Banning Ann

Here is a great Article on the media and their hatred for Ann Coulter yet their love for anything Liberal:

I still don’t quite understand why she is so demonized yet Liberals who do the exact same thing are either untouched or hit with softballs.


Tags: , ,

17 Responses to “Banning Ann”

  1. Politics & Culture Says:

    This is one area where Elrod’s hypocrisy is really on display. He doesn’t allow Coulter’s name to be mentioned on his site (she must be referred to as “she who will not be named”, or something idiotic like that) and yet, he links to and quotes from The Daily Kos,, Keith Olberman, etc.

  2. Gwen Stacey Says:

    Her new book really encapsulates what the staff at the Moratorium site have been saying for so long: The media is just so over the top in the tank for the Liberals it’s not even funny anymore. We can debate and argue all day long about what Liberals did this or that Republicans did the same thing but at the end of the day, it’s how it’s reported that makes the difference.

  3. Jonathan Says:

    First, I’ll register one more time how lame I think it is for the Brothers $1@+3r to incessantly reference how hypocritical (“feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not,” like an ancient Greek actor on stage hiding behind a mask) Elrod is from the comfort of their own pseudonym masks (P&C and Roland) on blogs that are clearly as biased as Elrod’s. Let he who is without hypocrisy cast the first zinger!

    Second, I wonder how much actual difference “how it’s reported” makes. In a situation where there are few news sources or when news is tightly controlled, then no doubt it’s a huge issue. In our situation, when there are so many news sources (especially online), it seems like anyone who wants to be be informed (according to whatever bias is their preference) does so pretty easily.

  4. Politics & Culture Says:

    Jon — you could make that charge IF I did not allow certain comments, or certain people to be quoted, etc. At P&C, the only comments that are moderated are spam and those that contain over-the-top profanity. If someone wants to quote Olberman or Franken, they are free to do that.

    The fact is, Ann Coulter is very smart and very creative in her criticism of Democrats, and IMO, it makes people like Elrod uncomfortable to have their views slapped down in that way. So he just made sure that didn’t happen.

    I remember all the hand-wringing and self-righteous pontificating that took place at Elrod’s blog when one of his disciples had his ears boxed (verbally) by Sean Hannity during a Q&A session at HU.

  5. Gwen Stacey Says:

    Jonathan, you are correct in that there is much more freedom of information out there now with cable news, the internet and such however, except for the internet, 90% of the media outlets are left leaning and, unfortunately, not everyone avails him/herself to different sources. With the Democrats trying to bring back the fairness doctrine, many of those other voices may soon be quieted.

    I think a perfect example of this is that we know more about the daughter of Sarah Palin than we do about the connections that Obama has with convicted terrorists. In fact, on the Scarbrough show last week, he had some media types with him and he discussed this very point and when they disagreed he asked them if Obama had any connection with the campain of Governor Blagojevich in 2002. They didn’t know. Fact is, he helped run it. Where was their investigative journalism? Why is it not the same?

  6. Roland Says:

    For about the hundredth time to YOU Jon, we NEVER said this site is not biased. Please, show me where the hypocrisy is on this site in connection to banned comments.

  7. Chad Green Says:

    Jonathan, do you think the Fairness Doctrine is a good thing?

    Oh, and Ann Coulter Rocks!

    I’m just sayin’

  8. Jonathan Says:

    I think the fairness doctrine is not particularly good or bad (assuming it isn’t abused, a big assumption). More importantly, it is unnecessary. Obama doesn’t support reinstating it. It ain’t coming back.

    About the other subject…all of us are free to tailor and run and bias our personal blogs however we please. Some are public, some are private. Some allow comments, some don’t. Some moderate comments for content, and some don’t. Some have a strong liberal slant, others (few) are balanced, others have a strong conservative slant. Each blogger makes those choices according to her goals and preferences for the blog. No blog is particularly superior to another just because they are different in terms of those characteristics. I understand you don’t like Elrod. I understand that you’re mad that he doesn’t allow your participation on his blog. You understand that I think it’s sad and lame that you feel the need to take pot-shots at him in every other post or comment. I hereby pledge to try to restrain myself from whining about your future whines about Elrod.

