I don't think I've seen this here yet...COULTER VS FRANKEN

[Khephra]

I GUESS YOU'RE RIGHT: THERE IS NO LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=108&ncid=742&e=9&u=/uclicktext/20031010/cm_ucac/iguessyourerightthereisnoliberalmediabias

Posted for those people who want to take on her new "proofs", as you know Franken will at some point in the future.

[Pale_Rider]

1. Gave the article a highly deserved ...

... 1.0.

[wryter2000]

2. Be sure to rate it eom

eom

[ProfessorPlum]

3. Ha ha

Poor ol' Annie.

For the record, Franken DOES clear up the father/grandfather issue. But it is hard to find, which proves his point about endnotes.

She certainly did pick out the most important untruths in Franken's book to talk about.

Hey, and what about a correction on the Dale Earnhardt thing, if it is actually an "error"? And how did the "error" happen? It's a pretty whopping huge mistake if it was actually a mistake.

Poor Ann.

[Composed Thinker]

4. She's unbelievable

Those are hardly the one examples of her lies and errors. And so she says certain errors are "inconsequential"? If, as Franken said, the Earnhardt story was the only piece of evidence she has when talking about a liberal elitist attitude, her entire argument fails.

[maha]

5. What's funny about that Coulter article

... in which she complains that Publisher's Weekly is a damn biased liberal rag, is that it came out within hours of the infamous Bill O'Reilly - Terry Gross interview, in which O'Reilly praised PW as "prestigious" because it gave his new book a good review. It's the only review he's gotten that he likes, I take it.

And publisher's weekly is a trade magazine for the book publishing industry, for pete's sake. Everyone in the industry is familiar with it; it's been around forever. It is carefully noncontroversial to the point of being stodgy. The company that owns it, Reed (I used to be production manager for a companion mag called Library Journal so I know something about 'em) makes most of its money running ads for books, so they don't publish stuff that pisses off the publishers. The "reviews" aren't so much reviews as forecasts of which books are likely to sell well, which is why they didn't say anything bad about O'Reilly's book, I'm sure.

[rasputin1952]

6. Another well deserved '1' in the ratings..

too bad there is no '0'.

All she is doing is attempting to justify her own foolish rhetoric.

:eyes: :nopity:

[Clete]

7. I guess all you have to say is that it's "false" and

it all goes away. I didn't lie. It's false. No repudiation or facts to back her statement. Nice if you can get away with. I would go with that zero rating. It wasn't even worth a 1. More empty words and irrational statements from her as usual.