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 ...
touche... :)
| Posted by sinkspur to MJY1288 On News/Activism ^ 05/29/2006 9:48:23 PM EDT · 59 of 439 ^ My God, We owe these Marines nothing less and Sink should know better than to fall for this crap You're not paying attention to all the clues being dropped by Pace and others in high command. Since anyone who raises questions about this incident gets banned or is driven off the thread by those who simply refuse to consider that something terrible happened here, I'll oblige you and leave. And I'm not proud of men who shoot other people in cold blood. This was calculated. If there were insurgents present, is it not curious that not a single Marine lost his life or was wounded other than the Marine killed by the IED? Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies |
||||||
|
|
||||||
| Marine at Haditha: 'I Can Still Smell the Blood' ^ |
||||||
| Posted by sinkspur to an amused spectator On News/Activism ^ 05/29/2006 9:41:53 PM EDT · 46 of 439 ^ It's an anecdote Tell that to the dozen Marines who may be prosecuted for various crimes, including murder. Whoever was in command of this unit is in serious, serious trouble. Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies |
||||||
Not necessary because, 1 I love that photo, it's a pleasure to post, and 2 everybody posting (136) is intent on Ann's ideas, values, and content. We all were intent on her mind exclusively for a short time.
"You are now spamming the thread with stuff that has nothing to do with Coulter."
No, I'm showing what a "conservative" you are. And have always been.
And that you call people liars when they speak the truth. And have always done.
Why are you at FR again?
I interpret Ann's comment as not so much "enjoying" the fact that the spouses died, but seemingly reveling in the new status as victim, and playing it for all it is worth.
I mean I felt bad for Jim Brady and his wife for his head wound and aftermath when he was shot during the Reagan assasination attempt. But when they started going nuts about gun control, and showing up with Ted Kennedy etc. it made me sick. He was kept at same salary the remainer of the Reagan term even though he was not able to perform his old job, and a TV movie portrayed (accurately or maybe not) him as very hateful and abusive to his family. He became a pawn, biting the hands that fed him.
There is a lot of resentment in the land that these New Yorkers got Millions of dollars settlements, when Oklahoma City families did not, then they go around and bash the guy who is trying to make amends (Dubya).
I've read most of the comments of the Darwin apologists on FR and their arguments are hardly conclusive or very "decimating" in regard to addressing the flaws of Darwinist speculation. Most of those who pass themselves off as experts here on the topic of evolution seem only to parrot back the usual propoganda we all got in grade school, and aren't very well-read about the challenges to Darwinism. In other words, either because of educational brainwashing, philosophical mindset, or the need for professional survival, they are predisposed to reject any challenge to Darwinism. Their views have nothing to do with "science" or logic.
I wonder if you know how many investigations the military has done in Iraq, I bet it's in the 100's if not 1000's and that does NOT mean just because they were investigated that wrong doing took place.
remember assumption is the mother of all F*****s
Mojo! I've missed you, Man!
BUMP! Agreed.
Yeah. I personally can't stand to listen to these four, and thank God I don't watch TV except occassionally. When I did see them on Matthews, they seemed to not know what the heck they were talking about.
They certainly enjoyed the spotlight and the celebrity. I think that's beyond dispute.
Analysis based on LOGIC: Point in fact: they certainly have not SHUNNED the attention and publicity and one could conclude that they weren't exactly MISERABLE in the face of the attention and publicity or they would have AVOIDED IT. Hence, one could REASONABLY conclude that they were indeed ENJOYING it or they wouldn't have persisted in seeking to experience it. Unless, of course, they were accustomed to EXPERIENCING sex without ENJOYING it and hence they were just TOLERATING the attention and publicity...
Have you ever looked into the weaknesses of Darwinism, are have you swallowed the whole loaf of baloney as the left has?
See my post #170 for an example of what Coulter could have said that would have made her point and asvoided this unnecessary controversy. Despite her recent efforts to explain away the comment as referring to the women enjoying their celebrity and not their husbands' deaths, I have to think she was being deliberately provocative in suggesting the latter. If I can make the difference clear, why couldn't she? Because she didn't want to.
Thanks. When I hear an equal measure of condemnation by media commentators and the like against the ugly rhetoric of the left, especially Ward Churchill attacking ALL 9-11 victims by calling them "litte Eichmanss" who got what they deserved (funny Hillary and the MSM were quiet on that), then I'll worry about Coulter's style.
Instead, all I hear is that Bush is to blame for dividing the country and making the looney left so unhinged. It's all his fault, not the inability of the Democratic left to have accepted the legitimacy of this man from the next minute after the December 2000 Supreme Court ruling to this very moment.
Amen.
"There is a lot of resentment in the land that these New Yorkers got Millions of dollars settlements, when Oklahoma City families did not, then they go around and bash the guy who is trying to make amends (Dubya)."
They even blamed Giuliani. And said he had no right to speak about the suffering it caused. He hadn't "lost a loved one."
I didn't see any outrage about that.
And i'm not proud of FReepers that jump to conclusions and s*** on our boys before the investigation is complete.
Thought so.
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.