and commentators who are probably goated to be controversial to stay in the ratings game. who know what the answer is? i don't. i never buy a book from a screamer. and i usually tune out when they come on. it is all so boring and repetitive to me. it just seems a little disingenuous to me to complain about hate filled venomous rhetoric from coulter or somebody else, and in the same post turn around and be equally as nasty. wallowing in muddy waters is wallowing in muddy waters, no matter whose the bigger fish.
"i believe much of the reason is our 24 hours news channels and their need to fill airtime. how much real news is there? not enough so much of the time is filled with pundits and authors and commentators who are probably goated to be controversial to stay in the ratings game. who know what the answer is? i don't. "
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I would have to lay almost all of the blame on the American people for that one. I guess that makes me a blame America firster. Without a demand for this kind of vicious political gladiatorial sport (and that is exactly what it is), it simply wouldn't exist. For that matter neither would drug usage or the like. Trying to fight what the public wants is entirely futile. You can only affect the margins through education.
Every solution to the problem is impossible or impractical to implement. I suppose it will pass like all fashions cycle. The American People are often wrong, but sometimes they find a way to do the right thing over time.
My hope is that someday people will compare the stupid "speculation" and inane "analysis" that goes on in place of real news reporting to what they examine with their own eyes. The difference should be stunningly apparent in most cases.
You're right that a lot of this is just a continuation of what Lee Atwater started. But political dirty tricks have been around since the beginning. The Democratic Party used Dick Tuck to embarrass Nixon in the sixties. Nixon himself used Donald Segretti to embarrass the Democrats. Karl Rove is a direct political descendant of Lee Atwater.
The difference today is that the dirty tricks become fodder for the news channels and are picked up by every other media outlet and beaten to death. In the past, the fairness doctrine would have prevented what we see today. Without the fairness doctrine demanding equal time for opposing views, the other side is never heard because a rebuttal is not as "newsworthy" as the original claim. That's why we have opinion passing as fact, and shouting matches and put downs posing as discourse. The successful political shows on TV are nothing more than shows hosted by professional wrestlers. It seems that the voters are willing to vote for whichever side can yell the loudest and make the most outrageous claims against the other party. I'm sure Jefferson and Madison would be proud.
I've seen some of your posts fall into the same category.
i have never denied that i may get hot and the discussion gets lively. but there is a difference between stating an opinion forcefully without using insulting personal attacks. something, if i have done, i would apologize for. that being said, i use the terms "liberals and lefties and even loony left" from time to time. some may accuse me of an attack there, fine. that's their right and a debatable point. but i try and use it in the broad text, not attack someone personally. once again, if i have, i would apologize. i don't mind being called a right winger, or a conservative. those are innocent terms for the most part.
For months I put up with here personal attacks by only pointing them out, and saying ad hominem attacks suffer from the logical fallacy of being irrelevant. Her response to this tactic was to get meaner and nastier. I got fed up and returned her bile in kind. I am not Ghandi and never claimed to be. She absolutly did NOT like being treated the way she had been treating me and eventually STOPPED the personal attacks. I personally believe that ceding to the rightwing the exclusive franchise on insults and personal attacks is a losing proposition. Which I why I dont do it. I will be reasonable to those who are reasonable. I will flamewar with those who start it. Maybe it would be best to take the high road but my experience both personal and political has not borne that out. Today, if someone want to take the argument into the mud thats where I will go to fight it. Say whatever you want about it morally its ludicrous to say it doesnt make sense. Perhaps discourse will not ever be elevated by this tactic but I see no reason to believe ANYTHING will stop the Coulters of this world from dragging the discourse into the slime.
