Slander

Rating:
Summary: Good book; nothing new but the details.
Review: Unfortunately, the only thing I learned from this book was details about what I already knew. Anyone looking at the media and politics with an objective view can see that liberals, in general, would rather launch an attack based on falsehood and/or emotion, than debate truth.

Coulter identifies many of the lies used by the media and liberal politicans to taint the public's (aka VOTERS) views of "conservatives." The book is almost a non-stop recital of comments made by various pundits and politicians. It has also served to enforce my belief that the greatest modern dangers to our Republic are CNN, CBS, ABC, and NBC.

Indeed, Coulter seems to have little love for liberals. In the last line of the book, she describes them as "savagely cruel bigots who hate ordinary Americans and lie for sport." While I'd have to agree that that probably describes liberal POLITICANS, I don't consider that an accurate portrayal of the "middle-class liberal," who is usually simply deceived or confused.

What was a little depressing about this book was Coulter did a fantastic job pointing out the problems, but at the end of the book she presented no solution! (Is there one?)

What REALLY surprised me (though in hindsight it shouldn't have) are the invective reviews posted here by (of course) obvious liberals. They serve to prove Coulter's thesis: if you can't argue against the truth, attack the source, change the subject, and above all: deny, deny, deny.

If you like "liberal bashing," you'll probably enjoy this book. On the other hand, if you ARE a liberal, save your money and buy a Sunday newspaper for a few weeks. At least you'll enjoy the comics.

Rating:
Summary: One star far too generous
Review: Bought this book and I wish I could warn potential buyers with negative stars. One is the lowest I can give it and that is way more than it deserves.

While I don't dispute that media has a liberal bias (They depend on the First Ammendment -- they need all the leway they can get), Ms. Coulter does not do her party justice for anyone who can recognize a well constructed and persuasive argument. I was shocked at how poorly this author worked through her arguments, as well as beat many a dead horse. (Several chapters were simply rehashings of previous chapters) While I don't disagree with many of the concepts Coulter attempts to examine, I felt like her argument was the literary equivalent of a temper tantrum; lots of bluster and fuss but nothing presented in a rational manner.

Two major problems I had with the book in general is that Coulter resorts to the acid-tongued snideness and name calling she accuses liberals of spouting. She also theorizes that Clinton's crimes were WORSE than Nixon's; an argument that sounds preposterous as it is laid out in her book. At times, I felt she simply wanted to use this book as a diatribe on how evil Bill Clinton is. I found the book generally a petty exercise in partisan politics and nothing more.

This is a topic worth examining, but cruise Amazon.com for something other than this book.

Rating:
Summary: A Disappointment
Review: I knew Coulter went to my alma mater - the University of Michigan Law School - where I found my peers to be intelligent and thought-provoking. So I gave this a read and came away disappointed.

An endless stream of venom is spewed at something called "The Liberals" (by which she seems to mainly mean conservative Democrats in general and the Clintons in particular) and accusations of media bias are made, which are supported by actual footnotes. These accusations lack depth and plausibility for the simple reason that she doesn't bother to confront the LEFT'S strongest arguments regarding media bias. Works such as Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent," with much more substantively supported arguments of corporate and advertiser influence on media content than Coulter manages to muster to her cause in "Slander," is a staple of any decent media studies program. Coulter's shying away from these arguments indicates either ignorance of them or a recognition that she has no answer for them.

Coulter is definitely clever and consumed (literally) with hatred for the Clintons. If you hate the Clintons as well and wish to feed fuel to your hatred rather than dealing with it in a more mature fashion, Coulter's book will defintely appeal.

Rating:
Summary: Passionate but biased and flawed
Review: Contrary to what another reviewer said, I don't think you have to either love or hate this book. It is an interesting read and has some very good points, but it also has obvious flaws. The problem with the book is, ironically, the same problem Coulter has with the mainstream media. Namely, the author is as biased and unobjective as the mainstream media she despises.

Coulter certainly has a good argument when she blasts the media for leftist bias. Much of the media is biased toward the left. Katie Couric, Bryant Gumbel, and many others in the press have unfairly attacked conservatives. Many in the media have an axe to grind and certainly Coulter deserves credit for calling them out.

So, why can I give the book only three stars? Simply, like many ideologues left or right,Coulter does not and perhaps cannot see the other side of the issue. Yes, CNN, the New York Times,and others are biased, but conservatives aren't exactly voiceless in the media today. Let's name a few: FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal editorial page,etc... Even liberal outlets like the New York Times and Washington Post have many conservative commentators- William Safire, Charles Krauthammer, etc... I think it's safe to say that the Washington Post has far more conservative writers than the Washington Times has liberal writers. The obvious fact is that the media is far less monolithic than Coulter would have you believe.

Coulter is so determined to make the media into a left-wing demon that she makes the preposterous claim that William Safire and Bill O'Reilly are not conservatives. This may be the weakest part of the book. As for the argument that O'Reilly is not a conservative because she opposes the death penalty, I could with equal absurdity claim that Bill Clinton was a conservative because he supported the death penalty. Many leftists, as dogmatic as Coulter, argued in the 90s that Clinton was not a liberal. This was, of course, absurd- but no more so than Coulter's analysis of Safire and O'Reilly.

Another big weakness of the book is Coulter's propensity to engage in ad hominem attacks. Yes, I know many liberals do it as well, but that doesn't make it right. The personal attacks add nothing to the substance of the book. The ad hominem attacks are especially out of place in a book that criticizes leftists for making personal attacks on conservatives (which they certainly do, too frequently).

It's too bad the author is so biased. The book had some very good arguments and could have been a lot better.I'm still hoping someone will write an equally passionate book that has more objectivity and less name-calling. I'm afraid, though, the author of this book won't be Ann Coulter. [...]

Rating:
Summary: Thank You Ann Coulter!
Review: For years I've known the media was leaning way left. Ann has written a super explaination of the way the media works. She made it interesting, funny and put into words things I have been bugged about for years. Her documentation was great, too.
Congratulations!

Rating:
Summary: The illumination of the liberal spin machine.
Review: This book crackles and pops with hard hitting and logical analysis of just how biased and pervasive the liberal spin in the media has become. The book is not written as a textbook, so in that respect it may come across as a rather venomous novel than objective research to some readers. This book is not truly objective, although it contains much objective data and detail. It doesn't need to be as the evidence is quite clearly supportive of her views, but those criticisms are valid.

Here are the high points in my view:

The subject matter is investigated thoroughly and the blistering attacks on the so called "untouchables" and media darlings, are exposed and detailed in such a way as to remove all doubt of the claims being made.

The book reads like an editorial column in places, and is actually quite funny. I laughed out loud, (usually at the expense of one of the liberal elite like Katie Couric) and chuckled at the prose.

The book is accurate. Not in an FBI kind of way, but rather like the small child who says the "emperor isn't wearing any clothes". This is fitting because the subject matter is so obvious to anyone not blindly following our liberal media darlings that it hardly needs any deep investigation to uncover.

The section on book publishing, internet usage and radio ratings are worth the book price alone. Here, in the last vestiges of free choice and provable and measurable American public opinion, the real feelings of our country are apparent. Conservative books, internet boards, and radio shows so vastly outperform their liberal counterparts that the choice of "the people" is obvious. This choice contrasts sharply with what the television networks, and New York Times and other NY/LA elite try and tell us about what we as the American public think.

My complaints of the book are as follows:

At times the attacks are a bit too emotional. The factual evidence is so obvious and so completely proves her points that some of the more critical attacks in the book serve only as amusing anecdotes, and do not add to her case and may alienate those on the fence.

The title is misleading. The book is not really centrally about the "Liberal lies about the America right" as much as it is about the "liberal lies about everything". As is presented here, there doesn't seem to be any truth in any of what the liberal spin machine presents, on really any subject matter.

Overall, I enjoyed the prose, and agree with the glaringly obvious conclusions presented here. It should be noted however, that the obviously hypocritical viewpoints of the liberal elite in this country do far more damage than help some of the excellent and needed liberal causes. I know many liberals who are outstanding, caring and concerned citizens, and who are also offended by the pathetic offerings of the liberal media. So in its zeal to expose the American people to the nonsense that is being spun to them, I wonder if she has gone too far in polarizing the issue? Read the book, compare it to your experience, and decide for yourself.

Rating:
Summary: Diagnosis, but no prescription
Review: Ann Coulter's central thesis is that "the impossibility of having any sort of productive dialogue [with Leftists] about civic affairs has become an immovable reality" (p. 8). Though it's hardly unusual to hear a conservative charge that the Left dominates most media outlets, she nevertheless makes a compelling, and impassioned, case. The argument itself could probably have been made in four pages. The other 240 or so are exhaustive evidence (be sure to read the footnotes!)

