Ann Coulter is funded by Scaife and Horowitz

[bloom]

If you are going to say that Ann Coulter is a reliable source of information (yes, a DUer said that) you might as well say Karl Rove, John O'Neil, Jeff Gannon, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, or for that matter B**H, Rice, or Rumsfeld are reliable. (Or that you agree with Scaife and Horowitz :shrug: ).

Ann and company have made themselves unreliable by virtue of their track record of providing false and misleading information regarding any one who might be seen as an opponent.

Rove and his minions - the commentators such as Coulter - who spread smears about their foes is legendary.

See the Swift Boat nonsense, see "Bush's Brain", see "OutFoxed". Read what these people write and tell me that there is any reason at any time to believe any thing they say just because they say it.

And Furthermore - any one who finds themselves on Ann Coulter's side of an issue should wonder how the hell that happened. And why do they believe it.

She is paid by Horowitz and company - Now she's just been picked up by David Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture, one of the most prominent recipients of conservative philanthropy money.
http://www.mediatransparency.org/people/ann_coulter.htm

So it shouldn't be any surprise that she is discrediting Ward Churchill. He is a prime target of Horowitz.

And Horowitz gets his money from Scaife (The same ones behind the Clinton attacks of the 90's) and the Olin foundations.
http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=63

Other sites that researched or commented on this:

http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/apndx_1.htm

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0111.coulterwisdom.html

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030630.html

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020923&s=alterman

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020205Coulter.html


Ann Coulter on tour: "I think a baseball bat is the most effective way these days" to talk to liberals. 10/7/04

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Craig3410]

2. She said that quote at the bottom?

Well, I've held a policy that the best way to talk to a conservative is to speak veeeeerrrrrry slllloooowwwlly and not use long words; try to keep it to the vocabulary of a 4th-grader.

[CottonBear]

3. She is insane.

That baseball bat comment is over the edge. If a Democratic pundit said something like that, they'd be run out of the country. Damn. She is beyond awful.
edit: sp.

[CindyDale]

4. And Scaife funds that outfit trying to take over the liberal churches, too

His money comes from oil.

[bloom]

5. As Mika posted on another thread - It is "legal" for "the Media" to lie...

So it is quite reasonable that anyone who has proved themselves time and again to say whatever hurts liberals the most (whether true or not) should be disregarded.
--------

Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.

By Mike Gaddy
Published 02. 28. 03 at 19:31 Sierra Time


On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows. The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers.

Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news. The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdock, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation.

Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict.


© 2003 SierraTimes.com

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/02/28/arpubmg022803.htm

[CindyDale]

9. So if it's OK what did Fox think is wrong with the Dan Rather story?

A lie is OK, but an honest mistake is immoral.

LOL

[zbdent]

6. Don't forget that the right wing figured out which bookstores the

NYTimes bestsellers list used for their top ten sales.

Then they bought in bulk to bring up the sales.

This instituted the "dagger" which now shows which books are bought in bulk . . . wonder if any of those bookstores reporting the bulk sales also report bulk returns (within the return period) . . .

[donsu]

7. kick

nt

[bloom]

8. ...

:kick: