The way a story is written is one form of bias....
Read this paragraph:
Elizabeth Edwards pleaded Tuesday with Ann Coulter to "stop the personal attacks," a day after the conservative commentator said she wished Edwards' husband, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, had been killed by terrorists.
That makes you think Ann Coulter actually said those in seriousness. There are no qualifiers, its a matter-of-fact. If you read to the bottom of the AP story you get this information:
"If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot," Coulter said Monday, picking up on remarks made by HBO's Bill Maher. Maher suggested in March that "people wouldn't be dying needlessly" if Vice President Dick Cheney had been killed in an insurgent attack in Afghanistan.
Either that was written in a manner to make Coulter look mean and evil or it was just poorly written. Since most writers in the media are liberal, they don't see a problem with writing the story the way they did, because they believe Ann Coulter is evil and everyone they ever talks to thinks so as well. So that top paragraph doesn't seem misleading at all...if fact, it is very accurate.
It's sad when liberals try and pretend there is no media bias...it is proven over and over and over again with studies and facts....I just happened to see one here. Lets if liberals can stay focused, talk only about THIS story, and prove that I am wrong.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Clear example of media bias
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
84 comments:
I don't see the bias. Ann Coulter did literally say those things, and your post assumes that the bias is self-evident.
It's not. It looks like a completely accurate news story, as long as you're not looking at it through the lens of your immature schoolboy crush on the Coultergeist.
Ann Coulter is the Republican equivalent of Michael Moore. I don't know why these people are allowed on television.
Jason I have a sense we agree on more than either of us might think.
Jason,
I'm surprised at your characterization of Coulter. She can be over the top and say outrageous things now and then, but 'Michael Moore-ish'? I don't freakin' think so. She is too spot on far too often to ever be put in that category.
Chet,
Of course there's bias there. Not only in the article, but in Edward's statements, which I admit is only natural. When you read the quote by Coulter, it's obvious she wasn't calling for the death of the slimey J. Edwards. It was more like she'll say very little in the future, but due to her choice of words, she gets to take more crap. I wish they would've linked to a video of the interview where she said that. It would have been nice to see if she explained the comment at the time, or even if she was asked to explain it. I'm thinking she's referring to the notion that perhaps it would be OK to say such a thing if Maher got a laugh when HE said it.
Now I don't know if the AP could have structured the story any better, but it does imply initially that Coulter wishes Slimey John had been killed, which isn't true.
And for the record, I feel she took too much crap for the fag remark regarding Edwards at the CPAC convention in March. I often think that perhaps she should ditch the comedy routine and stick to what she does best, considering how freaking sensitive the lefties are. But then I hear all the support for a Rosie O'Donnell and I think, "fuck that...let 'em have it Annie!" Rosie gets away with spewing her crap based on lies, and Coulter takes heat for her schtick based on truth. Unfortunately, the lefties only give her crap for the really outrageous throw-away lines, but won't attempt any debate on her real message. This is reflected in this story.
Marsh,
You forgot that to libs like Chet the absolute truth is like a wooden stake in the heart of a Vampire. It destroys their false logic and inaacurate foundations, if not their outright lies.
Chet can't see the bias because he lives it.
No Chet, I'm using by brain, and really it only takes about a 4th grade ability to see this.
The first paragraph makes it look like Coulter calls for the killing of Edwards by terrorists. Okay Chet, stay with me now, focus. At the end of the article we see that she makes that comment to show Maher can call for the killing of Cheney by terrorist but she gets in trouble for calling Edwards a faggot. The problem with Coulter is that her comments are too smart, too complicated for the average person. Someone who is not so smart thinks she calls for the death of Edwards. Someone who has higher intelligence knows she is making a commentary on how the media lets Maher wish Cheney was killed by terrorist, but saying the word faggot is wrong...so she'll just say the stuff liberals say so she does not get into trouble...
Chet, I'm sure you think you are very smart...but not seeing how misleading the first paragraph of this story is shows how untrue that is.
At the end of the article we see that she makes that comment to show Maher can call for the killing of Cheney by terrorist but she gets in trouble for calling Edwards a faggot.
Hang on now. You don't even link to the article, so it's not like I can read it myself and verify what you're saying.
And you take it as a given that Coulter is just kidding or something when she calls for the death of Edwards; but why would she be? She's called for people's deaths before.
Those times, she was given ample opportunity to say she was kidding; she did not. Apparently she was serious. I see no reason to think she's not serious now.
The problem with Coulter is that her comments are too smart, too complicated for the average person.
Oh, you've got to be fucking kidding me. She's a moron. All she does is say that the people who disagree with her should be killed, preferably in terrorist explosions, in as crass and loud a way as possible.
She's a loudmouth idiot. She doesn't even check her facts (gosh, who does that remind me of). She just opens her mouth and spouts off.
You think it's "liberal bias" to imply that she says mean things? She does say mean things, Game. You're expecting me to believe that a completely accurate transcription of her remarks constitutes "liberal bias." I think you're just pissed that the media invariably lets Coulter play out enough rope to hang herself. She just can't help but say stupid things, and you just can't help but love her for it, can you? (Kindred spirits, I guess.)
Game,
You and lead a liberal to a quote. You can lead them line by line through a quote, but you can't make them think logically or think straight as you've just proven with Chet. He doesn't get it and never will.
Another reason Chet can't see the bias is because he is protecting Edwards. In case anyone didn't know about Edwards hiring bloggers who use hate speech directed at Conservatives: http://rightvoices.com/2007/06/27/major-media-play-up-mrs-edwards-decrying-coulters-hate-but-what-about-marcotte/
In case anyone didn't know about Edwards hiring bloggers who use hate speech directed at Conservatives:
I've been a Pandagon reader for a year and a half, now, so that wasn't news to me.
Amanda Marcotte doesn't say anything that's worse than what you guys have called me in the past 3 days, so I don't understand what your problem is. She's considerably more restrained than Ann Coulter.