I can only speak for myself when I say that I am like ALL humans - imperfect. But one of my positive points is I’ve never looked for a fight in my life, in fact I’m usually the one brokering the peace between fighting family members. I don't enjoy fighting. I guess you can say I'm a pretty easy going peaceful chick; nevertheless I have a bad side as well, if you hit me I will hit back and I generally keep hitting back until you knock me out. We all have our shortcomings. So all I can say is as long as they keep treating these instigators as if they're reputable political commentators and allowing them to use the airwaves to advocate violence and hatred against American citizens I will keep speaking out about it. I'll shut up when they shut up. Now let me paraphrase what you generally say 'I've said all I'm going to on this area of the discussion. '
---"the shrillness often associated with many of the comments here?? "---
People here have a right to be as shrill and outraged as they want to be. And they deserve to be. Coulter did, in fact, shrilly "start it" and caused the kind of response she's now getting. Indignation needs to be directed to her-not to the obscure posters on a message board. In other words, even though she and her apologists would prefer it, the people she tramples over are not going to continue to lay down quietly while she does it.
I WISH she would go away but she ISN'T going away, ignoring a cancer in my body wont help me. Ignoring the Limbaugh/Savage sorts didnt help us. When only one side of an argument is all that is heard it eventually begins to sound reasonable to some people. Therefore she MUST be countered. If I get in your face and call you names it MIGHT be effective to just ignore me. If I am spreading lies about you to your friends in your neighborhood MAYBE just pretending I dont exist will eventually work. OR you might think its best to tell your freinds and nieghbors I am a lying boob and nutbag. Either MIGHT work but both make sense so pretending that ignoring Coulter ONLY an alternative and the ONLY alternative to wishing she would go away is a false dichotomy. A logical fallacy by definition.
Most liberals I know or know of, and that includes most of the people who post here, would be overjoyed if Ann went away. I'm sure Mr. Brock would be happy as well to fade into the night if the rightwing shock media went away.
we would be very happy to engage in discussions that use fact, logic and reason instead of having to constantly scrub the walls clean of the feces that the rightwing chimps toss in lieu of dealing in reality, metaphorically speaking.
if you really believe that the "liberal media" or whatever secretly needs the ann coulters of the world, start a movement to get the rightwing media to shut up for a month and let's see what happens.
"yet on the other hand, if she were to just shut up and go away, then who would they hold up as the "mainstream conservative" poster girl while lumping all conservatives in with her invective comments. be careful what you wish for."
Why is that a problem? The whole issue with having people like Coulter around is that they move the line of what is acceptable further and further to the right - it moves the "balance point" between the ideologies into solidly conservative territory. Without people like her, we would have real debate and discussion, and that's what liberals want. If we actually had that, there would be no neocons, because they would be seen as the radicals that they really are.
Using her as an example of what's wrong with the Republicans is not a good trade off for us. We'd rather have sane, rational people to deal with so we wouldn't be getting policy and propaganda from extremists.
Time was, it was possible to actually have a civil debate about political differences. Now it's a knife fight on every level. I don't want shrill slogan-spewers on either side. I want actual facts, and actual discussion on policy implications, with an eye towards, y'know, the actual interests of the American people.
Responding to your line of reasoning -- you've used over and over. Personally (THIS liberal...or whatever I should be called) doesn't really care what Coulter says... It's the so-called mainstream media (what you would call the 'liberal' media) that allows a Coulter 8 minutes of solo airtime on a national network morning show. And, this isn't the first time she's gotten this sort of preferential treatment.
There will always be freaks like Coulter... but, we (as a nation of media-junkies) have turned a corner when we allow Coulter preferential treatment over folks who mind their facts and have a legitimate argument. Should she be burned at the stake? Please... that's dumbing down the argument into name-calling and gross over-generalization.
TAIBBI: Still, the tempest was a trigger for a Red-Blue debate today on MSNBC, with criticism for Coulter from both sides. A conservative radio voice --
TAIBBI: -- and a liberal counter voice.
This has to be the most ovine statement I've read in quite a while. Do all reporters have the mental cognition of a second grader, or is it just this one? I mean, if it's 'over-the-line', then it's over-the-line for everyone. Why does this have to fuel the liberal/conservative dichotomy in this country?
he said/she said reporting has to go.
...do you think that she might have said anything else that was "over the line"?
I think it would be easy to pick nearly everything she says and say it is "over the line".
