Ann Coulter really is funny

[Steerpike]

I don't like Ann Coulter.

But if there's one source I find just as bad or worse (if that's possible) it's Al Franken.

 

[mattskramer]

...I think liberal are angry at her precisely because they can't dispute what she says. Therefore all they have left is to attack her personally.

Perhaps you can give me an example of someplace where she is 'technically wrong'?

Thanks for giving me such an easy challenge. Here is my answer:

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031023.html

Ann Coulter, whose error-filled work has recently come in for increasing scrutiny, is firing back at her critics in a new syndicated column. And, while she admits to correcting a few of the numerous errors in her book Slander, some of those corrections are no better than her original mistakes.

In the column, Coulter dodges most of the criticism of Slander, relying instead on twisted parsings of criticisms, straw-man arguments, and ad hominem attacks on critics (similar to her response to our criticism of her latest book Treason in a recent radio interview with Alan Colmes).

In a few places, however, Coulter does respond substantively. She notes that she made "about five inconsequential errors" in Slander, which she corrected in later editions. However, two of her corrections don't stand up to close scrutiny. She claims to have corrected her false assertion that the New York Times failed to print a front-page story about the death of NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt until three days after it had taken place (the Times printed a front-page story on his death the day after it happened). Coulter calls this mistake "the only vaguely substantive error the Ann Coulter hysterics have been able to produce". However, all Coulter did was delete the sentence making that assertion; the offending paragraph still implies that the Times didn't print a story until the third day:

The day after seven-time NASCAR Winston Cup champion Dale Earnhardt died in a race at the Daytona 500, almost every newspaper carried the story on the front page. Stock-car racing had been the nation's fastest-growing sport for a decade, and NASCAR the second-most-watched sport behind the NFL. More Americans recognize the name Dale Earnhardt than, say, Maureen Dowd. (Manhattan liberals are dumbly blinking at that last sentence.) Demonstrating the left's renowned populist touch, the New York Times front-page article on Earnhardt's death three days later began, "His death brought a silence to the Wal-Mart." (paperback edition, page 261; original in hardcover edition, page 205)

I actually researched this for myself. I found a hardcopy of the New York Times and an original edition of the book "Slander". It was easy to find her technical error. I don't know how Coulter could have been so careless.

Here is Fair's perspective on it:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1124

Here's what Coulter wrote in Slander: "The day after seven-time NASCAR Winston Cup champion Dale Earnhardt died in a race at the Daytona 500, almost every newspaper in America carried the story on the front-page.... It took the New York Times two days to deem Earnhardt's death sufficiently important to mention it on its front-page."

In fact, like "almost every newspaper in America," the New York Times published a front-page obituary for Earnhardt the day after his February 18, 2001 death. The lead described him as "stock car racing's greatest current star and one of its most popular and celebrated figures."


That, technically, is sufficient to answer your question, but here is some extra material critical of Coulter’s accuracy back at the Spinsanity article.

Coulter makes an equally misleading correction to a comment about media coverage of former Vice President Al Gore. In the first edition of the book, she writes that "the press maintained radio silence on stories embarrassing to Gore." She continues, "In a highly publicized stop at Monticello during Clinton's 1993 inaugural festivities, Gore pointed to carvings of Washington and Benjamin Franklin and asked the curator: 'Who are these guys?' He was surrounded by reporters and TV cameras when he said it. Only one newspaper, USA Today, reported the incident." (hardcover edition, page 138) However, as The American Prospect's weblog Tapped pointed out, at least four US newspapers - USA Today, the New York Times, the Washington Times, and Newsday - reported the incident, in addition to the Evening Standard of London and an Associated Press wire story that may have been picked up in other papers.

Unfortunately, even when correcting herself, Coulter still can't get her facts right. On page 176 of the paperback edition Coulter corrects the count to "three newspapers," ignoring the Washington Times and the Associated Press stories. Nor does she correct Gore's quote, which actually read "Who are those people?"

In his book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, Al Franken notes that Coulter incorrectly claims that Newsweek assistant managing editor Evan Thomas is the son of Socialist president candidate Norman Thomas (he is actually the grandson of Norman Thomas). Franken turns it into a joke about Coulter's use of endnotes, intentionally making the correct relationship difficult to find by placing it in an endnote at the back of the book. Coulter evidently missed the joke, since she claims in her column that "Franken drones on for a page and a half about how Norman Thomas was not Evan Thomas's father - without saying that he was Evan's grandfather." (Franken also notes that Thomas was the socialist candidate for president six times, not four as Coulter claims - she did not correct this).