  9. Gwen Stacey Says:

    If enough in Congress wants it, the Fairness doctrine will be back. The sad thing is that it’s so unconstitional it’s not even funny but, that’s another point.

  10. Jonathan Says:


    Back when audio and video content providers were limited to the use of the limited public broadcast spectrum while only paying a nominal fee for the license, it wasn’t unreasonable for the public to expect to receive some minimum level of service in exchange for those licenses to use the public spectrum. These days you have satellite radio, internet radio, satellite video, cable video, internet video, etc. and the licenses are generally offered by spectrum auctions..numerous methods of communication are available that are not dependent on a broadcast license and so wouldn’t be subject to a fairness doctrine anyway. The courts have considered it constitutional because it applied to licensees of the limited broadcast spectrum and because it’s intent was to enhance speech, not to limit it. If it were to be resurrected and used to limit speech, it wouldn’t survive because it’s been superseded by advances in communication technology and would violate the 1st amendment.

    Remember this thread so Roland can rub it in my face if I’m wrong, but I’ll make the same prediction about the fairness doctrine that I’ll make about that other bogeyman, the Freedom of Choice Act…President Obama will not sign either.

  11. Jonathan Says:


    Maybe I was wrong, but I think that this statement can be fairly interpreted as a claim of some unbiased objectivity:

    I welcome you to take a look at my past posts. I have often ripped on Bush, McCain and other so called “Conservatives” who are nothing of the sort.

    which prompted my little research project last month.

  12. Gwen Stacey Says:

    Jonathan, the issue with the Fairness Doctrine is that it considers the “airwaves” as belonging to the public and, thus, should be regulated. Anyone with any sense knows that had broadcasting been around at the founding of this nations, the Founders would have applied the same rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press to it. Back then, how did people, like Thomas Paine, get his ideas across? By pamphlets or, the press. They went to great lengths to make sure that was protected. Shouldn’t we expect the same today when ideas are expressed thru radio/tv and the like?

  13. Politics & Culture Says:

    Jon —

    I hope you’re right about the Freedom of Choice Act, but I am not optimistic. Everything in Obama’s past shows that he cares very little about protecting the unborn.

    What makes you think he won’t sign it?

  14. Jonathan Says:


    It’s not a matter or considering…it’s a fact that the airwaves are owned by the public and must be regulated. Otherwise, anyone could broadcast anything on any frequency and and the interference would mean that nothing work. Because the available spectrum limits the number of “channels”, the fairness doctrine ensured that no single point of view could use it’s bully pulpit while the opposition had no access. Technology has made those limitations largely irrelevant and, therefore, the fairness doctrine is too.


    It’s probably a bit of wishful thinking but also I don’t think he’ll sign it (or equivalently will discourage Congress from ever putting it on his desk) because it would be too divisive. As you must have noticed from his appointments so far, he appears to be placing a premium on taking the middle road rather than polarization.

  15. Gwen Stacey Says:

    Jonathan, that is true but:
    1. It never happened
    2. Even after the FD was stopped in the late 80’s, long before any of the technology that you are referring to, one side never monopolized the airwaves. That is the beauty of Capitalism.
    3. Even if that was the case, the whole way the FD was written and the way it was originally implemented was to do, in fact, just what you are talking about – making sure that only one point or no counter point is heard.

    Anyway, I will jump to the other point that you all are talking about – it’s not just about if Obama would sign it or not, it’s about the fact that members of congress are pushing for it. That should be disgusting enough. As we all saw with Campagin Finance Reform, Conservatives said the President would never sign it…and he did.

  16. Roland Says:

    Jon, I’m not going to “rub it in your fact” when you’re wrong. That would be too time consuming since you are wrong most of the time. lol.

    Gwen, good point on the CFR bill. One of the many failures of the Bush administration.

  17. Jonathan Says:

    If you even try to touch my “fact” I’ll sue!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: