Ace of Spades HQ

« Media: Uranium-to-Niger Only Newsworthy When Source is Lying | Main | For Evil-Twin Garth Doug »

July 26, 2004

Must-Read: Our Unbiased Media Critiques Coulter

Amazing. You have to read the USAToday editor's ridiculous complaints about the piece.

I don't think this Coulter's best work. I don't even think it's her B-act. But that's not the point.

The point is is that this "editor" disingenuously keeps writing "I DON'T GET IT" after each and every joke. The editor either does "get it" and is lying about that, or else USAToday has joined up with the United Way in some sort of Give-a-High-Paid-Media-Career-to-a-Retard program.

Examples (Editor's, ahem, "input" in caps):

A speaker at the Democratic National Convention this year, Al Sharpton, accused white police officers of raping and defacing Tawana Brawley in 1987, lunatic charges that eventually led to a defamation lawsuit against Sharpton and even more eventually, to Sharpton paying a jury award to the defamed plaintiff Steve Pagones. So it’s a real mystery why cops wouldn’t like Democrats.

USA Today: IS THAT LAST SENTENCE SARCASTIC? IF SO, YOU SURE LOST ME.

See, Al Sharpton defamed prosecutor Steven Pagones, accusing him of kidnapping and raping Tawana Brawley. Now Sharpton is a speaker at the convention. Cops, you see, might not like that.

Is this a very complex joke? This editor sure seems easily "lost."

As for the pretty girls, I can only guess that it’s because liberal boys never try to make a move on you without the UN Security Council's approval. Plus, it’s no fun riding around in those dinky little hybrid cars. My pretty-girl allies stick out like a sore thumb amongst the corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons they call "women" at the Democratic National Convention.

USA Today: NOT FUNNY, I DON'T GET IT.

Liberal women are hairy, dykey hippie-chick pie-wagons. You may disagree with this, but I have difficulty believing that the editor doesn't "get" a stereotype of liberal bra-burners that dates from 1966.

I have a feeling that this editrix gets the joke-- only too well.

Looking at the line-up of speakers at the Convention, I have developed the 7-11 challenge: I will quit making fun of, for example, Dennis Kucinich, if he can prove he can run a 7-11 properly for 8 hours. We’ll even let him have an hour or so of preparation before we open up. Within 8 hours, the money will be gone, the store will be empty, and he’ll be explaining how three 11-year olds came in and asked for the money and he gave it to them.

USA Today: I DON'T GET IT.

The editrix doesn't "get" a complaint that liberals are bleeding-hearts and ineffectual managers. Apparently the editrix also didn't "get" the presidential elections of 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, and 1988.

I imagine the day after those Republican drubbings, she redlined the stories declaring Republicans the newly elected or re-elected Presidents, writing "HOW CAN THIS BE? I DON'T GET IT. GEORGE McGOVERN IS A VERY SMART MAN. ARE YOU BEING SARCASTIC? IF SO, YOU SURE LOST ME."

I’d say I love all these Democrats in Boston so much I want them to go home, but I don’t. I want Americans to get a good long look at the French Party and keep the 7-11 challenge in mind.

USA Today: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "THE FRENCH PARTY"? I DON'T GET IT.

Our editrix proves herself to be truly cosmopolitan and up with current events here. Apparently she hasn't noticed the affinity between Jacques Chirac and John Forbes Kerry.

I ask you: Is it conceivable that the editrix didn't "get" those third-grade-level (sorry, Ann) jokes?

Or is it more likely that this yet another example of the liberal media objecting to a story or an analysis based on political affintiy, and yet refusing to forthrightly admit the political nature of the disagreement?

Her real problem? She disagrees with Coulter. Coulter has committed the journalistic offense of writing something a liberal media-type disagrees with.

She "gets" the jokes. She just doesn't think they're fair. She doesn't think they're funny, in the same sense that getting pegged in nards by bocce ball might be funny to others, but it won't be very funny to you.

Of course, Michael Moore will be performing the same service at the Republican convention. As Human Events notes, it's a pretty fair bet that USAToday won't need his jokes explained to them. They'll not only get those jokes, they'll be telling their friends about them for a week afterwards.

And needless to say, his columns will make it into print with minimal editorial changes.

You won't see any "I DON'T GET IT"'s or "IS THIS SARCASTIC?" there.

No, the only comments there will be "DYNAMITE! EXPAND THIS THOUGHT!" or "DON'T YOU THINK WE CAN GO TO THE BUSH=CHIMP WELL ONE MORE TIME?!"

Update: Michelle Malkin comments.

posted by Ace at 11:13 PM

Comments

I was thinking Coulter made up those comments as a joke.

Posted by: Golden Boy on July 26, 2004 11:42 PM

"I was thinking Coulter made up those comments as a joke."

USA Today: IS THAT SENTENCE SARCASTIC? IF SO, YOU SURE LOST ME.

Seriously though, a few years ago and I would think the same thing, but seeing how the press is acting the past two years...

Most of the mainstream press wants to paint John Kerry and the Democrat party in the best light possible, so I wouldn't be surprised if the press tried to limit the attacks on their party, especially the stereotypes. I'm sure Michael Moore's coverage of the RNC will be chock full of conspiracy theories and attacks though.

Posted by: on July 26, 2004 11:56 PM

Ace,

I read the Coulter piece as linked by Drudge.

I was shocked by how angry it was, especially the description of women as pie wagons.

No, it was not a great article, it may not have even been a good article. The decision as to whether or not to run it, had little to do with the editor "not getting it". Oh the editor got it all right, right between the eyes.

It's like hiring El Rushbo to do football color. Rush is a tireless self promotor (ala Howard Stern) who has a dedicated audience, and like him or not, he generates publicity by being obnoxious and controversial (well, some may say this to be true). Disney took a chance on hiring him to garner ratings (read make money), but then got scared when he did what they paid him to do, shoot off his big mouth.

So too, USA Today in hiring Ann Coulter and Jabba the Hut (or is Hutt?). To spike the column because they got scared is lame. To allow Jabba to spew his lies and invective sans restraint, will be yet another sad, no maddening example, of the bias of the MSM.

Now it may come to pass that they will let Ann back into the sandbox if she promises to behave, or they may disinvite the Leni-wannabe. We will have to wait and see.

But in every likelihood, Coulter will remain dropped from the roster, thus sparing the feelings of those who chant "Anyone but Bush!"

Posted by: MeTooThen on July 27, 2004 12:05 AM

You're right: that was a really weak column. Maybe her stock of inventive invective is getting sparse?

Posted by: The Sanity Inspector on July 27, 2004 12:07 AM

They hire a woman whose entire schtick is attacking liberals, and then they don't like it when she attacks liberals? What did they expect from Ann Coulter?

Posted by: Moonbat_One on July 27, 2004 12:23 AM

Where can I get in touch with that United Way program?

Posted by: See Dubya on July 27, 2004 12:33 AM

I DON'T GET IT.

Posted by: ace on July 27, 2004 12:42 AM

You can be sure USA Today will "get it" when France's 2nd favorite American [Fatso] pens his guest columns about the RNC for USA Today.

I also was unsure if she was making up those comments. If not...wow...

Posted by: Mark on July 27, 2004 12:49 AM

Oh, wasn't there a guy in Big, the Tom Hanks movie, who just sat there and said "I don't get it" during Tom Hanks's presentation, just to be an ass?

This transcript reminded me of that. It also reminded me of some MS-DOS text adventure from 1982:

"Liberals are buffoons".
I don't think I get it.
"Liberal women are putrid sows."
Hmm. I don't see where that's...
"You suck."
Was that sarcasm? I'm not sure...
"You're an idiot!"
I don't get it.
"Liberal men are daisy-fondling sissyboys."
Hmm...was this humor? Rework.
"Bite me"
How do you want to bite the me?
"Get stuffed."
I don't see a stuffed here.

Posted by: See Dubya on July 27, 2004 01:16 AM

OT:

Master Stroke

You'll see what I mean in the morning.