You can lead them line by line through a quote, but you can't make them think logically or think straight as you've just proven with Chet.
You haven't led me through anything. You've just said "look at this; it's bias" without explaining how. Coulter did say those things. That you can spin them as something harmless - when it's obvious her intent was not - is evidence of your bias - not the media's.
You gotta be kiddin', Chet! I reviewed all of your links and what we're dealing with is humor, dark humor to be sure, but humor. With all the talk of nuance by the left, I'm surprised that it needs to be pointed out to you that Coulter's remarks regarding killing are wisecracks. I have no doubt, that if you told Coulter that you know of a guy waiting outside in a truck loaded with explosives, ala McVeigh, and that he's ready to drive it into the NYT building if she would like him to, she'd tell the guy to turn himself in. If you can read your own links and not tell that she's being a wiseass, then I'll be happy to explain any future clips that might give you pause.
Regarding "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them all to Christianity". Not a bad plan at all, speaking in general terms. The leaders of the countries to which she refers are despotic and murderous, and should the people of those countries all convert from Islam to Christianity, the potential for suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks will drop to just over zero (there's always the insane to consider).
Regarding Gore/Willie Horton---Big freakin' deal. She got a minor detail wrong in a spur of the moment response to a TV interview. That and mispeaking about S. Carolina make her a moron? Your kids are gonna need therapy if you judge that harshly.
I fear you don't spend a whole lot of time reading Coulter's stuff and are basing your opinions of her on snippets that can't possibly tell the tale. The chick is sharp. There are no two ways about it. You might disagree with her position on issues, or her style, but she's clearly no moron. To insist she is however, is, well, moronic.
And BTW, your sources on the subject? Media Matters? They seemed rather biased against Coulter in their stories.
Sadly, Coulter DOES represent mainstream conservative thought.
It would be fascinating from an intellectual standpoint, if there wouldn't be a right-wing death cult driving the entire thing.
I understand what you are saying Game.
Ann made that comment to illustrate that, although she caused an uproar for calling Edwards a "faggot", Maher's remarks got much less attention, so apparently what Maher said was better.
What you don't get is that your partisanship is blinding you to the fact that what Maher said was nothing like what Colter said this week.
Maher didn't "wish that he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot". He simply said that if Cheney had been killed, "people wouldn't be dying needlessly" now.
Surely even someone like you can appreciate the difference between saying that you wish an event would occur
and
saying that if an event did occur, something else wouldn't occur.
In other words, since I'm sure that you don't get it,
Coulter WISHED for something to happen...
Maher said that IF something HAD happened, something else WOULDN'T HAVE happened.
It's obvious to anyone that is not a hate filled person with murderous intent that IT IS WORSE TO WISH FOR SOMEONE'S DEATH THAN TO SPECULATE ABOUT WHAT WOULD'VE HAPPEN IF SOMEONE HAD DIED
I reviewed all of your links and what we're dealing with is humor, dark humor to be sure, but humor.
Oh, I get it...When Coulter says it, it's just dark humor. When a liberal says it, anonymously on a blog, it's proof positive that the entire progressive movement is hate-filled, deranged, shrill and unbalanced.
Nice double standard, that.
to libs like Chet the absolute truth is like a wooden stake in the heart of a Vampire.
Lee Baca is a Republican, you lying piece of dung
Misattributing the Willie Horton ad was only a minor detail.......
Either sarcasm at its finest or true lunacy.
Media Matters provides direct transcripts of her remarks. Whine bias all you want. It truly makes you look pathetic.
We get to see what a low life Philip is. First he can't use the name he first appeared as, then he resorts to being anonymous.
Hash is just a hate filled, frustrated leftie with nothing to say.
Now, from the COMPLETE, unedited transcript as presented on Right Voices, Cuomo made a remark to Coulter off camera. Coulter replied as she did making the alliteration that if Maher can get away with wishing Cheney dead from a terrorist attack, then if she ever referred to Edwards that maybe she should say something about Edwards dying in a terrorist atack ala Maher commenting on Cheney.
This is not unnonnected events. Maher did wish Cheney dead and you Libs loved him sayin it.
Chet, Game did lead your biased nose to the bias in the statement, but you can't see it with your Clinton Rose (Law Firm) colored glasses on.
Phil, Check our Lou Baca, Jr, Rep. D-Los Angeles. And shove your petty barbara streisand.
Oh, and Media Matters edits out pertinent context. Only you dishonest liberals can't admit that.
I reviewed all of your links and what we're dealing with is humor, dark humor to be sure, but humor.
I don't see that there's anything funny about calling for the executions of American journalists in an age when Islamic extremists are sending Daniel Pearl's head back in a box.
Like I said she's had ample opportunity to apologize and say "I was only kidding; I don't think people should be executed just because they disagree with me."
She never has, to my knowledge. She's never said "I'm just kidding." And if that's your idea of humor, you're juvenile.
With all the talk of nuance by the left, I'm surprised that it needs to be pointed out to you that Coulter's remarks regarding killing are wisecracks.
There's nothing wise about her remarks. Can you point to one instance where she's said she's kidding? If she insists on acting like that stuff should be taken at face value - and she certainly takes liberal humor at face value, when it suits her - why shouldn't we?
She got a minor detail wrong in a spur of the moment response to a TV interview. That and mispeaking about S. Carolina make her a moron?
I could go through the copious factual errors in her books, but that would almost take a book to do. (I suggest you pick up the book that expodes her misinformation - Joe Maguire's "Brainless.")
I fear you don't spend a whole lot of time reading Coulter's stuff and are basing your opinions of her on snippets that can't possibly tell the tale.
I'm more than familiar with Coulter's brain of idiocy. There's a reason she's just as reviled over on the right as over on the left. She's sloppy with the facts, she runs her mouth until it gets her into trouble, she thinks disagreeing with her is a capital offense, and there's absolutely no line she won't cross to draw media attention to herself. For all you guys talk about "debate", I think you'd reject Coulter and her efforts to drive the discourse deeper and deeper into vicious mudslinging.
Of course, since all you guys mean by "debate" is "calling liberals names instead of addressing their arguments", I'm not surprised to see you all have juvenile hard-ons for the Belle Dame of the Right. She really typefies what you guys are about - insults instead of ideas.
Media Matters? They seemed rather biased against Coulter in their stories.
Show me one thing they're factually inaccurate about in those articles. Otherwise your claim of "bias" is just an ad hominem.
Maher did wish Cheney dead and you Libs loved him sayin it.
Actually I wished he hadn't said it. That's exactly the kind of discourse we really don't need.
Chet, Game did lead your biased nose to the bias in the statement, but you can't see it with your Clinton Rose (Law Firm) colored glasses on.
I've never been employed by the Rose Law firm, nor by either Clinton campaign. If you have some evidence to the contrary I'd like to see it - because that means I'm owed some pretty big checks.
Oh, and Media Matters edits out pertinent context.
Media Matters provides full context for all remarks, usually a full 2 minutes of transcript both before and after the remarks they highlight.
PCD, wrong as usual. I wonder if there isn't anything you won't make up to further your name-calling agenda.
You must be such a small, bitter person.
PCD - Nice try. Even though my screen name changed, I've never made any attempt to hide who I am or pretend to be someone different and I didn't make those anonymous comments.
The Sheriff's name is LEE Baca, not Lou, and he's a sheriff, not a state Rep.
I pointed you to numerous links showing that he was a republican, but you refused to accept it, and had the audacity to claim that LIBERALS are the ones unwilling to admit the truth when they see it.
I see that you were incapable of addressing the point of the post or my comment, namely that:
Coulter WISHED for something to happen...
Maher said that IF something HAD happened, something else WOULDN'T HAVE happened.
It's obvious to anyone that is not a hate filled person with murderous intent that IT IS WORSE TO WISH FOR SOMEONE'S DEATH THAN TO SPECULATE ABOUT WHAT WOULD'VE HAPPEN IF SOMEONE HAD DIED
the links are always in the headline chet
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/06/26/politics/p155759D76.DTL
This is so simple...and you guys were line after line yet don't get the simple fact..
So, no response to my comment, eh? I guess that means I win
This is the part where they abandon all argument and start just calling people names.
Phil,
You lose. You are a loser. You can't even comprehend English. Like Media Matters, you have to take comments out of context to make charges. Maher DID wish Cheney dead. If you wish to continue to shorten Coulters entire comment, that makes you a liar, just like Media Matters.
"Maher DID wish Cheney dead"
And Sheriff Baca IS a democrat, right?
You effing lowlife liar.
MAHER: What about the people who got onto the HuffingtonPost – and these weren’t even the bloggers, these were just the “comments” section – who said they – they expressed regret that the attack on Dick Cheney failed. [laughter]
SCARBOROUGH: Right.
RIDLEY: More than regret.
MAHER: Well, what did they say? They said they wished—
RIDLEY: They said, we wish he would die. I mean, they were – it was direct hate language. [voices overlap]
MAHER: Okay, but—
FRANK: [overlapping] They said the bomb was – they said the bomb was wasted. [laughter] [applause]
MAHER: All right, but, seriously, if this isn’t China, shouldn’t you be able to say that? Why did Arianna have to – my girlfriend, I love her – but why did she take that off right away?
FRANK: [overlapping] Bill, Bill, first of all, you know, it’s clearly not China. You shouldn’t trivialize democracy. The fact that we are talking about if this was China, we couldn’t do it. And I don’t think we ought to sort of make this kind of comparison. It’s one thing to say that the administration made a stupid and unfair thing with the – with the soldiers. It’s another saying that makes us China. That’s just not sensible.
As far as the HuffingtonPost is concerned, I gather she decided, as the person who runs this, that she didn’t want to be associated with it. I think that’s her right. People are free to say whatever they want to say for her. I think the person in charge of the forum can say, “You know what? I don’t want to be associated with that. Say it somewhere else.”
SCARBOROUGH: Well, and not only that, if she had left it up, she would have opened herself up to attack. She took it down immediately. She was still attacked by people that took the hate language and tried to make it stick to her. And obviously, she’s trying to build to site where you can have reasoned debate. And it’s probably not in her best interests to allow that to stay there.
MAHER: But—
RIDLEY: Yeah, I don’t think it’s about having to take it off. It’s actually trying to be responsible and say, look, you can have a discourse and dialogue and say – it’s one thing to say you hate Dick Cheney—
SCARBOROUGH: Right.
RIDLEY: [overlapping]—which sort of applies to his politics. It’s another thing to say, “I’m sorry he didn’t die in an explosion.” And I think that—
MAHER: But – but, you should be able to say it.
FRANK: [overlapping] You can say it, you can—
MAHER: [overlapping] And, by the way—[voices overlap]—she took it off—
RIDLEY: [overlapping] You can’t use any language—
FRANK: [overlapping] Because it’s her forum!
RIDLEY: [overlapping] No, it’s not. You cannot have language that incites violence.
FRANK: [overlapping] Excuse me, Bill, can I ask you a question? Do you decide what the topics are for this show?
MAHER: Yeah, I decide the topics. They don’t go there. [laughter] And I—
FRANK: [overlapping] But you – you exercise control over the show—
MAHER: [overlapping] But, listen—
FRANK: [overlapping]—the way she does with her blog.
MAHER: [overlapping] But I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow. [applause]
RIDLEY: Okay, but—[voices overlap under applause]
SCARBOROUGH: But, let’s talk – let’s talk about your show for a second, very quickly. If somebody on this panel said they wished that Dick Cheney had been blown up, and you didn’t say—
FRANK: I think he did. [laughter]
SCARBOROUGH: Okay, did you say--?
MAHER: No. No, I quoted that.
FRANK: You don’t? Oh, you don’t believe that?
MAHER: No, I’m just saying that if he did die—
SCARBOROUGH: [laughter] Okay, but if – oh, let’s just say—
MAHER: [overlapping]—other people – more people would live. That’s a fact.
SCARBOROUGH: Okay, then – but, let’s put it this way then. If somebody came on here and said that they wished all abortion clinics had been blown up—
MAHER: Right.
SCARBOROUGH: [overlapping]—and you didn’t step forward and say, “I disassociate myself with those remarks,” and it just floats out there in the transcripts, then you’re going to be connected with those words. Arianna Huffington has every right to say, “I don’t want to be associated with this hate language.”
MAHER: Right.
SCARBOROUGH: “I’m going to take it down from my site so right-wing talk show hosts aren’t going to try to wrap those words around me.
FRANK: And you can say it on your own blog. You can say it elsewhere. [voices overlap]
SCARBOROUGH: And you’d do the same thing.
MAHER: Okay.
FRANK: You can say it on your own Internet.
http://www.safesearching.com/billmaher/transcripts/
Scroll down and click on episode 503:March 3, 2007.
Phil,
Here's something not from the left:
http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2007/06/27/the-obligatory-ann-coulter-vs-elizabeth-edwards-post/
You just can't admit that your side refuses to police itself, but screams bloody murder when you think the same is being dished back to you, pansies!
Phil,
Lets get particular, from your post:
RIDLEY: [overlapping]—which sort of applies to his politics. It’s another thing to say, “I’m sorry he didn’t die in an explosion.” And I think that—
MAHER: But – but, you should be able to say it.
Why was Maher so quick to say that you should be able to agree that Cheney should die in a terrorist explosion, except if he agreed with the statement?
Now I know that morons like PCD can't understand long blocks of text like that, so I will extract the relevant portions. Remember, the whole transcript is just above, so I can't take anything out of context.
RIDLEY: it’s one thing to say you hate Dick Cheney—
[overlapping]—which sort of applies to his politics. It’s another thing to say, “I’m sorry he didn’t die in an explosion.” And I think that—
MAHER: But – but, you should be able to say it.
MAHER: [overlapping] But I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow. [applause]
SCARBOROUGH: But, let’s talk – let’s talk about your show for a second, very quickly. If somebody on this panel said they wished that Dick Cheney had been blown up, and you didn’t say—
FRANK: I think he did. [laughter]
SCARBOROUGH: Okay, did you say--?
MAHER: No. No, I quoted that.
FRANK: You don’t? Oh, you don’t believe that?
MAHER: No, I’m just saying that if he did die—
SCARBOROUGH: [laughter] Okay, but if – oh, let’s just say—
MAHER: [overlapping]—other people – more people would live. That’s a fact.
Now, to go back to my comment earlier:
"Coulter WISHED for something to happen...
Maher said that IF something HAD happened, something else WOULDN'T HAVE happened.
It's obvious to anyone that is not a hate filled person with murderous intent that IT IS WORSE TO WISH FOR SOMEONE'S DEATH THAN TO SPECULATE ABOUT WHAT WOULD'VE HAPPEN IF SOMEONE HAD DIED "
Why does it seem the more liberals we get, the more name calling and emotional responses we get...
I love the anyone who doesn't agree with me=liberal dynamic going on here. I'm sure it's quite accurate.
Game, you live in a glass house. Your comments are saturated with emotional reactions and personal insults.
Nice job changing the subject Game.
Lets see if THE GAME can stay focused, talk only about THIS story, and prove that I am wrong.
Man Coulter communicates on the level of a typical spoiled American fourth-grade NASCAR brat and needs to be hung from the school flagpole.
The whole media needs a serious moral paradigm shift, fast.
marshall--
If Ann Coulter was male, no one would take her seriously. Coulter is a clown that throws rhetorical bombs in order to sell books. Most of what she says is retarded-- for example, she said that Truman, JFK, and LBJ were weak in fighting totalitarianism. Like her views on evolution, I simply can't take this seriously. This is the same Truman that dropped two nukes on Japan, right? The same LBJ that whupped up on socialists in Indochina? The same JFK that stared down the USSR during the Cuban missile crisis? Coulter is a retard.
Conservative writers like Thomas Sowell, Victor David Hanson, Charles Krauthammer, Michael Barone etc. are far more insightful and hardhitting when looking at the political world today. Coulter is more like a crazy person in the stands at a football game rather than someone on the field-- she makes things interesting for her fans and haters, but doesn't really add anything to the discussion.
Ann never WISHED terrorists would kill Edwards, she said that since Maher wished Cheney was killed in the bomb attack while he was overseas and no one cared, next time she says something about Edwards she'll just wish he was blown up by terrorists...okay realism, I win...unless you are unable to follow that simple logic
the point has already been made. If you don't have the capacity to understand what Coulter was trying to say after it has been explained 3 or 4 times now, you will never be able to get it
Why does it seem the more liberals we get, the more name calling and emotional responses we get...
Because there's more liberals for you guys to call names.
Pretty simple, actually. Is it just that you're incapable of understanding who's doing the name-calling around here?
Phil could stand to turn down the spleen a little bit, though. Although PCD's brand of relentless dishonest seems like enough to drive anyone to distraction.
If you don't have the capacity to understand what Coulter was trying to say after it has been explained 3 or 4 times now, you will never be able to get it
If you don't have the capacity to explain it, then you don't understand it.
When I'm looking for intelligent, informed debate with people who I don't agree with, but who are still able to argue their beliefs using reason and evidence, I go elsewhere.
When I'm looking for some uninformed, belligerent mental lightweights to pick on, I come here.
Game said, "Why does it seem the more liberals we get, the more name calling and emotional responses we get..." It must be a typo because I'm sure he means "give" not "get".
I have explained what Coulter said...you don't have to agree with what she said or if it is correct...the story was written incorrectly, it was misleading...no liberal here has even tried to refute that at all...
