Coulter Reaping The Benefits Of Wit
It's no surprise that conservatives like Ann Coulter far more than liberals do. It might have something to do with the fact that: A) Ann is funnier than they are, and B) Ann is smarter than they are. And liberals hate to have their failings pointed out. In her new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism Ann is at her sarcastic best. This puppy showed up on our doorstep two days after its release, and I have been thoroughly engrossed--and laughing--the entire time.
It should come as no surprise that both Marcie and I enjoy her writing far more than we enjoy her on these worthless, time-wasting talking heads shows. As Howard Kurtz points out today, the media can spot a winner a mile away. (HT: Hugh Hewitt)
"She made news," says "Today" Executive Producer Jim Bell. "I think our audience is smart enough to figure it out and reach their own opinions. It's not our job to censor people." Besides, Bell says, "she's good television."
In other words, you can't blame execs for finding something that might boost their ratings, and give them something to b***h about. And there has been plenty of that since her exchange with Matt Lauer, as Mr. Kurtz astutely points out:
Matt Lauer grilled her last week on "Today," which prompted the New York Daily News banner "COULTER THE CRUEL," which in turn led "NBC Nightly News" and ABC's "World News Tonight" to examine her remarks. The question, said NBC anchor Brian Williams, was "Have you no shame?"
But the MSM isn't the only outlet that took her to task for those comments. Which brings me to another point dealing with intellectual honesty. OK, you want to defend her, that's fine. I don't begrudge Michelle Malkin her attempt to defend Ann's statements, and I can even sympathize with them. I'm no fan of the Jersey Girls either, and while their fame has been borne on the backs of the deaths of their husbands, slamming them the way she does is inappropriate. Let the book speak for itself. The right side, which Michael Medved apparently refused to address on his show Friday--when he was supposed to have Ann on to discuss her book--has held her to account, as well. Mr. Kurtz noticed that Hugh Hewitt and Bill O'Reilly (Mr. O'Reilly I personally dislike) took her to task for her comments.
And our side should. Mr. Kurtz asks one simple question in the beginning of his piece today:
Is it time for the media to stop lavishing attention on Ann Coulter?
It depends on the attention, IMO. If the attention is to her book, and the charges she makes (which are all very well thought out), then no. She's selling a book, and I see no reason why the book--its concept and argument--can't be discussed. However if the sole goal of the MSM is to get her to say things that are outrageous so they can spurn on the media-contrived controversy (obviously in an attempt to save their sagging ratings or subscriptions) then yes, it is.
As an extremely well-educated "spokeswoman" for the conservative movement, Ann has a number of fans across the country. Her keen legal mind is something I'd love to have (not that I'm blowing off my own, but she did go to school, and is bar-certified) and it works so well in pointing out the pure nuttiness of activist jurists the Left loves to pimp, promote, and generally place on pedestals. She can gin up a crowd quicker than Ted Kennedy at a Happy Hour celebration (or the Fraters guys at Keegan's Trivia night). Her works are highly regarded by many people.
Her rhetoric, on the other hand, is what many people dislike. Personally, I don't know why Marcie decided to get into a p***ing contest with Ann, aside from the fact that she has said a couple of really adolescent and foolish things lately, but I know there is a part of her that really would appreciate some people on our side remembering that we're the party of adults, and not children. (And no, there is no jealousy involved in this skirmish; I prefer mine because she's prettier.)
Personally, I have no problem reading her stuff. I like it. It's funny. But I do not like the fact that at times she forgets that she does speak for our side at times, and when she makes comments like this it reflects badly on the rest of us. Not that I'm whining, but I really hate having to remind the Left that we do not all think on the same wavelength as people like Ann, at times, and Michael Savage all the time.
Publius II
It's no surprise that conservatives like Ann Coulter far more than liberals do. It might have something to do with the fact that: A) Ann is funnier than they are, and B) Ann is smarter than they are. And liberals hate to have their failings pointed out. In her new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism Ann is at her sarcastic best. This puppy showed up on our doorstep two days after its release, and I have been thoroughly engrossed--and laughing--the entire time.
It should come as no surprise that both Marcie and I enjoy her writing far more than we enjoy her on these worthless, time-wasting talking heads shows. As Howard Kurtz points out today, the media can spot a winner a mile away. (HT: Hugh Hewitt)
"She made news," says "Today" Executive Producer Jim Bell. "I think our audience is smart enough to figure it out and reach their own opinions. It's not our job to censor people." Besides, Bell says, "she's good television."
In other words, you can't blame execs for finding something that might boost their ratings, and give them something to b***h about. And there has been plenty of that since her exchange with Matt Lauer, as Mr. Kurtz astutely points out:
Matt Lauer grilled her last week on "Today," which prompted the New York Daily News banner "COULTER THE CRUEL," which in turn led "NBC Nightly News" and ABC's "World News Tonight" to examine her remarks. The question, said NBC anchor Brian Williams, was "Have you no shame?"
But the MSM isn't the only outlet that took her to task for those comments. Which brings me to another point dealing with intellectual honesty. OK, you want to defend her, that's fine. I don't begrudge Michelle Malkin her attempt to defend Ann's statements, and I can even sympathize with them. I'm no fan of the Jersey Girls either, and while their fame has been borne on the backs of the deaths of their husbands, slamming them the way she does is inappropriate. Let the book speak for itself. The right side, which Michael Medved apparently refused to address on his show Friday--when he was supposed to have Ann on to discuss her book--has held her to account, as well. Mr. Kurtz noticed that Hugh Hewitt and Bill O'Reilly (Mr. O'Reilly I personally dislike) took her to task for her comments.
And our side should. Mr. Kurtz asks one simple question in the beginning of his piece today:
Is it time for the media to stop lavishing attention on Ann Coulter?
It depends on the attention, IMO. If the attention is to her book, and the charges she makes (which are all very well thought out), then no. She's selling a book, and I see no reason why the book--its concept and argument--can't be discussed. However if the sole goal of the MSM is to get her to say things that are outrageous so they can spurn on the media-contrived controversy (obviously in an attempt to save their sagging ratings or subscriptions) then yes, it is.
As an extremely well-educated "spokeswoman" for the conservative movement, Ann has a number of fans across the country. Her keen legal mind is something I'd love to have (not that I'm blowing off my own, but she did go to school, and is bar-certified) and it works so well in pointing out the pure nuttiness of activist jurists the Left loves to pimp, promote, and generally place on pedestals. She can gin up a crowd quicker than Ted Kennedy at a Happy Hour celebration (or the Fraters guys at Keegan's Trivia night). Her works are highly regarded by many people.
Her rhetoric, on the other hand, is what many people dislike. Personally, I don't know why Marcie decided to get into a p***ing contest with Ann, aside from the fact that she has said a couple of really adolescent and foolish things lately, but I know there is a part of her that really would appreciate some people on our side remembering that we're the party of adults, and not children. (And no, there is no jealousy involved in this skirmish; I prefer mine because she's prettier.)
Personally, I have no problem reading her stuff. I like it. It's funny. But I do not like the fact that at times she forgets that she does speak for our side at times, and when she makes comments like this it reflects badly on the rest of us. Not that I'm whining, but I really hate having to remind the Left that we do not all think on the same wavelength as people like Ann, at times, and Michael Savage all the time.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home