The Today Show's Shame
"This race to the bottom by the establishment media leaves the progressive netroots in a quandary: if the only thing these so-called 'journalists' want is to create an uproar, how do we respond? Some bloggers advocate ignoring slime-traffickers like Coulter and Glenn Beck, others attack them for the scum they peddle. My preferred tactic is to excoriate the media outlet that gives them a forum - it may play into their need for attention, but I think it's imperative for us to create a public record of these media transgressions..."With that in mind, read this:
"A spokesperson for NBC Today, Lauren Kapp, has responded to our questions about the show's willingness to give a platform to Ann Coulter, helping her sell a book in which she opined that the 9/11 widows are "enjoying their husband's deaths." Short version: The show is leaving the door open to future Coulter appearances. And it's not directly answering whether that means they see her assertions as falling within their standards of discourse, taste, or civility."
It's not just the Today Show legitimizing Coulter's filth. Now there's TIME's John Cloud giving Coulter the platform to "fire back" at her critics ... if you're curious about Cloud, here's a 2005 item from Eric Alterman:
"Time’s cover story/whitewash of Ann Coulter, here, will make it impossible for serious people to accept what the magazine reports at face-value ever again. It is as if Time had contracted a journalistic venereal disease from Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly and is now seeking to lower itself to their level in pursuit of their ideologically-obsessed audiences."
Media Matters covered the fallout from Cloud's piece:
"Defending his 5,800-word cover story on right-wing pundit Ann Coulter in an online interview, Time writer John Cloud used all manner of ad hominem attacks -- including against Coulter, the original subject of his whitewash profile -- but few facts. Apparently stung by widespread criticism over Time's decision to feature Coulter on the cover, Cloud invoked the ultimate distancing technique, comparing Coulter to Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler.
In the interview, posted on the Columbia Journalism Review's CJR Daily weblog, Cloud also went after journalist Eric Alterman over Alterman's scathing commentary on the Coulter profile: "I think maybe Eric and Ann are in the same bunch. They also, by the way, use the same language." That's a bizarre accusation; as far as we know, Alterman, who has written a number of critically acclaimed books, has never lamented that the New York Times building wasn't blown up or suggested that a sitting president should be assassinated. He has never slurred Muslims or women or disabled Vietnam veterans.
But Cloud -- ostensibly a "hard news" reporter -- saved his most caustic vitriol for Media Matters for America and its president and CEO, David Brock. After CJR interviewer Brian Montopoli quoted from Eric Alterman's take on the Time article -- which quoted Media Matters' item on the subject -- Cloud responded by attacking Media Matters..."
posted by Peter Daou at 6/09/2006 10:34:00 AM
33 Comments:
"...I think it's imperative for us to create a public record of these media transgressions..."
Perhaps your time and effort would be better spent creating a record of those Universities and colleges who deny people like Coulter, Rice and other conservative speakers the right to voice their views.
Why are liberals so afraid of hearing opposing or different viewpoints.? Free speech is for all in America, not just for liberals when it suits them.
RT
Sounds like liberals want to silence the media because they don't like what is reported. Just change the channel if you are offended but don't stop free speech.
Woah.
Now we are getting to the nub of the matter.
Liberals want to silence the media, because hate-trafficker Ann Coulter is given a forum to spew her filth, but no mention is given to the continuous lamentations by Conservatives that the media needs to keep its trap shut.
Nice.
Conservatives make no organized effort to silence the media as is suggested by the blogger. Nor is there any organized effort to exclude left wing speakers on university campuses.
How do you explain liberal's efforts to exclude conservative speakers such as Rice, Coulter and others from speaking?
What is the liberal standard?
Why do liberals fear free speech by others?
The liberal standard excludes speakers like Coulter whose entire "speech" consists of hate, insult, disrespect, self-righteousness, self-aggrandizement and egregious lies with only one purpose -- celebrity and money.
"The liberal standard excludes speakers like Coulter...."
So, no free speech for Coulter.
Now, why do liberals try to exclude Condi Rice from speaking on campuses?
RT
Is it OK if a liberal gives a speech that "consists of hate, insult, disrespect, self-righteousness, self-aggrandizement and egregious lies"?