Some have said what SHE said was not true about Maher, fine...maybe it was, maybe it wasn't...but SHE was comparing WHAT Maher said to what she said about Edwards...that is it, it was not explained clearly in the first paragraph of the article. It is very easy to understand. If I am wrong then prove it, and personal attacks don't prove anything. I am very sure any more comments made will not in any way refute my position on THIS article written by the AP.
OK, here it is. #1, I don't think Coulter's the brightest bulb on the conservative chandelier, but she is not the dim bulb Moore is, and that's for certain. But I stand by my statement regarding her being on the money far too often. Frankly, I don't follow her stuff that closely. I get Human Events, so I see her columns. In the short time I have, I've seen nothing but good stuff. I can't speak for her books, I've heard complaints before, but opinions are like assholes, so I'm not yet impressed.
#2, One can dispute the quality of Coulter's brand of humor, but any reasonable person will know at a glance when she's being "funny" rather than truly wishing ill on someone (I concede she wants terrorists dead--I don't fault her for that).
#3, I've read and re-read the posted piece and Coulter never wished for Edward's death. At this point, however, I think it would have been easier if she had. (WARNING!!: The preceding statement was sarcasm and dark humor! Remain calm!)
#4, Just as in the posted piece, the Media Matters piece linked by Chet presented the facts in a manner that shows them in the worst way, not the most objective way. I'm not going to re-read that piece again to get more specific. I'm just going by what I remembered feeling as I read it. So don't bother commenting on this point, it'll only make me read it again and I'll be pissed that my opinion won't have changed for the effort.
#5, Chet, how do you know that Maguire has the facts right? Just curious.
#6, Coulter is WAY too thin for me.
#7, "When I'm looking for some uninformed, belligerent mental lightweights to pick on, I come here." I resemble that remark.
#8, On the whole, I defend only against the lame accusations against a pundit who knowlingly speaks in a manner designed to raise the ire of the left, and they willingly take the bait and chew, chew, chew. To me she serves a useful purpose: she gives the left a target for their claims of conservative evil and hate and allows the rest to work without bearing that burden. Since she harbors so much disdain for the average liberal mindset, she weathers their rage at her with glee and a sticks and stones attitude. Yeah, she talks smack. It sounds worse from the right than it does from the left since it's so out of character for the average conservative. But that's Ann Coulter and it is fun to watch the liberal meltdown every time she opens her mouth. Chew, chew, chew.
Marshall gets it...
More Bias:
In this morning's Daily Herald, an Illinois newspaper, an AP article reports on the Edwards/Coulter feud. Apparently, the Edwards campaign has been cashing in nicely on the remarks of Coulter. The article says "In March, she used a homosexual slur in reference to Edwards, and the campaign used video of the comment to help raise $300,000 before the end of the first quarter." Righteous bucks. And they are saying they've been doing better using quotes about "wishing" Edwards would be killed in a terrorist plot, but didn't give figures. The bias comes in when they state that Coulter wished Edwards would be killed by terrorists and they do so twice, when in the article to which Game linked, she plainly said, "If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot," which of course isn't the same. Technicality? Perhaps, but such nuanced changes give false impressions, and media bias is often this subtle.
The article did state however, where it didn't in Game's example, that Coulter offered to stop making such comments if the Edwards' agreed to stop using her name to raise money. Actually, the article said she demanded they stop using her name for raising money if they wanted her to stop making personal attacks. Now doesn't "offered" and "demanded" render two different tones or impressions when read? This is an illustration of how the lib media injects their biases into reporting and it's foolish to insist it has no effect on the reader.
the story was written incorrectly, it was misleading...no liberal here has even tried to refute that at all...
I guess you weren't reading very closely, then, because not only did I try to refute it, I succeeded.
Actually, the article said she demanded they stop using her name for raising money if they wanted her to stop making personal attacks. Now doesn't "offered" and "demanded" render two different tones or impressions when read?
Yeah, but is "demanded" liberal bias, or is "offered" your own bias?
It kind of depends on what really happened, now doesn't it? Because if you say "offered" when she really demanded, you're the one putting spin on the story.
Chet, you did not refute the game. You only showed your own bias and that you'll do or say anything to hoodwink people.
In the future, I will wish that PCD suffers from a huge outbreak of herpes acquired from streetwalkers.
Now, I didn't really just wish for PCD to suffer from a herpes outbreak, I merely said that, in the future, I will wish for it.
Not the same thing at all...
Chet, you did not refute the game. You only showed your own bias and that you'll do or say anything to hoodwink people.
Is there an argument, supported by evidence, somewhere in there? I don't see it.
guys, give up on chet...this one is clear, easy to see, been explained by myself and even better by others, he doesn't want to get it or is not able to get it...
"Is there an argument, supported by evidence, somewhere in there?"
Yes, it was when I looked up the transcript to the Maher episode and showed that the AP article in question has a right wing bias by creating a false equivalency between a comment by Bill Maher where he specifically said that he DIDN'T wish that Cheney had been killed and Coulter saying that she will wish that John Edwards had been killed.
The Game just thinks that the article should've explained what right wing partisans think that Coulter "really" meant, as opposed to what she actually said.
That is their version of unbiased news reporting.
How stupid are you...watch the whole video of the show where she said this, she explains what she meant very clearly...this has nothing to do with left or right...It makes you seem so slanted and blinded by bias and hate that you can't figure out something so clear and obvious.
here is the whole video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbSy5W6xm3k
around 1:15 she makes the comment. She is clearly saying that Maher didn't get flack for what he said about Cheney, so next time she says something about Edwards she will just wish he was killed in a terrorist attack...
the first paragraph of the AP article says this:
a day after the conservative commentator said she wished Edwards' husband, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, had been killed by terrorists.
She did not wish Edwards was killed by a terrorist attack, she said to stay out of trouble next time she will wish he was killed in a terror attack.
I honestly can't see how hard it is to understand that. Its crazy how blind people can be. I'm not talking about the correctness of what she said, but the AP article is flat out wrong...simple...how can an adult not understand that...its flat out amazing.
he doesn't want to get it or is not able to get it...
There's nothing there to "get", Game. If there was you would have been able to prove it by now.
You and lead a liberal to a quote. You can lead them line by line through a quote, but you can't make them think logically or think straight as you've just proven with Chet. He doesn't get it and never will.
lmfao
realism & Chet pwnt you dumbasses.
Chet, you are a waste of time...
I have made a point, and at no time have you been able to refute it. Its clear, its easy, its simple...
If you can show how what I am saying is wrong, specifically, then fine...you have not been able to, and I'm sure you are unable...
I do have pity on an adult who can not understand something so simple and obvious, but otherwise you are so far to the Left, so unable to have a clear and open mind there is no reason for you to debate...on something so clear, that has been explained over and over all you can do is say:
There's nothing there to "get", Game. If there was you would have been able to prove it by now.
No insight, nothing of substance...another win for the game.
I have made a point, and at no time have you been able to refute it. Its clear, its easy, its simple...
If you can show how what I am saying is wrong, specifically, then fine...you have not been able to, and I'm sure you are unable...
I do have pity on an adult who can not understand something so simple and obvious, but otherwise you are so far to the Left, so unable to have a clear and open mind there is no reason for you to debate...on something so clear, that has been explained over and over
Is there an argument in there that supports your assertions? Because I don't see it.
Game, you can wave the victory flag from a sinking ship all you want. Protestations of victory are irrelevant. I'm still waiting for you to describe the bias inherent in a direct, verbatim transcription of Coulter's remarks.
If you're going to show up at a battle of wits, don't come unarmed.
"Now, I didn't really just wish for PCD to suffer from a herpes outbreak, I merely said that, in the future, I will wish for it.
Not the same thing at all... "
NOW you're starting to get it. It's so nice when the message gets through and you see their little eyes light up with understanding. Gratifying!
"Because if you say "offered" when she really demanded, you're the one putting spin on the story."
No kiddin', Chet? Of course I spun it with "offered". I wasn't trying to be tricky. I was trying to illustrate a point. Bias can be that subtle and the subjective use of one word by the reporter over another can change the tone of the story. Whether Coulter "demanded" anything requires a listen. For all I know, she DID demand. But that wasn't my point.
You dishonest little...
Ann Coulter, from the video at about 1:06
"Bill Maher was not joking and said that he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack"
BILL MAHER DID NOT SAY THAT HE WISHED DICK CHENEY HAD BEEN KILLED IN A TERRORIST ATTACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
therefore, for the article to say that Ann Coulter was picking up on remarks made by HBO's Bill Maher shows right wing bias by creating a false equivalency between two people who were saying very different things.
The article makes it seem like Ann Coulter's comment wasn't that bad because it was the same thing Maher said.
But, as the transcript shows, Scarborough and Frank EXPLICITLY ASKED MAHER IF HE WAS WISHING THAT CHENEY HAD BEEN KILLED AND HE SAID NO
What lying sacks you rabid wingnuts are.
BTW, marshall, that comment you quoted was sarcasm
Ann Coulter directly lied and claimed that Bill Maher wished that the Vice President was killed in a terror attack, but you're upset and screaming bias because some reporter only bothered to report what Ann Coulter said, and not what she was thinking.
"First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck of chaff that is in your brother's eyeLFirst remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck of chaff that is in your brother's eye"
Okay Realism, you are trying to make points instead of worhtless comments like Chet, so I'll address them.
You said:
BILL MAHER DID NOT SAY THAT HE WISHED DICK CHENEY HAD BEEN KILLED IN A TERRORIST ATTACK!
You are correct, I agree with you. I am not going back to the video right now, if Coulter said that word for word, then she is wrong.
But you are still wrong when you say this:
therefore, for the article to say that Ann Coulter was picking up on remarks made by HBO's Bill Maher shows right wing bias by creating a false equivalency between two people who were saying very different things.
The article makes it seem like Ann Coulter's comment wasn't that bad because it was the same thing Maher said.
No, the article finally explains what Coulter meant by her comments...
Here is exactly what the article said:
"If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot," Coulter said Monday, picking up on remarks made by HBO's Bill Maher. Maher suggested in March that "people wouldn't be dying needlessly" if Vice President Dick Cheney had been killed in an insurgent attack in Afghanistan.
The article is correct here...it correctly explains what Coulter meant, and why she referenced Maher. However, when the article said this:
Elizabeth Edwards pleaded Tuesday with Ann Coulter to "stop the personal attacks," a day after the conservative commentator said she wished Edwards' husband, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, had been killed by terrorists.
It makes it seem like Coulter called for a terrorist attack on Edwards, which is shown to not be true later in the article. Why was the beginning of the article written like that? That is the slant...The article NEVER tries to say Coulter and Maher's comments are the same.
So realism, you are correct that Coulter is probably using Mahers statement out of context and in the wrong manner, but I think I have once again, clearly shown that Coulter is misrepresented in the first paragraph of the article by the AP writer. Why is it so hard to admit that?
One more point...realism does an okay job trying to show is point, then can't help but end it with...as liberals LOVE call it...ad hominem, personal attacks...
I just listened to the link Game gave and it does show that Coulter was suggesting a possible comment regarding Edwards, not making a comment about him. She was obviously alluding to something with the suggestion and she does say that Maher meant what HE said.
Now what we'll need is the video of the original comment Maher made, not some transcript of him answering questions about it. It's possible that he wasn't lying to Scarborough and at the same time his original comment may have come off as if he did mean it. If anyone can get that, it would clear things up nicely and maybe Realism's blood pressure will lower.
I don't feel like getting that link right now, but I did watch it...and Maher didn't say he WISHED Cheney had been blown up...but that things would have been much better for the USA and the world if he had...and another point was that he or anyone else should be able to say that without any consequences because of the freedom of speech...
Liberals agreed with him, but they only agree when it is liberal speech that they like...
