Ann Coulter mentions Dead on C-SPAN
Brian8cs
mentioned going to Dead shows.Dead fans are everywhere I guess.
B.
Raymond Baxter
pretty surprising.
"Brian8cs" <bria...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020811211140...@mb-bd.aol.com...
Scranjuber
I was watching this as well and she was talking about who she had thanked in
her book. When Lamb mentioned some guys name she simply says, "he's a
libertarian friend of mine I used to go skiing with and to dead shows with."
Then Lamb says, "Dead shows?" and she simply says, "yah." And then they go on,
she didn't seem to want to elaborate more then that. From the looks of her I
wouldn't be suprised if she had eaten acid and wore peasant skirts back in her
college days!
pops
Raymond Baxter
leave me out in the Cold, Rain, and Snow" sign! That would hilarious...
"Scranjuber" <scran...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020812001642...@mb-fj.aol.com...
Susan J. Weiand
>
> "Brian8cs" <bria...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020811211140...@mb-bd.aol.com...
> > Brian Lamb was interviewing Ann Coulter on booknotes on C-Span and she
> briefly
> > mentioned going to Dead shows.Dead fans are everywhere I guess.
> > B.
> WTF! Coulter is an extremely conservative, moralistic woman, so this is
> pretty surprising.
We are everywhere.
(notice I moved your reply to the bottom where it belongs)
Sue
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Susan J. Weiand, photographer
portraits, weddings, special events
s.we...@ix.netcom.com
portrait site: http://s.weiand.home.netcom.com/
rock photos: http://www.tapercities.com/Jambands/sweiand/index.htm
Check out the jambands, psychedelic, and progressive channels at
http://www.spinner.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Raymond Baxter
"Susan J. Weiand" <s.we...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3D57590E...@ix.netcom.com...
> Raymond Baxter wrote:
> >
> > "Brian8cs" <bria...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20020811211140...@mb-bd.aol.com...
> > > Brian Lamb was interviewing Ann Coulter on booknotes on C-Span and she
> > briefly
> > > mentioned going to Dead shows.Dead fans are everywhere I guess.
> > > B.
>
> > WTF! Coulter is an extremely conservative, moralistic woman, so this is
> > pretty surprising.
>
> We are everywhere.
>
> (notice I moved your reply to the bottom where it belongs)
>
> Sue
Always looking out for me, I appreciate that...
Sneakerface
Olompali4
>news:3D57590E...@ix.netcom.com...
>> Raymond Baxter wrote:
>> >
>> > "Brian8cs" <bria...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> > news:20020811211140...@mb-bd.aol.com...
>> > > Brian Lamb was interviewing Ann Coulter on booknotes on C-Span and she
>> > briefly
>> > > mentioned going to Dead shows.Dead fans are everywhere I guess.
>> > > B.
>>
>> > WTF! Coulter is an extremely conservative, moralistic woman, so this is
>> > pretty surprising.
>>
>> We are everywhere.<
Possibly another in the long, long line of reactionaries who "regrets" their
wild youth and is now spending "maturity" as a finger wagging naysayer hellbent
of saving people from the cabal of evil that lurks in every cranny.
Like the raging alcoholic or the freaked out acid head now trying to heal the
world with Jesus..It's hard to accept their extreme pendulum shifts.
Sherlock
> she didn't seem to want to elaborate more then that. From the looks of
her I
> wouldn't be suprised if she had eaten acid and wore peasant skirts back in
her
> college days!
> pops
Yet another tragic victim of LSD.
Sherlock
PLStepp
> > > and she briefly mentioned going to Dead shows.Dead fans are
> > > everywhere I guess.
>
> > pretty surprising.
>
> We are everywhere.
Some of us extremely conservative, moralistic types really love Grate
music. As an evangelical Christian, if I had to choose between, say,
David Lee Roth's lyrics and Robert Hunter's lyrics, guess which ones I
would find more thought provoking AND more in tune with my worldview?
PLStepp (Ph.D. candidate in Religion, Baylor University)
Spoonful2
>world with Jesus..It's hard to accept their extreme pendulum shifts.
I've always said the samething.
As far as Ann Coulter is concern...she's far Right, wouldn't have a name
without bashing Clinton, but I have respect for her. She backs up her opinion
intelligently, even though I can often find places to poke holes in her
arguments. I don't think she fit into the going to one extreme to another mode
though.
brian
> > Brian Lamb was interviewing Ann Coulter on booknotes on C-Span and she
> > briefly
> > > mentioned going to Dead shows.Dead fans are everywhere I guess.
> > > B.
>
> > WTF! Coulter is an extremely conservative, moralistic woman, so this is
> > pretty surprising.
>
> We are everywhere.
>
> (notice I moved your reply to the bottom where it belongs)
>
> Sue
While I know it is apparently bad form to top-post, are there guidelines for
re-arranging/editing text within a thread? I will usually indicate snipping
when text has been deleted(I didnt on this post because it was only addy and
msg info), but is it acceptable to move text that isnt yours?
Just curious
brian
Spoonful2
Because you don't agree with her? Seems narrow minded.
gdtrfbToronto
> WTF! Coulter is an extremely conservative, moralistic woman, so this is
> pretty surprising.
>
Who says conservativism, moralism and being a deadhead are
incompatible? I wouldn't know Ann Coulter if I ran over her with my
car, so maybe there's more to this than I know, but I'm politically
fairly conservative, consider myself moral, and very much enjoy the
both Dead and the scene.
Unless she's a female Jesse Helms or something... Him as a head WOULD
be surprising! lol.. Hey Jess... wake up.. time to dose..
Tom Donaldson
\> (notice I moved your reply to the bottom where it belongs)
\ While I know it is apparently bad form to top-post, are there guidelines
\ for re-arranging/editing text within a thread? I will usually indicate
\ snipping when text has been deleted (I didnt on this post because it was
\ only addy and msg info), but is it acceptable to move text that isnt
yours?
Yes, in order to comply with the regimine of conformity here. (You may
note that your first line ended with "for" but I moved that word to the
beginning of the second line to prevent involuntary word-wrapping.)
have an inordinately positive day,
TD
--
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg Trials
JBgoode
--
To email, replace 'SPAM' with 'hot'
"Sneakerface" <n9...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:341c19a6.0208...@posting.google.com...
> Coulter is a complete asshole.
Open your mind, dude.
Atl Bob
> Brian Lamb was interviewing Ann Coulter on booknotes on C-Span and she briefly
> mentioned going to Dead shows.Dead fans are everywhere I guess.
> B.
Yeah, she's a real "peace, love and flowers" type all right.
From her first column after 9/11:
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them
to Christianity."
(Cite: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20010914.shtml
)
That joke of a book she just wrote (and what she was shilling on CPAN
for) is about to be pulled by the publisher from the sheer volume of
errors found in it.
Atl Bob
brian
"Tom Donaldson" <tdo...@stargate.net> wrote
>\ "brian" <bri...@swbell.net> inquired:
>
> \> (notice I moved your reply to the bottom where it belongs)
>
> \ While I know it is apparently bad form to top-post, are there guidelines
> \ for re-arranging/editing text within a thread? I will usually indicate
> \ snipping when text has been deleted (I didnt on this post because it was
> \ only addy and msg info), but is it acceptable to move text that isnt
> yours?
>
> Yes, in order to comply with the regimine of conformity here. (You may
> note that your first line ended with "for" but I moved that word to the
> beginning of the second line to prevent involuntary word-wrapping.)
Should the "correction" be noted, like when someone snips? In this case, Sue
noted the correction and it was helpful. But is there a guideline about
that? I dont think moving other persons text around should be done unless
neccesary, and in those cases it should be noted. 1st amendment and all
that.
weatherbee
>
> Should the "correction" be noted, like when someone snips? In this
> case, Sue noted the correction and it was helpful. But is there a
> guideline about that? I dont think moving other persons text around
> should be done unless neccesary, and in those cases it should be
> noted. 1st amendment and all that.
Editing is good. I don't believe it necessary to indicate snips
unless they might be construed as altering the meaning of the original
poster. In informal threads, it is rarely needed. If someone wants to
see the complete original post in its context, they can always open
the reference (which is also a reason why it's not necessary to quote
everything).
Bill
"Spoonful2" <spoo...@aol.com> wrote
> >Coulter is a complete asshole.
>
> Because you don't agree with her?
Why assume Sneakerface thinks she's an asshole due to political disagreement
or solely to political disagreement? That's an unjustified leap. Surely
you can imagine thinking someone's an asshole because of the way the person
presents his/her political views and the respect or disrespect they show
others despite agreeing with those political views.
> Seems narrow minded.
I don't believe Sneakerface is the one being narrow minded. I think he has
a valid opinion he's stating - an opinion I agree with - and like my opinion
of her, I'd bet Sneakerface's opinion is based on more than just a
difference of political philosophy.
Bill
Jperdue4
ann coulter is on tv for one reason and one reason only.....shes attractive,
shes a blonde or hot.....thats all....shes a news bimbo for the right wing..
period.....(frankly to me shes got this horse face thing goin on..)....
Raymond Baxter
> "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them
> to Christianity."
What a bitch!!!
Walter Karmazyn
Spoonful2 wrote in message <20020812103103...@mb-bh.aol.com>...
>>Coulter is a complete asshole.
>
>Because you don't agree with her? Seems narrow minded.
A while back I did some research on Orlando Bosch, the terrorist that Bush
SR. pardoned. She did a column saying he merely fired a rifle at a
merchant ship in Miami harbor. She either doesn't research before she
writes or, she misspelled bazooka. Fullofshit, asshole, 4th rate reporter.
W
Frndthdevl
>> wouldn't be suprised if she had eaten acid
from the looks of her, I would be surprised if she eats ANYTHING! She makes
calista Flockhart seem roly poly
Atl Bob
> >Coulter is a complete asshole.
>
> Because you don't agree with her? Seems narrow minded.
Can't speak for the original poster but I think the prob with Coulter
and the other "neo-conservative" morons on talk radio and TV is how
they use all the favorite propaganda techniques of Joseph Goebbels in
their incessant assault on America. They pander to your worst
emotional tendencies, obfuscate issues, never tell the complete story,
flat out LIE, use strawman arguments, etc.
But then look at a "responsible" conservative like William F. Buckley
Jr. who doesn't feel the need to insult your intelligence and there
you find someone worth admiring, even if you disagree with his point
of view.
Coulter, et al are hacks of the worst nature. They give conservatism
a very bad name (even when I agree with some of their ideas).
Atl Bob
Jack Straw
Back in February of 2002 she had this to say at the four-day CPAC
conference, the annual gathering of far-right elements in the GOP, "We
need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically
intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed
too. Otherwise they will turn out to be outright traitors."
Coulter's statements are important in that there is has been the
emergence of a significant fascist layer with the GOP political
establishment, promoted and cultivated by corporate America and the
media. Not a word about Coulter's statement made it into the
mainstream media who still promote her as a valid GOP mouthpiece (once
again showing the complacency and decay of the media).
