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 ...
Well, in that case, how do we know that you're not a sexual predator who molests little boys?
(Hey, by your standard, that's perfectly acceptable debating technique.)
Her comments make the liberals (and liberal apologists who think we need to kiss up to the media) crawl out of the woodwork and reveal themselves.
The reactions are very informative.
Maybe you should apply for a position in the MSM, the way you mischaracterize her remarks? She asked the question, of you have the answer. I'd like to hear it.
paraphrasing, "how do we know that their husbands weren't going to divorce them?" <~~~~~ a question
Excellent post. Ann is a repellavist.
Ann is brilliant- I always enjoy reading her columns- but I don't care to listen to her. I think this is simply a clever publicity generator..but at what price?
As to moderates..do you think many would have read her book anyway?
Maybe because he, like a lot of us, recognize Coulter for what she is, a slightly unhinged, slimmed-down, right wing version of Michael Moore or Howard Stern. For them accuracy is secondary to shock value, their attacks seem more than a little pathalogical. Coulter's motto seems to be if she can't say anything nice about somebody then she's in seventh heaven. She's an act, nothing more or less, and not a serious political commentator.
Nope ........ cannot prove that.
I know you're a darwinist maybe you can speak to the dead as well?
I don't know how you "know" I'm a Darwinist but working with plants for many decades I do see evolution as very real. I observe year in and year out how plants' characteristics are altered by their environments.
Gotta go back to work. Talk to you later.
p.s. Don't stay up all night again!
;-)
We expect dogs to urinate on fire hydrants. We don't expect people to join them in doing so.
she answered Colmes rebuttal and she said something to like, paraphrasing "because their husands deaths were their only coaim to fame" something like that...
Well, in that case, how do we know that you're not a sexual predator who molests little boys?
I thought Coulter went over the line with Miers as well. She went on Bill Maher's show (Maher's an old boyfriend) and said that Bush had gone back to "boozing" by nominating her and that he should be impeached.
She's also called John Roberts "Souter-lite". In the case of Roberts, nobody agreed with her, and she gave up her campaign to have him rejected by the Senate.
The only way Coulter knows to get attention is to say something outrageous.
These women are so vicious they've no sense of propriety at all and they deserve no special consideration.
They are as loony as the ditch witch.
The question is repugnant to ask any widow. Ann was tactless to ask. Surely if the Jersey Girls are wrong in their opinions, we can argue why without insults. If not, we are not right.
I think you may be right.
I like Ann's writing ability and her "guts", but this episode is not her best moment, to say the least.
Igore my last post. I asked to have it removed. It is in error.
I see now you were talking about Cindy Sheehan.
Sorry.
Unngg!! LOL! ;)
good post
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.