Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Ann Coulter anthology

  1. Apr 21, 2005 #1
    Time Covers Coulter:
    Magazine's Cover Story a Sloppy, Inaccurate Tribute to Far-Right Pundit

    Action Alert (4/21/05)

    A week after she was praised in Time magazine's "100 Most Influential People" issue (4/18/05), the magazine went a step further by making far-right pundit Ann Coulter the subject of a lengthy April 25 cover story. Readers who might have looked for a critical examination of the overexposed, factually challenged hatemonger found something else: a puff piece that gave Coulter a pass on her many errors and vicious, often bigoted rhetoric.

    Throughout the article, Time reporter John Cloud gave Coulter every benefit of the doubt. Her clear, amply documented record of inaccuracy was waved away. Coulter's notoriously vitriolic hate speech was alternately dismissed as a put-on or excused as "from her heart," while the worst Cloud could say about her was that she can "occasionally be coarse." Time readers learned that Coulter is an omnivorous reader (one of exactly two examples of her consumption being the Drudge Report website), and that she regards herself "as a public intellectual." Coulter, who writes a syndicated newspaper column and makes frequent cable news appearances, is dubbed "iconic" by Time because she "epitomizes the way politics is now discussed on the airways."

    In reality, there are few who "discuss" politics the Coulter way-- by smearing opponents as traitors, calling for a renewal of McCarthyism and endorsing the killing of reporters.

    Coulter's Accuracy

    "Coulter has a reputation for carelessness with facts, and if you Google the words 'Ann Coulter lies,' you will drown in result," wrote Cloud. "But I didn't find many outright Coulter errors."

    That would depend on how one defines "many" or "outright." Websites like the Daily Howler, Tapped, Media Matters and Spinsanity have pointed out literally dozens of errors in Coulter's book Slander and other Coulter statements. Coulter directed Cloud to one error she now admits to making, about the New York Times supposedly ignoring the death of NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt (an error she lied about making when she appeared on FAIR's CounterSpin--8/9/02). Coulter managed to make yet another error in her explanation to Cloud, but this didn't seem to lead Cloud to dig any deeper. As Salon's Eric Boehlert pointed out (4/19/05), Slander's publisher made five corrections after its initial printing-- and should have made at least six more.

    But it's important to acknowledge that Coulter is, in a sense, hard to "fact check" because she rarely makes arguments based on facts. Appearing on television programs to say that liberals "want there to be lots of 9/11s" (Fox News, 10/13/03) can either be treated as a serious argument for which she has no evidence, or explained away as "opinion." Such cheap and disgusting smears tend to be acceptable by mainstream media standards-- so long as they're coming out of Coulter's mouth.

    ... & it goes on like that. This is by far the most compendious source of Coulter gaffes I've seen to date, check it out:
    (& compare the way "lunatic left" Time mag treated Coulter & Michael Moore)

    ps -- this is the same lady who said in 2001 that the US should invade muslim countries, kill ther leaders & convert them to christianity. re: Canada she said "they NEED us, they better hope the US doesn't roll over one night & crush them!" She also told a CBC reporter that back in the day Canada teamed up with the US during the Vietnam war.
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 21, 2005 #2
    Can't we have an arguement where we will only attack eachothers politics, not eachother?
    Another reason why i hate politics.

  4. Apr 21, 2005 #3


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I'm not surprised. Time Magazine made Dubya person of the year, I think twice now. :yuck:
  5. Apr 21, 2005 #4
    Time's Man of the Year selections are not encomiums.

    Every year since 1927, Time magazine has presented a Man of the Year -- someone it has designated as the person who has most influenced events in the preceding year.
  6. Apr 21, 2005 #5


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yah its just whoever has influenced the world the most in that presceding year. Its not a praise or condemnation, just a "hey, your big"


    These kinds of topics are such wastes of time in my experience. Everyone has their nutjobs. Republicans have Coulter, Dems have Bill Mahr and Al Sharpton, Green party has itself ;)
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2005
  7. Apr 21, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    From that site:
    I see your point. But it also makes me question Time's criteria all the more.
  8. Apr 22, 2005 #7
    That would've made sense back in 2001. I figure Man of the Year, just has to be someone who's influenced events most, whether for good or bad. Wasn't Stalin a Man of the Year once?
  9. Apr 22, 2005 #8
    she is just a stupid, ugly, *****, that is all.
  10. Apr 22, 2005 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Maybe I'm being a sexist, but I'll admit that I give her a pass for two reasons: she's female and she's very funny. If Pat Buchanan was saying things as outrageous as Coulter, I'd probably hate him. I've never been able to take Coulter seriously, though, so she's never really bothered me.
  11. Apr 22, 2005 #10
    I suspect you're wrong on both counts. I'm not sure she's female, and she's about as funny as a baby with cancer.
  12. Apr 22, 2005 #11


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I guess I see humor where others don't. I wouldn't necessarily say I'm always laughing with her, but I certainly laugh everytime I see her commentary on TV.
  13. Apr 23, 2005 #12
    I think she's funny, I laugh at her a lot. I used to think she was a liberal in disguise, who by acting the part of a rabid right winger, would push people towards the left.
  14. Apr 30, 2005 #13


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I guess the problem I have with the Time article is that it almost implies that she's a serious news analyst. I think Ann Coulter tends to blur the lines, as well, by mentioning any facts, correct or incorrect.

    She's an entertainer. She has the same ability to shape opinion as Rush Limbaugh - at least Rush is more honest about what category he belongs in. As long as you keep her category straight, I don't have much problem with her comments. Her comments are intended to amuse, not to educate. The few facts she (or Rush Limbaugh) uses are provided as a service to her loyal listeners in order for them to spice up their own personal rhetoric, not to convince any skeptics.
  15. May 2, 2005 #14


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I would tend to agree. Though I don't know much about her, from the picture painted in this thread, I suspect that I'd find her about as funny as I find Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh (Moore is funnier, while Rush is more just annoying). However (and yeah, maybe I'm sexist too), Moore and Rush are fat, ugly, pompous asses, and Coultier is a woman....
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook