TIME's Coulter Fiasco, Big Media's Big Mistake-By: Marc McDonald
April 26th, 2005

Outraged progressive commentators across the Web are asking their visitors to cancel their subscriptions to Time magazine in the aftermath of that magazine's puff piece on fascist nutcase Ann Coulter.

The Time April 25 cover story offended progressives (and, for that matter, all sane Americans) with writer John Cloud's contention that he "didn't find many outright Coulter errors." This, despite the fact that Coulter's vicious hatemongering is absolutely smothered with outrageous lies that have been extensively documented in print media and across the Web.

While many progressives are outraged by this whole episode, I think it's actually good news for American public discourse.

I think it's great that progressives are finally starting to see Time magazine for what it really is. A jingoistic, right-leaning, anti-union, business-friendly publication that masquerades as "unbiased" serious journalism. A magazine that gave acres of coverage to the partisan witchhunt against Clinton and then snoozed through critical stories like GOP's stealing of the 2000 election and the disenfranchisement of Ohio voters in 2004.

There are those of us who've been shouting from the rooftops for years that Time leans Republican. Now, it appears the Left will finally take notice. And hopefully, more than a few progressives will cancel their subscriptions.

To get an understanding of Time magazine's conservative leanings, it's important to take a look at the magazine's history, which has always been steadily pro-business and pro-GOP since launching in 1923.

Before that, founders Henry Luce and Briton Hadden were noted for having turned their college paper (the Yale Daily News) into a "propagandist sheet promoting intense patriotism" during World War I (according to "The People's Almanac" by David Wallechinsky and Irving Wallace).

"The People's Almanac" documents Time magazine's historically conservative bias, including the magazine's take on events when the U.S. was in the grip of hard times during the 1930s economic meltdown:

"The Depression would go away if one worked and prayed hard enough, and if some people starved, well, it was pretty much their own fault. Luce never had any sympathy for losers."

Despite Time magazine's historically pro-Republican leanings, I'm a bit baffled as to why it would dignify human filth like Coulter. I suppose it all comes down to profit. After all, the mainstream media's embrace of "unbiased" news has really always been about profit.

If you claim to be unbiased, then, in theory this will increase readership and boost your profits. It sounds like a plausible theory on paper. But the fact is, I think this approach has finally caught up with America's mainstream press.

Big Media's credibility is lower than ever these days. The Right has long condemned the media for "liberal" bias. And now the Left is also starting to catch on that Big Media is not to be trusted.

The bottom line is that the corporate media these days are dinosaurs and headed for extinction. With the rise of the Internet, the media is splintering into thousands of independent voices, that corporate America (much to its horror) cannot control. Across the Web, tens of thousands of online publications are emerging and few of them make any ridiculous pretense at "non-partisanship."

Time shot itself in the foot with the Coulter fiasco. And Big Media's loss is a big plus for all of us who believe in putting the truth (and people) before profits.


Link: http://liberaldailybeacon.com/view.php?id=584

Catherine

--I SEE WHY YOU ARE MAD , THIS ARTICLE DESCRIBES YOU AND SEAMUS.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's only funny until someone loses a pie

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 13, 2005
7:40 p.m. Eastern


© 2005 Ann Coulter


Liberals enjoy claiming that they are intellectuals, thrilled to engage in a battle of wits. This, they believe, distinguishes them from conservatives, who are religious fanatics who react with impotent rage to opposing ideas. As one liberal, Jonathan Chait, put the cliche in the New Republic: Bush is an "instinctive anti-intellectual" and his administration hostile to "fact-driven debate." In a favorable contrast, Clinton is "the former Rhodes scholar who relished academic debates." Showing his usual reverence for fact-checking, the New York Times' Paul Krugman says the Republican Party is "dominated by people who believe truth should be determined by revelation, not research."

I'm not sure how these descriptions square with the fact that liberals keep responding to conservative ideas by throwing food. (Remember the good old days when liberals' "fact-driven" ideas only meant throwing money at their problems?)


Last October, two liberals responded to my speech at the University of Arizona – during question and answer, no less – by charging the stage and throwing two pies at me from a few yards away. Fortunately for me, liberals not only argue like liberals, they also throw like girls. (Apologies in advance to the Harvard biology professors who walked out on Larry Summers in a demonstration of their admiration of "research," not "revelation" – but this may account for the dearth of female pitchers in Major League Baseball.)

Unfortunately for them, Republican men don't react favorably to two "Deliverance" boys trying to sucker-punch a 110-pound female in a skirt and heels. The geniuses ended up with bloody noses and broken bones.

It's really outrageous how conservatives respond to liberals who are just trying to engage in a "fact-driven debate." How typical of Republicans to go on the offensive just because a female has been physically attacked. Instead of capturing and subduing my attackers, those strong Republican men should have been trying to understand why they threw the pies.

In the five months following the liberal ass-whupping in Arizona – I mean "fact-driven debate" – all was quiet on the Eastern Front. College liberals still couldn't formulate a coherent argument, but they seemed to want to avoid ending up in jail having to explain to their cellmates that they were in for trying to hit a girl (and missing).