Can you imagine the furor that would have erupted if a liberal had
said that the execution of Timothy McViegh was an object lesson to
conservative?
As the song goes:
Are there any queers in the theater tonight?
Get them up against the wall!
There's one in the spotlight, he don't look right to me,
Get him up against the wall!
That one looks Jewish!
And that one's a coon!
Who let all of this riff-raff into the room?
There's one smoking a joint,
And another with spots!
If I had my way,
I'd have all of you shot!
Jonathan Miller
>>Like the raging alcoholic or the freaked out acid head now trying to heal the
>>world with Jesus..It's hard to accept their extreme pendulum shifts.
>
>I've always said the samething.
>
>As far as Ann Coulter is concern...she's far Right, wouldn't have a name
>without bashing Clinton, but I have respect for her. She backs up her opinion
>intelligently, even though I can often find places to poke holes in her
>arguments.
Intelligent arguments? You mean like "We should execute people like
John Walker to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize
they can be killed too?"
George Will or Robert Novak can make a strong case for a right-wing
point of view. What I've read from Coulter has all been calling
people who vote Democrat spineless, elitist, brain-dead America-hating
perverts. Pretty rough treatment for a group that was the majority of
the nation in 2000.
Take care,
Jon
drudge reporter
attribute that to rat poisining. hehe
"Scranjuber" <scran...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020812001642...@mb-fj.aol.com...
drudge reporter
person and the democrats are a party for the rich and self serving.
That's when I turned the channel on the blonde bimbo. Although, I do admit,
I'd love to bop her.
lol
"Spoonful2" <spoo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020812103002...@mb-bh.aol.com...
John Flanery
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Sherlock wrote:
> Yet another tragic victim of LSD.
Can't you just imagine the T.V. commercials?
"Hello. My name is Ann Coulter. When I was young, I ate a lot of
LSD. Now I'm a cheerleader for American Fascism."
<voiceover> "LSD - it messes with your head."
Sherlock
I'm more conservative than most here and Coulter doesn't speak for me. She
comes across as a mean spirited attack-groupie. Although a case can easily
be made that she is equal time (the ragin' Cajun comes to mind).
Sherlock
JT
Well said!!.... and in the spirit of Ann herself...
weatherbee
ROTFL!!!!!!!!!
Raymond Baxter
That is some scary shit. Sounds on par with Nazism, or at least some other
horrid form of totalitarianism.
kurt
an agenda, instead she pokes fun and shows hypocrisy on the other
side of the political spectrum. To me, Rush has become somewhat of
a parody of himself. He *cannot* look at any issue (ie, pledge of
allegience) with our without a "Pleasantville" perspective. Honestly,
I initially viewed Ann's columns as a bit brash and over the top.
However, I think it is her style and occassionally she does make a
valid point. It is good to get a variety of perspectives.
Kurt
"Sherlock" <sherl...@surfbest.net> wrote in message
Garry Bryan
: Her style is very similar to Rush's. She doesn't necessarily push
: an agenda, instead she pokes fun and shows hypocrisy on the other
: side of the political spectrum. To me, Rush has become somewhat of
: a parody of himself. He *cannot* look at any issue (ie, pledge of
: allegience) with our without a "Pleasantville" perspective. Honestly,
: I initially viewed Ann's columns as a bit brash and over the top.
: However, I think it is her style and occassionally she does make a
: valid point. It is good to get a variety of perspectives.
Why is it that the GOP wants to make personal morality a crime <sex, drugs,
abortion> yet want to make public morality a "self policed" issue <accounting,
insider trading, golden parachutes> ?
Garry
: Kurt
:>
Sneakerface
"bitch," as I am SO tired of women always being a "bitch." Asshole is
much more fitting. Yes, I am stopping to HER usual low level of not
addressing what she says, but attacking her as a person. Actually
this is not usually my style. It IS her style however, and I think we
should be able to expect a little more from someone who is using
national exposure (TV, radio, books, and newspapers) to put others
down.
Am I "narrow-minded?" Believe it or not, I do actually listen to what
she has to say when she is on the tube or the radio, and I don't
dismiss her outright because she is conservative. I do, however find
that the way she presents her point of view as extremely lame and
assinine, IN ADDITION to her views themselves.
So, my calliing her an "asshole" is more a reflection of my not
bothering to bring up specific outrageous points that she has made,
rather than not listening to them in the first place.
Corky Meyers
John Doherty
Meyers" <cork...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Ann Coulter is a stone fox and smart to boot. I knew she must be a deadhead!
Ann Coulter is a fascist swine, and a moron, but I have to admit, she is
worthy of a boot. A swift jackboot to the rear sounds about right.
And her looks (her ticket to cable TV omnipresence) seem to be fading as
she ages. That horsey thing is asserting itself, and soon she will more
completely resemble the braying jackass that she portrays by her political
statements.
Though she claims to have attended many Dead shows, most Deadheads I have
encountered do not embrace the fascist & intolerant worldview she
espouses.
JD
cst
> Ann Coulter is a stone fox and smart to boot. I knew she must be a deadhead!
UGH one mans meat is another mans poison, and she is poisonous
but a deadhead, not anymore I don't think
Darren E. Mason
news:jgdoherty-240...@h003065d99efc.ne.client2.attbi.com...
>
> Ann Coulter is a fascist swine, and a moron, but I have to admit, she is
> worthy of a boot. A swift jackboot to the rear sounds about right.
My my my. How tolerant and kYnD of you...
> Though she claims to have attended many Dead shows, most Deadheads I have
> encountered do not embrace the fascist & intolerant worldview she
> espouses.
"claims to..." ? Why is it that just because she is not on your side of
the political spectrum you are immediately skeptical of the fact that she
(a) attended Dead shows or (b) enjoyed them?
I am constantly amazed at the persistent arrogance of "heads" in the sense
that their love of the Dead's music must be so necessarily intertwined with
a specific type of politics (and that anything other type of combination of
morals/politics with the dead is essentially incomprehensible).
DM
John Doherty
<stca...@attbi.com> wrote:
> "John Doherty" <jgdo...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:jgdoherty-240...@h003065d99efc.ne.client2.attbi.com...
> >
> > Ann Coulter is a fascist swine, and a moron, but I have to admit, she is
> > worthy of a boot. A swift jackboot to the rear sounds about right.
>
> My my my. How tolerant and kYnD of you...
Have you found that fascists react well to loving consideration?
I'm reminded of that exchange from Manhattan, where Woody Allen is at a NY
cocktail party, and he mentions that American Nazis are marching in NJ.
One of the limousine liberals says: "Oh, the Times did a great editorial
on that!"
And Allen responds: "I don't think Nazis read the Times. I think they
respond better to bricks & clubs".
Kindness to fascists is not only misdirected, it's ultimately suicidal.
AC is a miserable intolerant wretch of a spokemodel for the New Fascist
Movement, and deserves all the disrespect we can dish out.
Her moves are distinctly UnAmerican, and should be denounced as so at
every opportunity (fascist sympathizers notwithstanding).
>
> > Though she claims to have attended many Dead shows, most Deadheads I have
> > encountered do not embrace the fascist & intolerant worldview she
> > espouses.
>
> "claims to..." ? Why is it that just because she is not on your side of
> the political spectrum you are immediately skeptical of the fact that she
> (a) attended Dead shows or (b) enjoyed them?
>
Well, Hitler enjoyed the Notre Dame Fight song, so anything's possible.
;-) But I've yet to encounter another Deadhead with such resolutely
intolerant views as the Pampered Princess of Suburban Conn. Coulter
displays. It boggles my mind that she could go to so many shows & remain
so doggedly intolerant.
> I am constantly amazed at the persistent arrogance of "heads" in the sense
> that their love of the Dead's music must be so necessarily intertwined with
> a specific type of politics (and that anything other type of combination of
> morals/politics with the dead is essentially incomprehensible).
Let me amaze you further...The "specific type of politics" it's entwined
with for me is one where:
1.) one does not openly advocate invading countries, killing their leaders
& forcing religious conversions to Christianity at gunpoint
2.) one does not advocate killing political prisoners to intimidate
liberals, nor does one wish for a country free of all views that depart
from one's own.
3.) one does not smugly wish for terrorist attacks that might kill many
journalists & innocents because said journalists write things that depart
from one's own worldview.
Your view of Deadheads might well embrace this sort of person, but not mine.
Personally, I don't want to dance for three hours in the company of
Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini, even if they can wear a miniskirt.
Your mileage may vary...
JD
Sherlock
whether even she believes some of the more outrageous things she says.
She is also smart, funny and often devastatingly correct in her lampooning
of the PC and Liberal sacred cows. I think this is what gets under people's
(liberals) skin so much. She is a right wing lightening rod, no doubt. But
in the spirit of free speech and an open mind, one can choose to read her or
just sit around here and listen to other people's opinions about her. I find
her written columns more entertaining than her television appearances.
http://www.anncoulter.org/default.htm
Go ahead... I dare ya! :^)
Sherlock
Henry Porter
news:ak8f0r$erh$1...@news.chatlink.com:
> She is also smart, funny and often devastatingly correct in her
Yeah, that's why people have been having a laugh riot citing the cascade of
outright lies and libels in her ridiculous book, and her editor at Crown is
considering some sort of corrected edition (though it's hard to imagine how
anything would be left).
This site links to places that catalog some of her whoppers:
http://www.anncoulter.blogspot.com
She's a joke. And given her utter lack of credibility, her claims of being
a Deadhead are as suspect as everything else she says.
HP
P & J Finnerty
--
"Sherlock" <sherl...@surfbest.net> wrote in message
news:ak8f0r$erh$1...@news.chatlink.com...
Something about this woman is so...needy...
Why is it she needs to keep publicizing the the fact she's attended Dead
shows? Look at her website, she's drinking beer, shooting guns,
skiing...she needs the world to know to know, she's not your stereotypical,
repressed John Ashcroft-type conservative-she's FUN! She's deliberately
over-the-top in expressing her views because she desparately needs
attention, regardless whether it's positive or negative attention...
I'll bet she'd give me a blow job on the first date just to prove she's fun.
And no doubt she would be a lot of fun until you break it off and then she'd
descend into full Fatal Attraction mode. Trust me, I dated this type of
woman many times times back in the day. Great to date, but you wouldn't
wish marriage to this type on your worst enemy...
Henry Porter
news:5UR99.279$O12.26...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:
> I'll bet she'd give me a blow job on the first date just to prove
> she's fun. And no doubt she would be a lot of fun until you break it
She's so much fun she gave Ronald McDonald a blow job. You can see a photo
of the deed at the Bartcop site:
http://www.bartcop.com/0610.htm
Scroll down that page about halfway... Bartcop always refers to her as
Clownblower as a tribute to the photo.
Here's a link to just the photo:
http://www.bartcop.com/mccoul-sm.jpg
Supposedly someone approached her at a book signing and asked if that's
really her tasting Ronald's Big Mac and she got furious. Must have been
funny.
HP
GrtflMark
vomited by these....well, I don't know what word to use - liberals seems
inappropriately restrained to describe the extremisms of some of these
folks.....it's obvious on this site that if you express any idea contrary to
the most extreme possible partisan liberal axioms - you get branded as a
"fascist" and a "Nazi"...interesting that's a subject in Ann's latest book,
"Slander" which - contrary to postings on this site - has not had its veracity
challenged by any creidible source that can support their claims - it's
certainly pissed off a lot of people that would like to continue to control the
media's message to be monolithically extremely liberal -- but it stands as
truthful and credible......stand by for more "fascist" and "Nazi" postings - or
similar name-calling - as result of this post.....thank you, Sherlock....your
post was elementary and true!!!
Henry Porter
news:20020824193748...@mb-cc.aol.com:
> "Nazi"...interesting that's a subject in Ann's latest book, "Slander"
> which - contrary to postings on this site - has not had its veracity
> challenged by any creidible source that can support their claims -
Does her own editor count?
Or how about this great example: she claims at the end of the book that the
NY Times wouldn't cover the death of Dale Earnhardt, because it was a story
of interest only to real Americans, blah blah blah. Go to the library and
check the NY Times for the day after Earnhardt's death, and you'll see the
story on the front page. You'll also see reporting of considerable depth
by Rick Bragg (hardly a northeast liberal) and several other reporters in
the other days following Earnhardt's death.
So there's all that prominent news coverage of Earnhardt in the Times, and
she claims it never happened! And she uses that as the example to close
her book.
How do you reconcile the truth -- which you can check yourself in your own
public library -- with Coulter's bizarre and totally fabricated assertions?
HP
-mike-
If there was humor there, I must have missed it. I am just
a little dense so YMMV. Now if you want a funny right
winger, try this one:
http://rightwingnews.com/quotes/pj.php
As I ran my campaign I found myself referencing some of his
talking points and wishing he could help me out. I think I
disagree with his fundamental premise, but sometimes I am
just not sure.
-m-
Kevin L Prigge
Henry Porter <henry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>grtf...@aol.com (GrtflMark) wrote in
>news:20020824193748...@mb-cc.aol.com:
>
>> "Nazi"...interesting that's a subject in Ann's latest book, "Slander"
>> which - contrary to postings on this site - has not had its veracity
>> challenged by any creidible source that can support their claims -
>
>Does her own editor count?
>
>Or how about this great example: she claims at the end of the book that the
>NY Times wouldn't cover the death of Dale Earnhardt, because it was a story
>of interest only to real Americans, blah blah blah. Go to the library and
>check the NY Times for the day after Earnhardt's death, and you'll see the
>story on the front page. You'll also see reporting of considerable depth
>by Rick Bragg (hardly a northeast liberal) and several other reporters in
>the other days following Earnhardt's death.
Nope, she claimed it happened two days after the fact. Rick Bragg started
his story with "His death brought a silence to the Wal-mart".
>So there's all that prominent news coverage of Earnhardt in the Times, and
>she claims it never happened! And she uses that as the example to close
>her book.
She never claimed it didn't happen. She may have been mistaken on the
timing.
>How do you reconcile the truth -- which you can check yourself in your own
>public library -- with Coulter's bizarre and totally fabricated assertions?
Who's assertions are bizarre and fabricated? Even still, that's one
point out of several hundred she makes. Are you willing to concede that
all the rest are accurate, or can you refute the rest of them as well?
Henry Porter
news:ak9fcn$p57$1...@laurel.tc.umn.edu:
> Who's assertions are bizarre and fabricated? Even still, that's one
> point out of several hundred she makes. Are you willing to concede
> that all the rest are accurate, or can you refute the rest of them as
> well?
I hardly need to refute them all personally, enough people are already
spending time documenting how the "hundreds of points" she makes are often
based on outright lies or, at best, willful distortions.
Here's a detailed look at her lie about the New York Times and the death of
Dale Earnhardt:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072302.shtml
If anyone's interested, it really doesn't take much effort to seek out
those who are having a ball documenting her spectacular mendacity.
Here's a mention about her own editor at Crown worried about her lying:
http://www.salon.com/news/col/cona/2002/08/06/bush/index.html
Joe Conason, who has dubbed Coulter "Pinocchio in a miniskirt," has been
having a lot of fun noting Coulter's problems with the truth.
This Conason column talks about the "army of internet fact checkers" having
a ball at Coulter's expense:
http://www.salon.com/news/col/cona/2002/08/07/bush/index.html
Here's an interesting piece documenting her use of lies and distortions:
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020713.html
There are any number of sites where people have documented all her lies...
one could probably spend a day reading about them all.
This is as good a place as any to begin:
Have fun.
HP
Bill
Until this thread, I didn't even know she had written a book. I suspect
there's a concerted effort by some folks with her political views that have
tons of cash to buy up this book. I refuse to believe this thing is selling
without help. If I'm wrong, this country's in bigger trouble then I
thought. Of all the fine nonfiction books to buy ...yikes.
But you never know. As Garrison Keilor said, "Face it: a nation that
maintains a 72% approval rating on George W. Bush is a nation with a very
loose grip on reality." Personally I think the stratespheric approval
ratings of him are a load of crap. God I hope so.
Bill
"Henry Porter" <henry...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9274EFDCF1F1Dhe...@216.166.71.230...
cst
snipped
man, I just got it, GrtflMark = Ann Coulter
as she/he said to me (paraphrased cause I wouldn't quote email without permission),
after I called him/her a plagerist
jackass, if I didn't write it who did?
well the exact copy is on this address
http://courreges.freeservers.com/PositionPapers.htm
which for some reason are frozen at this point
but I will find the original poster, and you sir or madam, are not the original
poster
cst
>
snippage
>
>
> Nope, she claimed it happened two days after the fact. Rick Bragg started
> his story with "His death brought a silence to the Wal-mart".
>
> >So there's all that prominent news coverage of Earnhardt in the Times, and
> >she claims it never happened! And she uses that as the example to close
> >her book.
>
> She never claimed it didn't happen. She may have been mistaken on the
> timing.
>
> >How do you reconcile the truth -- which you can check yourself in your own
> >public library -- with Coulter's bizarre and totally fabricated assertions?
>
> Who's assertions are bizarre and fabricated? Even still, that's one
> point out of several hundred she makes. Are you willing to concede that
> all the rest are accurate, or can you refute the rest of them as well?
I think we should leave it to another forum to go through her book piece by
piece, but there are liars and Damned liars, and Coulter falls in the latter
Darren E. Mason
news:ak9r6f$6jm$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> But you never know. As Garrison Keilor said, "Face it: a nation that
> maintains a 72% approval rating on George W. Bush is a nation with a very
> loose grip on reality." Personally I think the stratespheric approval
> ratings of him are a load of crap. God I hope so.
Garrison is an arrogant and snooty individual. One of the things I dislike
greatly about my home state.
DM
GrtflMark
>
>well the exact copy is on this address
>
> http://courreges.freeservers.com/PositionPapers.htm
......hey, it worked!! I got you to research the web and post a site where
everyone else could read this parody!! Thanks - I didn't know where it came
from, got about three different versions of it in email from other
folks...hehehehe - you guys really are easy!! Thanks for doing the work for
me!!
Sherlock
spent about an hour checking a couple of the sites that purport to document
Coulter's hundreds of errors and find that what many of them cite as an
error is really not an error.
On the Daily Howler site, the author lambastes Coulter for going back twenty
or more years to grab quotes from People magazine and the New York Times
about Phyllis Schafly. Well, the site admits that the quotes are accurate,
just that they are old. Is that an error in their minds? In yours?
On Slandermann's site, I read points one and two about Coulter's footnotes
in chapter two of her book. Point one states that she misleads the reader by
not including a full account of the story of the stabbing of some waiter by
some guy named Abbott. Coulter summarized the stabbing in one sentence and
Slandermann includes an account that is a whole paragraph long. Yet, I do
not think this rises to the level of an error. Coulter was not writing a
book about the stabbing. She was referencing the stabbing as an example. I
don't think she was under any obligation to completely retell the story in
every detail. I don't think it was germane to the point she was trying to
make about media bias (I guess, I haven't read the book). Seems like a very
high standard and the hysteria in which these errors are being pointed out
proves her point about media bias, in my opinion.
Ditto on the second point. To quote Slanderrmann: "Unfortunately for AHC's
credibility, Geffen did not say he loves to pay taxes"
Well, unfortunately for Slanndermann, Coulter does not say that Geffen said
that. Her statement about him loving to pay taxes is not in quotes and is,
IMO, her opinion based upon his other quoted statements that appear
completely accurate as they are identically quoted by both Slandermann and
Coulter.
Having read a few pages of this stuff, I think the left doth protest too
much. While there were one or two items cited that might be out and out
errors, they hardly seemed material or of any great magnitude. The resultant
publicity is probably fuelling sales of the book.
Here's another dubious example:
SLANNDER. Ann chooses Noam Chomsky and Susan Sontag as typifying liberal
reaction to 9/11. FACT. This is absurd on its face.
Is it? I seem to remember several Chomsky threads appearing here immediately
following 9/11. And just because Slannder disagrees with her opinion doesn't
mean her opinion constitutes an error.
I read an interesting article by some guy the other day about a lunch with
Coulter in a Manhattan restaurant. Here's a piece:
Mr. Zarem and his two friends got up to leave. I told Ms. Coulter they'd
called her the Antichrist.
"Excellent!" she said. "Excellent. It is a good thing, not a bad thing, to
be attacked by the enemy."
Before her book was published, Ms. Coulter had an idea to only run
endorsements by her liberal enemies on the jacket flap, but her publisher
said no. Instead, there are quotes from Rush Limbaugh, Bill Maher and
Geraldo Rivera. Ms. Coulter said she's also friendly with MSNBC commentator
and West Wing writer Lawrence O'Donnell and Saturday Night Live political
satirists Jim Downey and Al Franken. Ms. Coulter said she handed a copy of
her book to The New York Times' David Sanger, who looked it over, then
replied: "You know, I've got to start e-mailing you my articles because
there's a lot more you could have attacked me for!"
I think you can get the whole article on google by searching for
"coultergeist". It's good.
You know, I just might have to buy that book. After the new Dead one, that
is.:^)
Sherlock
Chris Luper
OTOH, I do think that Ms. Coulter use of the "liberal media establishment" is
quite disingenuous when she quotes liberal "op-ed" writers to make her point.
That would be like me quoting her or Rush Limbaugh and crediting their opinion
as the "conservative media establishment".
Also, some of her attacks bordered on amusing. I have watched the today show
for a long time, and have really never seen any political bias from Katie
Couric. Her attacks on her were unwarranted and in poor taste. This is just
one example of her partisan attacks that demean the opposition.
Basically, I have as much respect for Ms. Coulter as I do for someone like Al
Sharpton or Maxine Watters. They are all disingenuous whiners with little of
substance to say.
Chris
Henry Porter
news:akb3cc$66c$1...@news.chatlink.com:
> On the Daily Howler site, the author lambastes Coulter for going back
> twenty or more years to grab quotes from People magazine and the New
> York Times about Phyllis Schafly. Well, the site admits that the
> quotes are accurate, just that they are old. Is that an error in their
> minds? In yours?
Coulter quotes a reference to Schlafly from a 1984 People magazine review
of a Muppet film. She doesn't tell her readers in the main text that the
quote comes from a review of of "The Muppets Take Manhattan," but she uses
the musty old reference to make some important point about how the "liberal
media" today attacks the right... I guess Coulter considers People
magazine reviews of Muppet films to be serious journalism, but I don't see
how a throwaway line in such a review decades ago really means anything or
advances any serious argument. Call me an elitist.
More here, if anyone's got the time to read about this fool:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072202.shtml
HP
cst
so you admit to plagarism and thank me, you really are stupid aren't you?
-mike-
> Bill, I heard her interviewed on Drudge's radio show. She whimpered at
> how *conservative* reviewers were ripping her and was thankful that
> Drudge wasn't talking about the substance but was congratulating her on
> the high sales.
>
And here is a fake interview:
http://www.scoobielatest.blogspot.com/
A prankster convinced Ann's publicist he was a radio talk
show host. He interviewed her and posted it.
-m-
GrtflMark
hold true
....good, good - you're starting, thinking may be painful for you at first -
but keep working at it...you'll get there....see, you already realize the
truth!
Bill
"Jon" <jonv...@justice.com> wrote:
> Bill <crow...@ix.netcom.nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > I refuse to believe this thing is selling without help. If I'm wrong,
> > this country's in bigger trouble then I thought.
>
> Bill, I heard her interviewed on Drudge's radio show. She whimpered at
> how *conservative* reviewers were ripping her
Maybe they thought she wasn't making fun of Bill and Hillary enough - she
probably does it an average of twice per page and they wanted twice that.
and was thankful that
> Drudge wasn't talking about the substance but was congratulating her on
> the high sales.
They both are probably financed by the same folks - probably Richard Mellon
Scaife and his pals.
>
> So unless individuals are buying huge numbers of books, this is who is
> buying it:
>
> http://goddoubleplusblessamerica.org/jest/card-american_public.jpg
I notice a resemblance between her and a few in that picture. But as for
the bulk of the American people being sheep, I'd blame it more on not having
access to a good newspaper.
I just read a few days ago how a local paper, The Vacaville Reporter
(Vacaville, CA), was sold to Dean Singleton's MediaNews Group, based in
Denver, ending 120 years of local ownership. This is typical of what's
happened all over the country and having Dean Singleton be the provider of
news is not conducive to being a well-informed citizen.
From what I've read about Dean Singleton from a Google search, the guy
believes in spending as little as possible on his newspapers and buying up
as many newspapers as possible so he can run the same generic Republican
friendly real content-lite articles in all his newspapers.
Dean Singleton's MediaNews Group owns many many newspapers in this country
and I'll bet they all suck. Here's a list of all the newspapers he owns
(from the following MediaNews Group affiliated website,
http://www.newschoice.com). The list is in alphabetical order (by newspaper
title). Best to assume the collective millions who read these rags are not
well-informed citizens if the respective rag is the main source of news.
I'm familiar with the Chico Enterprise-Record which was a horrible
Republican-friendly news-lite newspaper when I lived in Chico. The
anti-real news Mr Singleton even owns the newspaper of the Dead's home, the
Marin Independent-Journal, which is about as independent as a two week old
baby. This list helps explain how a complete disaster like GWB can get as
many votes as he did. Here's the list:
Advocate-News
Fort Bragg, CA
Alameda Times Star
Alameda, CA
Alamogordo Daily News
Alamagordo, NM
The Argus
Fremont, CA
The Bennington Banner
Bennington, VT
The Berkshire Eagle
Pittsfield, MA
The Brattleboro Reformer
Brattleboro, VT
Brush News Tribune
Brush, CO
Carlsbad Current-Argus
Carlsbad, NM
Charleston Daily Mail
Charleston, WV
Chico Enterprise-Record
Chico, CA
Connecticut Post
Bridgeport, CT
The Daily Democrat
Woodland, CA
The Daily Review
Hayward, CA
The Daily Times
Farmington, NM
Darien News~Review
Darien, CT
The Deming Headlight
Deming, NM
The Denver Post
Denver, CO
Devens Commerce
Journal
Devens, MA
Estes Park
Trail Gazette
Estes Park, CO
The Evening Sun
Hanover, PA
Fairbanks Daily
News-Miner
Fairbanks, AK
Fairfield Citizen-News
Fairfield, CT
Fort Morgan Times
Fort Morgan, CO
Four Corners
Business Journal
Durango, CO
The Groton Landmark
Groton, MA
The Harvard Hillside
Harvard, MA
Inland Valley
Daily Bulletin
Ontario, CA
InsideBayArea
Oakland, CA
The Journal Advocate
Sterling, CO
Kodiak Daily Mirror
Kodiak, AK
KTVA
Anchorage, AK
L.A. Daily News
Los Angeles, CA
Lamar Daily News
Lamar, CO
Las Cruces Sun-News
Las Cruces, NM
Lebanon Daily News
Lebanon, PA
Long Beach Press
Telegram
Long Beach, CA
Lowell Sun
Lowell, MA
Marin Independant
Journal
Marin, CA
Mendocino Beacon
Fort Bragg, CA
The Milipitas Post
Milipitas, CA
The North Adams
Transcript
North Adams, MA
Norwalk Citizen-News
Norwalk, CT
The Oakland Tribune
Oakland, CA
Oroville Mercury
Register
Oroville, CA
The Pacifica Tribune
Pacifica, CA
The Park Record
Park City, UT
Pasadena Star News
Pasadena, CA
Pepperell Free Press
Pepperell, MA
The Public Spirit
Ayer, MA
Redbluff Daily News
Redbluff, CA
Redlands Daily Facts
Redlands, CA
Ruidoso News
Ruidoso, NM
Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake City, UT
San Bernardino Sun
San Bernardino, CA
San Gabriel Valley
Tribune
West Covina, CA
San Mateo County Times
San Mateo, CA
Sentinel & Enterprise
Fitchburg, MA &
Leominster, MA
Shirley Oracle
Shirley, MA
Silver City Sun News
Silver City, NM
Times Herald
Vallejo, CA
Times-Standard
Eureka, CA
Townsend Times
Townsend, MA
Tri-Valley-Herald
Pleasanton, CA
Ukiah Daily Journal
Ukiah, CA
Westport-News
Westport, CT
Whittier Daily News
Whittier, CA
York Daily Record
York, PA
The York Dispatch
York, PA
York Sunday News
York, PA
Bill
Darren E. Mason
>
> I notice a resemblance between her and a few in that picture. But as for
> the bulk of the American people being sheep, I'd blame it more on not
having
> access to a good newspaper.
More left wing arrogance. Indeed, the only *possible* way that anyone could
be staunchly conservative (wrt to either guns, abortion, taxes, morality, or
whatever), is that they are either stupid, mindless, or just not smart
enough.
Typical.
DM
Sherlock
news:20020825134518...@mb-da.aol.com...
> Basically, I have as much respect for Ms. Coulter as I do for someone like
Al
> Sharpton or Maxine Watters. They are all disingenuous whiners with little
of
> substance to say.
>
> Chris
Yeah, that's about right.
Sherlock
Sherlock
I wouldn't call you an elitist. She makes slanted arguments and cherry picks
her quotes and facts to support them. Of course, both sides do this ad
nauseum. But there is a difference between factual error and difference of
opinion, editorial argument and "spin".
The left does it, and until the backlash of the last few years, got away
with it with little comment. This rendered the impression that liberal slant
was actually the moderate middle. Yet, books by Pat Buchanan and Anne
Coulter and other right wing spokespeople spend many weeks on top of best
seller lists.
Sherlock
Sherlock
news:3d68f014$0$1430$272e...@news.execpc.com...
> Sherlock <sherl...@surfbest.net> wrote:
>
> > But
> > in the spirit of free speech and an open mind, one can choose to read
her or
> > just sit around here and listen to other people's opinions about her. I
find
> > her written columns more entertaining than her television appearances.
> >
> > http://www.anncoulter.org/default.htm
>
>
> http://www.dailyhowler.com/
Well, I am suspect about the Dailyhowler's ability to be objective... The
editor, Somerby, "shared a dorm room at Harvard University with Gore and
actor Tommy Lee Jones."
Sherlock
Atl Bob
"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I
meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe
that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I
hardly think any gentleman will deny it."
-John Stuart Mill, letter to
MP Sir John Pakington (March, 1866)
Adam
Hey--isnt this a dead newsgroup--last week i was told that i couldnt
discuss anything off topic. now you guys seem hypocritical.
Garry Bryan
: In article <ZWJ99.63567$aA.12690@sccrnsc02>, "Darren E. Mason"
: <stca...@attbi.com> wrote:
:> "John Doherty" <jgdo...@attbi.com> wrote in message
:> news:jgdoherty-240...@h003065d99efc.ne.client2.attbi.com...
:> >
:> > Ann Coulter is a fascist swine, and a moron, but I have to admit, she is
:> > worthy of a boot. A swift jackboot to the rear sounds about right.
:>
:> My my my. How tolerant and kYnD of you...
: Have you found that fascists react well to loving consideration?
: I'm reminded of that exchange from Manhattan, where Woody Allen is at a NY
: cocktail party, and he mentions that American Nazis are marching in NJ.
: One of the limousine liberals says: "Oh, the Times did a great editorial
: on that!"
: And Allen responds: "I don't think Nazis read the Times. I think they
: respond better to bricks & clubs".
: Kindness to fascists is not only misdirected, it's ultimately suicidal.
: AC is a miserable intolerant wretch of a spokemodel for the New Fascist
: Movement, and deserves all the disrespect we can dish out.
: Her moves are distinctly UnAmerican, and should be denounced as so at
: every opportunity (fascist sympathizers notwithstanding).
I personally feel that the best way to combat fascists is to make them so
social outcast that no one would wnat to follow them. . .by beating them you
just become them, and that is what they want. . .
Garry
:>
:> > Though she claims to have attended many Dead shows, most Deadheads I have
:> > encountered do not embrace the fascist & intolerant worldview she
:> > espouses.
:>
:> "claims to..." ? Why is it that just because she is not on your side of
:> the political spectrum you are immediately skeptical of the fact that she
:> (a) attended Dead shows or (b) enjoyed them?
:>
: Well, Hitler enjoyed the Notre Dame Fight song, so anything's possible.
: ;-) But I've yet to encounter another Deadhead with such resolutely
: intolerant views as the Pampered Princess of Suburban Conn. Coulter
: displays. It boggles my mind that she could go to so many shows & remain
: so doggedly intolerant.
:
:> I am constantly amazed at the persistent arrogance of "heads" in the sense
:> that their love of the Dead's music must be so necessarily intertwined with
:> a specific type of politics (and that anything other type of combination of
:> morals/politics with the dead is essentially incomprehensible).