Most interesting to me were her discussions of the huge sales success of conservative books, in spite of their being boycotted by the "mainstream" media, and her analysis of the Left's frenzied attacks on their favorite, though, she argues, non-existent, whipping-boy, the "religious right."

By the end of the book, it's very clear that critics who charge Miss Coulter with hypocrisy for name-calling while accusing Leftists of name-calling have missed the central point she's trying to make. For her, the peppery characterization or zingy one-liner is a rhetorical device. For the Left, it's all they have: "Liberals don't try to win arguments, they seek to destroy their opponents and silence dissident opinions" (p. 91).

While she has the diagnosis nailed, though, the weakness of this book is that the author fails to give us a prescription for dealing with it. She offers a suggestion ("As a start, one would have to cut out public schools, colleges, the evening news, sitcoms, movies, children's cartoons, book reviews, Lifetime: TV for Women, Katie Couric, Bryant Gumbel, People magazine, Vanity Fair, the New York Times, Time, Newsweek, and, indeed, all major newspapers and magazines" [pp. 116-7]), but never explains why she seems unwilling to go this route. A large-scale Hoppean "strategy of personal secession" (Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "Democracy: The God that Failed," Transaction, 2001) would seem to be just the ticket for leaving the Left nobody but themselves to talk to.

In sum, "Slander" shows Ann Coulter has her mind around the essential problem. Now she needs to tell us what she would have the American Right do about the situation she so ably, and passionately, describes.

Rating:
Summary: Angry, articulate rebuke to liberals
Review: Conservatives who seek words, ideas and great evidence to rebut the specious claims of liberals have a champion in Coulter's "Slander". She pushes the limit at times with some hyperbole but always makes her case.

For example, Republican presidents deemed to be "dumb" by the liberal media stand up very well to the "bright" or unexamined liberal presidents and candidates. Or take Bob Packwood (few people would today) to learn about how a supporter of women's causes can be a "good" (read "liberal") Republican, until the truth gets out. Evidence, not slander, supports the conservative character. She makes point after point worth reading and remembering.

She does a good job of writing what many -- perhaps most or all -- conservatives wish they had said or wished they had known before this book.

Coulter adds to anicely building library of positive information and research from and about conservative people and their positions.

Rating:
Summary: Enlightening, semi-clever, yet not always a pleasant read
Review: I recall Ann Coulter's appearances on political talk shows over the years, and I remember thinking that she is an articulate, somewhat angry, and definitely in-your-face political commentator. With her book "Slander," Ms. Coulter carries these traits into the written word. There are some high points, including insightful descriptions of media spin and some comical portrayals of liberal policy makers. Most politically right-leaning individuals are likely to nod in agreement with most of the arguments she makes in this, the latest of her "Bestsellers," but the level of invective is so high as to be a potential turn-off.

If I were to use simple terms to summarize Ms. Coulter's stance on liberal bias, I'd choose "double standard" and "contradiction." What she is very good at is finding examples of how the media go bonkers over Republicans' indiscretions, but play down those of Democrats. This trait, as she posits, manifests itself in ways that involve: 1) slamming conservative ideas, and fawning over liberal ones; or 2) using derogatory generalizations to classify conservative views, and laudatory ones to classify liberal views; or 3) character assassinations of Republican candidates, and constant praise for Democrats ... and so on. Essentially true, but you've probably heard stuff like this before. In this book, you get over two hundred pages of numerous (around 475,000; I lost count), well-documented examples of liberally biased propaganda. Like her or not, she's usually pretty sharp.

As for me, I tend to side with Ms. Coulter on the issues put forth in her book, and I rather enjoyed the chapters that dealt with the 2000 presidential election (interesting things I hadn't heard before) and, especially, the chapter discussing the media's vacillation over whether or not the "religious right" is dead or alive. Enlightening and funny. Still, I had a hard time getting over the frequent, rant-stricken diatribes. If she had left out the name-calling and condescending tone, her ideology would have come across as more intelligent and levelheaded. Bernard Goldberg did this slightly better in "Bias." Dennis Prager is still the one to emulate (check out "Think a Second Time").

Overall, I'd give this book a "guarded" recommendation. The writing is strong, but the viewpoints may be unpalatable for some readers.

Rating:
Summary: Shallow, contrite, out-of-context
Review: Clearly I was expecting too much going into this book. It's filled with quotes taken out of context and downright lies. I shouldn't have expected much from Coulter given her history, but this was an absolute disappointment.