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.
Rating:
Summary: POORLY WRITTEN AND LACKING IN LOGIC
Review: If this is an example of conservative intelligensia, then it is no wonder that the movement is in serious trouble. Sadly, too many ...have blindly accepted footnotes as an alleged example of thorough research and alleged documentation to substantiate the poor arguments made in this poorly written novel...
Rating:
Summary: Liberals.
Review: I can't believe the popularity this book has recieved! The book gives no voice to liberal ideas, therefore its arguements are meaningless.
It's good if you're looking for another liberal-bashing book, which compares democrats to communists.
Rating:
Summary: coulter doesn't know the facts...even about conservatives
Review: In her bombastic, shrill Slander, Ann Coulter presents a black and white world. No gray areas for Coulter. Liberal=bad, conservative=good. Reading her defense of Fox (who must pay her well) and her attacks on all things liberal is a tiring affair. She accuses liberals of name calling and juvenile tactics. Has she ever read Mark Steyn's mean-spirited columns in the National Review? Wasn't it Rush Limbaugh who once said "there's a new dog in the White House" and then held up a picture of Chelsea Clinton, then just a kid, on his telecast? Maybe Ann should pop in a video of the 1992 Republican National Convention, fast forward to Pat Buchanan's homophobic, hate-filled speech. Will she then understand why liberals view conservatives as name callers? Hey Ann, separation of church and state is what this country was founded on: live with it. And one last question for Coulter. Without liberals paving the way for women's rights throughout the 1900s, would Coulter now be enjoying her current position? Yes, some things liberals do are nutty. What about conservatives? What about Ashcroft's attack on civil liberties? But Coulter doesn't have the guts or the thing Christians call patience to see both sides of the issues. Her book Slander could be read both ways: she slanders liberals in this book.
| 