I doubt you will not answer this but if you do, please explain the difference..
It seems that liberals can only call for Ann Coulter to censored or to call her names.. I have not seen one liberal challenge her on the issues. So much for the "intelligent" left. Disappointing..
"Nor is there any organized effort to exclude left wing speakers on university campuses."
Someone might want to check in with Juan Cole on whether this assertation is true-- the neocons targeted Yale as soon as it became known they were interested in hiring him.
Gotta love the misinformation attack!
"It seems that liberals can only call for Ann Coulter to censored or to call her names.. I have not seen one liberal challenge her on the issues."
Anonymous, never challenge crazy people. You'll learn that someday.
I'm just guessing, but I'll bet there aren't many Yale faculty members who are prepared to do the bidding of "the neocons."
So your response to the charge of name-calling is to . . . .
I thought so.
Sigh, Duke...you know what, you're right. And that's because they didn't target the faculty primarily-- they mainly targeted the largest donors, who put pressure on the administration.
So, my response is that you're a moron who doesn't understand the issue.
You see, Duke..No matter what you say or ask, liberals resort to name calling..A quick read through these comments proves that..
"Moron, crazy, hate-trafficker,etc..."
On other topics in this blog, "chickenhawk scumbag" seems to be popular with "dumb idiot" running a close second in liberalspeak.
Why do liberals try to exclude Condi Rice from speaking on campuses?
It seems no one wants to respond other than a vague mention a neocon who was considered as a hire at Yale..
Change the subject or name calling. Liberal debating techniques.
There's an obsessive drive in the corporate media to find equals to Coulter et al on the left when none exists. That should constantly be exposed.
And you're right. We ignore Coulter at our peril. Her stuff is dangerous. It's not like we haven't seen where it leads before now.
Coulter is dangerous to liberals because she exposes the nature of liberals to public view without being politically correct. I have heard her called every name in the book, calls to silence her right to speak, and calls for her death, on liberal websites the past few days. Yet, I have seen no one address or rebut her points. Coulter is not the issue, the points she makes are what is important. The more liberals attack Coulter personally and not her points, the more liberals will lose ground. And if anyone responds to this post, please try to avoid words like "moron" or "idiot". It is so disappointing when you write those bad words..
RT
So, Chris:
It's your opinion that the faculty committee at Yale who voted not to hire the modestly talented Juan Cole was pressured into doing so by "big donors?" It is your opinion that there was a lot of behind-the-scenes arm-twisting, and not even a single one of those whose arms were twisted -- so that they did the bidding of neocons and "big donors," not a single one has ratted out the evil conspirators? Wow. Have you any suggestion as to why they might remain silent? Do you have any basis whatever for believing that this happened?
I thought so.
But your main argument is [let me see, I have it somewhere here in my notes . . . ah yes] that I'm "a moron who doesn't understand the issue."
Well. Do I feel small. I have seldom felt so . . . chastised.
Your next response should have at least one reference to Hitler, and if you could mix it in with the International Jewish Conspiracy through AIPAC and Bill Kristol, that would be good.
And remember, Chris, this will be on the exam.
Anonymous said:
"Perhaps your time and effort would be better spent creating a record of those Universities and colleges who deny people like Coulter, Rice and other conservative speakers the right to voice their views."
Since you're making the accusation, it is up to YOU to make the list, and provide supporting evidence for it.
Less trollery and drollery, more facts, Anonymous.
Anonymous said:
"Sounds like liberals want to silence the media because they don't like what is reported. Just change the channel if you are offended but don't stop free speech."
Anonymous, are you familiar with the psychological term "projection?" Your comment is a classic example of it.
Taking the media to task for irresponsibly airing right-wing extremism unchallenged isn't censorship. Coulter et alii are free to speak their hatespeech, but no responsible citizen should allow the truth to be raped; turning the channel, or a blind eye, isn't responsible behavior.
Anonymous said:
"Conservatives make no organized effort to silence the media..."
That's laughable. And I'm sure that the Family Research Council, the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, the misnamed Accuracy In Media, and other extreme right-wing groups would be surprised to learn that their boycotts and letter-writing campaigns aimed at censoring movies, television shows, and advertising were not organized efforts.
