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 ...
I just don't think commenting (as Ann did with the divorce comment after the husbands' deaths) on a very personal relationship (a marriage) is very uncouth.
I was raised in the 50's, and I was taught that that kind of "intrusion" was remarkably incorrect.
Btw, I certainly know that these four Jersey Girls have been much more reprehensible than Ann was with her comments.
I just know that she could have gotten attention to the subject of these "protected victims" without some of her bizarre words.
Respectfully, what irritates this AC fan is the intellectually dishonest criticism from the anti-AC crowd on FR. In post #2 of this thread a poster made the comment "[AC} is not reporting "news" but is rather engaged in polemics. A little hyperbole never hurt anyone and is a legitimate rhetorical device." MW.com defines a polemic: n. 1. A controversial argument, especially one refuting or attacking a specific opinion or doctrine. 2. A person engaged in or inclined to controversy, argument, or refutation. adj. also po·lem·i·cal (--kl) Of or relating to a controversy, argument, or refutation. [French polémique, from Greek polemikos, hostile, from polemos, war.]
I suppose for older Freepers she comes off as uncouth, bizzare, classless, crass, etc. and this criticism would be well-founded if the point of her book was a public relations tract designed to promote conservatism. But the criticism misses the point of her book, which is designed to attack and refute the specific doctrine of liberal infallibility. The words she uses are deliberately offensive, casting heat and light on an over-used lefty trope. While you may be shocked at her words, they are not directed at you, but at the liberal "anointed." They are admittedly controversial, and effective in attacking the liberal mind-set.
The antis on this thread, lacking an understanding of the utility of the polemic, insist on questioning the author's motivations rather than evaluating her words in context; despite agreeing with the balance of her argument. This is intellectually dishonest carping--the critics insist on a different format for her polemic, all the while regretting that they would have done it differently. The critic compounds the matter by superciliously denouncing the motives of AC's supporters, citing banal observations of how she has offended them and their kin--then claiming against all evidence that AC would sell more books if she would pull her rhetorical punches.
It truly pains me to point this out to you august persons on this thread, but you argue against rhetoric you don't understand. Perhaps if you considered the context of AC's book (including the fact that the book is number one with a bullet on Amazon) and actually read the thing, you will reconsider your uninformed opinion.
Perfect..... she succeeded and was offensive to probably about 60% of all the people who heard and read her intemperate and uncouth words. She did not need to drop into the gutter with the libs to make her point about the "protected victims".
****
By the way, yesterday we here in Pittsburgh had a very fine, intelligent, and informative sports talkshow host of 20 years or so terminated because he wasn't obnoxious, offensive, and outrageous enough on the air. The day that outrageousness wins is about the day that this nation is dying! Get it, youngjim?
It's one hell of a decaying country when decency comes in second.
Ann is a fine writer, I have three of her books, but it's past time for her to grow up. She's still a bomb-throwing child, youngjim.
I'd just note that I've heard rappers use a similar argument in defending their abusive language about women.
BTW, you also mentioned "older FReepers." Heck, lad some of us are just plain old.
Regards.
>>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?<<
My problem with the situation is that this is the wrong question. The question ought to be - why should the 9/11 victims families have such a large voice in policy. Why should shoud they any voice?
Did we poll the families of the people killed a Pearl Harbor to ask if we should declare war on Germany too?
Good for you youngjim... you not only look... YOU SEE.
We need more a-sholes on our side that call a spade a spade. We have enough "Davey and Goliath" types in the conservative movement. We need more Ann Coulters.
The Jersey Broads deserved every bit of criticism they received.
Well, count me in with the group who thinks Ann's mama didn't raise her right ;)
I have loved Ann since I first saw her on MSNBC during Clintongate. But (monkey) I agree with the author of this piece.
Consider this your manners lesson for the day.
Unforutnately most are not paying attention to the way in which Liberals utilize this "heinous practice." The focus is on that one ugly sentence Ann wrote.
Your sanctimony is truly breathtaking. You can put lipstick on the pig of Coulter's personal attacks on the marriages of women she knows nothing about (to say nothing about speculating on the motivations of dead men), but you won't convince anybody who doesn't already fawn over this vituperous harridan.
The words she uses are deliberately offensive,
Yes, they are, and they assume a prominent place in the pantheon of gutter talk for which Coulter is already famous. "Cleaning Lady" (Harriett Miers), "Boozing it up again" (President Bush), "ragheads" (Muslims), "We need somebody to put rat poison in Justice Stevens' creme brulee."
As I said earlier, had Coulter walked up to Kristen Breitweiser and spit in her face, you'd be cheering her on.
Then you wonder why the far-right is viewed as a bunch of gap-toothed, shoe-sized IQed neanderthals who can barely walk on two legs.
In this case, Ann's words are NOT effective. They detract from the brilliant substance of her argument.
Step right up. Perhaps you could persuade Howard Stern to join in Coulter's schtick. Another non-stop mouth that flows like a running toilet would fit right in.
I would totally agree. Not to mention the adulation of the left, the television appearances, and the MONEY, MONEY, MONEY gleaned from insurance, the American taxpayer, and those speaking fees.
Nicely said. :)
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Ka-ching!
Sorry, I'm afraid I missed that. You said?
..and I'm about the most conservative, button down, respectful of persons and traditions, establishment person you could find.
But it's obvious, on this thread, I'm more in line with youngjim ....than those 'more august' folk around here :^
Youngjim, I don't know you or how old you are or your political leanings....
..but right now I agree with your posts......and you write very well.
.
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.