Ann Coulter Was Wrong

Accuracy In Media ^ | 6/13/2006 | Cliff Kincaid

[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.

[beyond the sea]

It is disgusting beyond belief to see so many so-called conservatives on a forum she helped to put on the map go apoplectic over her use of one word ("enjoy") instead of another (such as "exploit").

Sorry you are "disgusted beyond belief". Quite melodramatic.

It was just done for some kind of sordid kicks.

I can't speak to that.

It's really no wonder we conservatives have so few good people on our side.

You must be kidding or hanging around with the wrong crowd.

****

I'm tired and now kidding with you too much.

Please be well. I admire the fire in your heart...... honestly.

[beyond the sea]

The objective morality of making the statement is no different. ---

OK.

;-)

[beyond the sea]

I see what you're saying. You make a good point. You are a very logical poster.

It's not at all important, but I just feel that if so many FReepers are going to "fawn" over her pictures and insist that they be posted every time a thread is about her, I wish she'd gain a few pounds. Yes, I know it could be metabolism, but I prefer my women to look like Olympic figure skaters or divers. Nice, eh?

;-)

Now, I must go back to work.

You are a great poster, btw.

[outlawcam]

In October 1998 Coulter got up on the stage of FR's first rally and expressed her support. Against the advice of her agent and publishers.

I didn't know that. What were they afraid of? Tin foil hats?

[outlawcam]

I prefer my women to look like Olympic figure skaters or divers. Nice, eh?

Well at least you've got standards. :)

Thank you for your kind comments. I have enjoyed conversing with you.

[Sam Hill]

"I didn't know that. What were they afraid of? Tin foil hats?"

I don't know for certain. But FR was still an unknown quantity.

I suspect they were worried she was risking having it tied around her neck if it turned out to be a a haven for racists or other cranks.

[youngjim]

Per your post 558:

Well said, sir. I admit a twinge of envy for your friendship with AC, but on reflection I'm happy that she has such a good friend in you.

This quote from her new book: "Self-righteousness is like a drug, creating the warm sensation that you are more moral, more compassionate, more sensitive than anyone else in the universe. Once you've done it, you have to do it again and again and again." Godless p. 58

[Enchante]

Sinkspur, you'll probably just lash out at me now, but it does appear you have quite an obsession with Ann Coulter. I'm far from either her biggest fan or detractor here (I think she makes many good points but goes over the top with some of her personal invective), but you do seem to be obsessed with her. Curious.....

[Sam Hill]

Thanks a lot. Ann is a deeply good person. And one of the kindest I know.

(I think Aristotle may have had her in mind when he talked about the "great souled" man.)

I suspect her other friends would all say pretty much the same thing.

There are probably hundreds of Freepers who have met her at events.

And, as far as I know, they are usually impressed with her unaffected charm and generous nature.

[sinkspur]

You done?

I appreciate you consolidating so many posts in one place. As you can see, I've been no fan of the Jersey Girls.

But, I'm not an author or a public figure purporting to represent "conservatives." Of course, I don't think that, deep down, Coulter feels any allegiance to conservatives either. She gives you what you want, you lap it up, and give her money.

That's business. And that's all it is.

It's amazing that you let me get under your very thin skin. After listening and reading Coulter's bilge for as long as you have, I figured you'd recognize quid-pro-quo when you saw it.

You never mention anything she has said about Justice Stevens ("somebody should poison his creme brulee") or Harriett Miers ("a cleaning lady") or calling for Bush's impeachment publicly and stating publicly that Bush had gone back to "boozing."

Coulter's got a history of getting attention via personal attacks, which is why your criticism of criticisms of her from FReepers is so surprising. If she can dish it out, she ought to be able to take it.

[sinkspur]

but you do seem to be obsessed with her.

She's the news of the day. When this foolishness dies down, we'll all go on to something else.

I'm no more obsessed with her than those who throw rose petals on thread after thread after thread. Are they not obsessed?

[KJC1]

Sam,

I love your expose posts (Sheehan, Haditha, etc) and your contributions to FR have been outstanding. I have encouraged others to get on your ping list because of the high quality of your stuff.

Having said that, it bums me out that you'd use your ping list to pile on a fellow FReeper. It appears sinkspur has been caught in a contradiction, but that should be left between you, him, and others directly involved to hash it out. We all get in flamewars here, or at least most of us do.

Keep me on your ping list because you are an asset and your stuff is terrific, but I am politely asking you to please refrain from using it this way again.