Posted by: MeTooThen on July 27, 2004 01:21 AM

MeTooThen:

I DON'T GET IT.

Just kidding. Thanks for the tip. Unbelievable.

Posted by: ace on July 27, 2004 02:45 AM

I think you guys are out of your heads to suggest she made up those comments.

You're saying she made them up, then passed them on to Human Events as real?

That would be career suicide. She'd be a liar, and I would never cite her again. (I might read her, if someone directed me to a good column, but I'd never lower myself to cite someone who'd lie like that.)

And Human Events would have to be in on the lie.

You may mean she made up the comments for humorous effect, to which I say: Nonsense. You can only "make up" stuff like that when it is blatantly clear that you are making it all up; it is the very fact that what you are saying is so plainly false, and plainly false by design, that saves you from a charge of dishonesty.

These comments are not even close to being in the over-the-top category that would signal "Just funnin' around here, boys." Not even in the ballpark. Not even in the parking lot to the ballpark. Not even at the butcher's buying sausages to barbecue in the parking lot at the ballpark.

Either she's deliberately lying or they're real. I have no idea why everyone would be so quick to assume the latter.

Posted by: ace on July 27, 2004 02:57 AM

I thought the column was funny. I was laughing pretty hard while reading it.

Posted by: addison on July 27, 2004 06:16 PM

Amazon.com Widgets

Now Available!
The Deplorable Gourmet
A Horde-sourced Cookbook
[All profits go to charity]

Top Headlines

"It's f**king f**ked."
-- reportedly a genuine comment offered by a "senior Labour source"
Correction: I wrote that Labour is losing 88% (now 87%) of the seats it is "defending." I think that's wrong. The right way to say it is the seats they are contesting -- that is, they don't necessarily already hold these seats, but they have put up a candidate to run for the seat. It's still very bad but not as bad as losing 87% of the seats they already held.

Basil the Great
@BasilTheGreat

🚨ED MILIBAND [a Minister in Starmer's government] SAYS KEIR STARMER WILL RESIGN AS PRIME MINISTER

He has reportedly reassured Labour MP's that Starmer will be resigning following the disastrous results tonight

It's over

"The end of the two party system in the UK" as first the Fake Conservatives and now Labour chooses political suicide rather than simply STOPPING THE INVASION
Incidentally, the only reason this didn't already happen in the US is because of the Very Bad Orange Man (who is right on 85% of all policy calls and extremely, existentially right on 15% of them)

No political party that is NOT also a doomsday religious cult would EVER choose a cataclysmic loss -- and possible extinction as a party -- to support a toxically unpopular favoritism of NON-CITIZEN ILLEGAL MIGRANTS over actual citizen voters.

Only a cult does this.

Now they've lost 84%.

Annunziata Rees-Mogg
@zatzi
If this continues Labour loses 2,148 seats tonight.

That is much worse than the worst case predictions I’ve seen.

Cataclysmic

Update: They've now lost 88% of the seats they're defending. As I mentioned earlier, I think I heard that London will not bail them out, as many of those Labour seats will probably flip to "Muslim Independent" or Green. Detroit's 5am vote will not save them.

Yup, Labour is losing 80% of its seats...

The British Patriot
@TheBritLad

🚨 BREAKING: Labour have lost 80% of all seats contested as of 2:25 AM.<
br> If this continues, Keir Starmer will be out of office next week.

Reform has surged and projected to pick up between 1700-2100 seats.

Wow, up to 1700-2100 seats. It's not incredible that this is happening. It's incredible that the Davos crowd is so absolutely determined to privilege Muslim "migrants" over the actual native population who elects them, no matter how loudly the natives scream that they want to be prioritized, that they will gladly self-extinguish as a party rather than simply representing the interests of their own voters. Astonishing.
Remember, when they call other people "cultists" -- they are the ones so imprisoned in their social reinforcement and discipline bubbles that they will choose political death rather than dare upset the Karen Enforcement Officers of their cult.
Update: Now they've lost 83% of the seats they were defending.

