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 ...
"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).....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."
Good point about NYC vs OKC folks. Sad. True, too.
But she does make valid points. Thank you.
Interesting. You would think that somebody who writes for Accuracy In Media would have a better grasp of semantics. Clearly Ann is expressing her perception of something (even if her own words are a little awkward). She is not saying that the scumbag "Jersey Girls" are enjoying their husbands' deaths - - she is just saying that that's the way it looks to her.
Exactly. Not only are they enjoying their husbands' deaths, they are relishing in those deaths. Never before were they so wealthy, pampered, admired, sought after, and coronated as The National Voice. It's heady stuff and they love it and as much as the media that puts a mirror in front of them each and every day.
By this logic, investigation = conviction. No need for a trial or even a hearing or arraignment.
People are investigated all the time on evidence and/or charges that turn out to be bogus. Remember the Marine who double-tapped the Iraqi soldier who was on the ground but was moving, and was under a blanket where weapons could be hidden?
Turns out he did his job, which anyone with any common sense about combat could figure out without feeding all that grist in the MSM propaganda mill.
I find it ghoulish for a widow to use her husbands death to advance a political agenda. Sorry...
Thanks.
And not to brag, but much (if not all) of the material mentioned in the article on that thread came from my research.
You're right on brother. And afterall, "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much." is clearly Ann's opinion.
The Opinion Police evidently disagree and are free to do so but why in the world would they deny her right to "voice" what she thinks. The OP's certainly seem to think their opinions are above reproach and only people who agree with them have the right of dissent.
I believe that is called a double standard.
I've read the claims of creationists and "intelligent design" advocates; their claims are not convincing.
Most of the problem is that a lot of these people completely misstate the theory of evolution to begin with, and then argue against their own misstatement rather than the actual theory.
You make an excellent point about the MSM's silence regarding Ward Churchill's "little Eichmann's" comment. As far as I am aware, NO liberals got on him for that, or - if they did - it was a tepid critique after conservatives had already raised the issue.
Thank you, thank you, thank you! (Darn. Why didn't I think of using the definition of enjoy to make the point?) Excellent and right on!
>>>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.>>>
Not to mention the million bucks that widows and children of our soldiers to not get.
RIGHT!!!
Ann should have left it at:
I've never seen women enjoying THE CELEBRITY accrued from their husbands' deaths so much.
She will live that ugly sentence ( "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.") down....... and she deserves to be vilified for it.
She should try growing up. I have three of her books, but she screwed up severely there.
And then to make it worse........... the silly girl went on Vanity and Colmes and ignorantly said, "How do we know their husbands weren't going to divorce them before 9/11?"
How spectacularly ignorant!
>>>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 . . .>>>
Not to mention the statement Howard Dean made today that Rove 'committed perjury' even though he was not indicted by Feds.
Someone e-mailed me the first chapter of her new book; she's so smart and so clever with words she could have found a better way to make her point. That's why I think she wrote these things deliberately -- knowing full well the controversy it would cause and the resulting increase in book sales.
The unfortunate thing is that I personally know one moderate and I'm sure there are others out there who planned to read or buy the book and now they won't.
LOL
Hugh Hewitt had a statement as of a few days ago on his web site; he thought her comments were disgusting. The comments may still be there.
Cliff Kincaid has written what he thinks in this article we're all commenting on. Laura Ingraham was more muted in her criticism and I don't remember her exact words; it was last week as I recall. But it was clear she didn't approve.
Well, I didn't want to be. (Cf. my posting history here at FR.)
But yeah, I put Sweetness & Light:
Sweetness & Light
http://www.sweetness-light.com/
Here's the latest articles there re Haditha:
Sweetness & Light
http://www.sweetness-light.com/index.php?tag=haditha
since you seem interested.
But all topics are explored.
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.