Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 266:
Line 266: + + + + +
→Jersey girls: How to write about this
Would you like to write something about the way Coulter attracts attention to her message with sarcasm and insults? The JG and JE cracks certainly look typical. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:01, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
Would you like to write something about the way Coulter attracts attention to her message with sarcasm and insults? The JG and JE cracks certainly look typical. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:01, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
*A member of the Sept. 11 commission ... lashed out at ... Coulter for a "hate-filled attack" in saying the widows whose husbands died in the World Trade Center used the deaths for their own political gain. [http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-06-09-coulter-roemer_x.htm]
Even though this is a completely one-side article which amounts to a personal attack on Coulter, we can cite it - if we investigate the context of Coulter's remarks. Was she just ''saying'' that the widows used the deaths for their own political gain, or did she offer any grounds for saying this?
An even more interesting question, of course, if whether she ''only'' responded to the widows' political remarks or requests with an attack - or whether she had counterargments. If the press only reported her "insult" then the real story is how one-sided the press is. Are AP, Washington Post, USA Today, et al. dominated by Democratic [[partisan]]ship or are they known to be utterly objective or even neutral? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:15, 18 May 2007 (EDT)