Then on March 19, all charges were dismissed against the "Deliverance" boys – including a felony charge for $3,000 worth of damage to school property. Inexplicably, this outcome did not instantly lead to widespread rioting and looting in South Central Los Angeles.

Democrat Barbara LaWall is the Pima County attorney who allowed the liberal debate champions to walk. LaWall brags on her website about "holding criminals accountable." She didn't say anything about liberals, however. Be forewarned, conservatives: Do not expect the law to protect you in Pima County.

In the three weeks following the dismissal of all charges against my attackers, three more conservatives were attacked on college campuses.

On March 29, liberals' intellectual retort to a speech by William Kristol at Earlham College was to throw a pie. On March 31, liberals enjoyed the hurly-burly of political debate with Pat Buchanan at Western Michigan University by throwing salad dressing. On April 6, liberals engaged David Horowitz on his ideas at Butler University by throwing a pie at him.

If you close your eyes, it's almost like you're listening to Ludwig Wittgenstein!

If there had been that many attacks on Muslims in the weeks following the 9-11 attack, we'd still be watching Showtime specials about it. (In liberals' defense, this is what they must resort to when there are no student newspapers with conservative editorials to burn.)

At the risk of provoking one of those brainy liberals to throw more food, here's an idea: In order to reduce physical assaults on conservative speakers, maybe we should increase the price. But, to the contrary, when conservative speakers are physically attacked on college campuses, university administrators ignore the attacks, Democrat prosecutors somehow manage to get the charges dismissed, and Democrat flacks like Chait and Krugman pretend they missed the news that day.

What might work better is some form of disincentive to liberals who engage in violent behavior whenever they hear an idea they don't like but can't come up with words to dispute. The punishment doesn't have to be severe – just a small fraction of the wailing and healing that occurs every time there's a hoax "hate crime" on a college campus. (But which still serve a valuable function by calling attention to the issue of hate crimes.)

Last year, classes were canceled and demonstrations held at Claremont College after a white, Catholic visiting professor claimed her car had been vandalized with racist and anti-Semitic slurs. This – at the very moment she was giving a talk on intolerance!

It was just a little too ironic. The incident had all the exquisite timing of an "ABC After-School Special" about hate crimes. But as one student angrily told the Los Angeles Times, the suggestion that it was a hoax is "so sick. They are in denial. People don't want to accept that a well-educated, liberal community can have hate." Needless to say, the vandalism turned out to have been perpetrated by the professor herself.

Or maybe physical attacks on conservatives could merit a small slice of the rage and indignation directed at the display of racist symbols. Last year, a white student at a high school in Washington State was accused of taunting a black student with a noose. In response, the white student was immediately expelled from school. He was charged with a felony. There was a series of town-wide discussions. The U.S. Justice Department sent in mediators. And two more years were suddenly added to Whoopi Goldberg's career.

I think Kristol, Buchanan, Horowitz and I would be perfectly happy if college liberals merely brandished symbols at us. Speaking for myself, I would be unhappy if they didn't. But these Rhodes scholar geniuses with a taste for "fact-driven debate" can't even achieve the level of argument practiced by the average juvenile delinquent. They're still stuck at the intellectual level of 2-year-olds in high chairs throwing food.

How so Mr. Buckshot? Mad??? I'm not mad. I'm informed. What's your excuse? Is it your gross negligent ignorance? Get a clue Mr. Buckshot, Catherine and I aren't mad; we pity you.

Oh the outrage, conservative windbags attacked with pies! It's just the oppressor playing the role of oppressed. This is nothing new for regressive conservatives. As a matter of fact it's a typical dog-eared freeper strategy.

Oh the outrage, the true Americans are under attack! Everyone rally round boys! Lock and load boys. Let's round up some Liberals! Off with their heads!

You know that trick Mr. Buckshot, don't you? Christianity is under attack, "American Values" are under attack, "True Patriots" are under attack, Capitalism is under attack and so forth.

An "Opinion" Piece by you favorite transsexual attack dog is hardly a scathing indictment of the "left" as you define it.

Once again twinkle toes you're a one trick pony.

Don't have Annie Adam's Apple fight your battles for you. Try thinking for yourself Mr. Buckshot.

Oh, Bucky-boots...get off of it!

Are you outraged because someone attacked Mr. Coulter with a PIE? Yet you're not outraged that your president has invaded a country that had nothing to do with the attacks on America? You're not outraged that America is engaged in an illegal and unnecessary war that is costing young American lives and countless numbers of Iraqi lives? I know exactly why you're not outraged, Bucky-boots...because you're not smart enough to be outraged. You're not INFORMED enough to be outraged. Your brain has rotted because it has been sedantary for so long.

AGAIN, I CHALLENGE you to PROVE anything Seamus and I have said about your president, and about any other of your heroes, up to and including Mr. Coulter, that is WRONG. I'm not talking about EXCUSES. I'm talking about WRONG information. Go ahead...I challenge you.

Bucky-Boots...you can't do it, can you?

Catherine

your about as stupid as they come, i just proved your wonderful little clinton thoery wrong, i just proved your false election theory wrong. face it you suck cathrine . is this all you know how to do just hurl insults. and i told you twice quit kissing seamus's ass and think for yourself.

when you act like an adult i'll talk to you like one.

what the hell is seamus anyway . your proctetor or something , he jumps in and answers for you all the time. whats the matter cathrine been teaching second grade so long you think like a second grader. leave seamus out of it , you want an argument pick one with me by yourself in other words grow you a set. you have proved nothing to me , you have answered nothing on your own , you rant like a child , post a few pictures, and cut and paste articles that you have absolute no knowledge of, you post lies about american soldiers,so really i don't give a shit what you think if you really can without asking seamus.

also seamus i know you are going to read this , just back off and let cathrine act like a big girl and speak for herself . i'm sure i'll be real impressed with her thoughts.

Mr. Buckshot,

What the hell is a "proctetor"?

Is it a proctologist for spuds?

Bucky-Boots...

Don't get your G.I. Joe briefs in such a wad! You're going to really hurt your ability to reproduce someday if you keep letting us upset you so. Especially anything I post, Bucky Boots. I do believe you're a teenager who likes to get his rocks off by attempting to insult those who are your intellectual superiors. You're certainly doing a good job of showing your basic ignorance.

Let's see....in the first line of this particular rant, you prove nothing except your own inability to debate, write, spell, and understand...once again. How did you prove anything about Bill Clinton? Was he not a Rhodes Scholar? Was he not a fairly elected President of the United States? Did he not leave office with a huge budget surplus that your president has since squandered?

TIME magazine is a pro-Republican magazine and has been for many years. However, now it's finally leaned so far right, it will lose so many subscribers, myself included, that it will be very sorry it chose to put MR. Coulter on its front cover. But, of course, I doubt that you read TIME, Bucky-Boots. It's reading level is somewhat above 6th grade.



ACTING? Who's acting, BuckyBoots? I AM an adult. It's too bad you aren't, but hope springs eternal. After you've had your basketball practice, where you use your elbows more than anything else, perhaps you can find someone to tutor you on spelling and writing skills. Then, and only then, will any of us take you seriously on topics of discussion here at TVNL.

You're a source of fun here, Bucky Boots. Surely you know that. Aren't you ashamed of your inabilities?



Really, BuckyBoots? What lies have I posted about American soldiers? Whether you give a "shit" about what I post is not my greatest concern, BuckyBoots.

Your pistal packin' prostate makes me care not a whit.

Catherine

bla bla bla, no wonder our education is ranked so low , having teachers like you around. i'll bet your into all that gay loving marrage thing to , and pro choice crap . but like i said when you speak all i hear is bla bla bla.

Actually when you get right down to it, it's people like you who buy into the Regressive GOP Bullshit who have caused our education to be ranked so low.



Equal rights are crap?

You're so un-American Mr. Buckshot.

Mr. Buckshot, you're a traitor.

I certainly do, BuckyBoots. I believe in equal rights for all...even for you. Where is it written in stone that marriage and love only has to be between a man and a woman? Don't quote the bible to me, either, because I don't believe it's any better than any other religious guidebook.

What do you have against gay rights? What do you have against women's rights to do what they wish with their own bodies? Elaborate, please, if you are capable, which I don't for one minute believe you are. Your usual responses of "Blah, Blah, Blah" are, at the most, just nonsensical. Do you have a blackout at those moments? Do you suddenly choke or perhaps you suffer from a form of epilepsy? You really should see a doctor for those recurrances of mental blocks, BuckyBoots. It could cause you much trouble when you're in public or perhaps slinging those MacDonald's burgers and making those Happy Meals for the children you try to emulate.

Support your position, BuckyBoots. Answer my questions, BuckyBoots. Elaborate and give details and links, BuckyBoots.

Just making statements in such a childish way, BuckyBoots,...poor spelling, no capital letters appropriately placed, no correct flow of well-organized ideas...really do absolutely nothing to improve your standing among those of us who deign to answer your childish rants.

Your reform school or alternative school was seriously lacking in educational initiatives, obviously.

Catherine

whats unequal about it fags have the same rights as everybody else.
name one right straight people have that fags don't have?

can you?

oh how unamerican..

whats unequal about it fags have the same rights as everybody else.
name one right straight people have that fags don't have?

can you?

oh how unamerican..

Bundles of sticks have rights?

Homosexuals do not have the right to civil unions.

That's discrimination based on religious bigotry.

That reference will be completely lost on Bucky, Seamus. You will probably have to come back and explain it to him.

A few words in the second part of your excellent response will also go right over his empty head.

You know, I think BuckyBoots may be gay. He is so adamently against the rights of the homosexual individual, and methinks he protests too loudly.

Catherine

seamus quote
"Homosexuals do not have the right to civil unions. "


well straight people can't have civil unions either ,whats so unfair about that, whats next you will agree to let people have civil unions with animals. somewhere a line has to be drawn , and it should start at gay civil unions.

seamus quote

"That's discrimination based on religious bigotry."

no seamus thats morals which this country was founded on.

and cathrine i believe it's you protesting loudly , about the gays, maybe your one.