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 ...
Besides, as you may have noticed, I'm a burned out geezer. Not everyone can be Bob Uecker.
Kristen Breitweiser spits on George W. Bush every time she gets in front of a television camera or group of people.
I never saw you get your panties in a twist about THAT.
Selective outrage, I guess. **snicker**
PS - I'll give you some advice about the Alpha Witch from New Jersey:
Don't get between Kristen and a camera. She'd run you over like roadkill. ;-)
("they were on their way to divorce") or saying they were enjoying their husbands' death.
She said neither. SO, and in your own words..............
It's classless and totally unnecessary to the point YOU (Coulter's) trying to make
Yeah well....gotta help out the poor Denver Nuggets. I thought wearing out the Bulls would help!
Are you that insecure that you've got to have a herd of people cheering you on before you can put up your thoughts?
I have no use for Breitweiser or any of these other women. But, I also know when Coulter is using somebody for her own purposes, and this is one of those occasions.
Just as she used George W. Bush as a whipping boy during the Harriett Miers nomination.
None of Coulter's ranting is about conservatism.
It's about her!
That was a very poor choice of words in what was otherwise a correct point regarding the "Jersey Girls". They are nothing more than a group of political hacks using their husband's deaths as a backdrop for political attacks.
Yeah, whatever. You know very well that she said both.
"You're quite free with jumping on the motivations of other posters, yet you seem to have no trouble with Coulter's motivations (i.e., being outrageous to sell books)."
You are hilarious. I knew Coulter when she was a paycheck away from living in a cardboard box and NOBODY would publish her. She said the same things then.
You and others constantly harp on her greed. She would be a top MSNBC pundit and a regular NYT columnists and much else besides if she had been ambitious for money.
This is just one of you and your stalking pals smears.
"The hypocrisy is hip deep on this thread from the Coulterites."
Hypocrisy? --You're soaking in it.
You who counter Coulter's comments with slurs about her sex life, her looks, her clothes, her diet.
And now you are outraged about her bringing up these women's personal lives.
It is hilarious how blinded you are by your neurotic hatred of this women.
And disgusting.
But she's always had that effect on leftists. (And don't pretend you aren't one.)
I never saw you get your panties in a twist about THAT.
Selective outrage, I guess.
Yep! You hit it!
Thank you for your honesty and consistency. Although I disagree, it's nice to be able to have a sane conversation about it.
YOU KNOW very well HOW she said it and, yet, you posted it with a negative connotation to your make your point. YET, you accuse Ann of the same. WHY??
I have no use for Breitweiser or any of these other women. But,
SO where is the outrage?
You who counter Coulter's comments with slurs about her sex life, her looks, her clothes, her diet.And her real estate investments. Don't forget her real estate investments!
Sinkspur strikes again. Why are you so obsessed with Ann Coulter?
It's called CDD - Compassion Deficit Disorder. I have it too.
The outrage was when Breitweiser was actually appearing in public: in front of the 9/11 commission, on HARDBALL. You can check my posts.
Coulter decides to pound on them when they're no longer in the public eye.
At any rate, it's not the fact that Coulter went after them that's the problem. It's how she does it, trying to hurt them if she can.
Coulter's the kind of person that if she can't say something nice about somebody, she's loving it.
And her real estate investments. Don't forget her real estate investments!
And her bleached blonde mane. Don't forget the bleached blonde mane.
Coulter is the "shock jock" of the right. She knew that she was being rude and insensitive, and she knew it would get her lots of media attention - and she was correct.
She could have made her point without being so nasty, but that wouldn't have been Ann, and it wouldn't have gotten her nearly as much publicity.
When this first hit, I didn't have a lot to say about it. It looked kind of bad, but then it also looked like it needed some time on the stove to fully develop. So I waited, knowing that news ripens in the fullness of time.
Sure enough, a funny thing happened to the Coulter "foot-in-mouth" story:
Apparently, the facts of the incident weren't GOOD enough for the Democrat media. NOOOOOO! They had to lie about what she said - in order to make her look more heartless and blacken her reputation with even more people.
In the lying, they made her point with a capital P.
So, no harm, no foul - except the Jersey B*tches are out of the game, and some of the media that are writing their screeds from DNC faxes are naked in the light.
A good warrior will often feint the enemy, and goad him into an unwise attack. I'll say she succeeded in spades. Like a good tactical warrior, Coulter waved the red flag in front of the bull, and the bull attacked. He didn't see the quicksand behind the cape, though. ;-)
There were others on this site who jumped all over this story. Sometimes, it's better to wait to see what's ACTUALLY happening. I don't sweat the small stuff these days. ;-)
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.