Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Win Smith who wrote (141651)	7/27/2004 3:00:00 PM
From: Dr. Id	Respond to of 281500

Speaking of bias in the Media... Coulter spiked from USA Today: Why was she hired in the first place? After commissioning right-wing pundit Ann Coulter to provide conservative commentary from the Democratic National Convention in Boston, on July 25, USA Today apparently reversed course and rejected her column on the "Spawn of Satan convention." The Drudge Report reported the rejection on July 27. Human Events Online, a right-wing online news site that carries Coulter's columns, published the rejected column and included the comments of USA Today's editors. Human Events Online also published an article reporting the newspaper's reasons for spiking the column. USA Today executive editor Brian Gallagher cited "editorial differences" in making its decision. To Media Matters for America, the only surprise is USA Today's own apparent surprise to discover that Coulter's brand of right-wing hate speech would be unsuitable for a mainstream publication. As MMFA has recently documented, Coulter compared former President Bill Clinton to O.J. Simpson; she called Americans who don't support President George W. Bush "traitors"; she claimed that liberals "would enjoy" the "activities" at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq; and she lauded discrimination against Arab, Middle Eastern, and Muslim airline passengers. In addition: Coulter was fired by National Review Online in 2001 after writing -- two days after the September 11 attacks -- the following about "Muslim hijackers": "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Coulter suggested that that Senator Max Cleland (D-GA), a triple amputee, was lucky that he "lost three limbs" in the Vietnam War: "Luckily for Cleland's political career and current pomposity about Bush, he happened to do it while in Vietnam." Coulter has called New Yorkers "stupid" and said "[m]y only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." Spinsanity and Columbia Journalism Review have documented other instances of Coulter's history of factual inaccuracy and fabrication. USA Today has replaced Coulter's conservative commentary from the Democratic National Convention with National Review Online Editor-at-Large Jonah Goldberg, who, as Media Matters for America previously noted, wrote the following about the Washington, DC, sniper in National Review Online in October 2002: IS JOHN MUHAMMED A THREEFER? We know the Sniper is a Nation of Islam Muslim (which is to say he belongs to a cult that uses Islamic jargon). We know he's black. But I've got this nagging feeling we might find out that he also practices an alternative lifestyle -- I mean besides from all of the murdering. There's just something about this Batman and Robin act -- Malvo is his "ward"? -- that strikes me as odd, in a specific way. Call it a hunch. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

To: Win Smith who wrote (141651)	7/27/2004 3:06:38 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

But Okrent didn't write about any of that in the piece that he allegedly made the statement I am allegedly arguing about. Nothing about Berger, nothing about Wilson, I went back to double-check. So under conventional logic, my "argument about Okrent's statement" can't have anything to do with that particular rant. And if the NYT is allegedly no good on the source front, where, exactly, does that put the ever popular warbloggers and political commentators and Debka-type sites so favored by W's faithful? Is the Chinese Muslim army on the march into Afghanistan again? This is a particularly excellent example of how you argue when you're cornered--ignore the obvious, change the subject, become purposefully obtuse, etc. The NYT/Okrent issue has always been about the NYT's liberal bias. Or haven't you been reading what we've been arguing about? That Okrent failed to discuss Pants Berger or Lyin' Joe is not relevant to the manner in which the NYT treated their stories, and that is central to the Okrent piece. Winnie, you are more than welcome to claim that the WSJ and the rest of the red-eyed monsters under your bed are biased. Be my guest, make the point, and back it up with evidence. I realize it's not your preferred mode of discourse, but at least looking for it will keep you busy.