[RebekahT]

Although Coulter is right most of the time, she is often not a good representative of our side. She is often too aggressive and abrasive. She seems to have some sort of inferiority complex and toots her own horn too much. I enjoy reading her work more than listening to her. She's brilliant but just drives people away, much like O'Reilly (although I agree with her more often than O'Reilly). Mostly, she needs a husband to put her in her place.

[Sam Hill]

It took you hours to come up with that? Hilarious.

You are a liar who has been exposed as the rankest kind of hypocrite.

Your defense of the Jersey Girls was completely fraudulent. You used it as an excuse to practice your (obvious to anyone who looks) neurotic obsession.

I suspect your posting history would qualify for cyberstalking in most states.

I'm told you contribute financially to this site. Perhaps that is why your outrageous behavior has been permitted for so long.

But given what a well poisoner you are here on so many subjects, I wonder if it is even worth it?

But clearly it's money well spent on your part.

[Sam Hill]

LOL

I will use my ping list however I please.

(After all that has been posted here, what a thing to be bothered by.)

Do you see anyone on that list piling on?

But thanks for your kind words.

Use poster search if you want to find my posts in the future.

(Note to self: what a world!)

[Sam Hill]

"we'll all go on to something else."

You won't.

[Enchante]

"I'm no more obsessed with her than those who throw rose petals on thread after thread after thread. Are they not obsessed?"

Probably yes! I guess I just haven't been too riled up by her one way or another. I do wish she had confined her criticism of the four "Jersey Girls" to their political activism and distortions of the recent history of intel issues, etc., and I said on another thread that I thought it was both wrong and counter-productive for her to get into nasty personal details that she couldn't even know about their marriages, etc. Yet, the critics obviously haven't read that chapter (or the book), or else they just wilfully ignore everything she said about the Dems' culture of victimhood which uses unassailable victims to represent ideas that then don't have to be argued for. She is throwing their own methods back in their faces. Given the number of attack-dogs of the left that go over the top all the time with zero justification, I'm not going to get too upset about one person from the right who does the same with (usually) much justification.

[sinkspur]

And it was largely (and in the case of SS, wholly) bogus outrage.

It was just done for some kind of sordid kicks.

Sorry, dude. No bogus outrage here. If Coulter's going to get her yucks calling for the poisoning of a Supreme Court justice, she should not be surprised if she gets whacked.

Believe me, if this was the first time Coulter had gone native on somebody, I'd chalk it up to her feelings about Barbara Olson and say she just let herself lose control.

But, this is her pattern: say outrageously personal things about somebody so she can get invited on Hannity and O'Reilly and Bill Maher and TODAY and be the subject of discussion for a couple of weeks. Most of the time, she's hawking a book, and insists, over and over, that people read her book rather attempt any kind of defense of herself.

She's an author who knows how to sell her work and draw attention to herself.

I was done with her in October of last year, when she decided she was going to personally destroy Harriett Miers. She ridiculed her appearance, her education, her motivation, she went after Bush's long conquered problem with alcohol and called for his impeachment on a show hosted by one of the biggest liberal scumbags in America.

Forget the Jersey Girls. This chick will pull a knife on anybody if it will get her a smattering of applause or attention.

[Sam Hill]

"You never mention anything she has said about Justice Stevens ("somebody should poison his creme brulee") or "Harriett Miers ("a cleaning lady") or calling for Bush's impeachment publicly and stating publicly that Bush had gone back to "boozing.""

These are called "jokes."

In human communications, people of above a certain mental state say "wrong things" as a way to show how they should be. Some say this is the essence of intellectual humor.

Rush Limbaugh calls it using absurdity to illustrate absurdity. (And yes, I know you hate him too.)

Abraham Lincoln made jokes. (Often obscene ones.) Ronald Reagan made jokes. Even Mahatma Gandhi made jokes.

You pretend that they aren't jokes to beat up on her.

Just like you lie about her being a flabby alcohol anorexic chain smoking harpy.

When, in fact, Ann works out daily, drinks very moderately, eats like a truck driver, and does not smoke and hasn't for years.

And you have been slandering her with your lies for YEARS.

But there's no lying your way out of this. It's clear to anyone who bothers to read your posts.

[Sam Hill]

"Forget the Jersey Girls. This chick will pull a knife on anybody if it will get her a smattering of applause or attention."

Your screen name should be "Kodak" for all the projecting you do.

What else do you do on this site but disagree to get attention? What else have you ever done?

(The answer, for those of you playing at home, is nothing. If SS wasn't paying to play he would have long since been booted as a DU troll.)