I guess you're right: There is no liberal media bias:Ann Coulter

World Net Daily ^ | Ann Coulter

[RaceBannon]

I guess you're right: There is no liberal media bias

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: October 8, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 Universal Press Syndicate

In a recent interview with Al Franken conducted by Edward Nawotka for Publisher's Weekly, after suggesting that some readers might want Franken to run for president, the interviewer proceeded to ask Franken hardball questions such as:

"It's got to be a little grating to see your book on the same New York Times best-seller list as the Ann Coulter book."

"You fact-checked Ann Coulter's book and found a lot of inconsistencies, outright lies and quotes that are taken out of context. Who is responsible for those kinds of errors, the author or the editors?"

"How should booksellers deal with this?"

In a later interview with me, the same interviewer asked me questions like these:

"(W)ho is ultimately responsible for the errors (in your book), you, the publisher, or both?"

"What gives – was this an honest mistake or malfeasance as he suggests?"

"Why all the name calling?"

Apparently it never occurred to Publisher's Weekly that Franken's allegations of errors in my book – or "outright lies," as the interviewer put it – were false.

It's interesting that the most devastating examples of my alleged "lies" keep changing. As soon as one is disproved, I'm asked to respond to another. This is behavior normally associated with conspiracy theorists in tinfoil hats. One crackpot argument after another is shot down – but the conspiracy theorists just move on to the next crackpot argument without pause or reconsideration. Certainly without apology.

Here are a few of the alleged "lies" that I have already responded to – and which were then dropped by the Coulter hysterics as they barreled ahead to the next inane charge. A fuller response will be published on my website.

Franken's very first charge against me is that I told a reporter from the Observer that I was "friendly" with Franken, when in fact, we are not "friendly." Needless to say, I never claimed to be friendly with Al Franken. Inasmuch as I barely know Franken, a normal person might have looked at that and realized the reporter misunderstood me. But apparently Franken thinks he has a pretty cool name to drop – the oddest case of reverse name-dropping I've ever heard of.

I don't hear about this "lie" so much anymore.

Franken hysterically accuses me of "lying" for calling my endnotes "footnotes" in interviews on my book. Yes, notes at the end of a book are technically "endnotes," not "footnotes." Franken will have to take his case up with the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post and the rest of the universe – all of which referred to my 780 endnotes as "FOOTNOTES." Also, God, for inventing the concept of "colloquial speech."

I don't hear so much about this "lie" anymore.

Franken claims I complain that conservatives don't get on television enough. Inasmuch as I am on television a lot, this would be a hilarious point. Too bad I never said it. My book, "Slander" – which Franken seems to have gone over with a fine-toothed comb – would have been a good place to make that point if I wanted to make it. "Slander" contains an entire chapter on the media, and yet I never claim that conservatives are not on television enough. What I say is: "Democrats in the media are editors, national correspondents, news anchors and reporters. Republicans are 'from the right' polemicists grudgingly tolerated within the liberal behemoth."

By the way, I also say: "The distinction between opinion journalism and objective news coverage is seemingly impossible for liberals to grasp." Franken's absurd description of my point proves it.

I haven't heard so much about this "lie" anymore.

I claim Evan Thomas' father was the Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas. Franken drones on and on for a page and a half about how Norman Thomas was not Evan Thomas' father – without saying that he was Evan's grandfather. This was one of about five inconsequential errors quickly corrected in "Slander" – and cited 1 million times by liberals as a "lie." Confusing "father" with "grandfather" is a mistake. Franken's deliberate implication that there was no relationship whatsoever between Norman and Evan Thomas is intentional dishonesty.

I haven't heard so much about this "lie" anymore.

I incorrectly claimed Dale Earnhardt's death was not mentioned on the front page of the New York Times the day after his death. In my three best-selling books – making the case for a president's impeachment, accusing liberals of systematic lying and propagandizing, arguing that Joe McCarthy was a great American patriot, and detailing 50 years of treachery by the Democratic Party – this is the only vaguely substantive error the Ann Coulter hysterics have been able to produce, corrected soon after publication. CONGRATULATIONS, LIBERALS!!!

