Well, it's no secret that Ann Coulter hates the New York Times. You have to sort of expect that. And so naturally she's overjoyed at the Blair fiasco. And she trots out the normal hobby horses that all conservatives are trotting out. For example, this proves that affirmative action fails, and should be abandoned. And the canard that "If mismanagement at Enron had been this clear-cut, the Times would be demanding the death penalty for Ken Lay." Of course, you can't expect the relatively privileged Ms. Coulter to understand the difference between thousands of people losing their life savings and their jobs, and a few stories at the Times being false.
What strikes me about Ms. Coulter's piece is it's viciousness. She talks about "Soviet Style Reporting." She calls both Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman liars (Her accusation against Krugman is particularly bizarre. Apparently he's a liar because he wrote articles predicting a quagmire in Iraq. Does she claim that anybody who's prediction turns out to be wrong is a liar?). And she states, "As this episode shows, the Times is not even attempting to preserve a reliable record of events. Instead of being a record of history, the Times is merely a "record" of what liberals would like history to be . . ."
Nothing like kicking someone when they are down, is there, Ms. Coulter?
Of course Ms. Coulter's own work has proven somewhat factually challenged, but I'm not going to call Ms. Coulter a liar. That's not my way.
No comments:
Post a Comment