Letters to the Editor
-
Torn
I'm torn. On one hand, I hate the fact that every drop of venom this lie-spewing media whore spits gets coverage all over the media. That is, of course, what she wants. She's the secular Christopher Hitchens.
But then I remember that it's important to counter the lies of a despicable creature like TrAnn and expose her for what she is no matter how long it takes.
Which is the higher purpose? I'm stuck.
-
She's Not Just Hateful, It's Specific (And Why That's Important).
Joan,
What I don't understand is why many of the online conversations around the net about Coulter were focused on a more generalized discussion about how mean she is, instead of what could and should have been the argument and the movement that would have likely forced her off shows like Hardball once and for all: Coulter's use of homophobic rhetoric. Coulter didn't just call Edwards a "jerk" or Gore a "total idiot," she use specific homophobic slurs. Had Coulter several times used the "n" slur or the "k" slur, no matter what context, would our discussions still center around her more vague, general "mean" nature? Or would we be forcing MSNBC and their advertisers to explain exactly why they found it acceptable to bring on guests who repeatedly use slurs associated with the denigration of a minority?
We can rattle on until we're blue in the face about how disrespectful or hateful Coulter is, but unless we put it in concrete terms that make a lot of advertisers jumpy-- i.e., a specific bigotry that leads to a specific backlash-- and hammer at both shows like Hardball and their advertisers that we're going to nail the association of that bigotry to their product unless they stop advertising on shows that promote that bigotry-- then nothing will change, and Coulter will be on Matthews' show every two weeks, if he wants.
Are progressives either too used to the "f" slur or still simply too timid to call it what it is and force these networks and advertisers to address exactly what it is they're promoting? Matthews is in a vulnerable position on this, having himself participated in some homophobic rhetoric on Imus back around the time of Brokeback Mountain. Why aren't we bringing this up? And, after Imus, do you think MSNBC wants another controversy right now about their programs promoting bigotry? Why aren't we putting this into the context of how often MSNBC seems to have shrugged at bigotry? We should have nailed Matthews and MSNBC to the wall about this, and instead, we're having way-too-broad discussions about Coulter and how outrageous her latest comments are.
If you want any real action about Coulter, everyone needs to start contacting Hardball's (and MSNBC, NBC, and ABC's "Good Morning America") advertsiers and asking them if they support shows who give even full hour-long podiums to people who have a very public record of regularly using anti-gay slurs like the "f" word. Ask them if they feel comfortable if we start discussing all over the internet how their toothpaste company (or whatever company they run) approves of helping promote homophobic rhetoric. I assure you you'll suddenly see more of a response by MSNBC and the like about Coulter's appearances on their programs than you'll ever see by simply writing letters to Hardball or columns about what "lies" Coulter is telling this time.
-
Excuse me, Joan Walsh
I understand that you are, uh, a person of some influence at Salon.
So why don't you do what the net is better at than any other print media -- show entire clips of the Coulter comments in question. I've seen them. They are the most ordinary, only slightly edgy, informed bits of satiric political dialogue.
The "terrorist" story is particularly egregious when you watch Ann Coulter's comments in context. She was, very explicitly, taking her comments out of the first person context and was saying, "What I should say is..."
You correctly point out that Ann was in error to say that Bill Maher "wished" that Vice President Cheney had been killed by terrorists. You are right that that is an inappropriate shorthand. Just as you are wrong in using shorthand to say Ann Coulter "called John Edwards a faggot." She didn't, and if you had the integrity to put it all in context, even the wild-eyed Coulterhaters of Salon just might get it.
Anyway, thanks for flogging this story some more. I'm liking it.
-
Hey bobbyjoe -- Where exactly were you when Isiah Washington said "faggot"?
Because that was the point Ann Coulter was making. You'd have to be exceptionally witless -- deliberately ignorant of the context of her comments -- to think that the story was as simple as Coulter "calling John Edwards a faggot."
And Salon's Joan Walsh needs to be called to account on her own mischaracterizations.
-
What were you expecting?
George Bernard Shaw is quoted as saying "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
And through all of this charade, Anne Coulter winds up looking like a victim because she was set up by Matthews to create a fake controversy.
The right wing lies about everything. What the hell were we expecting they're reaction to be? Of course they are going to spin this to meet their twisted view of reality. Read some of the posts from the trolls on your other articles about this. They are hate-filled vindictive people who revel in the suffering of others.
They make stupid uninformed remarks about the low ratings of liberal talk radio as if 1) liberals don't exist or 2) liberals actually prefer the right wing screed broadcasted on conservative owned corporate stations. And they actually consider Anne Coulter an intelligent debator. I mean, how can anyone have a constructive debate with people who don't exercise basic critical thinking?
For all the cheerleading alot of folks on the left gave Elizabeth Edwards in confronting a bully, it sure as hell didn't change anything. If anything, Coulter got even more attention now and the rest of the mainstream media will be falling over each other to bring her on.
When it would/should have been another barely watched episode of Hardball.