The Columbia Journalism Review was crowing about this great victory over Ann Coulter a year ago. A search of "coulter" and "earnhardt" on Google turns up more than 1,000 hits. Now Franken dedicates another two pages in his book to it. I believe this triumph of theirs has been sufficiently revisited by now. At least I didn't miss the Ukrainian famine (cf., Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter Walter Duranty).

I don't hear so much about this "lie" anymore.

Henceforth, I shall rely on sensible people to see that I have answered the liberal hate groups' first 17 rounds of indignant charges against me. If they had a better example out there, we would have heard it before the 18th round.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Special Offer!

Ann Coulter's newest blockbuster is here! "Treason" contends that liberals have been wrong on every foreign policy issue, from the fight against communism at home and abroad, the Nixon and the Clinton presidencies, and the struggle with the Soviet empire right up to today’s war on terrorism. Autographed copies now available through WorldNetDaily's online store!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ann Coulter, well-known for her television appearances as a political analyst, is an attorney and author. Dubbed "one of the 20 most fascinating women in politics" by George magazine, Coulter has appeared on ABC's "This Week," "Good Morning America," NBC's "Today," "Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher," CNN's "Larry King Live" and CNBC's "Rivera Live."

[RaceBannon]

......

......

......

......

[RaceBannon]

...

...

[Support Free Republic]

 

	Keep Our Republic Free Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER and say THANKS to Jim Robinson! IT'S IN THE BREAKING NEWS SIDEBAR THANKS!

[tsmith130]

I just finished reading this on her website. It's great! Although I think she just should have responded with, "Al who?"

[freedumb2003]

Thank you for observing proper Ann Colter protocol :)

She is smarter than the entire Left -- probably because her philosophy doesn't need origami logic to win the day.

And I hope she nails them even better the next cycle!

[RaceBannon]

umm, I was just there, too, where is THIS column? Last weeks is on the home page??

[tsmith130]

(Try this)

[wizardoz]

.... her philosophy doesn't need origami logic ....

Wow, that is a very evocative image. Origami logic. My God, does that sum up people who can find the right to abortion in the Constitution, but not the right to bear arms. Awesome!

[JOE6PAK]

PHOTOS?

YEAH BABY!

[freedumb2003]

Wow, that is a very evocative image. Origami logic.

You heard it here first - FreeDumb2003 all rights reserved :)

[sarasmom]

I read her book, "Treason"
Ann is a much better pundit writer than she is a book writer.
She needs to dump her editor.
That said,Ann has a voice that needs to be published.
She needs to dump her current amateur staff of sycophants.
"Treason" was obviously rushed to print so quickly, with minimal attention to style, that the awesome substance she brought to publication was eclipsed by lack of style.
The truth was there, but one had to dig through so much useless and disjointed repitition, that it was essentially lost.
This is a case where substance gets lost because style is totally ignored.
Did anyone proof-read this book for readability and logic?
I expected more from AC.
It is there, but one must suffer through glaring anti-reader errors to find it.
Ann, did you actually read the final draft, or did you leave that part to a trusted employee?
Fire them.
I am a mere consumer of books.
I was not impressed.

[Ramius]

[sigh] Ann? Why don't you return my calls??? :-)

[Ramius]

I liked them.

[MHGinTN]

Why are there never any panels with Ann Coulter, Peggy Noonan, and Laura Ingraham on them?...

[MHGinTN]

Add Michelle Malkin to that list for a four run homer!

[Terry Mross]

To paraphrase "Augustus McCrae" (Robert Duvall in LONESOME DOVE), "Just once in my life I'd like to make love to an educated woman." Peggy Noonan, Laura Ingraham or Ann Coulter will do.

Man I'm glad my wife doesn't read Free Republic.

[sarasmom]

If you are a member of the choir, understandable.
Ann Coulter is not a cult voice.
She has much to offer humanity.
She is squandering her gift of relaying truth by what looks like a concerted effort to ignore her worth by sycophants.
What a waste of exceptional talent!

[longfellow]

I beg to differ, I like her style. It's a history lesson without getting boring. Plus her sarcasm is great.

[sarasmom]

Her style is absent in her book.

[ILBBACH]

I've read all her books and I think each one is better than the previous.

These aren't novels composed in prose. It's political and philosophical polemic employing rhetoric and persuasion (as well as Ann's caustic humor). This has consistantly been her style.