Do Political Commentators Really Believe What They Say?

[castleview]

This question may sound biased because I'm mainly referring to Ann Coulter...but since the right is more visible and in power, here I go: I've been noticing that Coulter hasn't really been "prepared" for interviews. Whereas, one time she supported her arguments, now she just is saying things to get a rise out of people.

She makes a lot of money by doing so and I'm just wondering if anyone else thinks that she, Michelle Malkin, Rush, etc. have just found a lucrative market in catering to the fringe extremist groups (an awfully big fringe I'm aware).

So what do you think?

 

[Pop Daddy]

I believe Ann Coulter says things over the top just to get her point across, the Liberal Etreme wich says everyone should be HEARD, as it turns out the only people they want free speach too is the people who think like them

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

This question may sound biased because I'm mainly referring to Ann Coulter...but since the right is more visible and in power, here I go: I've been noticing that Coulter hasn't really been "prepared" for interviews. Whereas, one time she supported her arguments, now she just is saying things to get a rise out of people.

She makes a lot of money by doing so and I'm just wondering if anyone else thinks that she, Michelle Malkin, Rush, etc. have just found a lucrative market in catering to the fringe extremist groups (an awfully big fringe I'm aware).

So what do you think?

I think that she probably believes what she's saying, but forms her opinions in a way that is purposely inflammatory and over the top. Political pundits don't sell a lot of books these days unless you can fire people up, from both sides of the aisle.

As far as her not preparing for interviews, I have noticed that as well. There was that one, now pretty famous, interview on a Canadian news show, where she was complaining that Canada is not fighting along side of the US in Iraq when they fought so valiantly with us in Vietnam. Problem is, Canada did not fight with us in Nam, and the interviewer called her on it. She got combative and then said that she would have to look into in. Poor planning can kill people like Coulter's repulations. Maybe she's decided that all she need to do these days is to show some leg, flash that smile, and shake her hair and people will just go along with whatever she says. I'm thinking...not so much.

 

[Puffy2]

Beats me. Like Bill O'Reily - this is the same guy who settled a sexual harrassment lawsuit with a young woman who claimed (she had audio recordings proving it) that O'Reily made numerous unwanted sexual advances towards her when she worked with him.

But he's also the same guy who tires to get the public up in arms about whether or not the 16 year old cashier at Target wishes you a "happy holiday" or "merry Christmas" and would love nothing more than to ban the ACLU from defending anyone's civil libertries.

Really, what is their objective here? He's obviously not some "pure" Christian. Yet he desparately wants Christains in this country to feel persecuted against and threatened. And he desparately wants to take away the publics ability to defend their civil liberties. Hum. Instilling imagined fear in the masses, coupled with an agenda to remove basic rights from the masses...sounds more like a politican who wants to use religion to form a dictatorship than a "journalist".

 

[Puffy2]

And for "journalists" Jeff (male escort with White House Access who was a media plant- real name James Guckert) Gannon - , Armstong Williams (paid to write and publish favorable commentary on No Child Left Behind), columnists Maggie Gallagher and Michael McManus who were paid to promote the Bush Administration's "marriage initiative" , and the recent Pentagon scandel where they have paid to have favorable stories about the Iraq War published in Iraqi newspapers it is clear that they were PAID to write/talk favorably about Bush Administration issues...so no, I don't think a lot of "journalist" believe what they say.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Beats me. Like Bill O'Reily - this is the same guy who settled a sexual harrassment lawsuit with a young woman who claimed (she had audio recordings proving it) that O'Reily made numerous unwanted sexual advances towards her when she worked with him.

But he's also the same guy who tires to get the public up in arms about whether or not the 16 year old cashier at Target wishes you a "happy holiday" or "merry Christmas" and would love nothing more than to ban the ACLU from defending anyone's civil libertries.

Really, what is their objective here? He's obviously not some "pure" Christian. Yet he desparately wants Christains in this country to feel persecuted against and threatened. And he desparately wants to take away the publics ability to defend their civil liberties. Hum. Instilling imagined fear in the masses, coupled with an agenda to remove basic rights from the masses...sounds more like a politican who wants to use religion to form a dictatorship than a "journalist".