: Let me amaze you further...The "specific type of politics" it's entwined
: with for me is one where:
: 1.) one does not openly advocate invading countries, killing their leaders
: & forcing religious conversions to Christianity at gunpoint
: 2.) one does not advocate killing political prisoners to intimidate
: liberals, nor does one wish for a country free of all views that depart
: from one's own.
: 3.) one does not smugly wish for terrorist attacks that might kill many
: journalists & innocents because said journalists write things that depart
: from one's own worldview.
: Your view of Deadheads might well embrace this sort of person, but not mine.
: Personally, I don't want to dance for three hours in the company of
: Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini, even if they can wear a miniskirt.
: Your mileage may vary...
: JD
Sherlock
>
> You should give a url, because I'm dubious of your recount of the
> article. Beyond that, what about all the other errors? If you trot out
> one cite that you are unhappy with and ignore the rest, you obviously
> aren't interested in whether the book is accurate or not.
>
It wasn't my url, Jon. It was an url listed in a previous post supporting
the other side. I checked it out to see what all the fuss was about and
found, after reading three or four sections, that it is incredibly biased
and this gentleman is counting as factual errors what an unbiased person
might not count as such. Then I read about the webmaster or whatever he is
and find out he is Al Gore's former college roomate. Excuse me if I take his
writings with as many grains of salt as I would coulters. I am no fan of
Coulter but her points are being proven by the attacks. I read a couple of
factual errors and they don't seem to rise to a level that warrants the kind
of hysterical backlash being exhibited here and elsewhere.
>
> Personally, I find it hard to believe that anyone who watches the news
> would think that it is liberal. Its almost the exclusive domain of right
> wingers. All I hear from the Coulters and Goldbergs is whining. Goldberg
> was shocked that Dan Rather called the tax cut "big". If the same
> comment were made by some Jihad journalist like Brit Hume, it would be
> considered an accolade.
>
I think the pendulum has swung more towards the center lately. The
documented evidence originally stems from the days when the network news
held sway and before the rise of cable news and talk radio and the internet.
These outlets have gone a long way towards balancing the debate.
When talk radio became so popular and conservative talk show hosts came to
dominate their liberal counterparts in most markets, the left dismissed the
listeners as stupid or ignoant. They derided Limbaugh even as he became the
most popular radio show in the nation. They continue insult conservatives
to this day when discussing Fox News' rise in the ratings, Coulter's and
Buchanan's bestseller status and the last election.
I wish liberals would wake up and see that they do not have a monopoly on
good ideas, that some of their cherished ideas are failures and that not all
conservatives are ignorant mouth breathers who are being led around and
decieved by like sheep.
There have been many posts that pretty much posit the opinion that only
idiots voted for Bush. I think it reflects poorly on liberals when they
denigrate half the people in this country in this way. It shows a basic
disrespect for people, which is not supposed to be a liberal trait. Caring
people who happen to also be conservative grow weary of being dismissed just
because they question the politically correct line of thought that dominates
places like the network news, the NY Times, Cambridge and Berklely. It seems
less of a debate and more like being shouted down by a hysterical and
fearful left wing whose ideas once had great momentum and now seems to have
lost it.
> > You know, I just might have to buy that book. After the new Dead one,
that
> > is.:^)
>
> Thats sad.
>
Gotcha! Didn't you see the smiley face? I have no intention of buying
Coulter's book. Besides, why buy the cow when you can get her milk for free
at Coulter .com. :^) (careful now, this is another tweak of your nose)
Sherlock
I will say this. When it comes to the music, I don't believe I have ever
been discriminated against for my outspoken beliefs by people on this
newsgroup. I have been the recipient of a lot of fine music and that speaks
well of the caring and giving people on this board, regardless of their
politics. I wish I had the technical expertise and connection to download
and burn shows so I could give back but, alas, to date I have been mostly a
taker (no conservative cracks please). I will find a way, though. Someday.
Sherlock redux
-mike-
>
> More left wing arrogance. Indeed, the only *possible* way that anyone could
> be staunchly conservative (wrt to either guns, abortion, taxes, morality, or
> whatever), is that they are either stupid, mindless, or just not smart
> enough.
You forgot uninformed.
-m-
JB Goode
"Sherlock" <sherl...@surfbest.net> wrote:
> I wish liberals would wake up and see that they do not have a monopoly on
> good ideas, that some of their cherished ideas are failures and that not
all
> conservatives are ignorant mouth breathers who are being led around and
> decieved by like sheep.
and
> Caring people who happen to also be conservative grow weary of being
dismissed just
> because they question the politically correct line of thought that
dominates
> places like the network news, the NY Times, Cambridge and Berklely. It
seems
> less of a debate and more like being shouted down by a hysterical and
> fearful left wing whose ideas once had great momentum and now seems to
have
> lost it.
>
Ditto!!
JB Goode
"Sherlock" <sherl...@surfbest.net> wrote:
>
> Well, I am suspect about the Dailyhowler's ability to be objective... The
> editor, Somerby, "shared a dorm room at Harvard University with Gore and
> actor Tommy Lee Jones."
That must have been prior to AlGore flunking out of Harvard.......
(And also before GWB received his MBA from their Business School.......)
Darren E. Mason
> Actually, the evidence is that it is extremely conservative now and has
> been for a long time.
And the idea that the persistent dishonesty and
> distortions of Limburger or the conservatism of all the cable channels
> balances the conservatism of the networks means that there is no balance
> whatsoever. <snip>
>
> Hmmm... left wing radio... sorry, can't place it.
In the arena of self-supporting broadcast outlets, why do you think that is
the case?
Of course, NPR/CPB espouse (although not as blatantly) the other side of the
aisle
and are subsidized by tax dollars (state/federal). Indeed, why do you think
that that
type of opinion (c.f. Terry Gross, Diane Rehm, Juan Williams, Morning
Edition,
All Things Considered, The Connection, etc...) seems to depend on
subsidization.
> When is the last time that
> Limburger or Fox used their machines to support a good liberal idea?
What is your point? You could ask an equivalent question about James
Carville
using Crossfire to espouse a good conservative idea. I don't see the
relevance.
Indeed, why *should* they? They are espousing their views to a *large*
segment
of the radio listening public and making loads of advertising dollars for
their sponsor
in the process. Sounds like capitalism in action to me.
Finally, why the constant derogatory language (c.f. "Limburger")? Can you
not make
your point without using cheapish language?
> Half the voters actually. And I always consider the huge help he got
> from the media - I remember one notable example the day before the NY
> primary where CNN carried an entire campaign speech by Bush and then
> never questioned anything he said and instead reported it as fact. He
> slandered McCain and then won the primary. You can still hear people on
> c-span who think that his accusations were true even though they were
> disproven. Of course I shoud add that there was a grossly distorted ad
> campaign at the same time that made out that McCain was a big polluter.
> No mention for some reason of Bush's pro-pollution record.
This is no different than the constant "Gore is better than Bush" theme that
the NYT
printed. Free press, free speech, free thought. You, as were everyone else
in the state, were free to listen, research, judge, and decide. Do you feel
that
the NYC citizens were duped by CNN? If so, isn't that an insult to their
intelligence?
> Well, I frequently hear conservative ideas from democrats
Daniel Patrick Moniyhan, a stellar guy, was one example. He has my respect.
> conservatives now are dominated by a narrow religious faction and their
> ideas.
I disagree. They are as varied as those on the left. Certainly the New
England faction
of liberal republicans in the Senate are an example of "moderation" among
the right, just
as Sen. Breaux and friends are an example of conservative democrats on the
left.
DM
Bill
"Darren E. Mason" wrote
>
> "Jon" wrote
>
> > Hmmm... left wing radio... sorry, can't place it.
>
> In the arena of self-supporting broadcast outlets, why do you think that
is
> the case?
I don't know what you mean here.
> Of course, NPR/CPB espouse (although not as blatantly) the other side of
the
> aisle
> and are subsidized by tax dollars (state/federal). Indeed, why do you
think
> that that
> type of opinion (c.f. Terry Gross, Diane Rehm, Juan Williams, Morning
> Edition,
> All Things Considered, The Connection, etc...) seems to depend on
> subsidization.
To equate NPR with Rush Limbaugh, Ollie North, Bob Grant, G Gordon Liddy,
Michael Reagan, that Black Avenger guy, Michael Savage (SF bay area), etc
etc etc is ridiculous. It fails every logical test you could subject it to.
NPR is basically noncommercial mainstream radio. It's not opiniated, at
least NOTHING to the degree that the people above are who are heavily
opiniated 100% of the time. NPR goes out of it's way to be balanced.
The only thing the left has on the radio is the Pacifica Radio Network and
some affiliate stations. There are 5 Pacifica radio stations in all of the
US (Berkeley, LA, NY, Houston, and Wash DC). Here in the SF bay area, KPFA,
the local Pacifica station, has ONE location on the FM dial, none on the AM
dial. KPFA broadcasts as much music as it does advocacy broadcasting.
So in all of California, there's two left stations plus whatever affiliate
stations (I know there's one in Fresno but none north of Fresno up to the
Oregon Border. There's no Pacifica stations in 47 states yet Rush Limbaugh,
Ollie North, Bob Grant, G Gordon Liddy, Michael Reagan, that Black Avenger
guy and all the other ones are broadcast probably in EVERY STATE.
Now you do the math, 4 states for the left versus 50 states for the right.
And even in the states where Pacifica is in, they are still swamped by the
right. California has two stations plus one affiliate while the right has
many more stations broadcasting hardcore rightwing emotionally-charged
shows. Same with Texas - Pacifica has ONE station in Houston. So it's one
left station in all of Texas versus how many rightwing stations in Texas?
20? At least that many.
So the math shows the idea that it's fair is ridiculous. A proper measure
to use would be total broadcast hours of the right versus total broadcast
hours versus the left (so in a locality with 2 rightwing stations and 1
liberal station, there would be twice the number of broadcast hours for the
rightwing).
If the total broadcast hours of the right in all of the US was compared to
the total broadcast hours of the left, I'd place a bet that there are at
least 30 TIMES the broadcast hours of the right versus broadcast hours of
the left (and even 30 is probably way lower than what it actually is). Yeah
that's balance! Radio in this country is extremely conservative.
And then when one includes newspapers, it's the same thing. You have
conservatives owning hundreds of newspapers that are very opiniated
bordering-on yellow journalism. These papers only print stories that
support their conservative philosophy.
I'll print out here once again all the newspapers owned by Dean Singleton, a
conservative Republican who believes in squeezing as much profits out of his
papers at the expense of doing a good job of informing his readers. The
rightwing must laugh and laugh and laugh that they can say the media is
liberal when they control 95% of it and thus know they're lying through
their teeth.
They are laughing at all the fools who actually buy such ridiculous crap
when it's obvious to anybody with a first grade math education who totals
all the broadcasting hours the right gets on the radio and on the TV versus
what the left gets on the radio and TV that such a notion is beyond
ludicrousness.
The conservative owners know damn well the rightwing controls the media in
this country but since the control it they also know that they can repeat
the big lie that, despite it not making any sense at all, the media is
liberal.
