Will NBC once again help Ann Coulter sell books?
On October 2, 2007, If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans (Crown Forum), the latest book by right-wing pundit Ann Coulter, is scheduled to be released. As Media Matters for America documented, in the weeks following the release of her last book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum, June 2006), Coulter made numerous appearances on MSNBC, CNBC, and their parent network, NBC, where she unleashed a stream of attacks on the widows of victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. As Media Matters also documented, while NBC continued to provide Coulter an open platform with which to spew her inflammatory and offensive rhetoric, several NBC hosts and anchors -- including Tonight Show host Jay Leno, Today co-host Matt Lauer, and Nightly News anchor Brian Williams -- expressed disapproval of Coulter's "harsh" and "nasty" statements. On June 26, 2007 -- the date Godless was released in paperback -- Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC's Hardball, claimed that Coulter forces him to "go to confession." Matthews, however, has a history of inviting her on his show. Following an appearance on Today in June 2006 -- during which Coulter criticized the 9-11 widows for "speak[ing] out using the fact that they're widows" and "using their grief" and "the fact that [they] lost a husband" to make "a political point while preventing anyone from responding" -- Williams devoted a segment of the Nightly News to the subject of "civility in American life," highlighting Coulter's comments. And yet NBC and its cable affiliates have continued to invite her on the air. The upcoming release of Coulter's new book gives rise once again to the question of whether NBC programs will keep hosting her.
According to a Media Matters review*, Coulter has been interviewed at least 194 times on at least 13 individual programs on MSNBC, CNBC, and NBC since April 28, 1997.** During these interviews, all of Coulter's books have been named, by a host or anchor, by an on-screen graphic, or by Coulter herself. Further, as Media Matters has extensively documented, Coulter continues to make outrageous statements. On NBC programs alone, Coulter has called former Vice President Al Gore a "total fag" and has attacked former President Bill Clinton as a "latent homosexual." Elsewhere, Coulter has said she "can't really talk about" Democratic presidential candidate and former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) because "you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot'" and has said of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens: "We need somebody to put rat poison in Justice Stevens's créme brulée." Coulter has also repeatedly mused about potential acts of violence against people with whom she doesn't like or with whom she disagrees.
In its search, Media Matters reviewed Nexis transcript databases for MSNBC, CNBC, and NBC News and documented all of Coulter's interviews, including the date of her appearance, the program on which she was interviewed, the network, and the book (High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton (Regnery Publishers, 1998), Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (Crown, 2002), Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (Crown Forum, 2003), How to Talk to A Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter (Crown Forum, 2004), and Godless) named during the show, if one was named. Media Matters read through each transcript individually in order to ensure that interviews were not counted twice, and that clips from previous interviews were also not counted.
According to the Nexis search, since April 28, 1997, Coulter has appeared 117 times on CNBC, seven times on NBC News, and 70 times on MSNBC for a total of 194 interviews. Nexis does not transcribe every show on every network, so these figures represent only those interviews that Media Matters could verify. For example, Nexis does not transcribe CNBC's The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch, where, on July 26, 2006, as Media Matters documented, Coulter asserted that former President Bill Clinton exhibits "some level of latent homosexuality." Coulter has also been interviewed on The Tonight Show, which is not transcribed in Nexis.
According to the review, Coulter has been interviewed on at least 13 different NBC and NBC-affiliate programs -- including MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, MSNBC's Scarborough Country, MSNBC's Tucker (formerly The Situation with Tucker Carlson), MSNBC's The Abrams Report, MSNBC's Deborah Norville Tonight, MSNBC's Buchanan & Press, MSNBC's Saturday Final with Lawrence O'Donnell, MSNBC's Phil Donahue, NBC's Today, CNBC's Kudlow & Company (formerly Kudlow & Cramer), CNBC's Rivera Live, CNBC's Equal Time, and CNBC's Upfront Tonight. Additionally, since April 29, 2003, Coulter has been interviewed 36 times by MSNBC host Joe Scarborough. Since June 26, 2002, Coulter has been interviewed 21 times by MSNBC host Chris Matthews. Further, from December 16, 1997, to August 14, 2001, Coulter was interviewed 69 times on CNBC's Rivera Live hosted by Geraldo Rivera.
Many of these appearances involved the promotion of Coulter's books. When Godless was released on June 6, 2006, Coulter began a string of appearances on NBC. In the months of June and July 2006 alone, Coulter appeared 11 times on NBC programs. During each of those appearances, Godless was mentioned by name. Similarly, the names of Coulter's other books were mentioned frequently during her earlier appearances on NBC. On MSNBC alone, Godless was mentioned five times, How to Talk to A Liberal was mentioned 15 times, Slander was mentioned 18 times, and Treason, 32 times. In only four of Coulter's 70 interviews on MSNBC was none of her books mentioned by name.
As Media Matters for America has extensively documented, Coulter has made a number of highly controversial remarks during these appearances on NBC-owned channels:
- The July 26, 2006, edition of MSNBC News Live highlighted Coulter's taped interview with CNBC's The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch, set to air later that day. MSNBC featured a clip from the interview in which Coulter said that former President Clinton exhibits "some level of latent homosexuality." When asked by Deutsch if she was indeed calling Clinton a "latent homosexual," Coulter replied, "Yeah," and mentioned, apparently in support of her claim, "passages" she had "memorized" in the so-called Starr Report -- former independent counsel Kenneth Starr's report to the House of Representatives, resulting from his investigation into the Monica Lewinsky controversy.
- On the July 27, 2006, edition of MSNBC's Hardball, referencing Coulter's "latent homosexuality" comment on The Big Idea the night before, Matthews asked Coulter, "How do you know that Bill Clinton is gay?" Coulter responded, "I don't know if he's gay. But [former Vice President] Al Gore -- total fag." She went on to defend her theory about Clinton's sexuality by stating that "everyone has always known, widely promiscuous heterosexual men have, as I say, a whiff of the bathhouse about them." Coulter claimed she was "just kidding" about Gore, but said of her theory about Clinton, "It's not only not a joke, it's not even surprising."
- On the June 6, 2006, broadcast of NBC's Today, host Matt Lauer provided a forum for some of the more controversial statements in Coulter's book, which Lauer read aloud and asked her to explain, including her claim that liberalism is the "opposition party to God" and that "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths" as much as the 9-11 widows. The interview was Coulter's third appearance in eight months on Today.
Pressed by Lauer to defend her statement that the widows were "enjoying their husbands' deaths," Coulter responded: "Yes, they're all over the news." She criticized the widows 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." She further argued that "the Left" exploits a "doctrine of infallibility," and that "[i]f they have a point to make about the 9-11 Commission, about how to fight the war on terrorism," they "put[] up Cindy Sheehan ... put[] out these widows." As a result, Coulter said, conservatives "always have to respond to someone who just had a family member die" and appear to be "questioning the authenticity of the grief."
- On the February 7, 2005, edition of CNBC's Kudlow & Cramer, Coulter said, "Would that it were so! ... That the American military were targeting journalists."
- Coulter was a guest for the entire October 19, 2004, edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country, which was guest hosted by MSNBC senior political analyst Lawrence O'Donnell. During that hour, Coulter accused Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) of "gay-profiling" during the third presidential debate when he referred to Mary Cheney, Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter, as a lesbian. Coulter also accused Kerry of trying to "out-God [President] George [W.] Bush" and said that it was clear that "John Kerry does not believe in God.
Coulter's inflammatory comments have extended well beyond NBC:
- In a March 2 speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Coulter said she "can't really talk about" Edwards because "you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot.' " The CPAC audience applauded her comment. Several newspapers dropped Coulter's column following her remarks at CPAC.
- On the March 6 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Sean Hannity said to Coulter, "Most of the speech was about humor. You were telling jokes the whole time here," and went on to discuss Grey's Anatomy actor Isaiah Washington, who sought counseling after using the slur. Coulter responded by saying, "[T]hat's, of course, what I was referring to, and I don't think there's anything offensive about any variation of faggy, faggotry, faggot, fag. It's a schoolyard taunt. It means -- it means wussy. It means, you know, Hillary giving a speech in a fake Southern drawl -- that's faggy. A trial lawyer who weeps before juries is faggy. Lifetime-type TV, faggy." Coulter then referred to the word "faggot" as "a totally excellent word."
- In a May 16 column titled "Jerry Falwell -- Say Hello to Ronald Reagan!" Coulter, who proclaimed, "Let me be the first to say: I ALWAYS agreed with the Rev. Falwell," admitted that she disagreed with Falwell on "one small item": He should have assigned blame for the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to "[Sen.] Teddy Kennedy [D-MA] and 'the Reverend' Barry Lynn," in addition to "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians -- who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle." Coulter went on to compare Falwell to Jesus Christ ("If you still think it isn't Christ whom liberals hate, remember: They hate Falwell even more than they hate me.") and assert that Falwell did not blame all "the gays" for "ejecting God from public life," but rather "gays and lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle."
- In a November 30, 2006, syndicated column about the removal of six imams from an airplane in Minnesota after other passengers saw them praying prior to boarding, Coulter claimed that "profiling Muslims is more like profiling the Klan" than it is like profiling African-Americans, "because of the history of discrimination against blacks in this country." Coulter added: "What did we do to the Arabs? I believe Americans are the victims in that relationship."
- In her August 9, 2006, column, Coulter wrote that, without affirmative action, African-American Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) couldn't get a job "that didn't involve wearing a paper hat."
- Coulter titled her August 30, 2006, column on the Rhode Island Senate race: "They Shot the Wrong Lincoln." The headline is a reference to Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), whom she excoriated throughout the piece -- calling him a "half-wit" and a "silver-spooned moron[]" -- while expressing her support for his challenger in the September 12 Republican primary, Stephen Laffey.
- The January 10, 2005, edition of the New York Observer printed a January 3 interview with Coulter, in which she stated that she was "fed up with hearing about ... civilian casualties" in Iraq; that "it would be fun to nuke" North Korea; that all feminists are "weak and pathetic"; and that former President Bill Clinton "was a very good rapist." Coulter's personal website provided a link to the interview.
Coulter has also mused about potential acts of violence against people she doesn't like or disagrees with:
- Commenting on radio host Melanie Morgan's assertion that if New York Times executive editor Bill Keller were convicted of treason for the Times' reporting on the Bush administration's warrantless domestic eavesdropping program, she "would have no problem with him being sent to the gas chamber," Coulter said, "I prefer a firing squad, but I'm open to a debate on the method of execution." She later suggested that Times staff members should be "executed."
- Coulter suggested that Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) is "the reason soldiers invented fragging" -- military slang meaning the intentional killing of a member of one's own unit.
- Coulter argued that the national debate during the Monica Lewinsky controversy should not have focused on whether former President Bill Clinton "did it," but rather "whether to impeach or assassinate" him.
- Coulter said of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens: "We need somebody to put rat poison in Justice Stevens's créme brulée."
- As quoted in an August 26, 2002, New York Observer article, Coulter had previously stated: "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." McVeigh's April 19, 1995, bomb attack destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people.
