
As I consciously avoid paying attention to Ann Coulter, I hadn't heard about her scrum with Ottawa University until attending a terrific panel discussion featuring Sheila Kennedy and Erin Rosenberg last Thursday at Butler University (GO BULLDOGS!) entitled "Rights and Wrongs: Achieving Civil Discourse."
Coulter was invited by a conservative student union to speak on campus, and a protest wave ensued. The Vice-President of the University even e-mailed Coulter to remind her, in the words of the Huffington Post, "to watch her mouth."
The short version is that Coulter was told that Canada lacks the same defamation protections as America, and further, has criminalized "hate speech."
Coulter spun the e-mail as Ottawa University creating a "climate of hate." (Kudos to Coulter for acknowledging for the first time that humans can adversely affect a climate!) Student protestors by the hundreds appeared and shouted Coulter down and, ultimately, the lecture did not go forward.
Coulter and Fox News made it sound like some liberal gestapo shut down the event, though the Vancouver Sun reports that the conservative organizers told campus security the event wouldn't go forward because of "safety concerns."
Ahh, to be young, idealistic, revved up, and so utterly stupid again!
Apparently, it's time for Professor iPOPA to teach the young whipper snappers a thing or two about public relations in politics.
First, the media loves controversy, and Ann Coulter IS media.
Second, controversy can't happen if only one side plays the game.
Third, somebody who does professional media for a living will almost always outspin you and make you look like a complete jackass.
Let's think this through.
Fifteen hundred kids spent who knows how many hours organizing protests, spreading "the word" to stop Coulter from speaking hers, and actually took their evening off to chant, "Ann, go home!" Why? Because they said you wanted to ensure their University was not a discriminatory place.
But you know what they actually did?
They made Ann Coulter a First Amendment hero, they proved everything she says about how "tolerance" toward other ideas is a one-way vehicle for "liberals," they gave their own University and country a huge black eye, and they deprived some independent-minded people who didn't know Coulter of the opportunity for her to say something insensitive that might prompt them to conclude on their own that she's a vapid, intellectual-bereft puff pastry.
Dr. Phil gets mocked, but he asks this great question: "Do you want to be right, or do you want to do what works?"
Here, some college students wanted so desperately to be part of some morally superior ("right") direct-action tactic, they got completely owned.
Any college kids thinking about leading a similar protest against a speaker, please remember that if you must make yourself part of the story (which you'll admit if you're objective is a bit self-indulgent because it's about you), make these your actions:
(1) don't protest the coming of the speaker;
(2) don't go;
(3) take your 1,500 people and on the same night and time, build houses for Habitat for Humanity or engage in some other philanthropic venture that supports multiculturalism; and
(4) issue a brief statement saying, "While Ann Coulter is tearing down our neighbors, we are building together."
Seriously, do you realize how many collective hours you wasted (that could have been spent constructively) just so Ann Coulter can tell this story of liberal persecution in her next book?
I don't want to be too hard on the students because they are not alone. Every time a klan or skinhead rally is announced, everybody wants to do a counter-protest. Do you know that nobody covers six klansmen walking down the street, except ironically? It's only when somebody plans a counter-protest that the media will cover the story because you've given it "balance." (I promise you there are news editors praying somebody will organize a counter-protest in every instance).
But try telling people who love to be in front of cameras and microphones and who covet having their followers see them as "action-oriented" that the best play is not to play at all. Some are so blinded by the spotlight, they don't realize that they put the klansmen in it with them.
In other words, to paraphrase that classic philosophical connundrum, "If an Ann Coulter appears in an auditorium but nobody is there to hear her fall, does it make a sound?"
Not a notable one, unless you foolishly amplify her.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Misguided Canadian Students and Their Foolish Fear of Ann Coulter
Monday, September 29, 2008
Conservatives Admit Palin is Shaky, but Fox Hides the Evidence
You often hear how Obama and his supporters mysteriously make negative news disappear from the internet. Apparently, they are not alone. Below is a story that used to be on Fox News. It's gone now, and I know why. Fox doesn't want you to know that it's not just George Will saying Sarah Palin has "negligible experience" now. In fact, if all the Republicans who haven't drank the Kool-Aid could speak without fear of damaging the ticket, they'd tell you what they now know: Sarah Palin is a twit.
John McCain isn't, and we're not voting for VP, right? So why care? First, Senator McCain belied everything appealing about himself when he picked Palin for political reasons. Good judgment? Out the window. "Country First?" Out the window. But more importantly, even holding the view I do that McCain is in fine physical and mental shape (it's not "advancing age" that makes him "unsmooth"; he's always been that way), I'm can't shake "what if..."
In my lifetime, I cannot think of anybody vying for the VP role, except for Sarah Palin and Admiral Stockdale, who actually terrified me. Any public figure can recreate or improve a public image, so Palin can still shock the world, but so far, she has been a vacuous soundbite spitter who believes the more emphatically you say something, the truer it is.
In fact, SHE would be more like the third Bush term than McCain could ever be. If she gets into the White House, it will be more "from the gut/ignore countervailing facts" governance. And, in accepting the VP role, Palin showed she has no ability to assess when she's in over her head. That's a terrifying prospect in an international crisis.
I predict that Americans will tune into the VP debate this Thursday in greater numbers than the first presidential debate. Many of those will be driven by schadenfreude ("enjoyment from the misfortune of others") because they anticipate Palin being "deer in headlights." That won't happen, but Palin and the McCain apparatus has gone into overdrive to downplay expectations just in case.
Palin seemed to take glee in emphasizing Biden's age (65), saying it will be "quite a task" going against a "great debater" who was first elected when she was in second grade who has been (in Washington) a "long, long, long" time. (I'm not making that up. It was like Palin was struggling to get to 500 words on a high school essay).
I understand downplaying expectations as a political tactic for election results, but I don't understand it here. It's as if Palin thinks the reason she might get beat is because she didn't take debate in college and hasn't had decades to absorb sound bites by osmosis, not because she'll be revealed as knowing nothing on most national issues.
Respectfully, if a candidate can't sell the American public on the idea she knows what she's doing, how will she sell world leaders?
Anyway, here's your phantom story:
Conservatives Begin Questioning Palin’s Heft by Associated Press Sunday, September 28, 2008 http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/28/conservatives-begin-questioni...
A growing number of Republicans are expressing concern about Sarah Palin’s uneven - and sometimes downright awkward - performances in her limited media appearances.
Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, a former Palin supporter, says the vice presidential nominee should step aside. Kathryn Jean Lopez, writing for the conservative National Review, says “that’s not a crazy suggestion” and that “something’s gotta change.”
Tony Fabrizio, a GOP strategist, says Palin’s recent CBS appearance isn’t disqualifying but is certainly alarming. “You can’t continue to have interviews like that and not take on water.”
“I have not been blown away by the interviews from her, but at the same time, I haven’t come away from them thinking she doesn’t know s- t,” said Chris Lacivita, a GOP strategist. “But she ain’t Dick Cheney, nor Joe Biden and definitely not Hillary Clinton.”
There is no doubt that Palin retains a tremendous amount of support among rank-and-file Republicans. She draws huge crowds, continues to raise a lot of money for the McCain campaign, and state parties report she has sparked an uptick in the number of volunteers.
Asked about Palin’s performance in the CBS interview, a McCain official briefing reporters on condition of anonymity said: “She did fine. She’s a tremendous asset and a fantastic candidate.”
But there is also no doubt many Republican insiders are worried she could blow next week’s debate, based on her unexpectedly weak and unsteady media appearances, and hurt the Republican ticket if she does.
What follows is a viewer’s guide to some of Palin’s toughest moments on camera so far.
Speaking this week with CBS’s Katie Couric, Palin seemed caught off- guard by a very predictable question about the status of McCain adviser Rick Davis’ relationship with mortgage lender Freddie Mac. Davis was accused by several news outlets of retaining ties - and profiting from - the companies despite his denials.
Where a more experienced politician might have been able to brush off Couric’s follow-up question, Palin seemed genuinely stumped, repeating the same answer twice and resorting to boilerplate language about the “undue influence of lobbyists.”
These missteps could be attributed to inadequate preparation and don’t necessarily reflect more deeply on Palin’s ability to perform as vice president. But when reporters have tried to probe Palin’s thinking on subjects such as foreign policy, she’s been similarly opaque.