Then add in all the millions of people the rightwing reaches because of
ownership of all the daily newspapers in the US and it makes the notion that
the media liberal nothing less than absurdity squared. Just look below at
all the newspapers conservative Republican Dean Singleton owns. How many
other Dean Singletons are there in this country? Any person or company on
the left equivalent to a DS that owns 5% as many papers as DS owns? Of
course not. But somehow despite the math showing the absurdity of such a
notion, "the media is liberal." Riiiiiiiight.
The list of 70 daily newspapers Dean Singleton owns in the US is below my
name.
Bill
Advocate-News
Fort Bragg, CA
The Argus
Fremont, CA
Carlsbad Current-Argus
Carlsbad, NM
Chico Enterprise-Record
Chico, CA
Connecticut Post
Bridgeport, CT
Darien News~Review
Darien, CT
Fairfield Citizen-News
Fairfield, CT
InsideBayArea
Oakland, CA
KTVA
Anchorage, AK
Lowell Sun
Lowell, MA
Norwalk Citizen-News
Norwalk, CT
Ruidoso News
Ruidoso, NM
Shirley Oracle
Shirley, MA
Times Herald
Vallejo, CA
Times-Standard
Eureka, CA
Townsend Times
Townsend, MA
Tri-Valley-Herald
Pleasanton, CA
Westport-News
Westport, CT
>
> > When is the last time that
> > Limburger or Fox used their machines to support a good liberal idea?
Another question that should be asked is when is the last time you heard a
station as far left as Fox is to the right. Never because such a station
doesn't exist. Never did and never will.
Darren E. Mason
>
>
> I don't know what you mean here.
What I mean is why do you think that there is not a left wing radio market?
Remember, commercial programming like Limbaugh's program relies on
ratings and advertising dollars. Don't you think that if there was a large
enough
interest base in the country to support such radio (thereby causing
broadcasting
companies to make $$), it would be offered?
> To equate NPR with Rush Limbaugh, Ollie North, Bob Grant, G Gordon Liddy,
> Michael Reagan, that Black Avenger guy, Michael Savage (SF bay area), etc
> etc etc is ridiculous. It fails every logical test you could subject it
to.
I did not "equate" the two ideas. What I did point out was that NPR
although not as
heavy handed or "in your face", has a liberal bias. And I say this as a
person who listens
to NPR for literally *hours* during every work-day.
> NPR is basically noncommercial mainstream radio.
Are you kidding me? Have you ever listened to the questions asked by their
interviewers? Or the choice of stories? MPR, which is the home-network in
Michigan is very biased, both in content and in on-air talent. Simply
listening to Morning Edition and its treatment of the previous day's news,
especially when it comes to international events, and you see a clear bias
towards the left (not always, but I would say on average more often than
not). For example, it is not uncommon for a story to be run about Bush and
they will have a long interview with a critic of Bush, giving that person
ample opportunity to espouse their views (which is fine with me) without
hard challange, followed by a short statement of an official position by
Fleischer -- *not* an equally long interview by a supporter of Bush on said
issue. Just yesterday while driving home they had a story about the various
viewpoints of the international press on Bush's push towards attacking Iraq.
They chose a) A paper in Venezuela who has no real interest in what is going
on, b) A very liberal paper in Canada who, when asked about other viewpoints
in Canada besides their paper (which was very critical of Bush), responded
that there was a "right-wing" paper ala Bush that is, in essence, a sheep to
whatever the Whitehouse says (basically denigrating their opinion as somehow
invalid because it was conservative), and a paper from the Middle East (also
not supportive I recall). How is that balanced? Perhaps the only things
balanced on NPR on are regular basis are Marketplace and Car-Talk.
What I see is a particular slant to news that could not survive in the
commerical marketplace of ideas (due to lack of interest) so intead is
subsidized by taxpayer dollars, while the ideology of conservative radio,
much derided around here, at least has the interest base to "go it alone".
> It's not opiniated, at
> least NOTHING to the degree that the people above are who are heavily
> opiniated 100% of the time.
This is true. But I never said it was.
> The only thing the left has on the radio is the Pacifica Radio Network and
> some affiliate stations. There are 5 Pacifica radio stations in all of
the
> US (Berkeley, LA, NY, Houston, and Wash DC). Here in the SF bay area,
KPFA,
> the local Pacifica station, has ONE location on the FM dial, none on the
AM
> dial. KPFA broadcasts as much music as it does advocacy broadcasting.
>
> So in all of California, there's two left stations plus whatever affiliate
> stations (I know there's one in Fresno but none north of Fresno up to the
> Oregon Border. There's no Pacifica stations in 47 states yet Rush
Limbaugh,
> Ollie North, Bob Grant, G Gordon Liddy, Michael Reagan, that Black Avenger
> guy and all the other ones are broadcast probably in EVERY STATE.
Yes they do. Why? Because they make money. It is about ratings. Which is
why
I suspect Pacifica survives in California. The density of folks who agree
with their
bias is high enough to make it workable.
> So the math shows the idea that it's fair is ridiculous. A proper measure
> to use would be total broadcast hours of the right versus total broadcast
> hours versus the left (so in a locality with 2 rightwing stations and 1
> liberal station, there would be twice the number of broadcast hours for
the
> rightwing).
>
> If the total broadcast hours of the right in all of the US was compared to
> the total broadcast hours of the left, I'd place a bet that there are at
> least 30 TIMES the broadcast hours of the right versus broadcast hours of
> the left (and even 30 is probably way lower than what it actually is).
Yeah
> that's balance! Radio in this country is extremely conservative.
I *NEVER* said it wasn't conservative. What I asked was why you thought
that
was the case? I believe it has (in large part) to do with the fact that
their are large
ratings to be had in conservative radio broadcasting, and therefore lots of
money.
If Rush Limbaugh couldn't pull in 15-20 million listeners each day do you
think
he would make the kind of cash he makes or continue to be given 3 hours/day
to
talk? Doubtful...if he was a money loser they would fire him. And if there
wasn't
enough folks nationwide to provide an advertising base to conservative
radio...so
that they were money-losing entities, you would see the numbers change.
> And then when one includes newspapers, it's the same thing. You have
> conservatives owning hundreds of newspapers that are very opiniated
> bordering-on yellow journalism. These papers only print stories that
> support their conservative philosophy.
While this may be true, which papers have the "power" to cause a
story/editorial
to be repeated over and over again, or to be handled with "weight" relative
to
other print outlets? Boston Globe, New York Times, Washington Post (not
the Times),
L.A. Times, and a few others. Those are the papers you hear quoted (mostly
the NYT and the Post). And they have the "clout" to make something become a
much-discussed article. Just as is the case with Newsweek and Time, both on
the
left side of the aisle when it comes to popular weekly newsmagazines.
> I'll print out here once again all the newspapers owned by Dean Singleton,
a
> conservative Republican who believes in squeezing as much profits out of
his
> papers at the expense of doing a good job of informing his readers. The
> rightwing must laugh and laugh and laugh that they can say the media is
> liberal when they control 95% of it and thus know they're lying through
> their teeth.
While a number of rich (and perhaps conservative like Murdoch) may own the
media, I doubt they control much of the content. When Jack Welch was asked
this about ABC News, he said he didn't much think about content or care
since,
as a money making part of GE, it was small potatoes...not worth his time.
What
really matters in deciding content is the political persuasions of the
editorial board.
Can you prove that such folks are monolithically conservative?
Also, I noticed you did not mention Time-Warner/AOL and Ted Turner. What
papers does he own? (regarding your list below)
> Then add in all the millions of people the rightwing reaches because of
> ownership of all the daily newspapers in the US and it makes the notion
that
> the media liberal nothing less than absurdity squared. Just look below at
> all the newspapers conservative Republican Dean Singleton owns. How many
> other Dean Singletons are there in this country? Any person or company on
> the left equivalent to a DS that owns 5% as many papers as DS owns? Of
> course not. But somehow despite the math showing the absurdity of such a
> notion, "the media is liberal." Riiiiiiiight.
>
> The list of 70 daily newspapers Dean Singleton owns in the US is below my
> name.
>
<list snipped>
I find this list illustrative, but not for the reasons you suggest. With
the exception of a
few towns (LA, Denver, Oakland, etc), these are all papers in 2nd level or
3rd level markets --
not the type wherein their opinion reaches ABC network news, NBC, CBS, the
morning
talkshow circuit, NPR, etc. Do you think that NPR picks up stories from
these papers
to broadcast? Hardly. But when the Times of New York speaks, they listen.
Having
70 ants vs. 2 human feet tells me that the ants lose. Also, in those major
markets like LA,
it is not the LA Times owned by this person, but the LA Daily News. Does a
conservative
own the LA Times?
> Another question that should be asked is when is the last time you heard a
> station as far left as Fox is to the right. Never because such a station
> doesn't exist. Never did and never will.
ABC News is one example. The only conservatives on that channel of news are
paid
commentators, and they appear rarely (c.f. George Will). Is FOX
conservative? Sure.
They seem to be doing quite well in the ratings...what does that tell you
about public interest?
Compare this to typical news offerings on PBS -- a subsidized station.
DM
Sherlock
> >
> > > Hmmm... left wing radio... sorry, can't place it.
> >
That's the assertion. Talk radio used to be liberal, in the days of Jerry
Williams and Larry King, they owned the airwaves. In those days, liberal =
populist.
What happened? Well, I think the pendulum swung the other way and those old
icons of radio weren't quick enough to change. So, all of a sudden, you had
Limbaugh, et al, pointing out chinks in the liberal armor and left wing
radio has had trouble mounting an effective counter response ever since.
Keep in mind that radio is a profit making venture. If liberal ideas were as
effective at selling soap and cars on the radio, then you'd have more of a
presence.
Mario Cuomo tried and failed. Then there's Jim Hightower, Alan Colmes and
I'm sure a few others.
Someday, the pendulum is bound to swing back.
> NPR is basically noncommercial mainstream radio. It's not opiniated, at
> least NOTHING to the degree that the people above are who are heavily
> opiniated 100% of the time. NPR goes out of it's way to be balanced.
>
Have you run this by Bill Moyers? Michael Moore? Puh-leeze. At least on
Limbaugh or Liddy, everyone knows where these guys are coming from. NPR
(like Fox btw) purports to be balanced and yet, it is decidedly left of
center in its coverage.
> > > Well, I frequently hear conservative ideas from democrats
> >
Because they need to get people to listen to them?
> >
> > > conservatives now are dominated by a narrow religious faction and
their
> > > ideas.
One can just as easily charge that the Democratic party is dominated by the
teachers unions, NOW and leftist minority special interests.
Sherlock
Jonathan Miller
<stca...@attbi.com> wrote:
<snip>
So, you're saying that even though the vast majority of commentators,
and the vast majority of newspapers in the country, and a cable
network are dedicated to a right-wing slant, the media is biased to
the left?
Conservatives have been whining about the media bias for so long, that
journalists reflectively twitch to the conservative spin on things.