*Search of Nexis MSNBC, CNBC, and NBC News transcript databases: "Ann Coulter and allcaps (Coulter)" for all dates.
**Clarification: This item originally stated that, based on a Media Matters review of the Nexis database, Coulter's first appearance on MSNBC, CNBC, or NBC was apparently on April 28, 1997. However, according to Nexis, its coverage of MSNBC extends back only to November 8, 1999, while its coverage of NBC News extends back to January 1, 1997, and its coverage of CNBC extends back to January 4, 1995. According to news reports, Coulter was hired by MSNBC in 1996 and subsequently fired. In an October 16, 1998, Washington Post article, media critic Howard Kurtz wrote: "In the summer of 1996, Coulter, who didn't own a TV until she moved here [to Washington, D.C.], became a part-time talking head for MSNBC, the new kid on the cable block." Regarding Coulter's firing, Kurtz reported: "Coulter was debating a disabled Vietnam vet when she snapped: 'People like you caused us to lose that war.' (She says she didn't know the guest, appearing by satellite, was disabled.) That ended her MSNBC career."
Later, in an April 19, 2005, column, Kurtz further explained the circumstances surrounding Coulter's firing from MSNBC:
One personal quibble. In 1997, as an MSBNC commentator, Coulter was debating a disabled Vietnam veteran. She says she told him, "No wonder you guys lost." This, says Time, was "oft-misreported" by the likes of The Washington Post, which turned the line into a more personal attack: "People like you caused us to lose that war."
I can now reveal my source for that quote. It was: Ann Coulter, recounting the incident in explaining why MSNBC dropped her. I did note that, according to Coulter, the vet was appearing by satellite and she didn't know he was disabled.
Tommy, this is a pre-emptive, surgical strike, to prevent a known agent of provocation from infiltrating. If allowed to proceed, she would cause millions of viewers to heave up their latest meal and might scar their trachea with acidic bile.
Just thought you'd like to know, a Google search of "coulter acid reflux" yields about 98,000 results, so there is definately something going on here.
I'm cleaning off my keyboard as we speak. Of course, I didn't have much left after last night's 60 Minutes puff piece on Clarence Troglodyte Thomas.
I was wondering also why they painted him as a victim of the "Smearmongers".
Yeah, the fix seems to be in on the old program, no? Last week, Scott Pelley's ridiculous hatchet job on Ahmedinijad, which might as well have been with questions supplied by the White House -- and I think it was -- and this week, the "human" side of Thomas. Can you say, Katie Couric? I knew you could.
Why did '60 Minutes' give Clarence Thomas so much time?
To Media Matters:
I know it's Halloween but those 3 mug shots of Rush LimpBrain is just too scary and ugly to deal with.
Then you added horror to uglyness when you added the wicked witch of the planet Earth ... Coulter!
*****************
Quote for Today...
What’s it like to be locked in a death grip in the Jaws of Defeat while simultaniously declairing Victory?
That’s easy, just be a Republican!
-
Judge Thomas is a great example of independent thought, who's not beholden to outside interests. Democrats should be ashamed that they would never nominate someone like him.
Oh yes, that's why he waits to see how Scalia and Roberts and Alito vote first.
Did you also notice that "coulter anal cyst" yielded 45,700 hits on google?
Why isn't she in jail yet for her federal crimes on voter registration?
"Al Franken is a big fat idiot" could only get 38,500 on Google and NBC tried even harder to sell his book as he made more appearances on Latenight and Conan. If you will remember O' Reilly helped him to.
Wrong title. Now try to google: Al Franken The truth
Ha, that's funny, cuz the actual title of a book ""rush limbaugh is a big fat idiot" comes back with 48,000 results. (hits are generally considerd unique visits to a specific website, where as the game here is to come up with funny search strings enter them in the Google search engine, and then see how many results there are) For instance "pithaughn is the most awsesome poster at media matters for America, except for huntington beach lefty, ever" yields "did not match any documents". But just wait, soon I will be discoverd, bloggers will sing my praise and my star will rise to astronomical hieghts!!
Big and fat, that’s great...(insert sarcastic smile) Way to use sophomoric language...go back to the school yard....Kid.
In socialist countries state run media networks tow the government line. In America broadcast networks are private business to make a profit for their shareholders. Ann Coulter sells lots of books. Whether you agree with her or not. She churns up controversy. Conservatives watch because they love her - libs watch because they hate her. All those viewers increase ratings which allow networks to increase their advertising rates. That equals higher profits for the shareholders. Simple enough?
The profit-driven ratings system is the reason for the problem, yes. But the networks giving this dishonest, vitriolic hack credibility and publicity is still a problem, no matter what the cause.
Simple solution - turn the channel to something you find more appropriate.
You can always say that, can't you? It doesn't really matter if people are lying through their teeth, if you don't like it, switch the channel.
So if all the channels were to go for profits at the expense of standards, then the advice would be just don't watch television. A slippery slope, yes, but at what point would you change your mind and demand some accountability instead of saying that the free market trumps all other concerns?
We all understand that the system is for profit. We understand that's why we have people like Coulter on. It's still a problem that we have people like Coulter on. If some degree of that is necessary due to the free market, fine, but we can still push for higher standards at the same time.
Opinions, while regularly wrong and outrageous, are not lies. Nonetheless, I find it telling when one person lies..."I never had sex with that women..." which camp of folks deem him a hero and respect his cockoled, compromised, and complicite wife (no questions asked) yet lament the profit motive of "free" press as a problem (perhaps state run is the answer). Not enough, but most people know a truthful and geniune person from a duplicdous phoney. I believe this is why for better or worse President Carter was elected as well as President George W. Bush, twice.
The profit driven rating system is also the backbone of a free press. If the majority does not like what is being aired they have the option not to patronize the advertisers. When the money dries up programming will change. Apparently, for now, people want to watch Ann COulter.
The profit driven rating system is also the backbone of a free press.
The profit driven rating system will lead the press to make decisions based on a profit motive. You'll have a corrupted press.
I don't watch her beyond what I can see in Media Matters and Crooks & Liars. I will never buy a book of hers.
The same people who denounce Media Matters as a "smear" site, or MoveOn as "KKK," are perfectly all right with putting on Ann Coulter and letting her slander her enemies. Glenn Greenwald has a provocative item today, about the rage of the ADL and others when a Democrat or liberal makes a "Hitler" slur. They have some justification, after all, that to compare Bush to Hitler trivializes the mass murderer -- oops, though that's not SO crazy after a few years of Iraq, is it? But they never make such a fuss when the right calls any opponent of the Iraq catastrophe (and our war against "Islamofascism") any kind of slur they want, including Nazis.
For capitalism to work it must reward, in a very strict sense, only winners. In other words when the strongest, bestest, fastest are'nt rewarded then the game is rigged and they will go elsewhere to compete. The media game is purposely rigged in the form of monopolies granted to private corporations by goverments. This system is now controlled by the recipients of these monopolies and competition is thwarted. See "Cutthroat: High Stakes & Killer Moves on the Electronic Frontier " if want to learn all the details. How Murdoch, Gates, Redstone and various other ruthless cut throats now control almost all of the programming and delivery of media in this country and many other countries.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
I think the FDA should step in and require a "barf bag" and public service warning on the cover, and any public apearance that this material may lead to an overwhelming urge to goose step, and make erect salutations to the likeness of Dick Cheney!
This book may urge you to shred the constitution, and demand racial separation, and become a evangelical hypocrite while invading oil rich middle-eastern nations!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
OF COURSE Coulter will sell some books. Pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry in America, and is covered by the first amendment.
There is simply no limit to the depravity of certain segments of our free society, and each niche group can be milked by perpetrators of whatever sickness speaks to that group's perversion.
Ann has her niche-group of perverts, and they will keep her in drinking money by buying her porn.
And all is well with the universe. It's just WORDS after all. Sick, hatefilled words. Profitable, servicing those "niche" consumers of specialized pornography.
Tex, I find your comparison of Coulter to pornographers quite insulting to our nation's smut-peddlers. You owe the porn industry an apology.
I love the meaningless "Google Results" citation.
Liberal and Idiocy has 1,060,000 results
And conservative fool has 1,910,000.
Whereas conservative and ignorant bring up 3,970,000 hits.
Sorry to come in so late on this. "Ann Coulter" and "Adam's Apple" rings up 572,000 hits, and "Ann Coulter terrifies children" has 98,500.
Thank you, every 10 years or so I have a really good idea.
Ann Coulter's still around? I was wondering just the other day whatever happened to her. If Ann has not already arrived there, I think she's well on her way to irrelevancy. A four-year old child can yell "f*ck!" only so many times before it ceases to become shocking or perversely entertaining...it's just obnoxious. I agree, it will be interesting to see who will grant her a forum to pitch her new book. But, nowadays, practically anyone who writes a book gets face time on TV.
Don't worry; the closer we get to election time, the more you'll see of the Skanky One. The Right Wing Lie Machine will be running full speed this time...the Trogs have a lot to lose.
The problem for the Right is that they are no longer as unified as they once were. What's Ann gonna do, attack Rudy Giuliani for not being sufficiently anti-abortion? Attack the Democrats for trying to end the Iraq war? She'll be speaking to a smaller audience, I think. And, in my opinion, to moderate Republicans Ann's going to sound more and more like that four-year old child who screams "f*uck!". The political landscape has changed. Let's see if Ann can make a few more bucks out of her old schtick. Perhaps she can, but IMO she preaching to a declining number of choir members.
So Skeletor's got a new rag. Wonderful.
The media would be doing us a favor if they all gave Ann the Adam Carolla treatment. :-)
Once again, I must ask why is this item posted here? This is NOT in the MMfA mission:"Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
Where's the misinformation? Are you critical of NBC for daring to allow an opposing viewpoint? Sorry for all the questions, but I really don't get it.
Here's MY mission: To continue to point out inane and unnecessary blather from from far-left sites like this. Your credibility would be much improved by reporting misinformation in general.
"Your credibility would be much improved by reporting misinformation in general."
That's what they're doing here. I didn't even know that the Skanky One even had a new book coming out; I appreciate the heads up. Since it is likely that the book will be full of bullsh*t, then this counts as "monitoring" misinformation.
Thanks for playing.
"Your credibility would be much improved by reporting misinformation in general."
That's what they're doing here. I didn't even know that the Skanky One even had a new book coming out; I appreciate the heads up. Since it is likely that the book will be full of bullsh*t, then this counts as "monitoring" misinformation.
Thanks for playing." nerzog
When I say 'misinformation in general', I mean misinformation from conservatives and liberals, but I think you know that and just believe that there is no misinformation from the left.
Also, I think you do discredit to your cause by referring to someone of whom you don't agree with as 'Skanky one'.
You're just tommy in another form...if you don't like the site then leave...No one gives a sh*t about your nuanced analysis of MMFA's mission statement.
If we cant refer to Coulterguist as the "skanky one", we must now refer to her as the most unattractive, boney, tuna fishey smelling, homophobe. How's that? Feel better now?
