|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Critique of Ann Coulter's The Church of Liberalism: Godless | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3955 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
someday i want to write a book
ann coulter is a raging cunt wadsubtitled: how to talk to ann coulter if you're unfortunate enough to have caught that std. at any rate. she's an imbecile and she repeats the same bullshit lies every time she's on the air. she's full of it. disagreeing with her intentions is one thing. but i'm mostly concerned with her methods. it's like michael moore. he's full of shit, too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
it's like michael moore. he's full of shit, too. You know, that's what everybody says - "Farenheight 9/11 was full of Moore's lies" - but they never seem to have any examples. Like, the worst the can come up with is that Moore uses the "spinning newspaper" visual gag on a headline that wasn't actually a headline - it was just the title of a story that did actually appear in a newspaper. Oh, yeah, Moore's a liar! It's pretty obvious when you see it, of course, that you're looking at a visual effect, not a real copy of a newspaper. And I've never seen Ann Coulter or any other liar actually release an annotated bibliography for their media appearance that provides sources for their assertions - but Moore did that with Farenheight 9/11. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me exactly what Moore lied about. I've been waiting since the movie came to video. Does he use humor, parody, and special effect to get his point across? Does he impugn motives to people that he couldn't possibly know about? Absolutely. Ken Burns did all that in "Civil War" and nobody jumps up his ass. Since when couldn't you do those things in a documentary? Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me exactly what Moore lied about. Me too, but at a Fahrenheit 9/11 topic.
farenheit 9/11 (the "liberal media", other things relating to film maker Michael Moore) is closed at 304 messages, but Fahrenheit 9/11 is still open at 133 messages. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me exactly what Moore lied about. Me too, but at a Fahrenheit 9/11 topic. well, on my self-assigned reading list this summer is a book called "michael moore is a big fat stupid white man." after i get around to reading that, i'll let you know if i thought any of the authors' points were valid. but i have two spong books to read and give back to brenna first, so it might be a bit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
on a headline that wasn't actually a headline - it was just the title of a story that did actually appear in a newspaper. editorials don't carry the same weight as factual newspaper stories. to conflate the two is dishonest, whether or not they both appear in newspapers.
And I've never seen Ann Coulter or any other liar actually release an annotated bibliography for their media appearance that provides sources for their assertions - but Moore did that with Farenheight 9/11. go find an ann coulter book. i bet it has a bibliography. (although, apparently, not an extensive enough one to cover all of her plagiarism...)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
editorials don't carry the same weight as factual newspaper stories. to conflate the two is dishonest, whether or not they both appear in newspapers. I guess I don't agree. It's showmanship, not dishonesty. And it's abundantly clear in the movie that we're not looking at a real newspaper. I don't remember Moore saying that he was talking about facts when he was really talking about opinions; moreover, factual information is often relayed through editorials. Editorials may be more commentary on the facts than they are facts, but editorials aren't lies, either. They're not fiction; they're conclusion.
go find an ann coulter book. i bet it has a bibliography. Sure, for the stuff she puts in print. Maybe. Never read one of her books, I guess. For the stuff she shoots her mouth off about on TV or in movies? Not a chance. You can be damn sure that Faren-hype 9/11 (or whatever it was called) or any of the other rightwing political slanderfests took the trouble to source their statements.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I guess I don't agree. It's showmanship, not dishonesty. silly froggy, showmanship is dishonesty.
Editorials may be more commentary on the facts than they are facts, but editorials aren't lies, either. They're not fiction; they're conclusion. look, of course the documentary is largely personal opinion. that's a standard bit they tell you in basic english classes. you don't put "it's my opinion that..." or "i think..." in an essay. of course you think, and of course it's your opinion. you're writing the the essay to defend or promote your opinion. that much is granted. but this is not the same as conflating facts and opinions, or presenting opinions as facts. they are not the same thing. even if the opinion is right. this stuff about "factual information can be relayed editorials" is garbage, and you know it. it's still dishonest to present someone's opinions as a factual event reported in a newspaper. we're not even talking about a staff editorial. we're talking about a letter to the editor. as in, something written by a member of the average population, in response to something the newspaper wrote (in an editorial, btw), put in an envelope with a stamp, sent through the mail to newspaper, and published in the "opinion" section, under the heading "your views." publishing a letter to the editor as a factual statement made by a newspaper is not only dishonest, it's exactly the same as the worst kind of creationist quotemining: when someone quotes another author as saying something that they were quoting from someone else. it is misattribution of intellectual property, and makes it look like the newspaper has a view that it does not neccessarily hold. it's about like me quoting you, quoting me, as proof that you agree to what i'm saying. because, look, there's my opinion right there in your post. it's dishonest.
And it's abundantly clear in the movie that we're not looking at a real newspaper. and yet, it's presented as something the newspaper reported, not something that someone wrote into the newspaper to voice their opinion about. it doesn't matter how obviously dishonest something is. you can't say, "well, it's so obviously fake that it doesn't count." it's still a lie.
You can be damn sure that Faren-hype 9/11 (or whatever it was called) or any of the other rightwing political slanderfests took the trouble to source their statements. you're aware that about half the content of farenhype 9/11 is told from the mouth of ann coulter? personally, i like george w. bush: faith in the whitehouse, which says on the back:
quote: Edited by arachnophilia, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
but this is not the same as conflating facts and opinions, or presenting opinions as facts. they are not the same thing. even if the opinion is right. this stuff about "factual information can be relayed editorials" is garbage, and you know it. it's still dishonest to present someone's opinions as a factual event reported in a newspaper. I'm still waiting for an example where Moore did that. You're wasting your time explaining what a "lie" is, without defending the assertion that Moore did lie.
you can't say, "well, it's so obviously fake that it doesn't count." Oh, you think Peter Jackson is a liar, too? Because he made a movie about stuff that didn't happen, called "Lord of the Rings"? Seems to me that "it's obviously fake" is a pretty good defense against charges of dishonesty. Lies require the intent to deceive. Did Moore say "as reported by the Miami Herald..." (or whatever paper it was)? Or not?
publishing a letter to the editor as a factual statement made by a newspaper is not only dishonest, it's exactly the same as the worst kind of creationist quotemining: when someone quotes another author as saying something that they were quoting from someone else. it is misattribution of intellectual property, and makes it look like the newspaper has a view that it does not neccessarily hold. As I recall, Moore didn't publish the letter. He uses a two-second graphic of the title of the letter. The people who write the letters, though, don't title them. The editors of the newspaper do. So, the only copy that Moore presented in his two-second graphic bumper as being the words of the newspaper in question actually were the words of the newspaper in question. They came up with that stuff, not the author of the letter. Again, how is that a lie?
you're aware that about half the content of farenhype 9/11 is told from the mouth of ann coulter? Never seen it, but that's the first I've heard of her involvment. Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Oh, you think Peter Jackson is a liar, too? Because he made a movie about stuff that didn't happen, called "Lord of the Rings"? can you not tell the difference? we don't have a guy named "gandalf" or even "sauron" in the whitehouse. the closest thing he have to hobbits are an ancient species of hominds. no one things anything in the lord of the rings is even remotely true. compare to bio-pic movie, say the recent "walk the line." johnny cash was a real person, and so was june carter. but watching it, we know it's a fictionalized account of their lives, and not neccessarily accurate in every minute detail. we realize that artistic license has been taken. but turn on something presented as a documentary, and you don't expect the same degree of artistic freedom. you may expect that documentarian is not telling you the whole truth -- stuff has to be editted for time, and a common license is what is and what is not shown. but misrepresentation of a letter to the editor as a factual newspaper article? that's not the kind of "artistic license" you can take in a documentary.
Seems to me that "it's obviously fake" is a pretty good defense against charges of dishonesty. Lies require the intent to deceive. lies being pathetic does not make them not-lies.
Did Moore say "as reported by the Miami Herald..." (or whatever paper it was)? Or not? tell you what, i'll see if i can find that portion of the film tonight, and tell you exactly what he said.
The people who write the letters, though, don't title them. The editors of the newspaper do. So, the only copy that Moore presented in his two-second graphic bumper as being the words of the newspaper in question actually were the words of the newspaper in question. They came up with that stuff, not the author of the letter. Again, how is that a lie? as a summary of the content of the letter, not a factual account or even a representation of their opinion. it's still quotemining. if a creationist did this, would you still defend them?