Throughout Slander, Coulter represents quotations from sources or views attributed to those sources as being from media outlets themselves, an extremely disingenuous practice. In her latest column, she defends her actions:

I wrote: "For decades, the New York Times had allowed loose associations between Nazis and Christians to be made in its pages." Among the quotes I cited, one came from a New York Times book review. The quote made a loose association between Nazis and Christians. New York Times book reviews are printed in the pages of the New York Times. The Times allowed that quote to run in its pages. How else, exactly, are you suggesting I should have phrased this, Ed?

Coulter is selectively quoting herself. On pages 114-115 of the hardcover edition of Slander, she introduces the quotes with "For decades, the New York Times has allowed loose associations between Nazis and Christians to be made in its pages. Statements like these were not uncommon: 'Did the Nazi crimes draw on Christian tradition?' ... 'the church is "co-responsible" for the Holocaust' ... 'Pope Pius XII, who maintained diplomatic ties with Hitler.'" [ellipses in original] In context, she is clearly implying that those statements are the editorial position of the Times - a fact she obscures in her column. As Franken points out, the first quotation summarized an issue under debate - the full quote continues, "Or did Nazism draw instead, as the Roman Catholic Church has argued, on pagan ideas that were distinctly anti-Christian?" And he also notes that Coulter's second quotation is a statement attributed to another writer.

Coulter's corrections do little to correct her numerous misrepresentations and distortions. Nor does she deal with the flawed methodology that she used for a number of claims based on results in the Nexis news database. The trivial number of corrections to Slander, as well as Coulter's refusal to engage her critics on most of the substantive issues they have raised, suggest that she's more interested in advancing her political agenda than factual accuracy.

 

[Taomon]

I don't think she is wrong very often which is why I think that's why liberals hate Ann Coulter so passionately. Many call her a liar or like to say of her writing that "most is untrue on its face". Her research and scholarship is so good, however, most will change the subject if asked to come up with examples of something she blatantly mistated. (Exaggeration obviously intended as humor doesn't count.)

What? No it's not. What the hell are you basing that foolish statement on? So Christianity is the fast track to God and Judiasm is not?

 

[jillian]

She is usually funny. She is rarely wrong. When she uses words like 'gazillion' you can be certain this is an intentional exaggeration. To see the brilliance in her satire, you have to have read a newspaper now and then and have at least a rudimentary knowledge of past and recent history. Only people who don't appreciate satiric wit see her as being petty and insulting, at least most of the time. I think liberal are angry at her precisely because they can't dispute what she says. Therefore all they have left is to attack her personally.

Perhaps you can give me an example of someplace where she is 'technically wrong'?

Any woman who wishes a presidential candidate killed by terrorists because she disagrees with her politics is insane and dangerous.

And, as Grump said, Al Frankin detailed, with sources, her lies in his book. But the rabid right doesn't bother checking that out so whines that annie bothers the "left" because she's "good" at what she does.

Annie gets attacked personally because that is what she does to others.

 

[Dr Grump]

Any woman who wishes a presidential candidate killed by terrorists because she disagrees with her politics is insane and dangerous.

And, as Grump said, Al Frankin detailed, with sources, her lies in his book. But the rabid right doesn't bother checking that out so whines that annie bothers the "left" because she's "good" at what she does.

Annie gets attacked personally because that is what she does to others.

If she can't get basic facts as to who is a father or grandfather of somebody, whether that person ran six or four times for president or whether one of the largest circulation newspapers ran a story on its front page, what else has she gotten wrong? This is as basic as it gets with regard to research.

 

[Taomon]

Any woman who wishes a presidential candidate killed by terrorists because she disagrees with her politics is insane and dangerous.

And, as Grump said, Al Frankin detailed, with sources, her lies in his book. But the rabid right doesn't bother checking that out so whines that annie bothers the "left" because she's "good" at what she does.

Annie gets attacked personally because that is what she does to others.

And she welcomes that attacks because it is publicity. Hate sells.

 

[jillian]

If she can't get basic facts as to who is a father or grandfather of somebody, whether that person ran six or four times for president or whether one of the largest circulation newspapers ran a story on its front page, what else has she gotten wrong? This is as basic as it gets with regard to research.

But with Annie, it's not about the research, it's about the whole zeitgeist. So she doesn't care what she says or how wrong it is.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thanks for giving me such an easy challenge. Here is my answer:

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031023.html

Ann Coulter, whose error-filled work has recently come in for increasing scrutiny, is firing back at her critics in a new syndicated column. And, while she admits to correcting a few of the numerous errors in her book Slander, some of those corrections are no better than her original mistakes.

In the column, Coulter dodges most of the criticism of Slander, relying instead on twisted parsings of criticisms, straw-man arguments, and ad hominem attacks on critics (similar to her response to our criticism of her latest book Treason in a recent radio interview with Alan Colmes).

In a few places, however, Coulter does respond substantively. She notes that she made "about five inconsequential errors" in Slander, which she corrected in later editions. However, two of her corrections don't stand up to close scrutiny. She claims to have corrected her false assertion that the New York Times failed to print a front-page story about the death of NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt until three days after it had taken place (the Times printed a front-page story on his death the day after it happened). Coulter calls this mistake "the only vaguely substantive error the Ann Coulter hysterics have been able to produce". However, all Coulter did was delete the sentence making that assertion; the offending paragraph still implies that the Times didn't print a story until the third day:

The day after seven-time NASCAR Winston Cup champion Dale Earnhardt died in a race at the Daytona 500, almost every newspaper carried the story on the front page. Stock-car racing had been the nation's fastest-growing sport for a decade, and NASCAR the second-most-watched sport behind the NFL. More Americans recognize the name Dale Earnhardt than, say, Maureen Dowd. (Manhattan liberals are dumbly blinking at that last sentence.) Demonstrating the left's renowned populist touch, the New York Times front-page article on Earnhardt's death three days later began, "His death brought a silence to the Wal-Mart." (paperback edition, page 261; original in hardcover edition, page 205)

I actually researched this for myself. I found a hardcopy of the New York Times and an original edition of the book "Slander". It was easy to find her technical error. I don't know how Coulter could have been so careless.

Here is Fair's perspective on it:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1124

Here's what Coulter wrote in Slander: "The day after seven-time NASCAR Winston Cup champion Dale Earnhardt died in a race at the Daytona 500, almost every newspaper in America carried the story on the front-page.... It took the New York Times two days to deem Earnhardt's death sufficiently important to mention it on its front-page."

In fact, like "almost every newspaper in America," the New York Times published a front-page obituary for Earnhardt the day after his February 18, 2001 death. The lead described him as "stock car racing's greatest current star and one of its most popular and celebrated figures."


That, technically, is sufficient to answer your question, but here is some extra material critical of Coulter’s accuracy back at the Spinsanity article.

Coulter makes an equally misleading correction to a comment about media coverage of former Vice President Al Gore. In the first edition of the book, she writes that "the press maintained radio silence on stories embarrassing to Gore." She continues, "In a highly publicized stop at Monticello during Clinton's 1993 inaugural festivities, Gore pointed to carvings of Washington and Benjamin Franklin and asked the curator: 'Who are these guys?' He was surrounded by reporters and TV cameras when he said it. Only one newspaper, USA Today, reported the incident." (hardcover edition, page 138) However, as The American Prospect's weblog Tapped pointed out, at least four US newspapers - USA Today, the New York Times, the Washington Times, and Newsday - reported the incident, in addition to the Evening Standard of London and an Associated Press wire story that may have been picked up in other papers.

Unfortunately, even when correcting herself, Coulter still can't get her facts right. On page 176 of the paperback edition Coulter corrects the count to "three newspapers," ignoring the Washington Times and the Associated Press stories. Nor does she correct Gore's quote, which actually read "Who are those people?"

In his book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, Al Franken notes that Coulter incorrectly claims that Newsweek assistant managing editor Evan Thomas is the son of Socialist president candidate Norman Thomas (he is actually the grandson of Norman Thomas). Franken turns it into a joke about Coulter's use of endnotes, intentionally making the correct relationship difficult to find by placing it in an endnote at the back of the book. Coulter evidently missed the joke, since she claims in her column that "Franken drones on for a page and a half about how Norman Thomas was not Evan Thomas's father - without saying that he was Evan's grandfather." (Franken also notes that Thomas was the socialist candidate for president six times, not four as Coulter claims - she did not correct this).

Throughout Slander, Coulter represents quotations from sources or views attributed to those sources as being from media outlets themselves, an extremely disingenuous practice. In her latest column, she defends her actions:

I wrote: "For decades, the New York Times had allowed loose associations between Nazis and Christians to be made in its pages." Among the quotes I cited, one came from a New York Times book review. The quote made a loose association between Nazis and Christians. New York Times book reviews are printed in the pages of the New York Times. The Times allowed that quote to run in its pages. How else, exactly, are you suggesting I should have phrased this, Ed?

Coulter is selectively quoting herself. On pages 114-115 of the hardcover edition of Slander, she introduces the quotes with "For decades, the New York Times has allowed loose associations between Nazis and Christians to be made in its pages. Statements like these were not uncommon: 'Did the Nazi crimes draw on Christian tradition?' ... 'the church is "co-responsible" for the Holocaust' ... 'Pope Pius XII, who maintained diplomatic ties with Hitler.'" [ellipses in original] In context, she is clearly implying that those statements are the editorial position of the Times - a fact she obscures in her column. As Franken points out, the first quotation summarized an issue under debate - the full quote continues, "Or did Nazism draw instead, as the Roman Catholic Church has argued, on pagan ideas that were distinctly anti-Christian?" And he also notes that Coulter's second quotation is a statement attributed to another writer.

Coulter's corrections do little to correct her numerous misrepresentations and distortions. Nor does she deal with the flawed methodology that she used for a number of claims based on results in the Nexis news database. The trivial number of corrections to Slander, as well as Coulter's refusal to engage her critics on most of the substantive issues they have raised, suggest that she's more interested in advancing her political agenda than factual accuracy.

So she isn't allowed one error, which she subsequently corrected however insufficiently to the two rabidly biased publications you use for sources? One quotable error in many years as a syndicated columnist, public speaker, and guest on multiple television shows? One incident? (I personally know of more than that actually.) A leftwing anti-conservative, pro-liberal publications accusation of poor scholarship is a pretty good indication that her scholarship is pretty good.

And what do you think her political agenda is? Yesterday I posted one of her columns in which implies that she hopes the Democrats impeach President Bush. What political agenda do you make out of that?

 

[Foxfyre]

What? No it's not. What the hell are you basing that foolish statement on? So Christianity is the fast track to God and Judiasm is not?

To some Christians, yes it is. Or at a least a fast track to heaven. Christianity was born within and emerged from Judaism after all. I personally know Jews who have accepted Christ but retain the underpinnings of their Jewish faith. They refer to themselves as 'completed Jews'. Anne used a more inflammatory term "perfected Jews', I think intentionally because she had a new book coming out and the hate press leveled against her by the liberal media, aided and abetted by biased bloggers , sells a lot of books for her.

 

[Foxfyre]

But with Annie, it's not about the research, it's about the whole zeitgeist. So she doesn't care what she says or how wrong it is.

I agree she doesn't care what she says. She says what she thinks and she does brilliant satire that is usually funny to anybody who appreciates both intelligence and wit. I think she does care whether it is right or wrong and that accounts for a darn good track record on accuracy.

Again, yes she does at times cross the line into poor taste as does EVERY person in her line of work if they have achieved any success at all. It is mostly her amazing success and visibility that makes her such a target.

 

[Foxfyre]

And she welcomes that attacks because it is publicity. Hate sells.

Yup, and the more hatred the liberals launch at her, the more books she sells. And don't think she doesn't know that.

 

[CharlestonChad]

I agree she doesn't care what she says. She says what she thinks and she does brilliant satire that is usually funny to anybody who appreciates both intelligence and wit. I think she does care whether it is right or wrong and that accounts for a darn good track record on accuracy.

Again, yes she does at times cross the line into poor taste as does EVERY person in her line of work if they have achieved any success at all. It is mostly her amazing success and visibility that makes her such a target.

It's funny to watch you hug her nuts like that^^^^

Her satires aren't witty at all. I could appreciate her humor if it wasn't so predictable that I could finish her sentences for her.

As for accuracy....when an author just states pure opinions, they really don't have to worry about facts at all. She knows that the stupider she sounds the more books she'll sell, because the people reading those books are only doing so to pat themselves on the back for being an "underdog" in a world run by everyone but Republican WASPs

I think your last paragraph really gave away your once ambiguous love affair with coulter. Surely you can't reasonable believe every pundit is going on TV and the radio joking about killing public figures and crying chicken little every time they hear sometime they don't like. I haven't seen Dobbs, Cooper, Matthews, Hannity, Colmes, or even O-Reilly make such asses of themselves. At least when O'reilly does sometime stupid, he'll admit it. Coulter lives in such a fantasy world that she really thinks her opinions are informed and worth of being spewed on paper.

 

[Dr Grump]

So she isn't allowed one error, which she subsequently corrected however insufficiently to the two rabidly biased publications you use for sources? One quotable error in many years as a syndicated columnist, public speaker, and guest on multiple television shows? One incident? (I personally know of more than that actually.) A leftwing anti-conservative, pro-liberal publications accusation of poor scholarship is a pretty good indication that her scholarship is pretty good.

And what do you think her political agenda is? Yesterday I posted one of her columns in which implies that she hopes the Democrats impeach President Bush. What political agenda do you make out of that?

Um...did you read the whole post?? There was more than one error there. There were several. And that concerned only ONE of her books, let alone other books and columns she has written. She is the female equivalent of Bush jnr....and before you go dancing in the streets about that comparison, it isn't meant to be a flattering one....

 

[Dr Grump]

I agree she doesn't care what she says. She says what she thinks and she does brilliant satire that is usually funny to anybody who appreciates both intelligence and wit. I think she does care whether it is right or wrong and that accounts for a darn good track record on accuracy.

Again, yes she does at times cross the line into poor taste as does EVERY person in her line of work if they have achieved any success at all. It is mostly her amazing success and visibility that makes her such a target.

Holy shit! If this don't beat all! LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL.....brilliant satire??? LOL..I genuinely laughed out loud at this post. Having seen her interviewed on numerous occasions - and get totally pissed off and snakey at hard questions - Foxy honey, there is nothing satirical about ANYTHING she says or writes. She is being totally genuine in everything she says and does. Now just rewind, go and revisit her videos and interviews and columns and read them with the serious intent with which they were meant. maybe then you'll buy a clue as to why the left thinks she is a nut job. It has nothing to do with satire at all...she absolutely believes the crap she spills. If I hadn't seen some of her feral replies on live television to questions that made her look like a total ass, I probably might have your opinion. Then again, an ass is an ass is an ass - and Annie darling fits the bill to a T!

 

[mattskramer]

So she isn't allowed one error, which she subsequently corrected however insufficiently to the two rabidly biased publications you use for sources? One quotable error in many years as a syndicated columnist, public speaker, and guest on multiple television shows? One incident? (I personally know of more than that actually.) A leftwing anti-conservative, pro-liberal publications accusation of poor scholarship is a pretty good indication that her scholarship is pretty good.

And what do you think her political agenda is? Yesterday I posted one of her columns in which implies that she hopes the Democrats impeach President Bush. What political agenda do you make out of that?

You challenged me to give you an example of someplace where Coulter is “technically wrong”. I did so, soundly.

I did not say that she is not allowed one error. She, herself, actually admits to having made 5 errors. I did not say that the publications were not biased. Facts are facts even if they come from biased sites. I could have pulled the information from other sites too such as Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter#New_York_Times.27_NASCAR_coverage

You did not challenge me to come up with more than one error. What are you trying to do – go back in time and change the challenge. Anyway, as I said, she notes that she made "about five inconsequential errors" in Slander. It does not necessarily follow that if a liberal site criticizes your scholar ship that your scholarship is good.

I don’t know what her political agenda is and I don’t care what her political agenda is. If this thread was about a Democrat who was just as crass and incorrect, I’d have similar criticism toward him.

In conclusion: You challenged me to give you an example of someplace where Coulter is “technically wrong”. I did so, soundly. Enough said.

 

[Foxfyre]

You challenged me to give you an example of someplace where Coulter is “technically wrong”. I did so, soundly.

I did not say that she is not allowed one error. She, herself, actually admits to having made 5 errors. I did not say that the publications were not biased. Facts are facts even if they come from biased sites. I could have pulled the information from other sites too such as Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter#New_York_Times.27_NASCAR_coverage

You did not challenge me to come up with more than one error. What are you trying to do – go back in time and change the challenge. Anyway, as I said, she notes that she made "about five inconsequential errors" in Slander. It does not necessarily follow that if a liberal site criticizes your scholar ship that your scholarship is good.