Yes you think the left should unilaterally disarm and leave the conservative media watchdogs to cover ONLY liberal media while any LIBERAL watchdog site covers BOTH. I think we will pass and I dont think ANY of us are dumb enough to take advise about what liberals ought to do from conservatives. Give it up. We dont trust you.
Here's a quote from Ann's latest epistle...
“God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ‘Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’”
I went almost entirely to Catholic schools and not once do I recall a priest or a nun teaching us that one of God's commands was for us to rape the earth and its environment.
I think it's entirely appropriate for MMFA to call attention to Ann's latest book and to ponder whether she will be afforded air time by the MSM to sell her particularly offensive brand of misinfornation.
And does that quote alone not tell you that she is nothing but a publicity seeking provacateur who has realized that the more offensive and cartoonish she is, and the more she pisses off the left into an explosive rage, the better off she likes it.
That's about right, she's more interested in pissing off people than she is in debating the issue, and her loyal minions assume that everything she says is proven gospel. Too bad they are too stupid to realize she's milking them for all they've got because it isn't us libs who are giving her money!
"...and the more she pisses off the left into an explosive rage..."
Not really, Tommy...I'm actually amused by Ann Coulter now that her shock value has been used up. She makes me laugh now, she's so cartoonish.
Personally, she just makes me sad. Not for her, but for the legions of dolts who actually believe her fascist rantings.
"explosive rage" ? Funny, I didn't sense that from anybody here. Mentions of nausea, noticing that she's ridiculous and pathetic, but I don't see the rage.
Of course, if you went to the link, AC imagines the same thing; That liberals are sent into spasms of rage by her "facts".Just as some of the lesser conservative posters here , when their BS is pointed out,love to change the subject to the unhinged anger of the crazy lefties.Sometimes in all caps and citing "Bush derangement Syndrome"
Some on the left may be annoyed at the publicity that a lousy writer and untalented commentator like Coulter gets, they may be disappointed in the media that treats her as a serious pundit, and a group of our fellow American voters who may think she makes sense.
I just don't see the (probably projected) "explosive rage" that the right seems to imagine when they hear any criticism of themselves.
Hey HBL, The cons posters here wouldn't have anything to talk about if they didn't project unto us. ;-)
Yes Tommy it does. All the more reason to see how much face time she gets on the liberal media.
Explosive liberal rage? I thought that was LAST WEEKS propaganda parrot assignment. Try amused pity.
Here's the full mission statement, and I believe that items such as this one fit very nicely into the third paragraph.
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.
Using the website www.mediamatters.org as the principal vehicle for disseminating research and information, Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media. Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions.
Where's the misinformation? Are you critical of NBC for daring to allow an opposing viewpoint? Sorry for all the questions, but I really don't get it.
Concern troll claims he doesn't get it.
Conservative Coulter says Gore is total fa* and Bill Clinton is a latent homosexual. NBC interviews her 194 times thus promoting her statements. These statements of hers are opinions yes, but it is entirely fair to label them misinformation. NBC is promoting conservative misinformation.
194 TIMES!!!!
(Sorry for the asterisk. MM won't let me quote the fa* word used in their original post.)
Ann Coulter is not an "opposing viewpoint." Were you for MoveOn's very mild rebuke of Gen. Petraeus? Well, if Coulter wrote books explaining the conservative take on American issues, like, say, William F. Buckley, I'd have zero problem with her. She does nothing of the sort. She just slanders Democrats and liberals. That is her entire content.
Goodfella:
"Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
What part of monitoring and analyzing don't you understand? Monitoring Coulter for what she says and who allows it is precisely the point. Media matters provided plenty of documentation in this article, and the pattern of giving her free air time to promote her books is well established.
And this is Media Matters site, so even if the stray form what you think is the spirit if their mission, how is that their problem?
Wethe:
Right, I got it. Coulter says and writes things that are controversial and is fair game for criticism and debate.
Incredibly, this MMfA item is about NBC interviewing Coulter about the new book. How is that considered misinformation?
I post here because I think MMfA is disingenuous when they play the "we're just pointing out misinformation" game. MMfA will deny it, but by ONLY pointing out what it believes is "conservative misinformation", they by default helps the Democrats.
Right, I got it. Coulter says and writes things that are controversial and is fair game for criticism and debate.
Coulter adds nothing to the debate. She belongs on a street corner spouting her lunacy (or on FOX) not on a major broadcast network.
Yeah so do you complain to MRC that they cover ONLY liberal media? Or is this just your way of saying that MMFA is accurate and ya got nothin of substance to criticise it for?
Posted by Good Guy ...
"Once again, I must ask why is this item posted here? " -GoodFella-
###################
Because it's October! Time for Halloween! Ann Coulter is the wicked Bitc%h (rhymes with Witch) of the planet Earth.
To add even more horror to the Media Matters home page, Rush has 3 mug shots there. I wonder if political pundit masks will be sold this Halloween? Or Bush & Cheney!
Sorry GoodGuy, I am only jesting. Media Matters reserves the right to put whatever the heck they want here. Have you made any progress on your mission you mentioned?
While MRC and Newsbusters continue to cover ONLY liberal media? I think we will continue to point out the inanity of YOUR posts.
Will NBC once again help Ann Coulter sell books?
This is a dopey question. Yes dopey.
Oh I don't know...will newspapers print her columns? Will she be invited on other TV & Radio programming? Invited to speak by organizations? Will bookstores carry her books? Will folks that want to read it be allowed to purchase it? Is this America?
I could go on, but why bother?
This is yet another tiresome effort by MMFA to suggest that somehow Coulter should be what? Banned? Censored? Hung?
There's a lot of folks I'd rather not see promoting their books & movies. But guess what?
I don't go around wondering why they are being allowed to speak...I know why.
Coulter is obviously good for ratings, her books sell...oh yeah & let me mention just one more time...this is America & NBC can do as they please. Even if that pisses MMFA & Liberals off.
I don't think it's a dopey question. I think it's a very reasonable question to preemptively wonder if NBC has learned their lesson yet.
I am fed up with the Coulters of the world trying to act like they represent the right and I am tired of them getting airtime their prejudices don't deserve, David Brock is fed up too, and that's why he wrote his book and that's why people backed him in his efforts to create and maintain this site. It's not just liberals who are fed up with the crap coming out of the mouths of people like Ann Coulter and it's not just liberals who are tired of the MSM allowing jerks like Coulter and Limbaugh and O'Reilly to have free rein to pollute our airwaves without someone pointing out their hypocrisy and their dishonesty. I am too, and I know several other conservatives who want to take back the reins from those who have corrupted the philosophy in an attempt to have a permanent Republican majority.
I think it's a very reasonable question to preemptively wonder if NBC has learned their lesson yet
And what lesson would that be? That it's not nice to piss David Brock off or MMFA will launch a campaign to remove you from the air? Bookshelves?
I am tired of them getting airtime their prejudices don't deserve
That could be said about of a lot of folks, from both sides. But this is America, and even the most insufferable among us should be allowed to speak--as long as their not inciting violence.
It's not just liberals who are fed up with the crap coming out of the mouths of people like Ann Coulter and it's not just liberals who are tired of the MSM allowing jerks like Coulter and Limbaugh and O'Reilly to have free rein to pollute our airwaves
Allowing? What are you suggesting, banning? Blackballing? I'm fed up reading/listening to numerous characters from the Left & Right...but unlike you, I know that they have the right to speak their minds.
Our airwaves are being "polluted" by a great many things. Let's start with MTV. Ever see the filth promoted on there?
So where should we start Toots?
I think it's a very reasonable question to preemptively wonder if NBC has learned their lesson yet
And what lesson would that be? That it's not nice to piss David Brock off or MMFA will launch a campaign to remove you from the air? Bookshelves?
The lesson would be that they should fairly cover the news and pundits or they will have that failure pointed out.
I am tired of them getting airtime their prejudices don't deserve
That could be said about of a lot of folks, from both sides. But this is America, and even the most insufferable among us should be allowed to speak--as long as their not inciting violence.
I think all folks who don't deserve airtime would be called on the carpet. I never said that they shouldn't be allowed to speak.
It's not just liberals who are fed up with the crap coming out of the mouths of people like Ann Coulter and it's not just liberals who are tired of the MSM allowing jerks like Coulter and Limbaugh and O'Reilly to have free rein to pollute our airwaves
Allowing? What are you suggesting, banning? Blackballing? I'm fed up reading/listening to numerous characters from the Left & Right...but unlike you, I know that they have the right to speak their minds.
I said "allowed to have free rein". There's a huge difference between not having free rein and banning. It's too bad that you apparently are one of those who think in either or terms, and so can't understand that it's inappropriate to allow her to spout her nonsense unchallenged.
It's too bad that you apparently are one of those who think in either or terms, and so can't understand that it's inappropriate to allow her to spout her nonsense unchallenged.
Inappropriate? Interesting take Toots. I'm not sure that's the word I'd use.
It would be better for all of us if the media didn't let a lot of stuff go unchallenged. But MMFA [& you apparently] have a problem with Coulter even appearing on NBC [or anywhere else]
Sorry you & they don't get to dictate your terms to everyone else.
You are projecting things that Tootie is not even saying.
Please elaborate, Jeter, on why it should be acceptable to the viewing audience, whose grocery dollars, investment dollars, etc., go to pay for the very shows she denigrates these people on. I have stock in Wells Fargo. When they advertise on Hardball, should I just shrug my shoulders and say, "That's the way it is," when my money is used to pay for her visit which she then uses to spit on me, and on any person who disagrees with her policy of the week? I eat at Wendy's. Should I be happy that my money is paying for advertising that keeps her face and her filth on the air?
Of course not. In the end, Media Matters is here to help those of us who know the power of our pocketbooks, and are willing to write in to places like NBC and their sponsors and say, "I have noticed that you are spending an inordinate amount of time promoting hatred and the further divisiveness of our country, and I want to tell you that if you don't stop, I will take my eyeballs and my pocketbook elsewhere."
When enough of us do it - as is evident with Imus - change is made. If not enough of us bother, people like Coulter end up spewing their filth 194 times, completely unchecked.
It's been said here before, and I will say it again - Ann Coulter does not have a constitutional right to airtime on these stations, or in any media outlet. If we remove our funding from these outlets as a response to their poor business decisions, those are market forces at work to respond to viewer needs. This witch can print as many books and whine on as many blogs as she likes, but in the end, she has no more of a right to the airwaves than you or I do - and I don't know about you, but I haven't been told I can show up on CNN 194 times.
"Allowing? What are you suggesting, banning? Blackballing? I'm fed up reading/listening to numerous characters from the Left & Right...but unlike you, I know that they have the right to speak their minds."
They have the right to speak their minds, but appearing on NBC to speak one's mind is a privilege, not a right. NBC has allowed Coulter to appear on their network, but she doesn't have some inalienable right to do so.
And you have the inalienable right and divine priveledge to turn off NBC, or anywhere else Ann appears.
Yes, I do. But that has nothing to do with the point that I was making.
Yup. Also have the inalienable right to tell NBC what I think about their programming, and what I'll tell their sponsors if they don't change it.
