Posted on 07/23/2002 10:11:23 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
There is that tendency among libs to invoke imagery of Nazis or the KKK when speaking irreverently and intemperately of their opponents. They blur rather dramatic distinctions on the right, always hyping a "Far Right" threat or the sinister "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy." They are a little too comfortable styling their opponents as racists and gun nuts.
I heard about Jesse Jr. getting the TV show... how is it that I can be here, in California, and yet somehow I'm exposed to the news that Jesse Jr. is getting a TV show in Chicago? How did that story make its way to my SoCal home? PR. Jesse's PR machine.
All doubt was cast from my mind about the liberal mindset of the media when, one Sunday afternoon, CNN's Top Story was an AIDS gathering in NY that attracted LESS than 200 people. No stars, no currently-hot bill that they were protesting.. just a standard-fare AIDS demonstration. That was the MOST IMPORTANT NATIONAL STORY for CNN that Sunday afternoon. Hell, 10,000 people were out at minor league ballgames that day, but they didn't get the Top Story. 200 liberal activists got the top story, for doing nothing more than any large-college rally does.
Anyway, riggs2002, I'm amused by you.
Keep your head in the sand. Avoid the obvious. You're fantastic at it.
"In the 1992 presidential election, a mere 43 percent of Americans voted for Bill Clinton. That same year, 89 percent of Washington bureau chiefs and reporters voted for Clinton. Only 7 percent voted for George Bush. (It should be noted that, despite their adoration, even Bill Clinton has referred to the media as "the knee-jerk liberal press.")"
Slander, pg. 56.
Nuff said.
A point, no matter how good, is hurt by inaccuracies.
She is dead bang on in her allegations that the left is conspiring to control both the media and the Govt which is dangerous.
I heard Letterman interviewed on Howard Stern,(Early July 2002) and Letterman voiced agreement with Coulter's setiments, but threw in a professionally courteous message for Koppel.
Is it just me, or is the opening line of this posting so asinine as to make the casual reader question the sarcasm IQ of the original author?
Coulter tells her readers, "Locating some minor accuracy by Rush Limbaugh ... turned out to be more difficult than I imagined ..."
Um, no, Richie. She wrote "Locating some minor inaccuracy by Rush Limbaugh..." Glass houses, stones, etc. Don't bitch about someone else's errors when you can't even bother to copy down a single sentence correctly.
Of course, the primary reason ABC considered dropping "Nightline" wasn't ratings--it was the chance to hire David Letterman.
Roeper inaccuracy #2: It is well-established that the reason ABC secretly contacted Dave in the first place is PRECISELY that Nightline's ratings were in the toilet, and the decision had already been made to kill the show. And, naturally, once the decision had been made, they wanted to go with the best they thought they could get: Letterman. The only reason Nightline is still on the air today is partially the public humiliation that ABC suffered when the truth about all this back-handed screwing over of the entire Nightline staff came out, partially the fact that Dave refused to leave CBS because it had become blatantly obvious that he would have been seen as "The Guy That Got Koppel Fired", and because of a mass uprising within ABC News itself.
Wrong again. True, it was once announced that Jackson would be getting a weekly show on Channel 2, but the program never came close to getting on the air. It's been two years since the idea died.
Bzzt. Inaccuracy #3: If WBBM announced that JJJr had been given a show, then he was given a show. If something happened later on that kept the program from ever getting on the air, that has no bearing on the fact that he WAS GIVEN A SHOW. IF Coulter had written that the show was actually on the air today, Roeper would have a point. Since her paragraph says nothing except that JJJr was given a show, she is technically correct and Richie is grasping at straws.
And it's just plain funny when Coulter charges that "the entire information industry works overtime to suppress conservative books . . .publishers don't like conservative books, the major media ignore them, and bookstores refuse to stock them." On the very next page, Coulter cites a long list of best-selling books by conservative authors. So the "entire information industry" is suppressing books by conservative writers, yet many of these books have been top sellers. It's a miracle.
Inaccuracy #4: The vast majority of conservative books are published by a single company: Regnery Publishing (though "Slander" itself is not from Regnery). The only possible explanation for that is that few other publishers are willing to publish conservative books. And while I have not yet read Coulter's book, I'll be very surprised if any of the best-selling books she listed was published before 1995 or so ... right around the time Amazon came along. They'll happily sell any book that is published, without bias. The major media does largely ignore them: Bernie Goldberg hasn't exactly been interviewed on CBS since his book came out. And I've lost count of the number of times I've seen Freepers post that some conservative book they tried to buy at a bricks-and-mortar bookstore was either hidden behind the counter so no impulse purchases of it would be made, or else that the clerk said they simply were not offering for sale, period, even though it was top-5 bestseller at the time. The store would have the usual display of the New York Times top 15 books, except only 14 books would be there. That is absolutely suppression in action.
In an effort to illustrate media slant, Coulter writes: "In the New York Times archives, 'moderate Republican' has been used 168 times. [But] there have been only 11 sightings of a 'liberal Republican.' " But the American Prospect Weblog Tapped did a search of the New York Times archives and found 524 mentions of "liberal Republicans."
Bzzzt. Inaccuracy #5: Without knowledge of which databases were used in each search, or how far back each search went, any comparison between the two sets of numbers is impossible. What if Coulter only went back 5 years and Tapped went back 15?
I'm getting tired, so that's as far as I'm going to pick this moron's screed apart. But there's one last thing that needs to be said:
Minor inaccuracy? Limbaugh's committed dozens of MAJOR gaffes over the years..."
According to my rough estimates, Limbaugh has been on the air for approximately 11,000 hours since his national show started. And out of all that talking, he's only committed a few DOZEN errors? Assuming that "36" is a close enough estimate of a "few dozen," that means that Rush has committed one error for every 305 hours that he's on the air. That's one mistake every month and a half.
Yet Roeper's made at LEAST 5 major misstatements in this one single column.
Looks to me like Mr. Roeper has very little room to legitimately complain about anyone elses screwups.
This moron simply confirms one of the major points of her book: liberals are liars. ABC wanted Letterman because Nightline was not getting sufficient ratings.
I don't believe she's being hypocritical here; she's just pointing out the tactics of the left and then giving them a sarcastic taste of their own medicine. Remember, "Slander" is not intended as a scholarly work. It's written for the general public, to both inform and entertain them.
Ann sometimes does the same thing using sarcasm only it hits much closer to home on democrats. When a liberal calls a conservative a racist or nazi, no one really cares because it's collectively understood that it's not true. It's simply a liberal demonstrating their intent to end any meaning discussion on any particular subject.
But when Ann uses the same tactic and actually demonstrates (using their own words) how some liberals come dangerously close to being all out American hating socialists, they cry foul and accuse her of name calling.
I think Ann is just tired of trying to have meaning discussions with schoolyard bullies. So now when they pull her hair, she simply kicks then in the nuts. (Metaphorically speaking of course)
To be validated with a royal festooning in FReeperland on this day must make him giggle like the school-girl he probably wishes he was...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.