Interesting points. In the "news" business today, and especially with the right wing political pundits (Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, Malkin, etc.), it's less about accuracy or preparedness, and more about bombast. In the end, the only ones that are hurt are the misinformed who beleive the rhetoric, but I guess, as they say, ignorance is bliss.

 

[Puffy2]

I can't say that I agree that the only one's who are hurt are the misinformed. I think that it's a deliberate attempt to manipulate the misinformed into supporting political canidates who in turn will certainly hurt all of us.

 

[WIcruizer]

Interesting points. In the "news" business today, and especially with the right wing political pundits (Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, Malkin, etc.), it's less about accuracy or preparedness, and more about bombast. In the end, the only ones that are hurt are the misinformed who beleive the rhetoric, but I guess, as they say, ignorance is bliss.

If they are misinformed, why don't people debate the facts? Instead they are called ignorant pundits spewing rhetoric. Ann Coulter and others are shouted down and otherwise harassed instead of being questioned. Maybe the tolerant liberals aren't so tolerant afterall?

 

[jodifla]

If they are misinformed, why don't people debate the facts? Instead they are called ignorant pundits spewing rhetoric. Ann Coulter and others are shouted down and otherwise harassed instead of being questioned. Maybe the tolerant liberals aren't so tolerant afterall?

Lots of what Coutler says is completely indefensible and bigoted. That's why she's shouted down.

She's just a hatemonger trying to get the right all riled up.

 

[castleview]

If they are misinformed, why don't people debate the facts? Instead they are called ignorant pundits spewing rhetoric. Ann Coulter and others are shouted down and otherwise harassed instead of being questioned. Maybe the tolerant liberals aren't so tolerant afterall?

I'm not denying what happened at UCONN was ridiculous, but if you viciously brand people the way Coulter does - you're going to get crazy people in return. Plus last I saw her on Hannity and Colmes she hardly let her opponent get a word in. Again, that was very stupid at UCONN. I wouldn't spend money just to be disruptive

 

[jodifla]

How can anyone defend Ann Coulter? Here are some of her quotes:

"The swing voters---I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster. "---Beyond the News, Fox News Channel, 6/4/00

"My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that's because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism."---MSNBC 2/8/97

"I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century. We don't need any more." Asked how far back would she go to repeal laws, she replied, "Well, before the New Deal...[The Emancipation Proclamation] would be a good start."---Politically Incorrect 5/7/97

"If they have the one innocent person who has ever to be put to death this century out of over 7,000, you probably will get a good movie deal out of it."---MSNBC 7/27/97

"If those kids had been carrying guns they would have gunned down this one [child] gunman. ... Don't pray. Learn to use guns."---Politically Incorrect, 12/18/97

"The presumption of innocence only means you don't go right to jail."---Hannity & Colmes 8/24/01

"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"---Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01

The "backbone of the Democratic Party" is a "typical fat, implacable welfare recipient"---syndicated column 10/29/99

To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."---MSNBC

"Women like Pamela Harriman and Patricia Duff are basically Anna Nicole Smith from the waist down. Let's just call it for what it is. They're *****s."---Salon.com 11/16/00

"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"---Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01

The "backbone of the Democratic Party" is a "typical fat, implacable welfare recipient"---syndicated column 10/29/99

To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."---MSNBC

"Women like Pamela Harriman and Patricia Duff are basically Anna Nicole Smith from the waist down. Let's just call it for what it is. They're *****s."---Salon.com 11/16/00

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Lots of what Coutler says is completely indefensible and bigoted. That's why she's shouted down.

She's just a hatemonger trying to get the right all riled up.

Luckily, 80% of Republicans think that she's just as loony as the left does. It's the far right extremists that slurp up every word that she says religiously and defend her to the bitter end.

People get what they give, Coulter's no different. I have seen her in debates with left wing pundits and she typically resorts to shouting and name calling. It's what her fans pay to see. If you shout down your opponents during a debate, then you should expect the same in return, and resorting to the "maybe liberals aren't as tolerent as they claim" type defenses, as some here have, just doesn't hold water.

 

[cardaway]

They're all the same as Howard Stern.

Not all "shock jocks" talk about sex, but all do nothing but say things that will make the target demographic happy and the make the rest upset.

As Howard proved, it sells, and sells very well.

 

[yeartolate]

Cardaway, the difference being that Howard Stern says things tongue in cheek (so to speak) and for shock value while Ann and Rush have loyal fans that quote things as if they were real 100% of the time.

 

[Mugg Mann]

If they are misinformed, why don't people debate the facts?

Because when we do attempt to debate facts that are the foundation of statements and opinions (and provide the links as well), you ignore the facts that contradict your statements and don't support your opinions. Instead, you resort to name calling, much like Coulter, O'Reilly, Limbaugh do on a regular basis. Here's a link to a thread where you did precisely that;

http://disboards.com/showthread.php?t=973847&highlight=worst+president

 

[dcentity2000]

You mean are they just pandering to the debate? Possibly. I know that the BBC is strongly supporting the new Conservative candidate over here, possibly because the incumbent Labour Government has caused them so much angst (traditionally, the BBC is very much a Labour supporter).



Rich::

 

[Mugg Mann]

It's hard to believe that they truly and fully do. In a highly competitive industry with so many choices available, there is tremendous pressure to stand out from the pack and carve a niche for oneself. This leads to statements and positions that are less than honest.

Look at Bill O'Reilly in the last month. He has crusaded heavily against anyone attempting to neuter Christmas by using the phrase "Holiday" instead of Christmas, yet the Fox news web site did precisely that when one could order "Holiday mugs" instead of "Christmas Mugs" until they were exposed. To date, O"Reilly has chosen not to bite the hand that feeds him, despite a promise from him that he would do precisely that.

In the same vein, I'm still waiting for O'Reilly to tear apart President Bush for sending out Holiday cards instead of Christmas cards. I suspect I'll be waiting a long, long time.....after all, if O'Reilly really meant it, he'd be tearing into the president!

By the way, LaughOGrams, am I wrong in detecting a Stephanie Miller influence in some of your posts? (Which I consider a good thing, btw...)

 

[Tigger_Magic]

In the same vein, I'm still waiting for O'Reilly to tear apart President Bush for sending out Holiday cards instead of Christmas cards. I suspect I'll be waiting a long, long time.....after all, if O'Reilly really meant it, he'd be tearing into the president!

Why should he do that? I think you are confusing issues here and that's probably what is intended.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

To answer the OP, I believe political commentators from across the spectrum believe what they say. It's more than a little difficult to espouse a position one doesn't believe in for very long. The truth about what one really believes eventually will come out. Those who use extreme examples can be found on both the left and the right. Maybe it's to spark debate, discussion or thought.

But I can understand why it appears difficult to understand how someone can believe what they say when it is quite contrary to what one believes. I find myself shaking my head a lot when I listen to leftie mouthpieces like Franken, Dean, Kerry, Kennedy, etc. Makes me wonder whatever happened to real liberals.

 

[DawnCt1]

I'm not denying what happened at UCONN was ridiculous, but if you viciously brand people the way Coulter does - you're going to get crazy people in return. Plus last I saw her on Hannity and Colmes she hardly let her opponent get a word in. Again, that was very stupid at UCONN. I wouldn't spend money just to be disruptive

Cindy Sheehan spoke at UConn. She was certainly inflammatory, making outrageous statements against the country and the president. Their were conservatives protesting OUTSIDE of Jorgenson Auditorium but when the "show" began, they went inside and listened quietly. What happened at UConn should not have been allowed to happen inside the auditorium. People who were there said that it wasn't just a loud boombox but an inside job in which the PA system was used to drowned her out. Coulter uses "absurdity to illustrate the absurd". Most people who listen to her recognize that. Her comments about Ted Kennedy were truly funny. If people don't like her they don't need to listen but they need to respect her right to speak and other people to listen.