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 ...
May I ask what you and your wife thought of one of these women demanding to know what right Rudy Guiliani had to be at the Moussoui death penalty hearing......since he didnt' lose anyone.
Ann has made some fabulous analogies in the past and does so in the first chapter of the book I got in my e-mail (it's also on the web somewhere, I'm told).
So when she writes a book, I have to ask, is she preaching to the choir? The red meat people? They are already on "her side". But a more bold approach to take a little more careful approach with the inflammatory comments and attract some moderates to her position.
Exactly- other than money- what's the point of inflaming people who might otherwise be persuaded..
Just saw on another thread that Matty asked his panel tonight..get ready...if they thought Ann Coulter is PHYSICALLY attractive...I swear, he did!
Impossible to say. We would all like to believe that, though, wouldn't we?
They mention their children but it would seem that for the most part they have been put in the care of others while their mother's enjoyed their constant celebrity in congress and as guests on countless TV programs.
Frankly, these woman have irked MY last nerve.
They lie, they misrepresent, and they feign outrage when criticized.
Her brother would be so proud of her.
It exposes to them to the idea others were saying less forcefully, and as a direct result of that, was being ignored. Now it seems everyone except the Democrats or Democrat strategists are agreeing with Ann's central point while hiding behind the "moral mini skirt" that they disagree with how she said it.
Pathetic, IMO. She's bringing more liberal hypocricy and RINO ineffectiveness to light with once sentence than I have in years of making reasoned arguments and posting on multiple forums.
Oh, they've irked me too, OldFriend. I cannot stand these women. They are agenda driven witches.
Thank you for posting that. I went looking and couldn't find it, but I probably used the wrong search words.
There is an interesting (and repulsive) school court case mentioned in this chapter; I did some research and we can read the filings online. This is a case that all by itself could persuade moderates to vote Republican, imo.
Do you have any knowledge of ANY of the "Jersey Girls" expressing outrage that Sandy Berger illegally took documents relating to the events leading to 9/11 and mysteriously "losing" them?
That has to be one of the worst sentences man has ever seen.
i wish the media was so upset with churchills comments but you know
Again, that makes sense. But I think outlawcam has a point, too. Ann's book seems to me to be fine, but what she said on the Today show was just wrong--- I think she instinctively refused to back off from Lauer's mischaracterization because of the same bulldog personality that makes her so valuable in most instances.
Sometimes the way leftists use grief as a weapon does become an issue--- I'm thinking of the Paul Wellstone memorial.
Still, you're right. Leftists have to disguise their positions on the issues because if most Americans heard what they were unfiltered, there would be no blue states other than maybe Vermont so based on that, it's the issues that need to be pressed. On the other hand, Ann gets conservative issues out there by being who she is--- someone who says what she thinks--- and I wouldn't want her to become a David Brooks. She should say continue to say whatever she thinks and only limit herself with basic decency, which she failed in this one instance to do.
I'm not in the least bit sorry for Sheehan- other than as a mentally ill person who is clearly not getting the help she needs.
No doubt- there is plenty of hypocracy to go around..and I find these women Ann talks about to be shameful.
I know I'm in the minority- but I just believe she has done more harm than good this time.
Do you believe it was wrong for pragmatic reasons or for moral reasons for her to say what she said, the way she said it?
Don't feel bad. At FR we can disagree AND be disagreeable. :)
"Please, as I've posted before, enough with the "definition of 'is' is' crap."
Did I post the definition of 'is'? No, jerk, I posted a definition of the word Ann used and in the sense she used it (as I see it). Does it explode your preconceived hatred?
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.