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 outrageexcept from a few conservatives unwilling to criticize her.
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
LOL. You've probably put your finger on it. I notice a lot of self-identified conversatives have gone ballistic over this particular Coulter book. I suspect it's the subject matter. Talk about leftist treason and present an apologetic for Joe McCarthy, that's acceptable. Suggest that certain elements of our society are "godless," which quite frankly includes some elements of the conservative community, and it's unacceptable. Fact is, there are a good number of people on the right who are, essentially, godless, and many of whom worship at the same altar of politics as the left (although from a different viewpoint). I see these people every day on FR. I think she's hit a raw nerve with our more radically secular brethren.
Victim? Me? ROFL
Hardly, sweetie. But it's nice of you to be concerned.
and then spoils brings attention to it with some over-the-top comment that givesdrives liberals an opening to make HER insane and ignore her salient points - as her book rockets to #1 on every list due to all of the attention her books get.
When you have to explain the meaning of a commonly-used and defined word, you've lost the argument.
BS Franken outright lies.
Apples and oranges. Lisa Beamer has used the death of her husband to encourage in people the sorts of character traits her husband displayed on 9/11. As an act of love and grief, she honored her husband's memory. And no one is has suggested that the method that she uses to honor that memory--or any political move she makes henceforth--is beyond criticism.
Could be. Or perhaps he hates her so because she is effective.
Did you read any of Sinkspur's (many, many) post about Haditha?
He convicted the Marines faster than John Murtha.
He always takes the other side. Unfailingly.
It can't be an accident after all these years.
I realize it's silly to let really stupid people upset you, but I have had it with the wingnuts who go about claiming that liberals are delighted about Haditha or want to use it for nefarious public relations purposes. Listen, twits, if you can't stop your petty little partisan political games long to enough to recognize Sad when you see it, then shut up.
Molly isn't being very nice is she? She is telling us to STFU, calling conservatives "wingnuts", "stupid", and "twits". But, Molly is liberal, so its okay.
Care to name one?
And about the practice of certain 'tragic' figures to cooperate and participate fully in that process, presumably because they're getting something out of it.
The Jersey Girls and Sheehan give every indication of reveling in the process of being 'used,' and every appearance of forgetting or downplaying the tragic circumstances that got them there. Not only that, there is no doubt that their behavior and the fawning of the media and the Democrats over them and their personal opinions is highly offensive to many others who suffered like tragedies and don't share their political views.
They don't seem to care a fig about whether their behavior is offensive to other people in a similar position, their self-absorption and delusions of grandeur are far too complete for that.
We expect dogs to urinate on fire hydrants. We don't expect human beings to emulate them.
Didnt know you had such a low opinion of Freepers. If Michael Moore or anyone else said something THAT WAS TRUE about Lisa Beamer, we would say so. If you are looking for knee-jerk reactionaries,..... uh,.........never mind.
Rules?
~()):~)>
ALLAH SNACKBAR!
THANK YOU! As a former teacher of English, I was beginning to believe that no one knows how to read anymore.
Well, that just impresses me. But if does tell me where some of you stand.
I will used this rebuttal the next time you try and explain the word "theory" :)
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.