« Ozzy & The Osmonds | Main | Review: "All Things New" by Steven Curits Chapman (3 Moose) »

November 15, 2004

Defending Ann?

I wanted to simply reply to Alan's comment about Ann Coulter, but I couldn't get my response in formatted text.
Alan says:

It is true that Ms. Coulter has a sharp tongue, and goes a bit further than I would with some of her comments, but she doesn't make up facts or distort the truth (that is, unlike the Michael Moore's of this world, she doesn't lie).

Ann Coulter doesn't lie?

Does Alan consider this 'not a lie'?

"Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant"

Even better, isn't this an exact tactic used by Michael Moore?

Throughout the book, she attributes outside book reviews, magazine profiles and op-eds to media outlets as if they were staff-written news reports, feeding the perception of bias on the part of these institutions. These include a New York Times Week in Review article by historian Richard Gid Powers cited as "According to the Times..." (p. 6); a Washington Post book review by Patricia Aufderheide described as "the Washington Post said..." (p. 97) and "The Washington Post called..." (p. 98); and a New York Times Magazine article by reporter Leslie Gelb cited as "the New York Times reported..." (p. 171). At one point, she cites a single Washington Post magazine article by journalist Orville Schell four separate ways (implying multiple stories to the casual reader), in one case calling it "a two-part, four-billion-column-inch Washington Post story" in which "the Post said..." (p. 92).
Source: http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030630.html

I wonder, if Alan is truly prepared to stand by the comment that Ann Coulter doesn't 'distort the truth'.

Posted by tom at November 15, 2004 11:11 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.lonelywind.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/14