Never seen it, but that's the first I've heard of her involvment. i watched it, but tried to pay very, very little attention. it's far, far less scrupulous than moore's film. frankly, it made me more than a little nauseated. Edited by arachnophilia, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6503 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote:Me to because I see this as the key feature of the idiocy and weakness of US "news" media. Moore is a liar because some conservative who did not like his opinions said so often enough that it became a part of the "official" public record. Ann Coulter is an honest, intelligent, well spoken woman because some conservative who liked her opinions (or her looks) said so often enough that it bacame a part of the "official" public record. This is something one might expect from internet chat sites which to paraphrase Jon Stewart from America the Book combines the reliability of anonymous hearsay with the joy of typing. But it is certainly not what one would expect or want from the so called professional media.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
tell you what, i'll see if i can find that portion of the film tonight, and tell you exactly what he said. That would be helpful, I think. At that time why don't we move it to one of the threads MM mentioned.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Me to because I see this as the key feature of the idiocy and weakness of US "news" media. Moore is a liar because some conservative who did not like his opinions said so often enough that it became a part of the "official" public record I'm not conservative, and I think that Moore is dishonest. He might be able to say 'its not technically lying' but he is still dishonest. If you think creationists are dishonest for quote mining, then so is Moore (a master quote miner), if you think skipping important context is dishonest, then Moore is dishonest. I believe somebody once said of Moore 'you shouldn't have to lie to tell the truth' and I pretty much agree with that sentiment. A quick example (I think from Farenheit) is Moore talking about the coffin ban in a way that would lead you to think that it was Bush Jnr's idea to ban the photos. He neglects to mention an important fact: that the ban was imposed in the first Gulf war by Bush Snr due to reactions from the Servicemen's families. He also neglected to mention that the specific directive that was used was penned by Clinton in 2000. Finally he didn't mention that the military has its own restrictions about photographs that have been in place since before either Directives. The interesting fact that Moore should have discussed was the inconsistency of applying the ban (ie when it was convenient to ignore it, it was ignored and when it was convenient to enforce it, it was enforced). Another example: After Bowling... I went away thinking that Charlon Heston was an cold hearted racist. Why did I think that? Because Moore spliced several comments by Heston together totally out of context and time from the incidents being discussed (the shootings). To me, that is dishonesty pretending to be honesty (technically no lie has been made, but good faith has been betrayed by ommision rather than by commision). Moore can (and has) weasel out of it by claiming he didn't intend for the viewer to be fooled.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3990 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
A quick example (I think from Farenheit) is Moore talking about the coffin ban in a way that would lead you to think that it was Bush Jnr's idea to ban the photos. He neglects to mention an important fact: that the ban was imposed in the first Gulf war by Bush Snr due to reactions from the Servicemen's families. No. I remember this clearly, and I watched it happen. After some feverish Advanced Googling, I've found someone else who does as well. Here's a recollection of the magic moment from journalist Pat Sloyan at digitaljournalist.com.
Bush was badly stung by the reality of warfare while president. After the 1989 American invasion of Panama - where reporters were also blocked from witnessing a short-lived slaughter in Panama City - Bush held a White House news conference to boast about the dramatic assault on the Central American leader, Gen. Manuel Noriega. Bush was chipper and wisecracking with reporters when two major networks shifted coverage to the arrival ceremony for American soldiers killed in Panama at the Air Force Base in Dover, Del. Millions of viewers watched as the network television screens were split: Bush bantering with the press while flag-draped coffers were carried off Air Force planes by honor guards. Dover was the military mortuary for troops killed while serving abroad. On Bush’s orders, the Pentagon banned future news coverage of honor guard ceremonies for the dead. The ban was continued by President Bill Clinton.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Modulous writes: No. No what? Sorry, Mod, I guess that was telegraphic to the point of obscurity. No, Bush Sr. did not ban photos of honor guard ceremonies for arriving coffins because of pressures or requests from bereaved families. He banned them because the networks showed him smirking and strutting at a news conference while coffins arrived. It is true that Clinton did not rescind the ban. He should have. Abe: Ooops. Modulous, I inadvertently edited your post instead of replying to it, and I have no idea how to undo that. Sorry about that! Edited by AdminOmni, : No reason given. Edited by AdminOmni, : Ooops.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
tell you what, i'll see if i can find that portion of the film tonight, and tell you exactly what he said. That would be helpful, I think. At that time why don't we move it to one of the threads MM mentioned. it's in the context of "how could bush get away with having fox rig the election" in the first 5 minutes of the film. the sentance out of moore's mouth while the fake article is on screen is "and even if numerous independent investigations prove that gore got the most votes" (then he goes to say that all that matters if how your daddy's friends on the supreme court vote). the pantagraph "article" is presented as a newspaper report on an independent investigation. it doesn't look egregiously fake on the video. it's presented alongside what presumably is a real newspaper article. it's dishonest for a number of a reasons, most which i presented above. but secondary to those misrepresentations of what the source is, is the fact that it's not the number of votes that matters. districting has a very large effect -- it's actually something of an undisputed fact that gore got the most votes in the 2000 election. but that's not how the presidential election is run. ie: moore is also misrepresenting the american democratic process, by oversimplifying it. now, if you can't understand how quotemining summary header in a "letters to the editor" section, and misrepresenting it as a factual newspaper report is dishonest, you can feel free to take it to one of those threads. you wouldn't stand for it if a creationist quotemined a source in this manner. step back for a second, let go of the left v. right bias, and forget that moore is making a valid point that you (and i both) think is right. lying for the right cause is not honest. it's not when creationists did it on the stand in dover, and it's not when moore does it either.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024