Best Seller Trampled Under Footnotes

I find clues to accuracy of sources in reading the lists of "experts" a particular source relies on. Here, the list includes "Joe Conason." Anyone who takes Conason seriously as a source of facts, rather than as a predictable flack for Clinton in particular, and the looney left in general, is a world-class fool.
A couple of times, we had a call-in from "Elwood in New Orleans." He identified himself as a "researcher for a major, national pundit," but declined to say who that was. My impression was that this gentleman worked for James Carville. "Elwood" used the same tactics -- spew a maximium number of unrelated charges in a minimum of time, so the other person cannot possibly remember all of them, much less respond to all of them.
Anyway, we cut Elwood off as a caller the day that he got into a direct fight on-air with the main host of "American Breakfast," Phil Paleologos. Just before that, Elwood had referred to Joe Conason as a reliable source, so his own accuracy was obviously down the porcelain facility.

Congressman Billybob

Click for latest column: "Memo to CBS about Bill Clinton."

Click for latest book: "to Restore Trust in America"

But Spinsanity makes it clear that Coulter is not citing 10 different articles; instead, the list of 10 quotations comes from only four articles -- hardly the wide-ranging media dishonesty she is trying to prove.

Did Coulter say the quotes came from 10 different articles? How many examples does she have to give to prove a point? 20? 30?

It also sounds like Spinsanity thinks it is okay to be very biased as long as you put lots of bias together in one article. Nice giant loophole (/sarcasm)

When Coulter writes that the media use words such as "ugly" to describe only conservative women,

I thought Coulter explained she was talking about mainstream media and/or official liberal spokespersons. Rush Limbaugh is not a news anchorperson or politician. He does not pretend to be unbiased, like the mainstream newspersons do.

When Coulter accuses Time, Newsweek, Ladies' Home Journal and U.S. News and World Report of running pieces on senility before the 1984 election in a conspiracy to discredit Ronald Reagan, she is rebuked by the cybersleuths.

The "cybersleuths" apparently discovered that the articles at issue note that Reagan was not senile. Ann's point, however, is NOT that the articles in question made the obligatory point that the president wasn't senile, but that for SOME STRANGE REASON, all these publications decided AT THE SAME TIME to run articles on age and senility. Coincidence? I think not. And neither does Ann. That's what liberals do: raise doubt, but cover themselves (oh so thinly at times) with a toss-away line that "proves" they never meant to cast aspersions on our esteemed leader. Sheesh.

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.