I don’t know what her political agenda is and I don’t care what her political agenda is. If this thread was about a Democrat who was just as crass and incorrect, I’d have similar criticism toward him.

In conclusion: You challenged me to give you an example of someplace where Coulter is “technically wrong”. I did so, soundly. Enough said.

Oh excuse me. Five errors. Wow. She must be an ignorant klutz right out of Deliverance or some such. Errors that she acknowledges by the way which you will be hard put to find any of your liberal gurus who will admit they are in error. And that includes those sometimes irresponsible and often dishonest sources you are using to discredit her.

As for those of you who don't think Coulter is smart or witty or doesn't write great satire, fine. I doubt she cares as she skips to the bank with a big bunch of money that people who do appreciate her paid to read it.

As I said, the more hatred and vitriol you folks dream up to demonize her, the richer she gets. I'm pretty sure she would say keep it up folks. In fact you take the bait every time she dangles it in front of you. It's really fun to watch.

 

[mattskramer]

Oh excuse me. Five errors. Wow. She must be an ignorant klutz right out of Deliverance or some such. Errors that she acknowledges by the way which you will be hard put to find any of your liberal gurus who will admit they are in error. And that includes those sometimes irresponsible and often dishonest sources you are using to discredit her.

I disagree. I don’t consider her to be a klutz right out of Deliverance “or some such”. She simply seems to be too careless with facts for my taste. Perhaps the two sources were biased. So what? Your dislike of the messenger does not mean that his message is wrong.

As for those of you who don't think Coulter is smart or witty or doesn't write great satire, fine. I doubt she cares as she skips to the bank with a big bunch of money that people who do appreciate her paid to read it.

I don’t care what she thinks of me. Many people become wealthy writing offensive and erroneous comments. That does not mean that their comments are charming and correct.

As I said, the more hatred and vitriol you folks dream up to demonize her, the richer she gets. I'm pretty sure she would say keep it up folks.

First of all, I don’t hate Coulter. I think that she is crass and insulting. I also think that she makes too many errors for my taste. Yet, I don’t hate her. I have not even asked that people boycott her. Secondly, I doubt that there is such a strong correlation between the hate that she receives and the success that she receives. There are probably many factors that account for her success. Yes, bad publicity is sometimes better than no publicity. On the other hand, some people buy books because they believe in what the author says and support the author’s philosophy. Yet, I also think that many people buy her books just for the challenge and entertainment of criticizing them and making fun of them. If she gets rich in the process, so be it. I bought “The Savage Nation”. That certainly does not mean that I agree with Michael Savage. I bought “Dude, Where's My Country?” That does not mean that I agree with Michael Moore. Finally, I don’t care why Coulter is successful or how successful Coulter becomes.

In fact you take the bait every time she dangles it in front of you. It's really fun to watch.

Coulter has not personally dangled anything in front of me. I don’t accept everyone’s challenge (take every “bait&#8221. Yet, when I do, I usually break the trap and take off with the bait. Someone started a thread saying that Coulter is funny. You said that her research and scholarship is so good that most will change the subject if asked to come up with examples of something she blatantly misstated. I said that she is often technically wrong. You challenged me to give you an example of someplace where she is 'technically wrong'. If anything, you dangled a challenge and I accepted it. Now it looks as though you are changing the subject to talk about her fame. It is as simple as that. Don’t make this into more than what it is.

 

[Foxfyre]

I disagree. I don’t consider her to be a klutz right out of Deliverance “or some such”. She simply seems to be too careless with facts for my taste. Perhaps the two sources were biased. So what? Your dislike of the messenger does not mean that his message is wrong.



I don’t care what she thinks of me. Many people become wealthy writing offensive and erroneous comments. That does not mean that their comments are charming and correct.



First of all, I don’t hate Coulter. I think that she is crass and insulting. I also think that she makes too many errors for my taste. Yet, I don’t hate her. I have not even asked that people boycott her. Secondly, I doubt that there is such a strong correlation between the hate that she receives and the success that she receives. There are probably many factors that account for her success. Yes, bad publicity is sometimes better than no publicity. On the other hand, some people buy books because they believe in what the author says and support the author’s philosophy. Yet, I also think that many people buy her books just for the challenge and entertainment of criticizing them and making fun of them. If she gets rich in the process, so be it. I bought “The Savage Nation”. That certainly does not mean that I agree with Michael Savage. I bought “Dude, Where's My Country?” That does not mean that I agree with Michael Moore. Finally, I don’t care why Coulter is successful or how successful Coulter becomes.