In an interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson, Palin gave a muddled answer to a question about her opinion of the Bush Doctrine. And given the chance to describe her foreign policy credentials more fully, Palin recited familiar talking points, telling Gibson that her experience with energy policy was sufficient preparation for dealing with national security issues.
In the same interview, Palin let Gibson lead her into saying it might be necessary to wage war on Russia - a suggestion that most candidates would have avoided making explicitly and that signaled her discomfort in discussing global affairs.
Then, asked this week by Couric to discuss her knowledge of foreign relations - in particular, her assertion that Alaska’s proximity to Russia gave her international experience - Palin tripped herself up explaining her interactions with Alaska’s neighbor to the west. Watch CBS Videos Online
On the economy, too, Palin has avoided taking clear stances. In a largely friendly interview with Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity, Palin spoke in tangled generalities in response to a question about a possible Wall Street bailout - and even preempted her campaign by coming out against it.
On Thursday, Palin finally took questions from her traveling press - but shut things down quickly after Politico’s Kenneth P. Vogel asked her whether she would support Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, who has been indicted for corruption, and Rep. Don Young, who is under federal investigation, for reelection.
Unlike her other interviews, at least this time Palin had the option to walk away.
Conservatives Admit Palin is Shaky, but Fox Hides the Evidence
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Fox News Makes Change: Viewers Pray To God It's Just Started
The Fox News anchor who churned the idea that the Obama did a "terrorist fist jab" with his wife even though there was no basis for the comment in her story has been taken off the air. One might say, "Wow. Fox is being responsible?!?!" Let's not get crazy, okay. She's still on staff, and the producer on the segment wasn't demoted or punished in any.
In addition, Fox News ran a graphic that referred to Michelle Obama as "Obama's Baby Mama."
Putting aside FOR NOW that I find the phrase "baby mama" inherently offensive because it legitimizes illegitimacy, I'll offer this gem of advice:
"IF you are relatively certain that someone from your ethnic group did not coin the phrase, you miiiight want to investigate how that phrase is perceived by those who did."
Or, if you're somebody who doesn't have any "best friends who are black," at least check the Urban Dictionary, for crying out loud.
"Baby mama" is no compliment, as it refers generally to:
(a) single mother who slept with someone without establishing any real relationship; and
(b) often refers to a woman who is a gold-digger who is using the baby as a means to financial well-being.
Using "baby mama" to describe a professional, independent woman whose children were born in an intact marriage, such as Michelle Obama, is as insulting as calling a nun a "slut."
This is what happens when an organization is more concerned about trying to be "hip" then giving "fair and balanced" news. They end up giving neither.
What's next, Fox? "Outraged Liberals: Quit Dissin' Our Homey, ya fake-@ss bustas!"
Fox News Makes Change: Viewers Pray To God It's Just Started
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
How Stupid Does Fox News Think America Is?
Fox has managed to take a sweet and intimate gesture between the Obamas and sensationalize it in the most ludicrous way imaginable.
Listen closely as the newscaster questions what you should call it when the Obama’s touch closed hands together:
“A fist bump? A pound? A terrorist fist jab?!?”
A WHAT?!?!?
Yes, you heard this right. The newscaster suggests that SOMEBODY out there has equated this gesture to something TERRORIST!!! But the funny thing is, other than in her introduction, you NEVER hear any reference to terrorists or terrorism by anybody. In other words, we have what is called a "dangling lead" because there is NOTHING underneath in the story to support it.
Way to go, Fox! You should change your slogan from “Fair and Balanced” to “Dumbing down America One Newscast at a Time.”
Fox is not alone though. The Bob and Tom Show devoted a half hour to this same subject yesterday, begging the question, “Why?” I know he’s funny, but only someone so unrepentantly un-hip as Tom Griswold could find the Obamas’ gesture unusual or noteworthy in any respect.
This is, of course, UNLESS you are trying to imbed an image in people’s mind of something nefarious done by Barack HUSSEIN Obama…even when there’s NOTHING there.
FOX knows truth won’t matter because it knows the insinuation plays into SOME white people’s paranoia. I promise you when the “terrorist fist jab” allegation doesn’t stick, you’ll see blogs in the next week that say the Obamas exchanged some kind of “black power” symbol.
If you buy into any of this, please turn in your voter registration card because you’re clearly too stupid to vote.
How Stupid Does Fox News Think America Is?