Yes but that is not the ONLY thing I have a right to do nor do I think it is the BEST thing I can do. I can also criticise NBC for using OUR PUBLIC RESOURCE to publicise a hatemongering weasel like Coulter. I dont CARE if you like it or not that is ALSO my right.
They have the right to speak their minds, but appearing on NBC to speak one's mind is a privilege, not a right
Yeah it's a "privilege" given by NBC that MMFA is objecting to. And if NBC wants Coulter on, then it's their right to do so, and her right to speak. MMFA can object. NBC can ignore the objection. Also their privilege.
Ya know, it never ceases to amaze me how much everyone likes to reassert everyone else's rights on these boards.
It's like a legal circle jerk of stunningly obvious assertations.
I support your right to say that, Pete.
Jeter2, youask, "So where should we start Toots?" in reference to avoiding or banning people like Coulter. I think it is and always was started. For example David Duke. I doubt if he'd be given much airtime on national televison networks. And the reason is a lot of Jews (and others) important to the media outlet would be very annoyed.
The problem I see is that these same networks don't see liberals as important to not offend. Whereas they do think it's important to not offend the people who buy their advertising time.
J,
It is pretty funny that MMFA links to her book, and many posters here do exactly what she craves - according to the link provided here, the first line of her book is;
"Uttering lines that send liberals into poaroxysms of rage, otherwise known as 'citing facts', is the spice of life. When I see the hot spittle flying from their mouths and the veins bulging and pulsing above their eyes, well, that's when I feel truly alive."
hot spittle flying from their mouths and the veins bulging and pulsing above their eyes
Tommy I picture a few posters here pounding away on their keyboards resembling the above description. Say what you will about Ann. She does have a way with describing certain folks down rather well ;-)
Hi Tommy and Jeter. There's are a couple of things wrong with your observations- Annie doesn't really deal in facts (that's just what she tells her audience), and nobody posting here even remotely resembles that raging, spittle mouthed fact-hater you two, and Ann, have fabricated.
She told you that these are her detractors, and you went along. I expect much more from the two of you, now shape up ! ;0)
"...and nobody posting here even remotely resembles that raging, spittle mouthed fact-hater you two, and Ann, have fabricated."
In fact, I'm dozing off right at this moment... ;>)
HBL, Ann calls them "facts", but that is her opinion......she can call them undeniable facts for all I care, it is still her opinion.
And if you think that some of the posters here only exhibit mild disagreements with Ann and none of the rage she describes, well, that is definitely your opinion.......stay tuned.
"...mild disagreements with Ann..."
To be clear, my disaagreements with Ann Coulter continue to more than just mild. However, as a tool of the right wing her shock value has definitely diminished. She's become more of a cartoon character than anything else...
Lies and misinformation are not opinions. I don't understand why you continue to conflate the two. If Coulter tells a lie and calls it a "fact," you do not dismiss it by saying, "That's just her opinion." It is not her opinion. It's a lie. And calling it a fact is another lie. Facts cannot be countered with opposing opinions.
That's your opinion.
Tommy's in troll mode today, it seems.
And yes, that is my opinion, but it's based on years of experience.
Apparently the release of Ann's book has liberals stumbling all over themselves in sputtering disguist.....even resorting to hauling the troll accusation against those who don't share their "hot spittling rage".
No, sorry. "That's your opinion" was not a valid response to what Clams said. You declined to address what he said in a meaningful manner, and threw out garbage instead.
Coulter has nothing to do with an accurate description of your behavior, as far as I can see.
Apparantly tommy is going to push last weeks propaganda parrot assignment about liberal rage in order to PROVE his vast ignorance and total servility to rightwing liars. Tommy has enlisted in the marching morons society
One plus one equals two. That is a fact. You cannot counter that fact by saying that, in your opinion, one plus one equals three. Opinions do not trump fact.
Unfortunately for liberals, politics is not math. So your "facts" are your opinions, and not necessarily always shared by clear thinking individuals. But I am impressed at your elementary addition skills, nonetheless.
Surely we don't need to direct you to a list of lies that Coulter has told, do we? You've been reading MMFA long enough to know that Coulter frequently states as fact, things that are patently untrue. These are not opinions. They are lies.
Hm. If Tommy thinks lies and misinformation are opinions, perhaps he also finds this conversation.... ironic.
My point, Tommy, is that The World According To Annie is this; She states facts, and liberals fly into uncontrolled bouts of rage, obviously unable to tolerate her truthiness.
You're right, that is her opinion, and she's entitled to it. Others are entitled to point out how the real world differs from her fantasy- she spouts opinions and a lot of outright lies, and most sensible people notice that she's an idiot.
Yes, some will get pissed off, and use some exclamation points, and call her names (myself included).I just think you seem to be going along with her take- that any anger or disagreement is a reaction to her "facts", when it's mostly disgust at her lack of them, or anger that our media has degenerated to a point where there is an audience that believes she deals in "facts".
But HBL, the cons here have to imagine that we're wild eyed, raging loons who are so upset by this bag of bones, Coulter. That's their narrative and they must stick to it. That's what she and countless other fake pundits tell them. And they must beleive.....hope I didn't project on you guys like you did on us. ;-)
And J2, fellow Libran, you forgot what day Sunday was.
Ya gotta love liberals. As soon as Ann's first statement in her book is highlighted on the rage she illicits from liberals and how it only urges her to happily carry on.......along come the liberals backtracking away from their spittling rage saying, "Oh, we don't dislike her that much, really, she is a cartoon to us, she really is!!
OK, Tommy, now I know you're just goofing.I'm glad you've settled into that mode, nice change from your earlier psychopathic ,epithet-filled rant.
When I refer to regarding Ann Coulter as cartoonish, Tommy, I'm speaking only for myself...not "us".
Its not our fault She who must be ignored is lying AGAIN. Nor is it our fault you arent bright enough to GET that she is lying again. The whole liberal rage thing is a talking point without substance. Are there ANY liberals enraged by her? I am sure there are but reading the posts here you CANNOT show an outpouring of rage exept in your demented mind.
JJ, was it your birthday? I suggest a Limerick only thread, you pick it. No posts allowed in non-Limerick form.
I wish we could do an all limerick thread. But I'm afraid some ill humored MMFA posters wouldn't likey. But it's a big, bold dream! ;-)
My bad :-/
Hope my forgetfulness didn't cause spittle to fly from your mouth or veins to bulge or a pulsing over your eyes ;-)
Happy Belated Birthday Julia my love :-)
Hope you had a good one!
Am I in the doghouse? :-(
J2, doghouse. Nah. That's reserved for my two speckled pups, Snoopy and Sundog. Besides, lets see if I remember Oct 12th? Is that right. I wouldn't want spittle on your B-day cake if I forget.
Yeah October 12th.
BTW since you mentioned cake. Instead of spittle, I'll have white frosting on my chocolate cake :-)
Here's Ann Coulter:
AFTER TAKING TRUTH INJECTIONS...
"Spewing out hateful, hostile, and rediculous nonsense that send liberals into understandable poaroxysms of rage, otherwise known as 'Unchallenged Lies', is the spice of my bitchy, witchy life. When I see the hot spittle flying from their mouths and the veins bulging and pulsing above their eyes, well, that's when I feel to be truly, The Wicked Witch of the Earth."
Why is she here you ask? Because it's October and time for Halloween. With Ann it's Halloween all year long.
It's not right to have her on major TV Outlets without being first injected with truth serum. Since that is out of the question, in all fairness, apposing viewpoints should be provided.
To JJ and J2 ...
Happy Birthdays to ya'll.
Hope you're not getting as old as I am. Hi Julia, a long time ago you asked me if I live in Texas. No, but I still consider myself a Texan and I tell all my San Diego friends that Bush is Not a true Texan. I was BOI ... Born On Island ... Galveston Island.
Sam I Am
Thanks, Sam. I'm really a Yankee from Pa., but I got here as soon as I could (as the saying goes). GWB is not a Texan, He is a Connecticut country club "cowboy".
Bush is a Dude Ranch Cowboy Wanna Be.
How bout them real Cowboys Julia! Off to a 4 and O start this season.
While growing up in Texas anyone North of Dallas was considered a Damn Yankee. Not really, but we joked about it cause we couldn't call the Dallas Cowboys, Yankees, could we?
I'd of never thought you were from back East. I've lost my Texas drawl here in Governator Arnolds Southern Caly-Fornia.
-Again Happy Birthday-
Then your imagination is colored by your obvious bias. If tommy thinks her ignorant rantings represent anything resembling reality he has tipped over into complete lunacy. I dont see anything close to rage here and YOU only see it if you are DESPERATE to.
Jeter,
A responsible media should not let someone like Coulter lower the discourse. She has nothing meaningful or honest to say, she's simply a flamethrower, as is admitted so often here. The fact that anyone gives her a megaphone because of ratings doesn't address the problem with the situation.
It's really just that simple. I'm not sure what possible disagreement there is to be had with that.
I disagree with the MMFA headline that having her on the air actually helps her sell books. I don't think that logically follows.
Publicity on networks doesn't help book sales? I think it's a pretty well-established concept that publicizing a book will help sales. And as the article notes, her books have been mentioned in every one of her appearances, by herself if not by the host.
The basic problem here is that it's sort of a unstated understanding that programs will put the best guests they can find on the air. One doesn't imagine that they would put some worthless hack in their spotlight, when surely there are better guests to be found.
And yet, there she is. That's how the networks give her credibility, and that plus the hype they provide surely helps her book sales. Don't you think?
"I think it's a pretty well established concept that publicizing a book will help sales"
DATELINE; Oct 1, 2007 - MMFA headlines Ann Coulter's new book and links to it's pre-order.
Oops........
Who the hell on this site is going to buy her books? Everyone who reads here knows what a worthless liar she is.
We're talking about networks here, obviously. Thanks for the laugh at your delusional "gotcha" moment, though.
Let me amend that, it includes cable channels, not just "networks".
So this site only preaches to the choir? Wow, I would have given MMFA more credit than you apparently do. But you said it, I didn't.
Gotcha?...Nah, just entertainment.
No, you said it. I just said people who read here know she's a liar. That's not the same as "only preaching to the choir".
Why the behavior today, Tommy? Some days you are so reasonable, then some days you're a complete ass. If you need to blow off steam, maybe you should go exercise or something instead.
Sure doesn't preach to us, we rely on you, Tommy, and your trolling bull.
You're right, I was just having a little fun.
I have a copy of Slander and found it to be very entertaining. There are more than 1,000 strawman arguments included, free of charge. Really, it's just entertainment.
Did you count them? :)
I get you now. I thought maybe it was one of the "everyone knows she's a liar already so it doesn't really do any damage" arguments.
"The basic problem here is that it's sort of a unstated understanding that programs will put the best guests they can find on the air. One doesn't imagine that they would put some worthless hack in their spotlight, when surely there are better guests to be found."---Brabantio
That's a great point. There is an unconcious assumption that if it's on tv it's legit. TV (and big media generally) is an entity above reproach. They wouldn't have employees lieing everyday of the week on Fox, it's too big, it's tv for Christ sake.
Maybe the ultimate solution will be the media destroying their credibility. Maybe good will come of this eventually.
If you watch Coulter on High-Definition, her entire argument falls apart.
We watched Ann Coulter one night on our HD wide-screen TV and our dog wouldn't stop barking at her.
Huh? Would you explain why you think being on a national televison show promoting anything doesn't help sell it?
A responsible media should not let someone like Coulter lower the discourse.
Brabantio,
I agree with that BUT I get uncomfortable with this idea of whether we should be "letting" folks appear on TV or radio, which is what some other posters seem to be suggesting. A responsible media should not let Coulter or anyone else "lower the discourse", but they can do this by questioning them & calling them out on their remarks/statements rather than banning them from the airwaves.
And don't forget, just because some don't enjoy watching or listening to Coulter doesn't mean there isn't an audience out there that loves her. NBC knows that. It's their call.
Well said J,
And how many liberals were uncomfortable with Rosie lowering the discource on "The View" last year, spewing her partisan opinions - just one example.
This silly grandstanding pedestal strut they all do when someone they don't like gets publicity or airtime is nothing but sour grapes. If you don't like it, don't watch.
Bary Manilow refused to go on The View because he felt Elizabeths views were "dangerous"!!!! ROFLMAO
Elizabeth!
Come on, Barry, grow a pair and sing Mandy for us. ;-)
"A responsible media should not let Coulter or anyone else "lower the discourse", but they can do this by questioning them & calling them out on their remarks/statements" ...
"Well Said J" -Tom-
--------------------------------
Yes, very well said Jeter. You must have forgotten one important thing though. When you suggested ... But they can call her out ... I've been waiting for them to call her out on things. Haven't seen it yet.
It was "Well Said" but not completely what happens when I see Ann doing her thing.
Maybe TV outlets bring Ann Coulter in for ratings and entertainment, if you can call it that. Or maybe TV wants to focus on stand alone right- wing promotions. That's her thing.
TV might think the viewers all know who and what she really is ...
A Far-Wrong bitch from the Far-Right Republiican Noise Machine.
She's so outrageous, that TV may even be calling her in for a sick kind of comic relief, straight out of Goonsville.
Be sure to have a nice day!
It's not a question of whether NBC has the right to do anything or not. It's a question of standards.
Every time we have journalists criticizing someone we hear that's not their job. It's not their job to pass judgment, they're supposed to just put things out there and let people decide for themselves. A degree of behavior deserves an appropriate degree of response. If David Brooks says something stupid or intellectually dishonest, you can expose that with questions.
Coulter's behavior is so far out of the arena of what's normally acceptable that there really is no way of responding to her in kind on the air. The best way of dealing with someone who clearly has no place in a reasonable discussion is not to allow them in any discussions. That's a fair standard that should be enforced no matter if she has fans or not.
Let me add (a lot of post-post-thoughts today) that one of the things we hear so often about Coulter is that she doesn't really believe what she says, she's just trying to get publicity.
If that's the case, can we agree that's not behavior that should be encouraged? Can we agree it's a problem? Then, what do we do to discourage this sort of thing? Do we put them on the air and give them the publicity they want?
It would seem not. Marginalize people who belong in the margins. If her following can sustain itself, then that's a sad phenomena that can occur outside of the public's view.
>>This is yet another tiresome effort by MMFA to suggest that somehow Coulter should be what? Banned? Censored? Hung?
Hung? Don't be silly. While she has called for liberals to be killed, we don't wish her physical harm.
Censored? No. She's free to publish anything she likes.
Banned? ABSOLUTELY. There is no 1st Amendment right to be interviewed on TV. NBC should ban her. The airwaves belong to the public, not NBC, not the right-wing.
Hey, ya see the big Noam Chomsky tour to promote his latest book? You didn't?
"I don't go around wondering why they're allowed to speak..."
It's not a matter of being "allowed to speak" - it's a matter of being actively promoted.
I'd really like to see MMFA compare the number of times Mikey Moore, Bill O'Reilly, or Al Franken have been on NBC promoting their pieces of work. Wanna bet it's a fraction of how often they get Coulter on? I'd put money on that. The question then is not, "Why is she being allowed to speak," but rather, "Why is this network so dedicated to the idea of getting her message out?"
Not banned or censored but MARGINALIZED. Since she has done NOTHING to deserve anything else. The point is what does she say that has EARNED her such media coverage EXCEPT her deranged attacks on liberals? Ward Churchill says controversial things and yet strangely I dont see him all over the media. There must be a leftwing nut out there somewhere as out to lunch as Gangleskank and yet somehow I never see THEM on CNN. They are where they belong on the fringe ranting. That is where COULTER belongs
Check out this promotional material for Ann's book and read excerpts from it...hilarious stuff:
http://www.randomhouse.com/crown/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780307353450
Also, enlarge and peruse her cover photo. I wonder if it's been run through PhotoShop to give her a "healthier" image... ;>)
Wow, this is quite an exhaustive research effort on Ann's doings for the past 10 years......other than where she spent her Christmas', there is nothing left out.
But the real question is, "Is MMFA the very first media outlet to offer publicity on Ann's new book?" And the link takes you right to the pre-order form, fess up folks, how many of you just bought it?
Eeewwwwwww! I clicked on the link...now I feel this uncontrollable urge to soak in a bathtub full of bleach.
I don't believe this is publicity for her new book.
I think this is notifying the Media Matters community to be on the lookout for unwarranted, uncritical and sympathetic coverage of Ann Coulter and her new book.
Not all publicity is good publicity. That "known truth" is widely known but is not the truth.
Ann Coulter is a celebrity. That fact doesn't give her credibility all by itself. Paris Hilton has little credibility even though she is a celebrity. When NBC invites Coulter on as a guest, they give her undeserved credibility.
"When NBC invites Coulter on as a guest..."
Maybe they'll put Ann on right after an interview with Britney Spears... ;>)
Will NBC once again help Ann Coulter sell books?
Sure, why not? And I'm sure she will make the rounds on the cable networks as well. This is misinformation? And a note to Rush, 5 more days and your statements will be forgotten. The US population has an ever incresing short term memory. Worst comes to worst, make an apology (they love that, not that the left will ever forgive you for it, they hate you anyway) and go on with the show. It will pass.
Will NBC once again Help Ann Coulter sell books?
What is the issue where? Censorship? Is MMFA really advocating that Ann Coulter be banned from NBC? I am worried MMFA is steping over the lines of decency, let Ann spew her hate, it affects no one but her and her reputation and let NBC air her, they air other haters . Chris Matthews is hawking a book and was on Today today and he will be pimping it on Olbermann , yet he was the Misinformer of the Year. This is completely silly. We live in America not the old Soviet Union, ideas welcomed than debated. Frankly im disapointed in this thread.
I'm no fan of Chris Matthews, but it's unfair to compare him to the bilious bag of puss that goes by the name of Ann Coulter.
Hey, if Hitler were alive today, I guess he should be given free air time to promote his "special solution". Get real, this bag of bones is an insult to decent people and networks should be more discerning in who they have on as guests. This pile of bile is way worse than any filth on MTV (okay I admit I haven't seen it in like 20 years but it can't be as bad as AC). Oh, now I will wipe the spittle from my lip after I stop laughing at all the wild projections.
Gee Julia I know Ann is bad but has she killed 6 Million Jews like Hitler? Comparing Ann Culter to Hitler is insulting to all victims of the his brutality .
I Tend to agree with J Lyons, let her speak , she is a moron but so is most of the nation since we allowed Bush to take us into an illegal war. Censorship scares me. If the Iranian President can spew his anti Homosexual talk at Columbia, we can put up with Ann Coulter. Let he expose herself for the horrible person she is.
Doris, my sweet, I did NOT compare AC to Hitler. I was merely pointing out that people don't automatically have a right to push whatever agenda they wish in decent society. There are levels of public discourse that are not tolerated because of a decency standard. A klan member would most likely not be welcome on the air as such. The public airwaves demand a level of decency that AC does not comport to. Please spend your delicate sensitivities elsewhere. Sheesh.
Thanks Julia, I just hate the comparison but if you were not making it my apologies.
I accept your apologies.
JULIAJANE - based on the same twisted logic that had Rush Limbaugh's "phony soldier" comment applying to all dissenting soldiers - you did in theory compare AC to Hitler. Now if Rush could suck it up and apologize to all members of the military - I think you too should suck it up and apologize to all victims of World War 2.
Personally I do not believe either you or Rush were besmearching anybody - but I'm just trying to feel at home here on the loony left.
Actually, no. It was Rush's twisted explanation that tried to defame others who came to the logical understanding that he was comparing all those who dissent to be phony soldiers.
..thanks for fluffing the pillows.....
The Hitler comment can stand on it's own. No need to compare AC and Hitler. The IDEA was what we tolerate on the public airwaves.
Your attempt at an appology for Limbaugh is weak. We have been over this only the terminally brainwashed still buy his inane explanation. He WAS calling the soldiers that phony. Only those without any ability for reading comprehension or who dont know what they think until Rush TELLS them could possibly buy it.
Since you are clearly part of the marching moron RIGHT. I think you feeling at home is a tall order
The problem is that by putting her on the air, they push the definition of what's "horrible" and what isn't. The right-wing wants to push the framework their way, to where rabid conservatism is commonplace, which makes more mainstream Republican views look like the center point of the political spectrum.
Coulter plays into that concept quite well.
Let me add, there is a difference between censorship and meritocracy. Our national discourse should be a meritocracy, where honesty, insightfulness and objectivity are the key qualifiers to having your voice heard. Enforcing that principle is not "censorship", it's simply setting straight the egregious error of putting this worthless twit on the air ever.
Hey, if Hitler were alive today, I guess he should be given free air time to promote his "special solution".
Well Columbia University would have invited him to speak:
A Columbia University dean said yesterday the Ivy League school would gladly welcome mass murderer Adolf Hitler to speak on campus.
"If he were willing to engage in a debate and a discussion, to be challenged by Columbia students and faculty, we would certainly invite him," John Coatsworth, dean of the School of International and Public Affairs, told Fox News yesterday.
Well, they might have. But then he might have been called as arsehole (paraphrasing) in being introduced. When they have him on 194 times and promote his books, then we can talk. And call him names. ;-0)
Hey Jeter2 - enough of this stuff - Yankees in 4?
In 4?
That's what I'm thinking.
You're already counting them out for the next 3 years? Have some faith.
>> let Ann spew her hate, it affects no one but her
I disagree.
She's free to write what ever she like. 1st Amendment and all.
That said, there is no RIGHT to be on TV. Ban her from the public airwaves... she's proven she's too irresponsible to handle that privilege.
Who has made the decision to ban her? And do you care now if someone turns around and says we are going to ban a progressive because of "hate speech". Where does it end?
Liberals banned? Pretty much already acomplished from what I can see.
If there's a liberal who spouts hate speech as much as Coulter does, then that person's hate speech should be pointed out too.
