Posted on 07/11/2002 9:22:31 AM PDT by KMC1
Just before I headed out the door my producer comes down the hall yelling, "Hey Kev, don't go yet, a couple of books for you!" I was on my way to the airport as I was planning on flying to the beautiful area of Southern California, known as Newbury Park, for my July 4th this year. My producer is always giving me books and kept saying to myself, "I hope these are good I need something to do on the plane for the next 4 hours!"
He first hands me "The Remnant", the next sequel in that popular 'Left Behind' series. It looked interesting, but not what I wanted to read while on the plane. "Is that it?" I asked.
"Nope," he said, "this just came in and thought you would want to see it!"
There it was, the number one book in America. SLANDER by Ann Coulter. It was great that I had finally gotten the review copy, and as I steadied myself into the seat of my flight I wanted to see just what had gotten Katie Couric worked up the week before.
It's not unusual for Ann. She writes a column, or a book, or goes on a network television show, and almost before the poor girl has opened her mouth she has been classified as this fire-breathing, man-eating, non-feminist, waiting to ruin all that the free world loves.
Ah, yes, but Ann has a fatal flaw. She tends to be (as 'shameful' as it is) obsessed with meticulous research and she has the almost unseemly appetite for a little thing called - and I know this isn't popular - the TRUTH! Yet despite her flame-throwing critics, she steadies on.
Now I will admit that I am Ann's friend. I read her column each week. Usually I have to have the dictionary right beside the desk because she uses terms that continue to teach us all the value of an ever-expanding vocabulary! Having said all of that though, I wanted to see for myself what kind of vitriolic hatred she was spewing from her pages of this new book. I wanted to see why 'America's Morning Sweet Pea' could just not allow Ann on the "Today" show without verbally vomiting on American viewers in the process.
The first thing I noticed, it was short, only about 206 pages of manuscript. But if that was the case, what were all those other pages in the back? Oh yeah - FOOTNOTES! (Try to harken back to a time when writers actually credited people for things they said or documented the origin of rather controversial matters...) The difference with SLANDER being that while Ann's manuscript was only 200 pages, she included 50 pages (and in tiny little font at that) of documentary evidence as to those "crazy, wild, outlandish things" that everyone in the media is now running around screaming about!
By far, the most condemning aspects of this book are derived from the very mouths of the people who are now demeaning Ann nationwide be it through television, print news publications, or even self-important senior editors at the Weekly Standard. But that hasn't stopped them. They continue to speak really off-the-wall things, even about Ann's book - but it becomes clear (as millions of Americans now have) to anyone who read the book - that many of the reviewers haven't. (Note to Ms. Couric and Mr. Caldwell - this makes you look silly)
What did I think of the book? It is a compelling read. Compelling because SLANDER goes places that few books do. But also compelling because the research is so well-documented. Compelling because Ann Coulter's case is a hard one to deny. And compelling because she highlights people that have all but been overlooked in the true history of public policy struggle - i.e. Phyllis Schlafly.
The criticism has been in multiple reviews that Ann did not address certain issues. The problem being, many of the reviewers obviously didn't read the book - because she did. If they disagree - so be it - write their own book. But don't go around saying she didn't address something that she clearly covered after page 17! (Mr. Caldwell)
There is a real bias in American media. Ann effectively argues where it comes from and how one political party benefits immensely from it. She also looks at the social trends of conservative and liberal popular thought. Any honest person, with even an ounce of integrity, should not feel uncomfortable reading this.
The text is a case statement. It argues what political issues look like when addressed through a very lengthy grid in the popular media. It will make you think, it will make you examine, and it will force all who read it to face the reality that perhaps a woman's greatest statement of success in today's life is that she can write and say such things to the very people who can't stand to hear them.
Of course, these people are the same ones who believe that the greatest statement of a woman's ultimate success is whether or not they can pay for a man to surgically butcher their birthing capabilities.
Hmm, which one would I want as a role model for my little girl someday - tough choice I'm sure!
Contact Kevin: kmc@wyll.com
Just read the book! Excellent! She mentions FR on page 114 in chapter six under the heading "Samizdat Media."I agree with it pretty much line-by-line, especially one line. After she points out that Cooledge, Eisenhower, Ford, Nixon, Quayle, Reagan, and p43 have each one in turn been styled to be "dumber" than the one before, she says
Historians have concluded only fairly recently, for example, that both Coolidge and Eisenhower were quite shrewd and perfectly content with the sophisticates of ther days ridiculing them as idiots. This follows decades of sneering at both presidents for filing to live up to the standards of FDR, who was obviously great because he spent eight years failing to get the country out of the Depression but then had the skill and foresight to allow the nation to be taken by surprise at Pearl Harbor.Which last, I choose to see as a slight rewrite of a post by ahem, conservatism_IS_compassion.She savages broadcast journalism's FloriDUH moment, and incisively--nay, brutally--critiques the subsequent liberal discussion of Bush's cousin's role in the initial, correct, call of FL for Bush. Blood all over the floor, bet no journalist wants to go into any detail about that chapter!
There's more, much more, and all highly recommended.
. . . which the media cannot help but portray by turns as fearsome dragon and paper tiger . . .
(Chapter Six Endnote 105, pp. 224-225, "Slander", Ann Coulter)
-----------------------------------------------
Yes, this lady is a political genius. Does she explain how Oswald acted alone?
Even if you did convince him, it wouldn't change his mind:A man convinced against his will,He knows that he doesn't dare to face the truth. Maybe someday that will bother him enough that he will actually investigate it for himself. Until then it's hopeless, I'm afraid.
is of the same opinion still.
Why Broadcast Journalism is Unnecessary and Illegitimate.
Gore very nearly succeeded at that very thing, as Coulter makes clear. I read Bill Sammon's book (title's a blank, subtitle "How Gore almost stole the election". I would be interested in any studies specifically on the issue of late voter turnout in the FL panhandle. And, come to that, in the MO election where Ashcroft lost his Senate seat by an eyelash . . .But it seems to me that you need to say outright that Broadcast Journalism manipulated things in Gore's favor throughout Election Night, til after the last polls were closed--and even after the Fox News call for Bush, journalism made a bigger issue of a single Bush relative in Fox than over what broadcasters told Florida voters while the polls were open there.
Exit polls are basically illegitimate; according to Bill Sammon the "scientifically selected" precincts are simply those precints where they can get away with talking politics illegally close to the polling booth--violating secret ballot laws. My question to FL election officials is, why do you allow any exit polling in the state? Shut them down, and you shut down any possible basis for calling the state while polls in the panhandle are still open. Broadcast journalism deserves no better treatment than that.
Why Broadcast Journalism is Unnecessary and Illegitimate.
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.