http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/720396/posts
Not the relatively challenging ones like "The Wedding Singer" but the "simplier" ones, like that one where Adam is the devil's retarded son.
That's more his speed.
Not that hiring David Letterman would have anything to do with ratings!
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.
Gee, I guess he's blown his cover.
I don't know if this statement is true of all Democrats, but it sure is true about clinton!!!
I have been debating on another site with some of the libs and they keep directing me to the The Daily Howler and bringing up things I am finding hard to defend.
Like yesterday when they were telling me that Ann outright lied in many instances. I said "show me!" Then on her last page they note:
COULTER (page 205): 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. 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.) It took the New York Times two days to deem Earnhardt’s name sufficiently important to mention it on the first page.
She DID lie here because I know and remember the Earnhardt story the following day ON PAGE ONE of the NYT. (I know because I kept the paper)
She really shouldn't have to resort to this. It seems petty I know but...
Having "a book packed with footnotes" really doesn't mean anything if the footnotes are wrong or you have to go through 24 hoops to make the connection with what you are saying and a way-out random quote.
(I really got hammered on by the libs when they referred to one of the her "slanders" about Phyllis Schlaffly (sp?)and her footnote was a 1984 Muppet movie review.)
How can I argue with that?
Ann Coulter's book is a polemic. It makes no pretense of objectivity. It is a jeremiad, a broadside, a diatribe. Ask your mom if you can borrow her dictionary and look up those words, then you'll have a clue.
And in the end, most of her allegations are true. Bill CLinton DID commit crimes, sell out his base, bomb foreigners, rape women, and folks like YOU are still carrying his water! And it seems fair for Ann to point out that Linda Tripp's enemies villified her as physically repugnant, apparently oblivious to the message Bella Abzug's mirror was sending, and noting that Maxine Waters, Betty Friedan, Janet Reno, Madeline Albright, and Donna Shalala weren't on Victoria's Secret's short list.