Coulter has not personally dangled anything in front of me. I don’t accept everyone’s challenge (take every “bait&#8221. Yet, when I do, I usually break the trap and take off with the bait. Someone started a thread saying that Coulter is funny. You said that her research and scholarship is so good that most will change the subject if asked to come up with examples of something she blatantly misstated. I said that she is often technically wrong. You challenged me to give you an example of someplace where she is 'technically wrong'. If anything, you dangled a challenge and I accepted it. Now it looks as though you are changing the subject to talk about her fame. It is as simple as that. Don’t make this into more than what it is.

Well we can continue this silly 'is too - is not' - 'did too - did not' or 'your mama wears army boots' or 'who's is blackest?' game without changing anybody's mind, so I'll choose not to play at this time. I did acknowledge that you found a source identifying 'errors' so insignificant that I didn't bother to check to see if your sources had it right, epecially after your sources acknowledged that she acknowledged the errors. I was raised to think that is the honorable way to handle our missteps since none among us are perfect. Satire cannot be held to the same standard as straight reporting anyway.

I do appreciate a lot of what Coulter writes and I do find her informative, entertaining, and smart as well as sometimes being uncomfortably too far over the line of good taste. I feel the same way about Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh to name two other controversial characters among a group whose number is legion. I don't always agree with any one of them, but who wants to listen only to that with which we agree? I suppose some do.

I accept that you think Coulter is the devil incarnate or some other equally unflattering term.

Perhaps somebody will come along who will actually enjoy discussing the article Allie posted or the one that I posted re pros and cons of the information, satire, and commentary contained therein. I would find that an enjoyable grown up exercise. Meanwhile, I don't enjoy dealing with one word or one phrase plucked out of context and held up as a target or listen to somebody's opinion trashing somebody else.

Have a good day.

 

[mattskramer]

I do appreciate a lot of what Coulter writes and I do find her informative, entertaining, and smart as well as sometimes being uncomfortably too far over the line of good taste. I feel the same way about Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh to name two other controversial characters among a group whose number is legion. I don't always agree with any one of them, but who wants to listen only to that with which we agree? I suppose some do.

I accept that you think Coulter is the devil incarnate or some other equally unflattering term.

No. She is just crass, offensive, and often inaccurate. Michael Savage is even worse. Rush is much more civil and entertaining in my opinion. At least he does not come out with garbage like suggesting the bombing of the New York Times.

By the way, you both posted links to Coulter’s web site. Talk about self-serving bias. That would be like a Democrat saying that Moore is funny and using http://www.michaelmoore.com/ as a source.

 

[Foxfyre]

No. She is just crass, offensive, and often inaccurate. Michael Savage is even worse. Rush is much more civil and entertaining in my opinion. At least he does not come out with garbage like suggesting the bombing of the New York Times.

By the way, you both posted links to Coulter’s web site. Talk about self-serving bias. That would be like a Democrat saying that Moore is funny and using http://www.michaelmoore.com/ as a source.

Yup. If you want a Coulter column to discuss, Coulter's website is definitely the best place to go to find one. Especially if you're looking for a specific Coulter column. Every one that appears though appears in hundreds of newspapers too.

As far as being factually incorrect, I've caught Michael Savage a lot more times in boo boos than I have Coulter. He has to be outrageous to compete against Hannity and Limbaugh, both of whom are in more favorable time slots and have a larger market share. Hannity's scholarship is pretty good though he doesn't always factcheck ahead of time sufficiently for my taste. Limbaugh's scholarship is as good as Coulter's but, from my perspective, he wanders into bad taste territory far more frequently than she does.

Nevertheless all four have a healthy group of listeners and/or readers and/or fans who keep up with them. All four will use satire to make a point or just to entertain from time to time, but of the four Coulter is the ONLY one who uses satire as stock in trade and therefore should be judged by a different standard than the other three.

So what did you think of the column Allie posted? What real problems do you have with it or where did she get it right from your perspective? Or the one I posted for that matter?