16/06: Ann Coulter
Back on March 2 (on the ancien regime blog--and before the current kerfuffle), I offered this brief assessment of Ann Coutler:
Quoting Myself: "I think she is often uproariously funny and sometimes very insightful, but I also think she can be crude and mean-spirited. Although I give her credit for outwitting Katie Couric (in all seriousness, that was a bravura performance), I think Coulter is something akin to our Maureen Dowd (funny, attractive, possessing a rapier wit but lacking compassion and judgment). Ann Coulter, for me, will forever be the woman who judged John Roberts unfit for the Supreme Court and attempted to reinvent Joe McCarthy as a great American hero."
My thoughts today: BUT COME ON!
Mark Davis makes a lot of good points in this column from yeseterday (Thursday), but here are some bullets:
1. Ann Coulter may not be your cup of tea.
2. But the firestorm surrounding Ann Coulter revolves around an inflamatory quote within her book--not the thesis of her book, which in itself makes her vociferous critics suspect.
3. "Broads" might have been a regrettable characterization of the 911 widows, but politics is a rough and tumble business. If you play the game, you are fair game.
I missed the Tonight Show with Jay Leno on Wednesday, billed as a showdown between Jay and Ann and George Carlin. But, judging from the New York Times ("The TV Watch: Leno vs. Letterman: A Battle of Wits With No Clear Winner," By ALESSANDRA STANLEY, June 16, 2006) who called the exchange "flubbed" and blamed Jay Leno for his "terrible" interviewing ability, once again Ann Coulter faced a media icon and delivered another trademark performance; these outings have become increasingly frustrating to the MSM.
Stanley laments: George Carlin "didn't make a peep. Mr. Leno didn't score a point." She also implies that Coulter ducked David Letterman, "far more experienced and deft at tangling with ideological divas." Presumably, Dave would have given her the Bill O'Reilly treatment, whom he "humorously, but acidly, put...in his place in January."
Stanley also offers this presupposition: "Ms. Coulter became a media star by portraying herself as a conservative gadfly tweaking the liberal hegemony, which is, of course, quite a revisionist feat. It may have been the case 30 years ago, but no conservative who came of age during the Reagan Revolution can credibly claim they are marginalized or unheard. When the J. K. Rowling of political invective decries what she describes as the "intolerance" of the mainstream liberal media, it's a little like the Soviet Union complaining about oppression from Finland."
Wow! What a window into the MSM mindset and the "martyr" complex through which the Times and its compradres view their mission to report all the "news that's fit to print."
I come back to Mark Davis's salient point: "[I]n the calls for Ms. Coulter's head, her critics have proved her right."
In the quote above, I compared Coulter to Maureen Dowd. How ironic that the New York Times, for whom Ms. Dowd works, reports that people see Coulter as a "'vicious,' 'mean-spirited,' 'despicable' 'hate-monger'" (see also David Carr, "Deadly Intent: Ann Coulter, Word Warrior," NYT, June 12, 2006).
Is Coulter over the line? Perhaps. Does she get way too much vehement calumny from the left-wing loonies? Absolutely.
To paraphrase Davis: The call for Ann Coulter's head makes her a much more sympathetic figure in my eyes.
Quoting Myself: "I think she is often uproariously funny and sometimes very insightful, but I also think she can be crude and mean-spirited. Although I give her credit for outwitting Katie Couric (in all seriousness, that was a bravura performance), I think Coulter is something akin to our Maureen Dowd (funny, attractive, possessing a rapier wit but lacking compassion and judgment). Ann Coulter, for me, will forever be the woman who judged John Roberts unfit for the Supreme Court and attempted to reinvent Joe McCarthy as a great American hero."
My thoughts today: BUT COME ON!
Mark Davis makes a lot of good points in this column from yeseterday (Thursday), but here are some bullets:
1. Ann Coulter may not be your cup of tea.
2. But the firestorm surrounding Ann Coulter revolves around an inflamatory quote within her book--not the thesis of her book, which in itself makes her vociferous critics suspect.
3. "Broads" might have been a regrettable characterization of the 911 widows, but politics is a rough and tumble business. If you play the game, you are fair game.
I missed the Tonight Show with Jay Leno on Wednesday, billed as a showdown between Jay and Ann and George Carlin. But, judging from the New York Times ("The TV Watch: Leno vs. Letterman: A Battle of Wits With No Clear Winner," By ALESSANDRA STANLEY, June 16, 2006) who called the exchange "flubbed" and blamed Jay Leno for his "terrible" interviewing ability, once again Ann Coulter faced a media icon and delivered another trademark performance; these outings have become increasingly frustrating to the MSM.
Stanley laments: George Carlin "didn't make a peep. Mr. Leno didn't score a point." She also implies that Coulter ducked David Letterman, "far more experienced and deft at tangling with ideological divas." Presumably, Dave would have given her the Bill O'Reilly treatment, whom he "humorously, but acidly, put...in his place in January."
Stanley also offers this presupposition: "Ms. Coulter became a media star by portraying herself as a conservative gadfly tweaking the liberal hegemony, which is, of course, quite a revisionist feat. It may have been the case 30 years ago, but no conservative who came of age during the Reagan Revolution can credibly claim they are marginalized or unheard. When the J. K. Rowling of political invective decries what she describes as the "intolerance" of the mainstream liberal media, it's a little like the Soviet Union complaining about oppression from Finland."
Wow! What a window into the MSM mindset and the "martyr" complex through which the Times and its compradres view their mission to report all the "news that's fit to print."
I come back to Mark Davis's salient point: "[I]n the calls for Ms. Coulter's head, her critics have proved her right."
In the quote above, I compared Coulter to Maureen Dowd. How ironic that the New York Times, for whom Ms. Dowd works, reports that people see Coulter as a "'vicious,' 'mean-spirited,' 'despicable' 'hate-monger'" (see also David Carr, "Deadly Intent: Ann Coulter, Word Warrior," NYT, June 12, 2006).
Is Coulter over the line? Perhaps. Does she get way too much vehement calumny from the left-wing loonies? Absolutely.
To paraphrase Davis: The call for Ann Coulter's head makes her a much more sympathetic figure in my eyes.
26/05: More Media Bias
Well. Okie Gardener has swayed me. As long as we are charting bad journalism, check out this lead from the Washington Post (which I think generally does a pretty fair job of covering the war and the President):
"President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair once bestrode the globe as powerful leaders who spoke boldly of bringing democracy to the Middle East. Now, dragged down by popular discontent over their adventure in Iraq, both have reached the lowest point of their careers."
And it gets worse.
Talk about a wolf in sheep's clothing (news analysis/opinion put forth as a straight news story). If you listen to this fellow, Glenn Kesler, the sky is falling. He calls Bush a virtual lame duck.
For a lame duck, and I admit that the poll numbers are dismal, the President had a pretty good week: Hayden (the face of NSA domestic surveillance) confirmed at CIA by a good margin, Brett Kavanaugh (another conservative circuit court nominee) confirmed, and the President's stepping forward to the bully pulpit on immigration seemed to pay dividends in the Senate this week.
Leave the "seeing the world as I wish it was" to us bloggers, boys, and just report the news.
"President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair once bestrode the globe as powerful leaders who spoke boldly of bringing democracy to the Middle East. Now, dragged down by popular discontent over their adventure in Iraq, both have reached the lowest point of their careers."
And it gets worse.
Talk about a wolf in sheep's clothing (news analysis/opinion put forth as a straight news story). If you listen to this fellow, Glenn Kesler, the sky is falling. He calls Bush a virtual lame duck.
For a lame duck, and I admit that the poll numbers are dismal, the President had a pretty good week: Hayden (the face of NSA domestic surveillance) confirmed at CIA by a good margin, Brett Kavanaugh (another conservative circuit court nominee) confirmed, and the President's stepping forward to the bully pulpit on immigration seemed to pay dividends in the Senate this week.
Leave the "seeing the world as I wish it was" to us bloggers, boys, and just report the news.
Category: Media and Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
The best three hours of television of any given week are usually Friday mornings, 6:00 to 9:00 CST, on C-SPAN when Brian runs the early-bird call-in show, "Washington Journal" (click on the link for 5/26 for an archive of the program).
Today Brian held two separate hour-long chats with "gonzo" historian Douglas Brinkley and NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert (ironically, both guests were the subject of recent Bosque Boys posts and discussion, follow the links above). Is Brian a fan of the BB? Not likely, but I can hope. Something to work toward...One of these days, maybe.
The Brinkley interview was pretty standard. Brinkley is a regular contributor to C-SPAN. What does Brian think of Brinkley? Impossible to say. Brian gives no clues.
Brian's genius is his ability to let guests be themselves. He is the virtuoso of distributing rope. Brinkley was Brinkley, and, at times, his self-inflicted unintentional indictments were devastating. Brian just watched impassively.