The voting lines in Florida and Ohio, by operatives intent on keeping poor people from voting.
The Iraqi border, by our military, sent there by a psychotic chimp.
The record national debt, again and again and again.
The line in the Geneva Convention about the treatment of prisoners.
The line in the Constitution about needing a frickin' warrant.
Coulter is a hag and a monster, and deserves nothing but isolation and contempt, but I wish the media got cranked off about a few more of these things.
Please Don't Think My comment Below Was Directed Towards You, it wasn't. There was another post there by one of our resident trolls. It has since been deleted. He was saying some hateful thinks and it was him who I was directing my sarcasm to, not you.
Your contributions always raise the level of the debate.
Never saw the comment -- no harm, no foul. And thanks for the kind words. I don't comment here much, so I try not to be too much an ass.
So I'm kinda slow. :) Since the comment was deleted, it looked as if you were unsarcastically praising me, which I found unusual because I don't post here much.
Must. Get. Food. And. Caffeine.
Hmmmm. Let's see.
If you ignore the past hate speech by Cruella, NBC still booked a guest who was selling a book titled "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" purposely released on 6/6/6.
NBC is shocked, shocked I say, that her head spun around as she spewed venom on national TV.
What a load of crap.
I'll do you one better on the comment about Today already planning Coulter's next appearance. GE's (NBC's owner) tentacles are so wide and deep that they probably have some financial interest in Coulter's book. Even if they didn't it's ALL about ratings as we know. It becomes a story in of itself. Your can bet the bank Coulter will be on in the near future. I bet Matt Laurer & Ann probably had a good laugh after the camera cut away. Pundits are so dime a dozen these days w/cable news internet satellite radio, that they have to "stick out" to make the big $$$$$. That's why those like O'Rielly, Coulter, Beck, Limbaugh, Imus et. al., will say what they say. That's right... dollar signs. Wer'e into "shock punditry." These peole are either bat-sh..t crazy and/or just out for a buck and know that pimping neoconism tends to pay a helluva lot better than progressivism. The neocons have a megaphone while the progressives/liberals cup their hands around their mouths in a whisper. They are an exceedingly cynical lot who can't see past their own noses and have the "I got mine, screw you" mentality. That is the face of neoconism. It is great that progressives have a toehold in the internet/blogosphere but, until we find a liberal version of Rupert Murdoch and get a voice thru at least a major cable station, whe're going to be a WWI Sopwith Camel trying to chase an F-14. We can hope for the American public to soon get a seat on the "clue train" but am not holding my breath.
Then THAT would have been truth in advertising. Her atacking women who watched their husbands DIE due to terrorists who wanted to make an impact with this administration and then condemned this administration for NOT doing all they could do to keep this country safe while protecting our civil rights......like the 9/11 commissions suggested was mean spirited, cruel and heartless. But then again, what else can we expect form a conservitive harpie who can't KEEP a man.... BTW, how many of the 9/11 widows were called by those husbands Coulter claimed would probably divorce the womane and professed their undying love before the husbands DIED. Far more than can stomach Ann Colter's personality, I'm sure!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
COULTER: "No, but don't use the fact that you lost a husband as the basis for your being able to talk about it."
...you can only talk about things you have now knowlege of?
"...you can only talk about things you have now knowlege of?" --robrob
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Perfect summation, robrob. It should be Ann's motto or something.
the networks shouldn't provide an outlet for hatemongers... let her plug her book on public access...
[link to blogdebogs.blogspot.com]
Why do conservatives hate America???? Why do they wish ill on poor widows? I think every conservative who goes on ANY talk show should be asked if he/she agrees with Ann Coulter. As a Christian and a member of a Church, we receive offering envelopes. Our Pastor knows us as do most of the other members of our congregation. Why Ms Coulter insists on lying about liberals is because she can get away with it. She should be called on all of her lies and not enabled by the media. She needs some serious pastoral counseling.