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges

Reform are basically wiping Labour out in the North. It's not a defeat. It's not even a rout. Labour are simply ceasing to exist.

Nick Lowles
@lowles_nick

Tonight’s results are calamitous for Labour. Not just for Keir Starmer's leadership, but for the very future of the party

STARMERGEDDON: In early returns, Reform gains 135 seats, Labour loses 90, the Fake Conservatives lose 36 (and I didn't even know they could fall any further), the Lib Dems lose 4, and the Greens gain 6. Note that the only other party gaining seats is the Greens and they're only gaining a handful of seats.
Update: Reform now up 145, Labour down 98.
Labour projected to lose Wales -- where they've ruled for 27 years.
Fulton County Georgia just discovered 400 boxes of ballots for Labour
Update: REF +156, LAB -107, CON -45
Brutal: In four out of five council seats where Labour is defending, they've lost. 80%.
I'm sure it's not this simple, but Reform is straight taking Labour's and the "Conservatives'" seats. They've lost almost exactly what Reform gained. If understand this right (and warning, I probably don't), all of London's council seats are up for election, and Labour might lose hugely there, as their old voters abandon them for Reform, Muslim Indenpendents, and the Greens.
REF +190, LAB -134, CON -56.

Updates on the Labour collapse in council elections -- which wags are calling #Starmergeddon -- from Beege Welborne. There are about 5000 seats up for grabs, Labour is expected to lose 1,800, Reform will probably gain 1,580, up from... zero. So this would be more than that.
People claim that while Labour has adopted the Sharia Agenda to appeal to the million Muslims it allowed to migrate to the country, those voters are ditching Labour to vote for the Muslim Independent Party or the Greens. Delicious. This shadenfreude is going straight to my thighs.
Oh, and if Starmer loses about as badly as expected, Labour will toss him out of a window Braveheart style and replace him. He will announce he is resigning to spend more time with his Gay Ukrainian Male Prostitutes.

Media bias and senationalism are as old as, well, the media:

That was written by Denny O'Neill and illustrated by, get this, Frank Miller. Editor to the Stars Jim Shooter was in charge at the time.
I always thought the gag was original to the comic book, but in fact the "Threat or Menace" headline was a satirical joke about media bias and sensationalism for a long while. The Harvard Lampoon used it in a parody of Life magazine: "Flying Saucers: Threat or Menace?"

Hamas is Humiliating Trump's 'Board of Peace'
[Hat Tip: TC] [CBD]

Tucker Carlson is pretty sure Trump is a wizard

Ted Turner Dies At 87 [CBD]

Podcast: Starting a new season, CBD and Sefton discuss their personal journeys to conservative principles, is Nick Shirley the beginning of a trend?, Iran trying to reignite the war, the Left attacks itself, even on "Best Guitarist" lists, and more!

TJM definitively ranks the films of Billy Wilder, like Some Like It Hot

TJM talks about Billy Wilder

Democrat Congresswoman Sara Jacobs cites Me-Again Kelly, Cavernous Nostrils, Alex Jones and Tuq'r Qarlson as proof that concerns about Trump's mental health are "bipartisan"
As Bonchie from Red State says: Know the op when you see it.

Leftists who have been drawing Frankendistricts for decades are suddenly upset about Republican line-drawing
Socialist usurper Obama cut commercials urging Virginians to vote for the bizarre "lobster" gerrymander -- but now says gerrymanders are so racist you guys
Obama is complaining about the new Louisiana map -- but here's the thing, the new map has much more compact and rational borders than the old racial gerrymander map
Pete Bootyjudge is whining too. But here's the Illinois gerrymander he supports.

Big Bonus! Under the new Florida congressional map, Debbie Wasserman Schultz will probably lose her seat
And she can't even go on The View because she's ugly a clump of stranger's hair in the bath-drain

Podcast: CBD and Sefton Charge the Democrats with fomenting violence against the nation with their rhetoric, Virginia redistricting going down the tubes? Trump's bully pulpit is not censorship, Lee Zeldin is a star, J.B. Pritzker is an idiot, and more!