I admit that freely. She was not saying that she wished he was killed in a terrorist attack.
She was saying that the next time she wanted to criticize Edwards,
instead of calling him a faggot (because she found out that that was socially unacceptable due to the backlash she received)
She would wish that he was killed by terrorists (because apparently that is ok since Maher said it and nothing happened to him)
What I'm saying is that saying that she wished he was killed by terrorists is a trivial error since she did, in fact say that she will, in the future wish that he was killed by terrorists
But her statement that "Bill Maher was not joking and said that he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack" was a lie, and was a much bigger deal, and it was on Good Morning America or whatever. But nobody corrected that error, so all of the millions of viewers that didn't actually see Maher's show that night think that he actually said that. Which leads them to believe that the disgusting form of political discourse where wishing for the death of our political leaders is a form of debate is equally shared by both sides.
At least the error in the news article was clarified at the end.
I guess fair enough realism...as long as you understand there was a problem with the way it was written...I guess even if you don't understand...I feel very confident I made my point and am correct on it...
You might be correct as well...however I was focusing on the intent of the AP author for writing the first paragraph
and is my memory of Maher's speech accurate???
Realjism
Apparently you don’t know what “Faggot” means as used by a conservative.
It’s not usually used as a put down for someone’s supposed perverted sexual preference. It’s used more as a comment on a person’s lack of masculinity.
Yah, yah, I know that a supposed lack of masculinity is a good thing in most libweenies eyes (Mother earth and all that jazz), but I implore you to look at the latest polls.
Hillary who is definitely more masculine than the effeminate Edwards, has a nice lead in the polls amongst Democrats. Perhaps Dem’s aren’t as “progressive” as they make themselves out to be.
Gosh,
I hope I didn't irritate an exposed nerve or something.
Contrary to what you may believe, masculinity is a good thing. Male - female; yin - yang, all that jazz.
That's a big problem with this country, masculinity has come under attack like its a bad thing. We conservatives realize it happens to be a good thing, especially when it comes to our leaders.
There, there, I know it must be hard for you. Take a marshal arts course or something, you'll get your confidence back.
Me thinks thou doth protest too much.
And it's MARTIAL arts you ignorant little twerp.
But I just have a few questions - What do your last two comments have to do with this post?
Why did you have the need to tell everybody what a manly man you are?
Why would you bring up your supposed manliness in a post about media bias?
You remind me of this guy I knew in college. A real hardcore republican wingnut.
He was "manly" as all hell. Just like you, he liked to dwell on issues of manliness and who was more manly than who. He also would blurt out homophobic statements when nobody was talking about gays, and would call people "faggot" for things that had nothing to do with sexual orientation.
His girlfriend (my girlfriend at the time's roomate) broke up with him when she found gay porn on his computer, and then read his email and found that he had been having cybersex with guys.
I don't need to prove my manliness to you. But if you really want to know which party has more manliness, why don't you do a comparison of Dem vs. Reps on who has more national politicians who have served our country in uniform.
Blamin...I'm, uh, speechless. I now understand the person behind your bullshit. Everything is explained.
Another blog filled with knee-jerk republican posts!!! So, you guys think Ann Coulter is not republican-Michael Moore? haaha...
@blamin:
You are talking about musculinity? Ummm...I have a strong suspicion that you are a gay!!Or, bi-sexual!! Remember, that's what happens when you spend too much time with your pastor!! ;)
realism (sniker!)
I spelled it Marshal purposely, see if you can "figure" it out.
Oh, my goodnes, I hardly know were to start!
I've been in prison, so your juvieile attempts at humor fall short. I guess I'll start with the more sane amongst you. I never made a disparenging remark about the perverted amongst us. I was merely pointing out the panty wearing tradition that some Democrats seme to embrace.
I apologize one and all if I've offended anyone, that was not my intent. The mere fact that I dare to bring up a supposed taboo subject, just goes to prove the inherent bias in todays conversation. Let me repeat, Ann's intent was to disparage Edwards masculinity. OH MY GOD how dare her! How dare me!
Just so you know, Jim, and American, and Realjism My stepson is gay; snd he receives just as much support and love as anyone in my family; so your pathetic attempts to recharacterize are, well, pathetic.
Frankly, I find it fascinating that so many on the left will abandon thier defense of the subject of this blog, just to attack my comments on the decided unmasculinity of Dems.
Did I get specific? No I talked in generalities, I purposely tried to keep my language "within bounds" yah, yah, I took a shot or two at those who snark on a regular basis, WTF?
You people try to recharacterize, because you can't debate; that's the bottom line. Go back and read what I posted,
The real problem is that I dared to approach what is considered a taboo subject by LibWeenies (and I DO MEAN weenies). You pathetic nimrods have whole subject matters that you cna't even discuss, for fear that you'll offend someone.
Let me repeat, just incase you piss ant bitches didn't get it the first time. It takes both the Yin and the Yang to make a succesful gov't.. Your attempts to neuter the republic will not stand!
You heard me!
I think it's very telling, the intensity my remarks recieved after all, I merely pumped up one Dem against another.
PISS ants one and all!!!
Blamin is proving my point that he is a gay. Look at the bitchin and crying he does.
I agree with realism’s earlier comments. Most of these guys are simply hiding their sexuality behind muscular and tough-talking.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Ann Coulter turns out to be a lesbian behind the doors!! The level of hatred they display seems unreal and can only be justified by their own insecurity to hide something.
Blamin – So, your stepson is a gay? And, he receives as much love and support as anyone in your family? Dude, you are fooling yourself. Get a life.
I've been in prison,
Traded for cigarettes many times, I'm sure.
But like I said before, why don't you compare the number of national politicans on each side that have served in the military.
Bias can be that subtle and the subjective use of one word by the reporter over another can change the tone of the story.
Indeed. But just because a reporter used a word isn't evidence of bias.
You have to prove that the truth was different, somehow. If you say "demanded" when she really demanded, that's not bias, that's accurate reporting.
