the headline: “Ann Coulter to audience: You’re stupider than I am”
the context: members of the audience from the party of “free speech and tolerance” wouldn’t let her speak.
the deeper context: if you refuse to debate someone on issues, they might come to the conclusion that you are too stupid to formulate any counter arguments.
what logically follows, especially with ann coulter: she will inform you of this.
STORRS, Connecticut (AP) — Conservative columnist Ann Coulter cut short a speech at the University of Connecticut amid boos and jeers, and decided to hold a question-and-answer session instead.
“I love to engage in repartee with people who are stupider than I am,” Coulter told the crowd of 2,600 Wednesday.
thepoliticalteen.net has video. this, as discussed in the comments, is a better video.
the hilarious thing is the headline CNN chose. it wasn’t, “ann coulter’s free speech stifled by enlightened liberals” or “shouting jeers $exier than actually responding to ann coulter (for democrats)“, or even “young liberals, old problem: UCONN democrats lack ability to intelligently debate ideas.”
the thing that makes the headline so stupid is that no one has any context to go on. if i read the headline without reading the article (as many people do), then i never get the context.
here is a hypothetical example that will show what i mean by contrast: if a news outlet had printed an article about hugo chavez, around the time that pat robertson called for his assassination, titled “chavez calls pat robertson a whack job,” this would be okay, because presumably everyone has heard the news about robertson calling for chavez to be “taken out.”
but without that context, when it is all so immediate as to be a single event, and the article title places blame with the person receiving the aggression, it is misleading and biased.
but i don’t think CNN gives a crap.
9 Responses to “CNN: “we picked sides a long time ago and we don’t care who notices!””
Leave a Reply
note: by commenting, you indicate that you have read and accept all-encompassingly's comment policy. please print it and keep a copy of the document in your wall safe along with your living will or advance directive.
As long as you’re pointing out the bias of CNN, should someone take the time to point out the opposite bias from FoxNews?
The Hannity & Colmes clip you provided a link to was nothing but an arrogant exchange of rhetoric between Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter. All they kept saying back and forth with each other was how liberals are in total meltdown, and how they’re falling into disillusioned puppetry, with ‘extreme leftists’ as the puppet masters; while conservatives are smart, put-together, and independent thinkers.
This kind of rhetoric just adds to the polarization of American politics, and offers nothing productive. True, CNN’s headline was stupid, but you have to look at the Foxnews interview with the same critiquing eye.
yeah, i actually only saw the first few seconds of the video because the stream wasn’t working for me.
but you have a good point. sean hannity has really annoyed me for a long time. i don’t get the sense that he is much of a “thinker,” his TV and radio interview style is annoying, and though i bought one of his books a few years ago in a moment of need at an airport, and i never got past page 20 or so. so you’re right about sean.
ann also seems to have fallen into a bit of a rut in her TV appearances, completely giving up on the customary pleasantries and politeness that people expect. her attitude on these shows is more fitting for the bar with some other political insiders than on TV. it’s probably been a while since she’s actually prepared for an interview.
at the same time, i don’t think people expect unbiased news from “hannity & colmes.” it’s a political debate show with a righty and a “lefty.” people who tune into “hannity & colmes,” know what they’re in for.
you don’t expect that type of party “shilling” going on at CNN’s website, or on a straightforward news broadcast (even at fox news!). yet this is exactly what CNN gave us. their title–and probably the whole article–would be better suited for a liberal blog somewhere. that’s what really caught caught my eye. i wonder why it didn’t catch the eye of the CNN editor.
here’s is a video without commentary: thepoliticalteen.com/video/coulterbashed.wmv
He has a hot link blocker.
What the kids at the University of Connecitcut did was stupid, and Coulter should have called them stupid.
If they can’t let her speak, and then debate her with reason and logic, then they are stupid.
I for one would be happy however to take Ann out for a ride, and drop her off somewhere between her Mein Kampf rhetoric and die neu tausand jarh reich she is so loyally helping to build.
Tell Coulter WORFEUS is here, and he is all ears.
Check out a funny site dedicated to the absurdity and satire nature of saying “It’s All George Bush’s Fault!”
http://www.iagbf.com
http://www.itsallgeorgebushsfault.com
I hope that you don’t think this is spam. I really do think that you’d appreciate a site like this since we share the same idealogy. Hopefully you like it enough to blogroll
Regards,
Notta Libb
>As long as you’re pointing out the bias of CNN, should someone take the time to point out the opposite bias from FoxNews?
You do know the difference between commentary/opinion shows and news, don’ t you? The news portion of Fox is actually very non-conservative. Unless you can point out a single biased piece of reporting. And again, by reporting, I don’t mean somebody’s opinion from a debate show, or O’Reilly’s schtick. That’s not news, and doesn’t pretend to be unbiased. Unlike CNN, NY Times, NPR, BBC, etc, etc.
Similarly, on WABC in New York, the commentators are more conservative than liberal, but when it cuts to the news (ABC News), which is supposed to be unbiased, it’s as anti-Bush as it gets.
[…] CNN: ‘we picked sides a long time ago and we don’t care who notices’ […]
[…] CNN: “we picked sides a long time ago, and we don’t care who notices — and pretty much everyone’s noticed…. […]