I'm an equal opportunity kinda guy.
Let me know when you find a comparable liberal who is as hateful as Coulter, gets as much air time and gets the free passes on as many occasions as Coulter has.
I do not know if there is a comparable "Liberal". That is not for me to judge, however I am sure if we advocate censoring Ann Coulter the door is open for the conservatives to yell the "hate speech" game and have legitimate good progressives banned. To them it is a game, to me its our freedom.
It's all about controlling the dialogue. If they have a genuine case to make that a liberal should be shunned from the airwaves, let them make it. Meanwhile, allowing intellectually dishonest people to have a voice on issues automatically destroys any ability to have an honest dialogue about anything. You'll always have some number of people who say anything, no matter how demonstrably false, no matter how patently absurd, just for political purposes.
Didn't we already have people calling for Rosie O'Donnell to be fired? So since they're doing that sort of thing as it is, why not try to uphold some standards for everyone?
Careful there Doris... I don't see anyone advocating CENSORING Coulter. I in fact said the OPPOSITE
She can write whatever she wants to in her books... but she's far too IRRESPONSIBLE to ber allowed on the public airwaves.
There is no 'RIGHT' to be on TV.
You asked "Where does it end?" I say this: It ends with anyone who falsely accuses the members of other party of being homosexual.
There is no 'RIGHT' to be on TV.
And who decides that right? You? Me? The Government?
What right are you speaking of? There is no right to be on TV.
That is my point, what does "right" mean?
You know what "right" means, I'm sure. What nobody understands is how you follow up a post that says "there is NO right" with "who decides that right?". There is no right, there is nothing there to decide.
Please clarify. You are free to use more than one or two sentences if necessary.
The bold was was from Kens post above me, which was why I placed in bold. No where did I agree or say anyone had a "right" to be on TV.
"No where did I agree or say anyone had a "right" to be on TV."
Then again I'll ask...what "right" were you referring to when you said "And who decides that right?". Who decides what right?
It's very unclear what your point is here. Maybe you'll understand this is an example to show how you don't often express yourself well, which leads to a lot of confusion at times.
Bra , I was asking the question to Ken, why not ask him.
How would he know what you meant when you asked a question? If you don't know what the hell you were saying, how is anyone else supposed to?
Bra
I do not understand your hostility. You should save it for people like Ann Couter or people who disagree with you. Sheesh.
I'm just trying to figure out what you meant. If you make an illogical response to someone, then you can't respond properly to a simple request for clarification, then you can't very well expect people to know what you're saying. And in turn, you can't very well expect people to value your contributions here, obviously.
If you read the entire thread you would have known. To me it just appears you were looking for some sort of conflict, why I do not know but to me that provides no value to the topic, forum or site. I will not longer entertain your games. Save it for someone who cares.
No, I wasn't looking for any conflict. Your comment was nonsensical, and I asked for clarification.
Now you, on the other hand, seem to believe that there was some simple explanation, yet you didn't say so, you didn't point to where you did explain, and you tried to pass it off on the person you made your bizarre comment to. So you could have just said whatever it was without any of this.
So who's looking for conflict, really?
Heal thyself, please.
Computer says no... the bold was not in my original post.
>>There is no 'RIGHT' to be on TV.
>>And who decides that right? You? Me? The Government?
Ummm... read carefully... the CONSTITUTION defines rights.
There is NO RIGHT to be on television defined in my copy of the constitution. If it's in your, return it to the bookstore. You've been sold a phony.
No one does have a right to be on TV, correct . Last I looked the consitution was written well before the TV. Who makes the decision to have people on or off TV? Is it ratings? Executives? Both? My guess is both?
Who makes the decision to keep people on and off TV?
The military industrial complex. General Electric - one of the nation's largest defense contractors - owns NBC.
So now that we're agreed appearing on TV is NOT a right, can we agree that it's a privilege.
Let's take it further.. since Ms. Coulter has used TV to make statement such as 'blow up the NY Times building' and 'Al Gore is a f*g' does she really deserve another shot?
Why not someone else with something more substantial to say?
Ken
I think Ann Coulter is disgusting and I do not want to even see her ugly face. That being said my idea would be that the networks would agree not to put her on TV but if they do provide her with a forum that of course is their right and the public has a right to discuss that with advertisers. I just did not want Congress or anyone else telling them who they can and can not air. I think we crossed a bad line last week with the Repugnants voted on the moveon.org ad.
I think we crossed a bad line last week with the Repugnants voted on the moveon.org ad.
So True J , so true.
I never advocated Congress censoring her. I *do* advocate that she be banned from NBC... because of her past abuses of the privilege she was given to address the public.
It's the PUBLIC who owns the airwaves, not the advertisers.
I assume you've heard of the FCC?
Ken
I never said anyone has a right to be on TV, what "Right" are you talking about?
Doris
I asked the same question and was screamed at by Brabatino . Thanks for also asking Ken the same question I did. I never saw anyone say AC had any "Right" to be on TV.
Actually, I asked "what right are you talking about?", not you. You asked "who decides that right?".
And please, stop taking any request for clarification as some sort of personal challenge. You are not above being questioned.
Oh Please as I said save it for Ann Coulter.
J, I read these threads and also have no idea what Brabrino was getting at. All I can say is sometimes it is easy to get confused on this site, the replys, the way its built . Lets stay civil.
In response to "there is NO right", J asked "who decides THAT right?". The question was, what right was she talking about, considering there was no right to speak of?
I'm sure if you read it again you'll see her comment made no sense, and she felt insulted by a simple question asking for clarification.
Bra, I did read what J said and what I interperted out of that was that there was no right , but if the previous poster felt there was a right. Maybe I am wrong but this really is silly also. I do not think J was ever saying anyone had a right to be on TV , I know I was not either.
If she thought Ken was saying that anyone had a right to be on TV, then she was clearly confused.
In any event, if there is a simple explanation, then she should just say so. It was quite obvious that her comment as it was made no sense, but when I ask in a civil manner what she's talking about, I get the runaround.
So yes, taking a request for clarification as an attempt to pick a fight is quite silly. Believing that one is above being questioned at all is also silly. That's what I'm getting at, and I think it's a fair point.
I think the point was that because TV appearances are something you earn, it's not censorship if they stop giving them to you. Nobody owes Coulter that air time, so they don't have to put up with her garbage at all.
My post said ...
There is no 'RIGHT' to be on TV.
Doris, which word do you not understand?
You need to read more carefully... I said she SHOULD be banned, and I clearly explained why.
Progressives are already banned, de facto. When was the last time you actually heard a real leftist (as in communist) on the airwaves?
Ron Kuby is on WABC in the morning in NY and he is a self proclaimed leftist socialist.
Never heard of him (which is my point). You certainly couldn't point to ANYONE in the national media.
BTW, Wiki says "Kuby has often claimed to be a Communist. However, Kuby's political beliefs moderated considerably after the September 11, 2001 attacks." So looks like you're 0 for 1. Nice try though.
Well I still love Kuby , listen to him every morning.
Imagine a world where Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky had the same access to media that Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly have.
Since Chomsky was directly applauded by Osama in his latest tape, I bet he would love to imagine that world.
That's hilarious. One of the most brilliant and perceptive minds in America right now when it comes to foreign policy - past and present - and he must be bad, since Osama happened to mention him. Your ignorance knows no freakin bounds, Tommy, and that's considerably impressive.
It would be a better world. Imagine an America without Rush Limbaugh, maybe that would be a start to unity?
Ken,
I see them on TV most every day.
Clinton, Obama, Edwards... etc., etc.
;-)
AA - you've got a little dribble on your chin...
Oh Please AA
Ron is a good guy, being from the NY area he is one of the few liberals on radio.
I agree with the coment that its a heads up. Get your nervous system ready for a series of Annie threads. Make sure the path to the bunker is clear. Check your safty gear, having Annie fall on your head is not a thing to take lightly.
Keep watching. Vigilence!
Very funny!
BOYCOTT ADVERTISERS OR LET THEM KNOW WE WON'T WATCH IF THEY ALLOW HER TO APPEAR! The very title directly insults liberals/progressives. ISN'T THIS EVIDENT! HOW ABOUT GIVING ME EQUAL TIME FOR MY BOOK "REPUBLICAN'S SUCK (I DON'T REALLY BELIEVE THAT BUT IT SELLS BOOKS TO DEMOCRATS)"
Hey, Kromekom, easy on the caps. I just got done pointing out that AC's image of the angry lefty was mostly projection.Don't make me look bad ;0)
And I also think you're underestimating liberals with the "Republicans suck " book.We don't need that explained, and it wouldn't take a whole book.
Point taken HBL.
If she were a regular citizen and not constantly in the media she would be detained under the Patriot Act for her slander.
Hmm, looks like we need some sort of device that measures explosive rage. A "Rage Metering Asynchronous Modulating Sensor" with both audio, text and visual inputs. Maybe somewhere in the billions spent on spying some intelligence agency already has one or has a similar project in the works.
Let's see if we can get her to say that MM edited her book.
The heck with this stuff - Limbaugh just APOLOGIZED to all soldiers for the "Phony Soldier" flap. Looks like you lefties are making progress after all!!
Did he really? So the horde of Rushbots who came in here defending him were all wrong?
Good to get that established.
Well - not really. Don't wiat for MMFA to post - Go listen for yourself so the words won't get twisted.
MMFA doesnt twist words not matter WHAT the Oxymoron told you to think
Correction: he apologized "on behalf of MMFA" since they won't admit "getting it wrong.'
Is this a kind of "I'm really sorry they are so wrong" sort of apology?
No he didnt. Your disengenuous post is just dumb. A non appology appology used only to smear this website with lies is just one more reprehensible thing the Oxymoron has done.
My guess is "Yes. Yes, they will."
I think Ann Coulter is one of the best pundits in the country today. She is very funny and very outspoken. Many of her columns make me laugh out loud as she skewers liberals and turns political correctness inside out.
God bless America and free speech.
I love you, Deputy Fife !
Feeling's mutual Gomer!
With a sense of humor like Ann's, who needs a sense of humor?
The irony AA, is that if liberals had an Ann Coulterish type spewing the same stuff against conservatives with equal hyperbolic rhetoric and noteriety, they would be out buying that person's books and laughing with the same gleeful admiration than some have for Coulter.
All this sancitmonious act of wanting the level of discourse raised is balony, and only hauled out when you can't counter it.
The same could be said for the Fairness Doctrine. If Libs had shows with audiences as high as Rush, Bill O or Hannity, we wouldn't be hearing about that non starter either.
Don't liberals already have the highest ratings in all forms of media? Or are you just talking about am talk radio?
So why is it that Lib's dont have a show with ratings as high as Limbaugh's and others - could it be that the 10 Libs who post here under vartious names do not constitute an audience?
Maybe it's because 'eeeevil libruls' have better things to do with their time than watch so-called 'news commentators' spew filth and lies.
We actually try and make the world a better place. And not just for our own benefit.
More likely we like to READ and are not into the preaching to the chior format. Also unlike you LIMBORG we dont find it NECESSARY to tune into some drug addicted moron to tell US what to think like you and those like you do.