Remember how the NEA said that teachers should tell kids no one can be
blamed for Sept. 11th? It was all the Liberal Media talked about for
a week. Too bad it NEVER HAPPENED. The Washington Times went to the
NEA's on-line curriculums, followed a link to an article on somebody's
page discussing how kids shouldn't be taught that all muslims are
radical terrorists. They quoted one sentence from that article saying
teachers shouldn't teach that "any group (meaning, Muslims as a whole)
is responsible", and then they reported that the NEA is teaching kids
to blame America first. If the NEA was a person, instead of a
government institution, they could sue for libel.
All this whining about a liberal media would be more believable if the
"proof" didn't all boil down to "Dan Rather gets a funny look on his
face when something bad happens to America", and "They quoted someone
who represents the mainstream of scientific thought, instead of the
one guy who pushes our agenda" .
Jon
Sherlock
Here ya go...
Journalists, surrounded by other left-of-center individuals, see themselves
and their Democratic friends as well-reasoned, sensible individuals. What
does this make Republicans? One year ago, following the Republican and
Democratic conventions, a search was done on the Lexis-Nexis news databases
for the weeks of the conventions. The following results were found:
Republicans were labeled as "right wing" 373 times, "far right" 144 times,
"hard right" 44 times, "religious right" 141 times, and "conservative" 3170
times. Democrats were labeled "left wing" 120 times, "far left" 49 times,
"hard left" seven times, "religious left" four times, "secular left" twice,
and "liberal" 1589 times (http://www.cato.org/dailys/09-07-00.html).
Republicans were more than twice as likely to be labeled off-center than
Democrats. These labels degrade the integrity of news outlets when used
incorrectly and inconsistently
And there's plenty more where this came from.
Sherlock
You say you want some more.... well, here's some more. (Dynamo Hum)
"If we could be one-hundredth as great as you and Hillary Rodham Clinton
have been in the White House, we'd take it right now and walk away
winners...Thank you very much and tell Mrs. Clinton we respect her and we're
pulling for her."
-- Dan Rather at a May 27, 1993 CBS affiliates meeting talking via satellite
to President Clinton about his new on-air partnership with Connie Chung as
co-anchor of the CBS Evening News.
"Some thoughts on those angry voters. Ask parents of any two-year-old and
they can tell you about those temper tantrums: the stomping feet, the
rolling eyes, the screaming....Imagine a nation full of uncontrolled
two-year-old rage. The voters had a temper tantrum last week....Parenting
and governing don't have to be dirty words: the nation can't be run by an
angry two-year-old."
-- ABC's Peter Jennings in his radio commentary after the GOP won the House,
Nov. 14, 1994
"Next week on ABC's World News Tonight, a series of reports about our
environment which will tell you precisely what the new Congress has in mind:
the most frontal assault on the environment in 25 years. Is this what the
country wants? On ABC's World News Tonight next week."
-- Peter Jennings in an ABC promo during the July 9, 1995 This Week with
David Brinkley.
But should you be using the national airwaves to promote your opinions?
Diane Sawyer to Fox News Channel show host Bill OReilly, October 10 Good
Morning America.
Darren E. Mason
news:u1j1nucvip2rs8pbs...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 31 Aug 2002 12:38:04 GMT, "Darren E. Mason"
> <stca...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> So, you're saying that even though the vast majority of commentators,
Radio commentators. Let's be specific.
> and the vast majority of newspapers in the country, and a cable
> network are dedicated to a right-wing slant, the media is biased to
> the left?
Define "the media". I mean the major broadcast media outlets -- NBC,
CBS, PBS, ABC, NYT, Wash. Post., CNN, etc.
> Conservatives have been whining about the media bias for so long, that
> journalists reflectively twitch to the conservative spin on things.
> Remember how the NEA said that teachers should tell kids no one can be
> blamed for Sept. 11th? It was all the Liberal Media talked about for
> a week. Too bad it NEVER HAPPENED. The Washington Times went to the
> NEA's on-line curriculums, followed a link to an article on somebody's
> page discussing how kids shouldn't be taught that all muslims are
> radical terrorists. They quoted one sentence from that article saying
> teachers shouldn't teach that "any group (meaning, Muslims as a whole)
> is responsible", and then they reported that the NEA is teaching kids
> to blame America first. If the NEA was a person, instead of a
> government institution, they could sue for libel.
Not really. Have you read the actual lesson plan? I did. The truth is in
the middle
of your "interpretation" and their "interpretation".
DM
John Flanery
On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, Darren E. Mason wrote:
> Simply listening to Morning Edition and its treatment of the previous
> day's news, especially when it comes to international events, and you
> see a clear bias towards the left (not always, but I would say on
> average more often than not). For example, it is not uncommon for a
> story to be run about Bush and they will have a long interview with a
> critic of Bush, giving that person ample opportunity to espouse their
> views (which is fine with me) without hard challange, followed by a
> short statement of an official position by Fleischer -- *not* an
> equally long interview by a supporter of Bush on said issue.
As a leftist, I WANT the administration to have to respond to their
critics; equal time would be fine, _if_ they answer the criticism.
> Just yesterday while driving home they had a story about the various
> viewpoints of the international press on Bush's push towards attacking
> Iraq. They chose a) A paper in Venezuela who has no real interest in
> what is going on, b) A very liberal paper in Canada who, when asked
> about other viewpoints in Canada besides their paper (which was very
> critical of Bush), responded that there was a "right-wing" paper ala
> Bush that is, in essence, a sheep to whatever the Whitehouse says
> (basically denigrating their opinion as somehow invalid because it was
> conservative), and a paper from the Middle East (also not supportive I
> recall).
It's balanced because international opinion on attacking Iraq is
overwhelmingly negative.
> What I see is a particular slant to news that could not survive in the
> commerical marketplace of ideas (due to lack of interest) so intead is
> subsidized by taxpayer dollars, while the ideology of conservative radio,
> much derided around here, at least has the interest base to "go it alone".
I occasionally listen to All Things Considered; the last story I remember
was about Apple changing the screen logo on their new Macs. This is
news? They should change their name to "Insignificant Things Considered".
> > Rush Limbaugh, Ollie North,
> > Bob Grant, G Gordon Liddy, Michael Reagan, that Black Avenger
> > guy and all the other ones are broadcast probably in EVERY STATE.
>
> Yes they do. Why? Because they make money. It is about ratings.
It's about a friendly advertising climate. Who's going to want to
advertise an a show that derides consumerism? What corporation is going
to want to advertise to an audience which hates corporations?
> > If the total broadcast hours of the right in all of the US was compared to
> > the total broadcast hours of the left, I'd place a bet that there are at
> > least 30 TIMES the broadcast hours of the right versus broadcast hours of
> > the left (and even 30 is probably way lower than what it actually is).
<snip>
> > And then when one includes newspapers, it's the same thing. You have
> > conservatives owning hundreds of newspapers that are very opiniated
> > bordering-on yellow journalism. These papers only print stories that
> > support their conservative philosophy.
>
> While this may be true, which papers have the "power" to cause a
> story/editorial to be repeated over and over again, or to be handled
> with "weight" relative to other print outlets? Boston Globe, New York
> Times, Washington Post (not the Times), L.A. Times, and a few others.
> Those are the papers you hear quoted (mostly the NYT and the Post).
> And they have the "clout" to make something become a much-discussed
> article. Just as is the case with Newsweek and Time, both on the left
> side of the aisle when it comes to popular weekly newsmagazines.
A valid point, except that these papers aren't really "left"; yes, they
may be "on the left side of the aisle", but they've got aisle seats - sort
of the "New Democrats" of the newspaper world. They have a mild-left
viewpoint, which they balance with mild-conservative or strong
conservative views, and THAT'S IT. For example, they carry very little
criticism of trade pacts, because the wealthy owners would benefit from
these trade pacts. Never mind that 70% of the country was against NAFTA.
For real left reporting you need to go to weekly publications like The
Nation - not a heavily quoted source!
If I had a $100M, I'd start a left daily newspaper.
> While a number of rich (and perhaps conservative like Murdoch) may own
> the media, I doubt they control much of the content. When Jack Welch
> was asked this about ABC News, he said he didn't much think about
> content or care since, as a money making part of GE, it was small
> potatoes...not worth his time. What really matters in deciding content
> is the political persuasions of the editorial board.
What really matters is making sure all the other parts of GE continue to
make money.
> > Another question that should be asked is when is the last time you heard a
> > station as far left as Fox is to the right. Never because such a station
> > doesn't exist. Never did and never will.
>
> ABC News is one example.
While I don't watch TV (I don't even own one) I'm dubious that ABC News is
even as liberal as the New York Times.
> Is FOX conservative? Sure. They seem to be doing quite well in the
> ratings...what does that tell you about public interest? Compare this
> to typical news offerings on PBS -- a subsidized station.
...and one with as much conservative content as liberal.
cst
actually in this case, I believe the NEA is the National Education
Association, a teachers union, not the National Endowment for the Arts (a
government institution), however both seem to be hated targets of the
Republicans
cst
Do you have a link to the actual lesson plan, or was this from another source
saying it was the lesson plan?
cst
>
snippage
>
>
> One can just as easily charge that the Democratic party is dominated by the
> teachers unions, NOW and leftist minority special interests.
>
> Sherlock
Yeah, I wish it was dominated by the teachers unions, but it seems to be
beholden to the same special interests the Republicans are beholden to,
primarily business interests
John Flanery
On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, Sherlock wrote:
> Republicans were labeled as "right wing" 373 times, "far right" 144 times,
> "hard right" 44 times, "religious right" 141 times, and "conservative" 3170
> times. Democrats were labeled "left wing" 120 times, "far left" 49 times,
> "hard left" seven times, "religious left" four times, "secular left" twice,
> and "liberal" 1589 times (http://www.cato.org/dailys/09-07-00.html).
Yes indeed, the right-wingers get a lot more press than left-wingers.
> Republicans were more than twice as likely to be labeled off-center than
> Democrats.
Republicans are more likely to be (politically) off-center than democrats.
There's room in the Democratic Party for centrists; there's little in the
Republican Party. Jeffords.
Darren E. Mason
"John Flanery" <jf...@efn.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSU.4.21.020831...@garcia.efn.org...
>
>
>> Darren E. Mason said:
>
> > Is FOX conservative? Sure. They seem to be doing quite well in the
> > ratings...what does that tell you about public interest? Compare this
> > to typical news offerings on PBS -- a subsidized station.
>
> ...and one with as much conservative content as liberal.
I would say that the most balanced video news outlet is C-Span and C-Span
II.
DM
Darren E. Mason
"cst" <kw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3D713269...@earthlink.net...
The page
http://neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/september11/materials/n26.htm and th
e associated PBS link is (I believe) one of the lesson plans in question.
The spirit of the lesson is that it is somehow wrong to recognize the fact
that the terrorist groups that attacked on 9/11 *were* of muslim/middle
eastern origin and that countries in that part of the world *were*
supportive of such efforts, both before and after the fact. I think that
another beef of some folks is that the general tone of many of the lessons
is slanted in favor of nonviolence/peace NOT war/retaliation/etc. Indeed,
the alternative viewpoint to peace, i.e., the pros and cons of hard
retaliation against those folks *and* the countries/states/governements that
sponsor them, is not highlighted in the lessons (at least I didn't see
that). I am all for not stereotyping a group of people based on the actions
of a few, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't support a war against said people
if their government was supportive of groups that are intent upon theatening
the security of the USA.