But you guys would have us believe that any news coverage that doesn't privilege conservative personalities and ideas 100% of the time is "biased."
Apparently you don’t know what “Faggot” means as used by a conservative.
Now you're just being an idiot. It means the same thing it means to everyone, particularly when used as a pejorative.
It’s used more as a comment on a person’s lack of masculinity.
John Edwards is a man who stood up to be a leader, took on corporations that killed children out of incompetence and apathy, and is a father to his children and a husband to his wife.
I guess you can try to explain to me how all that stuff isn't "manly", but hiding in a Texas Air National Guard "Champagne Unit" for the entire length of the Vietnam war - and then skipping out before his service commitment was completed - is.
Good luck with that. The trouble with conservatives is that they can't distinguish between fake manhood - exhibited by actors like Ronald Reagan and Fred Thompson - and real manhood.
Just so you know, Jim, and American, and Realjism My stepson is gay; snd he receives just as much support and love as anyone in my family;
The ease with which you toss around terms like "faggot" pretty much prove to me that this isn't the case, at all. Is he in the room when you use that language? Does he hear you use that term in anger? For his sake, I hope not.
I was simply commenting on a comment made by Ann. Of course you knew that, while making yet another lame attempt at recharacterization.
What a lightweight!
"But you guys would have us believe that any news coverage that doesn't privilege conservative personalities and ideas 100% of the time is "biased.""
No. We would have you believe that we'd like the news reported objectively as it had happened without any subjectivity or assumptions on the part of the reporter. Can that be accomplished with 100% perfection? Most probably not. The article from my local paper to which I referred did not say that Ann used the words "I demand..." but it said,
"The exchanged(sic) deteriorated, with Coulter shouting over Mrs. Edwards and demanding that the campaign stop using her name to raise money if they want her to stop personal attacks."
Notice two things here (call it nitpicking if you want, but we ARE analyzing these examples from the AP):
1. Not only do they not quote Coulter as actually saying "I demand...", but they don't say anything about why she was shouting. Perhaps Mrs. Edwards was monopolizing the conversation. It doesn't matter. What does is that the way the story is related gives an impression without any further clarification of terms used. It would have been more objective, based on the info provided, to have said that Coulter offered terms of truce by not using her name in exchange for ending the insults. That would have been cold, objective reporting, even if Coulter was raising her voice demanding without saying the words "I demand..."
2. Just for fun, Edwards gets the courtesy of a "Mrs.", but Coulter gets no "Miss". (I know both Edwards were referrenced and using "Mrs." for the wife distinguishes, but I'm old fashioned and what's good for one broad is good for the other.)
And finally, every post of mine should be considered a Marshall Arts class, particularly if you study them repeatedly. The benefits are tremendous and many.
We would have you believe that we'd like the news reported objectively as it had happened without any subjectivity or assumptions on the part of the reporter.
As liberals, we'd like the same thing. Poke around Media Matters if you'd like to see some liberal responses to shoddy journalism.
The truth is, the media is biased neither to the left or to the right - the media, in terms of political reporting, is biased to false balance and preserving crucial beltway access.
I think we'd both agree that we'd like to see the media place a greater emphasis on accuracy and truthfulness rather than on "balance", which is a false goal. Personally, I'm confident enough in liberal ideas and in the actions of Democrats (most of the time) that I'm willing to bet that more accurate reporting would make Democrats and liberals look better, not worse. Hell, maybe it'd be better for your side, too. Your guys could stand being held to a little higher standard of honesty - to the Democrat standard, in fact - than they are today.
Probably, you'd agree in reverse - you think more accurate reporting would make Republicans look better and Democrats worse. Well, I'm willing to take my chances on that. Are you?
Not only do they not quote Coulter as actually saying "I demand...", but they don't say anything about why she was shouting.
If you're shouting, then you're demanding. Case closed on that.
Just for fun, Edwards gets the courtesy of a "Mrs.", but Coulter gets no "Miss".
Um... Ann Coulter isn't married, bub. The other is called "Mrs. Edwards" because she's married to John Edwards. It wasn't like she was born "Edwards."
Ann Coulter is way too old to be called "miss." Doubtless, had they called her that, you would have surely cried "bias" since they used a term that made her sound younger (and therefore more immature) than she really was.
It's really bias to you either way, which is what I was talking about. Anything they called Ann Coulter short of "Goddess whose treaded ground I kiss" is "liberal bias" to you.
"Bub"? You dared to call me "BUB"? You fucker! How dare you??!! I've never been so...
OK that was fun.
All seriousness aside,
"If you're shouting, then you're demanding." No. You're trying to be heard. NOW the case is closed.
"Ann Coulter isn't married, bub." (Bub! Ooooh!) That's why she's rightly called "Miss". "Miss" is applied to unmarried women. "Ms" is crap and to be ignored or mocked for it's feminazi connotation. "Miss" is appropriate for Miss Coulter.
You might be confident in liberal ideas, but your liberal politicians aren't because they go out of their way to color them in a less damaging way, they misrepresent their intentions with regularity, and they often tend to adopt a conservative posture in order to get elected. (see the last election cycle) But conservatives proudly make their play and the more conservative they appear, the more likely they get elected. (see 1994 election cycle) And if the media, the members of which are admittedly Democratic supporters felt as you do, they'd exploit the hell out of Dem positions and explain them to death in order to convince people of their worth.
I feel confident that no matter what the media does, that there are plenty of conservative pundits and bloggers who have proven their ability to accurately report and explain the issues of the day. That's not good for libs.
But conservatives proudly make their play and the more conservative they appear, the more likely they get elected
Tell that to Sick Rant-orum, I mean, Rick Santorum
"Miss" is appropriate for Miss Coulter.
No, it's really not. It's pretty ridiculous to append a title implying immaturity to a woman just because she isn't married.
Don't pretend like you wouldn't have objected to it, ok? We all know you would have.
Post a Comment