You cant read minds either. You have NO way of knowing what liberals who advocate for the fairness doctrine WOULD do if the shoe was on the other foot, neither do I, so pretending you have read their collective minds and can state with authority what they WOULD do is just stupid.
Tommy, if liberals wanted an Ann Coulter, there would be a market for a liberal Ann Coulter, and there would consequently be a liberal Ann Coulter.
Nobody wants that.
I think a close approximation is Al Franken. Very funny and makes great liberal arguments at the samae time.
I'd love to see him win in Minnesota. :-)
I don't know how closely Coulter and Franken could be compared. Maybe if she was smarter, funnier, and more fact-based, and if Franken was featured on a regular basis on news and commentary shows.
Other than that, pretty close. ;0)
... if only he were better looking. ;-)
Good point, AA.
You are correct in your observation that Coulter is only successful because she's 'attractive' - and I use the term loosely. Very loosely.
misch,
No. My point is Franken isn't. ;-)
If you think Coulter is attractive please see your optomitrist immediatly.
No I DO think their looks are comparable. Either could curdle milk
Not even CLOSE. Tell me again when Franken called for torturing people as a televised sport? Killing a sitting SC justice? Dropping daisy cutters at random ANYWHERE? No. He isnt in the same HATEFILLED universe as Gangleskank
I'd like to see your evidence of this allegation.
Give me an example of a liberal who compares with Coulter as far as hate speech, notoriety and access to the MSM.
Show me the vast numbers of books sold and TV appearances that this hate-speech spewing liberal has.
I'll wait while you provide that evidence. If it's as likely as you claim, there should be plenty of evidence of this support that you say exists.
I suspect that your allegation is more evidence of the famous righty projection rather than being evidence of actual behavior or attitudes from people on the left.
MonkeyMapleSue,
I said liberals don't have an Ann Coulter, at least nobody that compares in the book selling arena. Reread what I wrote again.
If you had one, you'd be rallying around him or her cheering and applauding. But you don't, so you whine.
I was going to say MonkeyMapleSue/Ellie/notthatgeorge/nomobush.
When will the games stop?
I think they just did. Check out the O'Reilly thread today, Mapletootie answered herself as Monkeyman. Sue is slipping.
I think you exaggerate Ms. Coulter's sales.
Would it surprise you to learn on of her best-selling books actually sold less than 35,000 copies?
http://answers.google.com/answers/main?cmd=threadview&id=133616
Ken,
Not that I doubt you, but I went to your link found nothing except a mention of Coulter. Didn't find the statistics. Trying to link to another site, the page wouldn't load.
Can you help me out?
Thanks,
Thanks for proving you can't read. They were there.
Except if we would support one then one would get a book deal and we would have one. Since we DONT you make things up to PRETEND MIGHT be as bad as YOU. Of course you cannot POSSIBLY support this. Its ludicrous and you know it. You are only saying it as troll bait. You are becoming sad.
That post is full of all sorts of unseemly and scathing suppositions. The author is beneath contempt.
Tommy, I may be mistaken, but if I lined up the replies correctly, I think he's referring to you. ;-)
However there is some ambiguity in the post. It could be that he's referring to Coulter as she is the author being discussed in the thread.
Still, you were replying to me, so maybe I'm the subject of the post?
In any case, thanks Brab for sharing. :-)
I believe I responded to Tommy's post. Did you make some ridiculous suppositions that led you to believe I was talking to you?
Not that you saying something ridiculous would surprise me, obviously.
obviously.
Just this poor pudn'head trying to understand to whom you were aiming your insightful comments. Thanks for clarifying that it is Tommy who is the beneather. ;-)
Now the next questions are why did you change your description from "unseemly and scathing" to "ridiculous"? And why would the newly "ridiculous" comments be beneath contempt if they are simply ridiculous?
ps. You don't have to answer. I think you will just be digging yourself a hole on this one. I'll simply let it go as an ad hominum attack on Tommy.
It's not an ad hominem attack. He is criticizing liberals based on an absurd supposition. I'm commenting on his argument, and the nature of his behavior.
Now, you might wonder, has Tommy ever said anything about other people making suppositions? And if you think about that, maybe you will begin to understand.
And do you ever call liberals, who make blanket condescending insults at coservatives all day long on this website, as "unseemly and scathing suppositions"?
Of course you don't. My original point stands, and you are just further evidence of the hypocrisy of selective outrage.
Actually I've criticized people for making blanket statements about conservatives many times. I've even pointed out when people attribute "traditional conservative" views to you that you don't necessarily believe in what they're saying.
The point is, you don't like it when people make suppositions, then you make suppositions yourself. That's the actual hypocrisy, as opposed to your false charges here.
Then I've missed it - but I see "cons" and "troglodytes" and "ReNAMBLAcans" and "Repugnants" and all sorts of derogatory terms used, followed by unsubstantiated claims of "evil rich" and "racists" among others attributed to conservative posters and more prominent figures that not only go unchallenged here daily, but applauded as well.
Yet, let me or someone make a statement about liberals, and foul is cried before it pops up on the screen. You know it, and I know it.
But if my allegations against you are untrue, my apologies.
I think you're confusing "accusations" with "suppositions".
If people are using those terms to refer to all Republicans, then I would object to that. Usually when I see it, it's regarding Bush followers. Renamblacans in particular is a Solon-copyrighted phrase to retort to the use of "Democrat" as an adjective, which I've seen people admit is used just to annoy liberals. If you think someone is using a term unfairly, then challenge them. If they are using it as a blanket statement, I would not support them.
What you are doing is different, even in the worst case scenario of liberals defaming conservatives. What you did was to assume that liberals would accept and embrace someone who acted like Coulter, as long as they were on the left. And any talk about raising the discourse is just baloney.
That was a blanket statement. I happened to write several posts talking about the importance of the discourse, but according to you, I'm just being disingenuous because I don't have a Coulter on my side. I find that unfair. In case you didn't notice, I have a problem with dishonesty. I don't like it, no matter who's guilty of it. When I say I want to raise the discourse, I mean it.
It's BS, through and through. It's like saying we would love to have some propaganda network like FOX on our side. No, we wouldn't. As far as I can see, it's just a hollow rationalization to make yourself feel better about the contemptible methods the right uses that the left does not. "You'd like to do the same things the right does, and the only reason you don't is because you can't". It's just a way of trying to assert that both sides are guilty of something, when only one side can be held to criticism. There is no Coulter on the left, but if there was we would be hypocrites.
Besides, do you really want to be judged in relation to people who are so unfair? I would think you would want to put yourself above that, instead of saying you were free to say anything you want because of the behavior of other posters.
I appreciate the apology though.
Great post brabantio. Good job
Thanks very much, I appreciate it as always.
Brab,
I confess that I sometimes snooze off before getting to the end of some of your comments, so maybe I missed one of your your defenses of Tommy.
(Sorry. I couldn't resist. I'm just teasing you about the length of your comments. Sorta...) :-)
Always interesting to hear your thoughts even though most times we disagree even when you stick your foot in your mouth like you did here.
I write long posts primarily because I like to make my meaning very explicit. I admit I'm not often good at condensing my posts, but I often try.
I'm not sure how you believe I made any sort of error here. Making baseless suppositions about people is certainly grounds for criticism. Do you really disagree?
No your posts are lies. The hypocrisy is YOURS. You cant begin to criticise us for supporting OUR Coulter since you arent dishonest enough to pretend we have one but you ARE dishonest enough to CLAIM we would support one if he or she existed. The problem of course is if the market were there someone would appear to fill it. Your entire hypothetical argument is completely without merit.
>>All this sancitmonious act of wanting the level of discourse raised is balony, and only hauled out when you can't counter it.
So you think Ann Coulter deserves the platform of TV more than any other conservative? Why? Because she sells a measly 40,000 books?
And you know this HOW tommy? The liberal equivelent of Coulter doesnt exist so you MAKE ONE UP out of whole cloth and IMAGINE our response to them? The closest thing to Coulter would be the Rude Pundit, he has much the same style, yet he DOESNT have a book deal and is a marginal blogger. So put those amazing mind reading powers that dont exist to rest. Stop YOUR sanctimonius and pious PRETENDING that you know what we MIGHT do as it makes you look dumb. You cant make the argument we ARE doing it so you disnegenuously IMAGINE we WOULD do it. That is pathetically weak
Bullcrap, Tommy. Don't project your party's perversions onto liberals, just because it's convenient. If there were a demand on this side of the aisle for that brand of filth, that brand of filth would be available.
Oh yeah, those bon mots 'Death to Supreme Court justices I don't like'; 'Bomb the NY Times'; 'Al Gore is a total f*g'.. what incisive wit! Repartee to be rivalled only by a 5th grade playground!! Simply hilarious!!
</sarcasm>
I don't think it's accidental that it's a she who does the worst GOP hatchet work. A man might get his head kicked in.
WHOOP WHOOP. Sexist alert! Sexist alert!
I'm sure all the feminists here will be taking you to task!
ps. But I won't hold my breaths. ;-)
I didn't mean it that way but I take your point that it could be inferred. I meant she was deliberatedly decided upon to go point by Chaos Central Command because she's a she..
You have a contradiction there. You started with the words I think then followed them with an inane post that PROVES INDISPUTABLY those first two words were a LIE. At best Ann is a sad and pathetic creature crying out for the attention daddy never gave her. She doesnt even TRY to be a pundit as in learned person. She is a flamethrower who lies, distorts and is generally without common decency.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
Coulter doesn't believe in what she says any more than we do.
I agree , its all $$$$$$$$. But she is still a hatemonger.
Slade - that's not the problem here. Obviously, she's not stupid, and knows when a well-placed lie will ruffle some feathers.
Obviously, most of us here are intelligent and aware enough to recognize her lies as such.
The sad part is, there are millions of Americans, many of them living in trailer parks and the 'bible belt' who are dumb enough to believe what she says.
There are still skinheads, Nazis, KKK, and white supremacists alive and well in this country. Any of them could latch onto Coulter's words and turn them into violent action.
It doesn't matter that her lies are stupid and easily debunked, people can still use them how they choose.
I think Ann Coulter should be banned from NBC, she is a total hate monger.
Coulter is also a Plagerist
Her new book title "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They's be Republicans" is lifted from a great Winston Churchill quote.
“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”Coulter overlooks some important points though - Not all Democrats are liberal, not all Republicans are conservative. Also - growing old does not equal growing up.
Funny, as I'm growing up and getting wiser, I'm getting more left wing.
You should consult with your family and friends if you are getting wiser - sometimes victims of mental disorders are the last to know.
I keep trying to tell you conservatives just because you are so moronic that you cannot even RECOGNIZE higher brain function much less accomplish it doesnt mean it is a mental disorder. YOUR ignorance isnt OUR problem.
I havent changed one bit politically since I was 14 and I am fifty. I dont think anyone who knew me would accuse me of not having a brain. Noam Chomsky in his seventies and a Nobel Prize winner. Churchill was often a blowhard. I prefer John Stuart Mills
Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
A very good way of looking at Media Matters is that it studies the right, and uses their often successful methods for marginalizing certain points of view. When the mainstream media refuses to book la Coulter for these massive publicity junkets, that will be a victory. The right has successfully marginalized Michael Moore, who even CNN won't let on now without "challenging his facts," even when his statistics were more correct that Sanjay Gupta's, who consulted one, big insurance-friendly "expert." I frankly wouldn't mind if mainstream outlets were to book her for an appearance, but then ask her some challenging questions, and not either egg her on or let her make preposterous statements without challenge.
How about Bill Moyers has Ann C as a "guest"? Brains and beauty versus, plain black dress.
Bill Moyers gives a stage to thoughtful, well infomred people. AC doesn't qualify.
But I don't know about the black dress. :-)
The title of her book is exactly the opposite of reality (imagine that).
Someone should write a book titled "If Rebuplicans Had Any Morals, They'd Be Democrats".
How about - "If Republicans had any brains, they'd be Libertarians?"
How about "If Republicans had brains they'd at least pretend to be nicer."?
How about, "If Republicans would go away we'd all vote 'O.K.' "
Re: "We need somebody to put rat poison in Justice Stevens's créme brulée.
Actually she said...."rat poisoning".... which I found to be quite odd. It was as though she was forming the statement with the mind of a 7 year old.
Ann Coulter is an evil witch that crawled out of the deepest corner of Satan upon Earth to demonize everyone and everything that is good. GE/NBC is a tool of evil neocon zionist that want to impose their new world order to better control every man, woman, and child. She call her Republican the party of good. But in hindsight it's the party of death and destruction and she just one of their demons sent to manipulate and deceive those gullible weak soul of register Republican members and closet conservatives. Ann Coulter is a racist homohater heartless snob and the worst part is that some people love her and beleive her view. If only they knew the real truth (the one that is being hidden from all of us).
This skinny broad has made an unwelcome appearance at Fox News studios to promote her unworthy book. Don't waste your money on it. Instead, spend the money on a charitable cause. Besides, the holiday seasons is coming up and the money would be better spent feeding the poor.
If ANYONE had any brains, we'd all be Libertarians!!
I dont think my aversion to libertarianism has anything to do with a lack of intelligence. Rather I dont agree with them.
Ann Coulter does not need NBC to sell books you silly MM. Was this article just a vehicle to rile up the usual dolts whom contribute to this forum?
You see Ann, in order to be perceived as a witty , edgy pundit you have to be witty and edgy. Your mean, leaden commentary only makes reasonable people wince. I guess you can take solace in the loud laughter from your fans, you know, the ones with one foot in either an asylum or a penitentiary.
So Ann Coulter states in her book and on numerous television shows that the Democrats use widows and other family members of those killed in terrorists attacks or in the war because it is difficult to respond to them. She then responds to them with criticism, and Media Matters chastises her for it...thereby proving her point.
Actually, she directly attacked the widows. She did it on national TV. She doesn't criticize, that implies thought and reflection. She assaults mindlessly. She'll plod along,selling the same book with a different title, to nitwits over and over.
Face it. Coulter is to the left what Michael Mooron is to the right--a gadfly.
Except Coulter speaks the truth, while Jabba the Hut is easily refuted..
The problem is that by putting her on the air, they push the definition of what's "horrible" and what isn't. The right-wing wants to push the framework their way, to where rabid conservatism is commonplace, which makes more mainstream Republican views look like the center point of the political spectrum.Coulter plays into that concept quite well. * - brabantio No thats not the whole problem, AC practically Advocates murder with her statements, why is no one talking about that?
This is something I do not understand. We have all read her statements, we have seen the comments regarding "someone should poison" (Justice Stevens). Is that not calling for someone to murder them?
Why is this given a pass?
That's part of what I'm saying. By trying to make these comments somewhat palatable ("I'm joking!", etc), it pushes the envelope of what's acceptable and what is not.
It's clearly grounds for not ever inviting her back onto a television show, even if there are no other consequences.
Ann Coulter has not said anything that should not be said. Your response proves her point...Go Ann!! BJZ
So you think this is what should be said?
She is inciting MURDER. And that is a fact.
oh crap sorry.....cut and paste just doesnt work for me.....
Commenting on radio host Melanie Morgan's assertion that if New York Times executive editor Bill Keller were convicted of treason for the Times' reporting on the Bush administration's warrantless domestic eavesdropping program, she "would have no problem with him being sent to the gas chamber," Coulter said, "I prefer a firing squad, but I'm open to a debate on the method of execution." She later suggested that Times staff members should be "executed." Coulter suggested that Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) is "the reason soldiers invented fragging" -- military slang meaning the intentional killing of a member of one's own unit. Coulter argued that the national debate during the Monica Lewinsky controversy should not have focused on whether former President Bill Clinton "did it," but rather "whether to impeach or assassinate" him. Coulter said of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens: "We need somebody to put rat poison in Justice Stevens's créme brulée." As quoted in an August 26, 2002, New York Observer article, Coulter had previously stated: "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." McVeigh's April 19, 1995, bomb attack destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people.
What's with conservatives on TV anyway? What are they doing there? Who needs that point of view?
I'm a few chapters into the book. I love it, as always.
HAD THE PATRIOT ACT which is neither NOT BEEN PUT INTO PLACE, THERE WOULD BE A REVOLUTION TODAY IN THE UNITED STATES.......WHO KNOWS? PERHAPS A REVOLUTION ALREADY OCURRING.........PERHAPS A GOOD SHOW OF FAITH WITH THE REST OF THE WORLD WE COULD TURN OVER BUSH, HIS CHILDREN, HIS BROTHERS, HIS PARENTS, HIS RELATIVES, HIS FRIENDS, TO THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT. GIVE CHENEY, RUMSFORD, ROVE TO THE INTERNATIONAL WAR TRIBUNAL AS WITH GONZALEZ AND RICE "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, THE TRUTH IS THE GREATEST ENEMY OF THE STATE." -- Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945 "The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of an eye: the more light you pour on it, the more it contracts." Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. Supreme Court "When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” -Sinclair Lewis
Coultergeist is just an angry,middle-aged tranny that hates the world as much as she hates herself.
Regarding Ann Coulter, where's the tolerance? Where is the openmindedness that liberals claim to be so famous for? Where is your sense of humor? Ann Coulter is extremely successful precisely because she provokes people like those at Media Matters and their mindless minions into behaving exactly as she says they behave.
Hillary and George Soros, and their pathologically lying buttboy David Brock can't compete in the arena of ideas so they resort to insanely outrageous distortions of the truth, knowing that there's an audience of credulous suckers and conspriacy moonbats which will lap it all up with the same crazed hatred that Coulter writes about. Believe me, you all don't disappoint. Conservatives sit back and have a good laugh. Even Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly love the attacks on them because they know it's great for ratings, and because every time Moveon or MM puts out clearly outrageous lies it gives conservatives yet another opportunity to expose liberals and leftists for what they are; lying, hating, classless demagogues who are devoid of any substance.
I cheerily and sincerely request of you, keep it up! You make our case better than we can because the world gets to see you in action.
Tootles! :)
Ann Coulter ia a hysterically funny, clever, intelligent and attractive antidote to say...Susan "screech" Estrich...oy! Hey, if Walter Duranty could write as he pleased ("I Write as I Please", 1942), why can't Ann Coulter. Coulter is so "spot on". The truth has the left wrything like satanists exposed to a cross or holy water. Someday George Soros will join his comrades in hell: Pravda's Lev Zakharovich Mekhlis, Henrikh Yagoda, Nikolai Yezhov, Lavrentii Beria, Lev Aronovich Shvartsman, Matvei Berman...yes, and me Lazar Moiseyevich Kaganovich.
the only reason media matters exists is for control. what a joke that they are concerned with virtue or ethics. It is just a tool to further indoctrinate an already dumbed down American citizenry. Don't be fooled the Democrats are for CONTROL. They don't belive people are responsible to make thier OWN choices. Niether the democratic party or the republican party is for the people, by the people. the democratic party has elements of communism. You cannot legislate economic equality, that is called marxism. The republican party has elements of facism. You cannot solve problems by dropping bombs. What we need is a true return to a Republic guided by the Constitution. The only candidate that will seriously do that is RON PAUL. Stop looking to Washington for help. The greatest threat to our liberties is not in the Middle East. It is in the Leviathan Federal government.
Contacting the network is not half as effective as writing the local affiliates. Knowing that you are not going to watch a certain program if a particular personality is on can be more effective than telling the network, since the e-mails and letter traffic is filtered through any number of associated management levels. Locals getting a good number of complain have a quicker reaction time.
Hey Bob Q Bush ...
That's a good suggestion. I shall begin doing the same. New Subject ...
A LIBERAL ANN COULTER? No Way.
Here's why ... Democrats are more interested in being civil, honest, straight shooters. Why do you suppose we don't have an equally effective Republican Media Matters?
No Media Matters for Republicans because Democrats don't have clones for Ann, Bill, Rush, etc.etc.
I knew MMFA is making fantastic progress when I heard Fox News attacking over and over again. They lashing out with ugly labels such as Media Gestapo Smear WebSite.
Bill O'Reilly called Media Matters "A Far Left Swamp Pit" and a Smear WebSite.
A Republican Media Watchdog Group will not work effectively unless News Outlets begin reporting the honest to god truth. They of course would take that truth, spin the hell out of it and deliver it to Fox News for re-broadcasting.
As Arnold Said ... I'll be back!
"A LIBERAL ANN COULTER? No Way.
Here's why ... Democrats are more interested in being civil, honest, straight shooters."
LOL Yeah, Like Rosie O'Donnell or Keith (I need more Viagra) Olbermann, or any number of people who post their unhinged, hateful bile at this place. Oh, and let's not forget MM's sister organization who called General Petraeus a traitor. Yeah, liberals are real civil.
The only straight shooting liberals ever do is into their collective foot. LOL
Next!
Six consecutive New York Times Bestsellers. Wow. I did not realize Ann Coulter was such a powerful force in the world of book publishing. How is she able to successfully sell so much crap to the American public?
When will the hate end ? I love my country, but this turn to fascism is very alarming.
I came to MediaMatters to see what it was about - I heard a reference to "truth in media". I am stunned to see the reponses posted here. I guess I am confused why you folks CARE if she sells books. Obviously you are not buying them - as is your right. What happened to "freedom of speech"?. The purpose of this site appears to be to shut down people who disagree with a pretty specific agenda - a very frightening proposition.
Although I must admit there is some honesty in the mission statement here - it states the site is clearly against the CONSERVATIVE media. I am new here, so maybe I am wrong in thinking that there are also issues with misinformation about LIBERAL media. Will those missteps be pointed out here?? e.g. Did this group go ballistic over Dan Rather's little bit of misinformation or do I still need to rely on littlegreenfootballs to do the medias job of vetting - for BOTH sides of the issue.
It appears that this site does exactly what you accuse the Conservatives of doing - only you take it to a more disturbing level - you call for their silence.