|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290 |
I've read many of her articles in her website's archives, and frankly I don't see much in there that wasn't either official Neocon party line or her own brand of humor/satire. Pretty much the same thing you get with the Randi Rhodes we were comparing her to.
E0 #36
'95 Ranger
'82 Honda CX500
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
The difference between Coulter and Rhodes is that Coulter is actually funny. And you nailed it, it's Originally posted by Viss1:
her own brand of humor/satire.
Rhodes and Al Franken share the same stupid Bush/conservative jokes we've been hearing for years. If you want to learn the true value of Ann Coulter, read any one of her first three books.
As for her analysis, I thought her points last week about the stories Newsweek has held (Lewinsky) vs. the stories they've published (Quran abuse) were valuable, and offered a good perspective on Newsweek's leanings. I didn't see anyone else making those points.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,676
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,676 |
Originally posted by Davo:
Originally posted by Wien_Sean:
Both try to make arguments without presenting the other side.
Why would anyone want to do this? Why would someone waste time and space in 'presenting the other side' when theirs is the one they want the reader/consumer to understand? I don't understand how some people use your angle to try to discredit someone. Michael Moore's problem was that he left out important facts of his stories and changed things when changes suited him well, not that he didn't 'present the other side'.
FWIW, I've read a couple Coulter books and found them quite informative and entertaining.
As a journalist or other reporting person you are always supposed to present arguments against you, without it the reporting is not, fox says "fair and balanced." Presenting the other side would give Moore and Coulter a semblance of validity.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,710
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,710 |
Originally posted by Wien_Sean:
As a journalist or other reporting person you are always supposed to present arguments against you, without it the reporting is not, fox says "fair and balanced." Presenting the other side would give Moore and Coulter a semblance of validity.
Except Moore is a liar and propagandist. But I can see your point! 
- Tim
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,676
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,676 |
Originally posted by Corbett:
Originally posted by Wien_Sean:
As a journalist or other reporting person you are always supposed to present arguments against you, without it the reporting is not, fox says "fair and balanced." Presenting the other side would give Moore and Coulter a semblance of validity.
Except Moore is a liar and propagandist. But I can see your point!
What and Coulter isn't?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,710
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,710 |
Originally posted by Wien_Sean:
Originally posted by Corbett:
Originally posted by Wien_Sean:
As a journalist or other reporting person you are always supposed to present arguments against you, without it the reporting is not, fox says "fair and balanced." Presenting the other side would give Moore and Coulter a semblance of validity.
Except Moore is a liar and propagandist. But I can see your point!
What and Coulter isn't?
No, shes not.
- Tim
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,039
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,039 |
Originally posted by Wien_Sean:
What and Coulter isn't?
Not really. I don't particularly like some of the ultra-right wing ideals she brings up, but she's 10000000x better than Moore.
You'll also never see Moore in a debate on any TV station except Bill Mahr, he knows he'll get beat to [censored].
Sean, here's an excerpt re: the EU economy dated 5/26, pretty much mirrors my statements.
----------------------------------------------------
European economy these days is tragio-comedy in the making. Italy is on the verge of Argentina like fiscal woes, as its national debt balloons to 102% of GDP while its unproductive industry slips into a recession. France, which only 6 months ago appeared to be the locomotive that could pull the whole EU economy out of the rut, slipped into its own funk registering only 0.2% GDP growth last week. Germany, the largest economy of the region is still saddled with the enormous costs of East German integration, restrictive business rules and now the defeat of the ruling SPD party in its home region or Noth-Rhine Westpahlia this weekend. Only Spain is doing well, but as the 4th economy in EU it simply cannot contribute enough growth to the EU bottom line to make a difference.
Instead of becoming the United States of Europe, EU is seems to be fracturing before our eyes. Nothing would be more emblematic of this rift than a No vote by the French next Sunday. In fact concern over the vote has been the single biggest reason for euro�s recent weakness.
--------------------------------------------------
And people thought the US economy was weak...
-J
'98 4Runner
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by Wien_Sean:
As a journalist or other reporting person you are always supposed to present arguments against you, without it the reporting is not, fox says "fair and balanced." Presenting the other side would give Moore and Coulter a semblance of validity.
You just pointed out (unintentionally) the sorry state of 'journalism'. If you're just reporting a story, there should be no opinion, no need to 'present the other side'. Having said that, I don't consider Coulter a journalist. Her works (books, especially) present factual events with her own interpretation of them. So she does what most 'journalists' do today, but without the guise of 'journalism'. It gets dangerous when 'journalists' do what she does and claim they're being objective.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290 |
Originally posted by Corbett:
Originally posted by Wien_Sean:
Originally posted by Corbett:
Originally posted by Wien_Sean:
As a journalist or other reporting person you are always supposed to present arguments against you, without it the reporting is not, fox says "fair and balanced." Presenting the other side would give Moore and Coulter a semblance of validity.
Except Moore is a liar and propagandist. But I can see your point!
What and Coulter isn't?
No, shes not.
If we're defining "lies" as spinning events and facts the way Moore does, then Coulter is certainly no better
E0 #36
'95 Ranger
'82 Honda CX500
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,676
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,676 |
Originally posted by Davo:
Originally posted by Wien_Sean:
As a journalist or other reporting person you are always supposed to present arguments against you, without it the reporting is not, fox says "fair and balanced." Presenting the other side would give Moore and Coulter a semblance of validity.
You just pointed out (unintentionally) the sorry state of 'journalism'. If you're just reporting a story, there should be no opinion, no need to 'present the other side'. Having said that, I don't consider Coulter a journalist. Her works (books, especially) present factual events with her own interpretation of them. So she does what most 'journalists' do today, but without the guise of 'journalism'. It gets dangerous when 'journalists' do what she does and claim they're being objective.
I draw a line between simply reporting the news and what journalists should be doing, that being accepting that they all have opinions. Journalism is not simply about reporting events but also sometimes a journalist should give an opinion. A quote I remember about the state of journalism today goes something like "if Bush came out tomorrow saying the world is flat the media would say 'Bush says world is flat, others disagree'", it's like they don't even try to think. That being said, journalist should give opinions and present both sides. It gives your argument more validity when you present counter arguments in your work rather that just giving one side.
|
|
|
|
|