DM
DM
Jonathan Miller
<stca...@attbi.com> wrote:
>The page
>http://neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/september11/materials/n26.htm and th
>e associated PBS link is (I believe) one of the lesson plans in question.
>The spirit of the lesson is that it is somehow wrong to recognize the fact
>that the terrorist groups that attacked on 9/11 *were* of muslim/middle
>eastern origin and that countries in that part of the world *were*
>supportive of such efforts, both before and after the fact.
Thanks for the link, Darren. These look like lessons in critical
thinking and separating stereotypes from reality. I see questions
like...
>Does the artwork send messages about German and Japanese soldiers, or German and Japanese people in general?
... to get kids to think about the difference between America's
enemies and non-enemies who are of the same heritage. Americans who
spent time in concentration camps, like Dubya's secretary of
transportation, would tell you that's a good thing. Since Islamic
fundamentalists teach their kids that all Americans are evil
degenerates, aren't these lesson plans the kind of thing that makes us
better than them?
I've been through the page and the link twice, and I don't see where
it says that not to tell kids that that the terrorists were Muslims,
or to teach them to blame America first for 9/11, the way the Wash.
Times reported. Let me know where it says that.
Take care,
Jon
Darren E. Mason
> On Sat, 31 Aug 2002 21:32:46 GMT, "Darren E. Mason"
> <stca...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> ... to get kids to think about the difference between America's
> enemies and non-enemies who are of the same heritage.
I agree that they should distinguish bewteen citizens of an enemy country
and citizens of this country who share the heritage of an enemy country.
But during WWII, the Germans were the enemy. Not just the German
government. In particular, it was completely appropriate to ban entrance
of Germans into the US during wartime. Recognizing that is an important
facet of winning a war.
>
> I've been through the page and the link twice, and I don't see where
> it says that not to tell kids that that the terrorists were Muslims,
> or to teach them to blame America first for 9/11, the way the Wash.
> Times reported. Let me know where it says that.
I never said that the page supported the view of the Times. What I said was
that
the content of the page was in between what the Times said and the
diametrically
opposed viewpoint espoused on this group at the beginning of the thread.
DM
cst
> "cst" <kw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
snippage
>
> >
> > Do you have a link to the actual lesson plan, or was this from another
> source
> > saying it was the lesson plan?
> >
>
> The page
> http://neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/september11/materials/n26.htm and th
> e associated PBS link is (I believe) one of the lesson plans in question.
> The spirit of the lesson is that it is somehow wrong to recognize the fact
> that the terrorist groups that attacked on 9/11 *were* of muslim/middle
> eastern origin and that countries in that part of the world *were*
> supportive of such efforts, both before and after the fact. I think that
> another beef of some folks is that the general tone of many of the lessons
> is slanted in favor of nonviolence/peace NOT war/retaliation/etc. Indeed,
> the alternative viewpoint to peace, i.e., the pros and cons of hard
> retaliation against those folks *and* the countries/states/governements that
> sponsor them, is not highlighted in the lessons (at least I didn't see
> that). I am all for not stereotyping a group of people based on the actions
> of a few, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't support a war against said people
> if their government was supportive of groups that are intent upon theatening
> the security of the USA.
>
> DM
I don't get that at all from the very little written on this lesson plan. It
specifically addresses, well here is the info
from the above cite of a site:
"Objective
To explore the problems inherent in assigning blame to
populations or nations
of people by looking at contemporary examples of ethnic
conflict,
discrimination, and stereotyping at home and abroad."
To me it is suggesting we examine the blanket use of Muslim or Arab and other
stereotyping, and specify where the blame lays, perhaps at the Saudi's?
.
It then suggests an internet research paper, and gives this link
http://www.pbs.org/americaresponds/tolerance.html
Which is a lesson plan that the above example was taken from,
"Lesson Overview:
Use the treatment of citizens of Japanese and
German ancestry
during World War II--looking specifically at
media portrayals of
these groups and internment camps--as historical
examples of
ethnic conflict during times of trial; explore
the problems inherent
in assigning blame to populations or nations of
people. Students
will also look at contemporary examples of ethnic
conflict,
discrimination, and stereotyping at home and
abroad."
Although they are written for grades 6-12, I would perhaps keep it as a high
school level discussion.
The PBS plan is more detailed, specifying that
-the difference between the soldiers and the people themselves be explored
through the use of War Posters
-the effect of the news reporting upon stereotyping of blame
-comparison of Pearl Harbor to 9-11
-crimes against individuals because of their race or belief
-analyzing stereotyping in the media
I don't find any evidence of advocacy of peace, nor of war, and I don't find any
evidence of them saying that the terrorists should not be identified by their
race, beliefs or place of origin. What I do find is a lesson that specifies that
we don't blame all of the same race, nation or belief, for the actions of some.
Perhaps we should be locking up all white microbiologists without trial until we
find that dasterdly Anthrax terrorist. Can you say CIA dirty tricks?
cst
But who is the enemy, all Muslims? all Arabs? theTaliban? al quaida (how do you
spell that?)............
I would say the bending of the truth to tarnish the reputation of the NEA, and
teacher's unions, is a patent conservative dirty trick, and part of 'all the
news that is fit to misprint'
Darren E. Mason
> .
> It then suggests an internet research paper, and gives this link
> http://www.pbs.org/americaresponds/tolerance.html
This is the lesson plan I was referring to.
>
> The PBS plan is more detailed, specifying that
> -the difference between the soldiers and the people themselves be
explored
> through the use of War Posters
> -the effect of the news reporting upon stereotyping of blame
> -comparison of Pearl Harbor to 9-11
> -crimes against individuals because of their race or belief
> -analyzing stereotyping in the media
Why are only negative US examples used as examples?
>
> I don't find any evidence of advocacy of peace, nor of war, and I don't
find any
> evidence of them saying that the terrorists should not be identified by
their
> race, beliefs or place of origin.
Regarding the theme of peace vs. war, I was referring to the lesson site as
a whole, not
just this lesson.
> What I do find is a lesson that specifies that
> we don't blame all of the same race, nation or belief, for the actions of
some.
You may not blame them, but in time of war you *do* fight and kill them.
That is
a reality to recognize.
DM
Darren E. Mason
>
> But who is the enemy, all Muslims? all Arabs? theTaliban? al quaida (how
do you
> spell that?)............
Terrorists groups against the USA and the countries that support them. That
does not
include all Arabs or all Muslims. It does include Iraq, Iran, Syria, and
Egypt for starters.
> I would say the bending of the truth to tarnish the reputation of the NEA,
and
> teacher's unions, is a patent conservative dirty trick, and part of 'all
the
> news that is fit to misprint'
Yawn. Kind of like the way the left often "bends the truth" about gun
ownership and the NRA?
You are a right, a patent liberal dirty trick. It cuts both ways.
DM
Jonathan Miller
<stca...@attbi.com> wrote:
>"Jonathan Miller" <jonm...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:lpj2nuomv1i2477b5...@4ax.com...
>> I've been through the page and the link twice, and I don't see where
>> it says that not to tell kids that that the terrorists were Muslims,
>> or to teach them to blame America first for 9/11, the way the Wash.
>> Times reported. Let me know where it says that.
>
>I never said that the page supported the view of the Times.
>What I said was
>that
>the content of the page was in between what the Times said and the
>diametrically
>opposed viewpoint espoused on this group at the beginning of the thread.
My "viewpoint" was that the NEA never told teachers to tell kids no
one can be blamed for 9/11, the way the Washington Times reported.
Unless you can point out where the NEA did say that, then the truth
isn't "between" anything.
>I agree that they should distinguish bewteen citizens of an enemy country
>and citizens of this country who share the heritage of an enemy country.
Then you support the lesson plans?
>But during WWII, the Germans were the enemy. Not just the German
>government. In particular, it was completely appropriate to ban entrance
>of Germans into the US during wartime.
I agree, and so do the lesson plans. Your link doesn't say a word
about the entrance of Germans into the US.
>> What I do find is a lesson that specifies that
>> we don't blame all of the same race, nation or belief, for the actions of
>some.
>
>You may not blame them, but in time of war you *do* fight and kill them.
>That is
>a reality to recognize.
When you kill all of the same race, nation or belief, that's not war,
that's genocide. What's the real objection here? Are conservatives
pro-stereotypes, anti-critical-thinking-skills, AND pro-genocide?
Jon
cst
I agree with you, the lack of actual discussion, and the one minute sound bite
makes it difficult to get beyond the demonizing of individuals for their
political leanings.
And the Yawn comment, kind of points the way to why conservatives think the
press is liberal, and liberals think the press is conservative. People react to
criticism negatively.
cst
very much different than saying you shouldn't blame the entire race-religion
Poppycock! the entire PBS site is NOT anti-war (despite your beliefs, I mean
Jim Lehrer and the news is very conservative in it's reporting) and I think you
are coloring your reading of the lesson site with your own interpretation. One
of the mandates of Public Education is including all students. This means that
lessons about tolerance of others, anti-bullying, and anti-stereotyping are
part of the job.
That war is neccessary is part of the history lessons, but you have picked the
wrong site, this is specific in it's selection of specific topics for lesson
plans as far as the PBS site.
As far as the other site it is concerned with health, NOT history. Specifically
as it pertains to hate towards others, and adolescents can be full of hate and
intolerance just like adults. Try searching the ERIC site on the lesson plans
on WAR
Sherlock
news:2Cac9.251439$me6.33126@sccrnsc01...
>
I think that
> another beef of some folks is that the general tone of many of the lessons
> is slanted in favor of nonviolence/peace NOT war/retaliation/etc. Indeed,
> the alternative viewpoint to peace, i.e., the pros and cons of hard
> retaliation against those folks *and* the countries/states/governements
that
> sponsor them, is not highlighted in the lessons (at least I didn't see
> that). I am all for not stereotyping a group of people based on the
actions
> of a few, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't support a war against said
people
> if their government was supportive of groups that are intent upon
theatening
> the security of the USA.
>
> DM
Darren, I'm right behind ya!
Sherlock
Sherlock
> Republicans are more likely to be (politically) off-center than democrats.
> There's room in the Democratic Party for centrists; there's little in the
> Republican Party. Jeffords.
Such a blanket generalization. If the republicans are so extreme, why is it
that extreme elements within it, like Pat Buchanan and Bob Smith find it
necessary to leave? Your belief shows the same bias as the news media types.
Where you stand is supposedly closer to the center than your counterweights
on the other side of the fulcrum.There is a natural comfort in believing
that the group you identify yourself with is more centrist (read:
reasonable) and more "correct" in its thinking. Those on the other side must
be "extremists" because they disagree with you. This is flawed thinking.
This is what the media bias study was all about. It's very possible that you
are one of their victims. Your opinion stated above may be a product of
their biased labeling. Disconcerting, isn't it?
Sherlock