In minute 54 of the sixty-minute exchange, Brian asked nonchalantly how does one go about writing a 755-page work of history in only nine months? He added: doesn't the editing process alone on a work that size take about nine months?
Doug Brinkley credited his passion and work ethic and associated himself with literary greats of the past who understood that writing was a matter of putting your seat in the seat of your chair. Lamb followed-up with: were you angry?
One last point (from me not Brian; I do not have his gift for subtlety): What do you call a history that is written in the midst of a critical event, penned by an author who has lost all historical objectivity and then rushed to press? Journalism.
Tim Russert followed. Maybe I am a fool for his working-class persona, but I cannot see how people can generate hatred for Russert. He tells great unassuming stories about being a kid from Buffalo who made good. He offered a meaningful account of how and why his father recently opted for a Ford Crown Vic over a Mercedes, Lexus or Caddy. He read a moving letter attacking the New York Times Magazine for their sloppy journalism in re a feature that dealt with his personal memories of his mom.
Later, a passionate caller castigated Russert for being in the tank for the Bush administration. Ironically, the indignant caller provided an almost inverse interpretation of the Condi Rice interview from David Limbaugh. Why weren't you as rough on Rice as you were on Nancy Pelosi last week? She accused him of letting his corporate bias cloud his news judgment (FYI: the corporate news conspiracy: all the news orgs are owned by a few corporations who filter and water down the news).
This morning reaffirms my C-SPAN thesis: if you watched all three channels of C-SPAN twenty-four hours per day, you would know everything that is going on in American politics.
Today Brian held two separate hour-long chats with "gonzo" historian Douglas Brinkley and NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert (ironically, both guests were the subject of recent Bosque Boys posts and discussion, follow the links above). Is Brian a fan of the BB? Not likely, but I can hope. Something to work toward...One of these days, maybe.
The Brinkley interview was pretty standard. Brinkley is a regular contributor to C-SPAN. What does Brian think of Brinkley? Impossible to say. Brian gives no clues.
Brian's genius is his ability to let guests be themselves. He is the virtuoso of distributing rope. Brinkley was Brinkley, and, at times, his self-inflicted unintentional indictments were devastating. Brian just watched impassively.
In minute 54 of the sixty-minute exchange, Brian asked nonchalantly how does one go about writing a 755-page work of history in only nine months? He added: doesn't the editing process alone on a work that size take about nine months?
Doug Brinkley credited his passion and work ethic and associated himself with literary greats of the past who understood that writing was a matter of putting your seat in the seat of your chair. Lamb followed-up with: were you angry?
One last point (from me not Brian; I do not have his gift for subtlety): What do you call a history that is written in the midst of a critical event, penned by an author who has lost all historical objectivity and then rushed to press? Journalism.
Tim Russert followed. Maybe I am a fool for his working-class persona, but I cannot see how people can generate hatred for Russert. He tells great unassuming stories about being a kid from Buffalo who made good. He offered a meaningful account of how and why his father recently opted for a Ford Crown Vic over a Mercedes, Lexus or Caddy. He read a moving letter attacking the New York Times Magazine for their sloppy journalism in re a feature that dealt with his personal memories of his mom.
Later, a passionate caller castigated Russert for being in the tank for the Bush administration. Ironically, the indignant caller provided an almost inverse interpretation of the Condi Rice interview from David Limbaugh. Why weren't you as rough on Rice as you were on Nancy Pelosi last week? She accused him of letting his corporate bias cloud his news judgment (FYI: the corporate news conspiracy: all the news orgs are owned by a few corporations who filter and water down the news).
This morning reaffirms my C-SPAN thesis: if you watched all three channels of C-SPAN twenty-four hours per day, you would know everything that is going on in American politics.
23/05: Media Bias
Wizbang this morning links to an analysis by David Limbaugh of the Tim Russert interview with Condi Rice. David Limbaugh shines a devastating light into the dark corner of media bias and the way popular opinion is shaped through manipulation. A must read.
I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I would like to think that certain newsmedia figures do not intend to be biased, but are simply shallow thinkers, or unaware of their own biases, or repeating media cliches. But over the last few years it has become impossible for me to give the benefit of the doubt any longer. I think some of these folks must be aware of what they are doing.
I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I would like to think that certain newsmedia figures do not intend to be biased, but are simply shallow thinkers, or unaware of their own biases, or repeating media cliches. But over the last few years it has become impossible for me to give the benefit of the doubt any longer. I think some of these folks must be aware of what they are doing.
