Posted on 06/13/2006 3:02:44 PM PDT by Mike Bates
In the controversy over Ann Coulter's comments about the group of 9/11 widows, there is one critical question, from the point of view of ensuring standards of accuracy in the media. How does Coulter know it to be true that, "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much." There is no evidence whatsoever that those women enjoyed their husbands' deaths, and Coulter offers none. The only "evidence" for this preposterous and hurtful claim is that the women became activists and sought the media spotlight and took a political position at odds with that of Coulter. But what does that prove?
I think Coulter probably would have been correct to say that the women appeared to enjoy the media attention. You don't go on these shows unless you enjoy them to some degree. But enjoying a death? And the death of a loved one when fatherless children were left behind? Coulter's comments are not only false but cruel. She has also made other disparaging personal comments about the women.
In journalism, facts and truth are supposed to matter. Opinions are allowed, and Coulter, a columnist for Human Events and many other newspapers, is entitled to her own opinions.
SNIP
If the matter only involved personal opinions about people or things, Coulter's comments wouldn't really be newsworthy or significant. But she is claiming to have inside knowledge of the personal psychology of this group of women who lost their husbands on 9/11. That is why the comments have generated so much outrage—except from a few conservatives unwilling to criticize her.
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
At the outset I note that she is not reporting "news" but is rather engaged in polemics. A little hyperbole never hurt anyone and is a legitimate rhetorical device.
Facts ONLY matter according to who the "journalist" is.
Her point--about the way these women are point out there to spout anti-Bush rhetoric but are unable to be criticized because of their personal loss--is a valid one. But she has no idea about these women "enjoying" their husband's deaths.
You... you... you stirrer!
She also has no idea if the dead husbands were going to divorce these women.
Coulter is projecting: she's been dumped so many times for being bitchy, she presumes that's the way every woman is treated.
Or to differentiate in another way, I don't think she meant that they enjoyed the actual deaths themselves, but rather the fruits of their deaths - the added attention, the celebratory mourning, and lots of other unseemly behaviors.
Exactly.
I have often been a critic of Coulter, and this controversy illustrates my point: Are we discussing the substantive issues she raises in her book, or has this just turned into an argument about Coulter? The latter, obviously, and that is the problem. As for the outrage of liberals, I'd like to see their outrage at some of the over-the-top claims that liberals make about Bush, conservatives, etc. Someday, when pigs fly and hell freezes over . . .
Cliffy's undies are in a knot
Unfortunately, nothing really beyond comments that these women themselves have made about others, while appearing to revel in their circumstance.
Thank you, Dan Rather, for putting out further made up "facts."
Coulter: "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."
Kincaid: "[S]he is claiming to have inside knowledge of the personal psychology of this group of women who lost their husbands on 9/11."
++++++
Accuracy In Media?
LOL
I'm surprised Cliff is taking this view... usually, he's on-target with his analysis.
Busted!
It's called Coulterism: if Ann can make up facts about 9/11 widows, facts can be made up about her.
They certainly enjoyed the spotlight and the celebrity. I think that's beyond dispute.
1. Coulter is not a journalist; she is an opinion writer and an entertainer.
2. She was not offering an opinion about what was supposedly going through their minds, but rather was making, in very acerbic language, a valid point about the common practice of the left to hide behind sympathetic human shields and using these tragic figures as spokesperson for their agenda. While criticizing the way Coulter said it, this girly man fails to even address her point and the context of what Coulter said. To that end, Coulter was entirely right even if one disagrees with some of the phrasing she used to make her point.
All Coulter was talking about was the propensity of the left to use tragedies as a lever to innoculate politically active people against open debate.
These women were taking advantage of their husband's deaths to gain an advantage in a political debate.
Coulter is correct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.