Anonymous said:
"It seems that liberals can only call for Ann Coulter to censored or to call her names.. I have not seen one liberal challenge her on the issues."
I believe that you're being disingenuous; it's not at all hard to find rebuttals to Coulter's extremist rhetoric.
If you're being honest, then perhaps you should spend less time trolling here and more time doing research.
Anonymous said:
"Coulter is dangerous to liberals because she exposes the nature of liberals to public view without being politically correct..."
Actually, Coulter is dangerous to her fellow right-wing extremists, because she exposes the radical nature of her far-right ideology. Every glimpse that the public gets further reinforces the fact that Coulter, and those like her, are not a part of America's political mainstream.
Consequently, the public increasingly rejects that radicalism and it becomes harder for the radicals to garner support.
Duke said:
"...the modestly talented Juan Cole..."
If this is your idea of "modestly talented," then I would enjoy seeing how your own credentials fair against Mr. Cole's.
As for the rest of your comment: Your sarcasm doesn't hide your lack of a convincing argument.
Gideon said:
"I believe that you're being disingenuous; it's not at all hard to find rebuttals to Coulter's extremist rhetoric."
If it is so easy to rebut Coulter's point that "liberals use victims as political props because of their infallability", what is your rebuttal to her point?
RT
"...the modestly talented Juan Cole..."
The world is filled with educated derelicts. Mostly found nowadays on left wing websites.
RT, if you asked me what the definition of a word happens to be, I'd tell you to look it up. In doing so, I increase the likelihood that you'll actually learn something.
As such, I want you to do some reading; go to Technorati or Google and run an "Ann Coulter" search, then comb through the sites to find the many fine rebuttals of Coulter's many irrational, invective-filled statements.
True knowledge has to be worked for. Do some work.
RT said:
"The world is filled with educated derelicts. Mostly found nowadays on left wing websites."
Aren't you the one who said liberals shouldn't attack Coulter, but what she says? And yet here you are, attacking Juan Cole personally.
Hypocritical much?
Gideon...
Rebut Coulter's point about liberal infallability:
"The left wing (liberals) puts for sympathetic victims as props to make political statements because they cannot be easily challenged"
This is true, isn't it? Simply calling Coulter names is not a rebuttal, is it?
I have made a personal attack on someone named "Juan Cole"??? I don't even know who that is.
RT
gideon...
Make that "puts forth sympathetic victims...."
RT
Anonymous, as I've explained in a previous thread:
"You have it backwards RT; Coulter hasn't made a case, she has made an accusation. Since you've chosen to defend her accusation, it is up to YOU to make a case proving that she's right, not for us to prove that she's wrong.
"Who among 'the Left' is 'using' these four women? Did the women seek out these alleged users or were the women sought out?
"What is the nature of the relationship between these women and any individual or group that they may or may not be working with? Are the women being told what to say and how to say it?
"Further, Coulter claims these women are sacred cows who cannot be touched, and yet she's smacking them around, undercutting her own accusation."
And you'll have to do better than that joke you posted on the aforementioned thread. Try again.
Gideon, I suggest you read Coulter's book{s)firsthand to gain a better understanding of liberal thought and action... after you do this, report back so you can make informed, constructive comments. OK? Ask your teachers to help explain this to you. That might help.
Anonymous said:
"Gideon, I suggest you read Coulter's book{s)firsthand to gain a better understanding of liberal thought and action..."
Anonymous, reading Ann Coulter to "understand" liberals is like reading Vogue magazine to better understand macroeconomics.
As for the rest of your post, the fact that would rather try to insult me with condescencion merely underscores the fact that you simply don't have a leg to stand on.
If you had a case, you could have made it, but you've had to resort to childish behavior instead.
But who can really blame you? Right-wing extremists like yourself have to resort to emotional attacks -- like the one Coulter used this week -- because you don't have facts, figures, logic, or reason on your side.
We're all still waiting for you -- or one of your fellow "Anonymous" trolls -- to defend Ann Coulter with something other than juvenile behavior.
Post a Comment
<< Home