If one desires to engage a conservative in conversation or debate, I offer the following useful tips:
1. Always think in black and white terms. Things are either good or bad etc..
2. Take everything that you hate, dislike and/or that disgusts you about yourself and accuse the other of being it/doing it.
3. Take 5 steps back
If you make use of these simple techniques, you are sure to confuse your counterpart, thus causing their heads to explode. Gee, do ya think we should use their brain remnants to further science? We could store them in little glass containers right next to the stem cells.
I am going to go to Sean hannity's own forum site. I won't express left or right opinions. I'll just ask questions, like why do you hate America ? Why do you hate WWII G.I's ? Why do you take pleasure in the suffering of widows ? and why do you hate God ? You get the idea. It should be fun.
of NBC's "Nightly News" last night . . . by that I mean I only saw the end credits . . . in the background, they showed the outside of 30 Rockefeller Plaza {NBC's HQ} lit up against the Manhattan night . . . and displayed very prominently at the top of the building was a neon sign displaying the initials of the corporate entity that owns NBC - G E.
And that pretty much says it all. The not-so-subtle reminder of the hand inside NBC's glove reaffirms the fact that General Electric, as a major player in the military-industrial complex that's profiting from this war, will tolerate criticism of that war and its cheerleaders like crazy Annie under the guise of promoting free speech - but only up to a point. And any apologies or criticism of inflammatory statements like those made by crazy Annie will be given as a show of a plea for decency.
I thought the news was supposed to be unbiased and that opinions were left for the opinion pages. But MMFA, who apparently only wants to expose "conservative misinformation" winds up applauding "left-wing slant" from an anchor who should be unbiased. So which is it MMFA - do you want unbiased report and no "conservative misinformation" or is what you really want is left wing spin?
It's not "left-wing slant" to acknowledge Coulter's comments are outrageously offensive. You think Brian "Rush Limbaugh Fan" Williams is guilty of left-wing bias anyway?
is a matter of OPINION. OPINION has no place in the objective portion of a newscast. OPINION should remain in the commentary or editorial page. To advocate OPINION in news is wanted a slant in news coverage.
The MMFA is barely left-wing as far as i'm concerned. I am Canadian myself and I find this wedsite very informative, but to claim that it is left wing spin is quite an exaggeration. The MMFA would be spinning things to the left if they did what the conservatives have been doing for so well, but all that is done here is an attempt to retrace some truth out of a sea of missinformation. Most of the so-called lefties in the US are considered central if not right winged in Canada and many other countries I have been to. I find you are simply playing devils advocate without really caring for a solution.
Most of the so-called lefties in the US are considered central if not right winged in Canada and many other countries I have been to.
WOW. Don't guess I will be moving to Canada anytime soon!
As for MMFA and trying to find truth. I have commented on several articles that highlight how MMFA is not just attempting to correct "conservative misinformation."
Your comments were welcom and remided me why I still watch television once in a while. There barely any decency in Amercian and we have almost completely lost any moral compass.
THE ONLY REASON WHY NBC IS SAYING SOMETHING NOW IS BECAUSE THEY GOT A LOT OF EMAILS. IF NO ONE WOULD HAVE SAID ANYTHING THEY WOULD NOT HAVE SAID ANYTHING LIKE THEY ALWAYS DO WHEN THE LET RIGHT-WINGERS ON THERE SHOW.
....so you think people who were offended by her psychological raping should just have shut up and let the poor broad be?
LOL!
I can't understand how this "broad" (to use her word) gets airtime. I picked her up on Lou Dobbs' show yesterday and asked myself, how is it that this psychopathic hate monger can get time to promote her twisted books.
Ann Coulter is to current events what Tiny Tim was to entertainment. Just plain irrelevent. They're both side show freaks.
How shameful can she get to spew such venom about these widows. I think about the children who lost their fathers on that fateful day in September. How could anyone be so cruel to say such things while at the same time enriching themselves with selling books. I think Coulter will always have blood on her hands. Coulter is pathetic and small and I could try to forgive and even forget get some of the bad things she has said and done to others but this I will never forget. Last but no means least America will never forget.
Cecil Graham