Slander

Rating:
Summary: Most anyone who gives this less than four stars is a liberal
Review: It's rather simple really. Ann Coulter bashes and beats and bruises anyone who is on the left wing and uses it for their own selfish agenda. Anyone who is truly believes in what their political alignment stands for should read this--it opens ones eyes further than you though possible.

And the ready stock of one-liners will provide much cannon-fodder for use in political discussions.

Rating:
Summary: The predictable rants of a passionate conservative...
Review: First, I am a liberal. I agree with little, if anything, Coulter believes or writes in this book. That said, I did read this book (I had to know what the big deal was, after all) and can say that while it will rile the ideological opposites of Coulter, it will no doubt please all who inhabit the right side of the aisle.

The most noticeable trait of Coulter's writings is that while well-reasoned in their own way, they can only make sense if one forgets that there is another side to each and every issue she discusses. If one were to ignore all of the details from other sources, her ideas might make sense. She is the master of "selective evidence," and does not even attempt to provide that which might contradict her beliefs.

Still, as a pundit and/or social critic, she is not obligated to do so. She is not a journalist feigning objectivity; she is a self-described conservative cheerleader and would not pretend that she is arguing social science here. She has a worldview, nothing can shake her from it, and this is her 200 page testimonial to her conservative philosophy

As a result, in her world all conservatives are perfect, well-intentioned, patriotic, moral, and just. All liberals are immoral, liars, traitors, and opportunistic. Again, she does not ask that her book be analyzed for its journalistic integrity; this is propaganda -- biased, one-sided, and intended to provoke.

Coulter is not subtle throughout, and any non-conservative will be uttering "but what about..." or "Yes, but you forgot..." with every page that is turned. She seems to disregard the idea that while certain liberals she mentions are cads and/or dangerous to our moral fabric, conservatives in the political arena are just as guilty, if not more so. She does not hold her idols to the same standards as liberals, and as a result her arguments, while persuasive if read in isolation, simply do not hold up to scrutiny.

Coulter also has a "gift" for hyperbole, which is part of her goal -- to rile up the public so that liberals are even further demonized and isolated. She has no sense of perspective, no vision of accuracy, and practices the same tactics (ad hominem attacks and bitter denunciations substituting for debate) she decries in others.

As a final thought on this book, it is quite sloppy and could have used some organization and editing. She rambles from one attack to the next, concerned only with "proof" that liberals have destroyed all that is right and good in America. Still, she says what she believes, does not couch anything in polite P.C. discourse, and is unafraid of sacred cows (although her targets are often obvious and too easy), but she is not adding to the political sanity of our culture. Her book has the flavor of old fashioned "criticism" (angry, holier-than-thou, unfair, yet often biting and witty), yet none of the broadmindedness that defined so many of the past. For example, H.L. Mencken was an angry, vicious character, but he attacked the culture as a whole rather than following predictable party lines. She believes there are saints among us; Mencken thought the whole deal was rotten. There is a difference.

Rating:
Summary: Well Done! The truth and nothing but the truth! Go Annie!
Review: This is a must read for all educated people. I'm glad Ann is on the side of truth, justice, and the American Way. Today's Supergirl.

Rating:
Summary: Brilliant
Review: Coulter's main thesis is that liberals have lost the ability to argue effectively and can only engage in name calling and attacking the man rhetoric. As you read some of the liberals writing reviews, you can see this thesis played out. They are proving her point.

She footnotes every source, quote and claim. Have you seen a liberal dispute a single claim she makes? Of course not, they can't. All they can do is call names. Read the book if you want to find out why.

Rating:
Summary: Irrelevant ...
Review: ...If this book is "timely" despite its sniping and anachronisms, it's only because of a curious new nationalism that confuses flag waving, party bashing, and finger pointing with patriotism. And while many of us may be genuinely disturbed about where the country, international affairs, the environment and the economy are headed next, books like Coulter's at least offer some form of cathartic diversion to the many reductivists out there.

Rating:
Summary: Uhh?
Review: In broad terms isn't the political spectrum: socialist-liberal-conservative? In other words, by definition, liberal is middle-of-the-road. So assuming Ann is right (about as far right as you can get I'd say) then all she's achieved in her book is to show the media taking the middle ground. Which makes it the absolute definition of unbiased.
So she's complaining, even on her own analysis, not that the media is biased but that it is not biased towards the right ( which to me it clearly is).

So this is what she really means; if you're not right wing then you're anti-USA, anti-government, anti-establishment, etc, etc.
No middle ground, no opportunity to be the kind of person who analyses the facts and arrives at a conclusion - you either toe the Republican party line or you're a Communist. At times she's nothing short of hysterical (not in the humorous sense) - on her analysis Attila the Hun would be a liberal.

This book has its moments of humour, but is ultimately like her personal appearances - filled with ranting innacuracies and a sense that she's out of control. A biased media of the kind Ann imagines would talk about poverty, government corruption, corporate corruption, futility of war, workers rights, social confidtions, racism, etc etc. On the rare occassions when it mentions any of these it does so only in the context of the middle class and above that it represents.

Rating:
Summary: An honest review.
Review: ...P>First, I have to say that this book is a challenging read. While it provides extensive footnotes for the quotes and statistics used, the book is interlaced with Ann's in-your face, cutting, and acerbic wit. I think this clash of styles will make it hard for many readers to understand just how many of her comments are spoken with her tongue planted firmly in her cheek. This books walks a fine line between a research paper and biting social commentary. It does take some getting used to, but it is worth the effort.

While I disagree with some of Ann's conclusions, I cannot argue that she backs up what she has to say. A quick couple of Lexis-Nexis searches proved the accuracy of a random sample of her quotes. It is hard to dispute the veracity of her claim of the demise of political discourse in this country when reasoned debate has been replaced with shouting matches and name-calling on Crossfire and the O'Reilly Factor. In today's media, any political flack can make any absurb charge or claim and have it on the air unchallenged within hours. Just last week in Kansas City, a spokesperson for Mayor Kay Barnes proclaimed her "the hardest working mayor in America" as she gave the key to the city to James Brown, the hardest working man in show business. Surely Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg have had much more strenuous schedules over the last year. Still, no challenge is made to this inane comment. While Ann makes a case for liberal bias, I think it is safe to say that a lazy media is as much responsible.

But I digress... liberal, moderate or conservative...Ann's book is a must read, in my opinion. While she paints with a broad brush at times (which can detract from the strength of her arguments), her book as a whole will make you re-consider just how objective the news media is... whether you agree with their philosophy or not. Statistics showing the NY Times has not endorsed a Republican presidential candidate in decades or that 80% plus of the media voted for Mondale when the general population overwhelmingly re-elected Reagan shows how out of step with the mainstream the media is. When you hear pundits proclaim that certain politicians are out of touch with regular people, it makes you wonder just how in touch the reporters themselves are.

This book has caused me to think critically as I read the paper or watch the news, and sometimes a healthy skepticism opens your eyes.

Rating:
Summary: Here's a Lie, this Book is Great.
Review: I read this book, it's inflamitory rhetoric for the sake of making people feel that the world is conspiring against them. This is exactly the point of the book, this is what the book is for, it does its job. Look at the title "Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right", if you were expecting an even handed disection of media bias here you're an idiot. Ann isn't a great thinker she isn't a jornalist or a scholar she's a media figure just like Mahr or Moore or O'Rielly or Limbaugh however those who say she just throws out unsupported or out of context statments are only partially right, their are instances of this but they certainly aren't the rule. This book won't change your mind, liberals won't see the light and conservatives won't grow frustrated with Ann's selective definition of media that includes the Times and the Nation but not the Post or the Journal. Its not a good book but its not fiction, let's call it pulp-fact.

Rating:
Summary: Boring conservative whining
Review: This is a very biased book. For example, she complains about liberal enemies being 'mocked by the liberal media' for their appearance (such as Katherine Harris, Linda Tripp). Fair enough, but doesn't she remember all the remarks about Janet Reno's looks? Even Chelsea Clinton was insulted for her looks.

I have no respect for Coulter, she is an extremist. By the way, I'm a moderate but the more I hear about conservatives claiming to know 'the light' I feel more and more that conservatives are morons.

Rating:
Summary: The unintended effects of silliness
Review: If I were a liberal I would thank Ms Coulter a hundred times over.

Her book, and subsequent publicity appearances are the best thing that has ever happened to their cause. Does anyone else think it's at least a little funny that someone who constantly cries about a lack of exposure by the 'liberal media' is on TV pretty much every night? Coulter and her cronies spend all their time slamming others without injecting any policy (other than not liking Bill Clinton). Then, when the tables are turned and they are evaluated, their skin turns incredibly thin. When thier side loses, Ms. Coulter and others blame the messenger which - besides a being a blanket and elitist condemnation of the intelligence of the american people - is a paranoid myth that has really gotten tired.