She's not analyzing. She's advocating a very specific point of view.
_____________________________
Pardon, your slip is showing.
Analysis that produces undesirable results is always viewed as biased.
Coulter's brilliant ANALYSIS of liberalism as theology is not biased. It is an important tool for understanding the fanaticism of the left. As such her rhetoric is logical, reasonable and based in critical observation. That defines analysis, not advocacy.
She's not analyzing. She's advocating a very specific point of view.
_____________________________
Pardon, your slip is showing.
Analysis that produces undesirable results is always viewed as biased.
Coulter's brilliant ANALYSIS of liberalism as theology is not biased. It is an important tool for understanding the fanaticism of the left. As such her rhetoric is logical, reasonable and based in critical observation. That defines analysis, not advocacy.
I'm certain that if you asked her if she was biased, she'd answer truthfully and in the affirmative. I suspect she'd take it as an insult to be labeled "impartial."
In regards to her rhetoric being logical, reasonable and based in critical observation -- those attributes also define advocacy as well as analysis. Lawyers use just such tools every day to make their cases.
Advocacy isn't a dirty word. Our entire legal system is based on advocacy. I would say that two guys fighting it out using the based available facts and logic to make their case is the best way to get at the truth.