Ann Coulter calls Edwards a Faggot.

[! B L U E WAR R I O R..!]

jon stewart...colbert{aka}...miller...blowhard o'really...ann coulter...bill maher: they are all artist pundits...like comedians are artists...they are entertainers...it is all an act...seriously...no...seriou sly...seriously

Oh. MY. GOD! So what?!? What does that have to do with anything? If Jon Stewart called Condi Rice an n-word, it wouldn't be okay just because he's a comedian, and it really, really wouldn't be okay if he said it at the DNC and got APPLAUDED. Stop being so frigging thick!

No one is saying that Coulter doesn't have a constitutional right to say what she said (although you keep trying to spin it that way). But you are implying that because she has that right, or because she's an entertainer, no one can find anything she says objectionable. Moreover, regardless of whether Coulter's schtick is really just that- an act- she has not presented herself as an entertainer in the way that Colbert, Stewart, or even Maher have. She doesn't have a show on COMEDY CENTRAL full of skits and self-deprecation. She only appears in the public sphere as a political commentator on supposedly serious news programs. She writes books that are promoted as serious political tracts. So even if your argument that she is an entertainer in the Stewart/Colbert vein were relevant- which, just to be clear, it really, really, isn't- that argument doesn't hold any water. I've read all of Coulter's books, and seen her speak on TV and in person, and as much as I'd like to believe she is engaged in a brilliant, Cobert-esque satire of a politically rabid conservative, it's increasingly clear that that just isn't the case.

she appears on shows?  so she just doesn't have her own show? so she is an "appearance pundit"
do you know what a pundit is?  an entertainer...a clown if you will...ask your friends if people don't think coulter is a bit of a clown...aye bet they concur.

aye am trying to help liberals keep this in their focus since they seem so strong about its importance...and libs seem to have short attention spans and are a bit splintered...cut me some slack for helping.

maybe "supposedly serious" is just that...not quite serious enough to be serious...think about it.

don't forget ann coulter might be gay herself...like sandra bernhard who enjoys using the f....t word.

and lets try to keep this in the news.

[dashrashi]

You do know that no matter how many times you aver that a pundit is just an entertainer or a clown, it doesn't make it true, right? I don't think Ann Coulter would describe herself as "just an entertainer."

It actually makes no difference if Ann Coulter is gay or not. It's an offensive word, even in humorous contexts, and it has no place in a political forum. Moreover, she was using it to insult someone--i.e. using it as a slur. In that context, it's insulting to gay people. Also, don't you think that the fact that Coulter (if in fact she is a lesbian, which is debatable at best) is not out is relevant to her using hateful words about gay people? That's mostly irrelevant, as Sandra Bernhard, were she asked to make a speech at the White House Correspondents' Dinner (which is far less serious than this forum was), would certainly not use the word "faggot" in that context, regardless of what she does in her stand-up routine.

Also, shut up. Thanks.

[Gopherit]

.

[Ulfrekr]

Wow, way to totally disregard the entire point of my post, which is that Coulter's job title is of minimal importance in assessing how we should react to this issue. Moreover, while your "do you know what a pundit is?" comment was cute and all, lemme give you a little tip that will probably help you out in life- in an argument, making up your own definition of words to suit your purposes is not a legitimate tactic. Most people do not think of pundit as "just an entertainer whose words have no meaning and should not be reacted to in any way." And besides, if Tom Cruise or Mel Gibson or Kelly Freakin Clarkson had called Edwards a faggot in front of an audience at a political convention and gotten laughs and applause, it would be no less objectionable. Why are you not getting that point?

don't forget ann coulter might be gay herself...like sandra bernhard who enjoys using the f....t word.

Seriously, does context mean nothing to you? This didn't happen at the Laugh Factory or the Apollo- it happened at a convention for a group of political leaders, whose decisions have a direct affect on the lives of Americans, including gay Americans. If you replaced Coulter with Sandra Bernhard in this story, the reaction the comment got from the audience wouldn't suddenly become totally okay. Moreover, the Bernhard analogy makes no sense, since Bernhard is openly lesbian/ bi, whereas you're only speculating that Coulter could be. Your argument is similar to saying that we shouldn't be offended by a politician applauding Michael Richards for using the n-word, because Kramer might, unknownst to anyone, be a very light-skinned black man, and it's not offensive when black people use the n-word. Until Coulter starts dating Ellen, it's going to be offensive when she calls people faggot, or any other slur associated with the subjugation of a particular group of which she isn't a part.

But I don't really give a crap if someone is offensive- that's their right, and it generally doesn't affect me unless I let it. What's scary here isn't that Coulter said something offensive- it's how political leaders responded to what she said, in a political forum.

Duh.

[! B L U E WAR R I O R..!]

Wow, way to totally disregard the entire point of my post, which is that Coulter's job title is of minimal importance in assessing how we should react to this issue. Moreover, while your "do you know what a pundit is?" comment was cute and all, lemme give you a little tip that will probably help you out in life- in an argument, making up your own definition of words to suit your purposes is not a legitimate tactic. Most people do not think of pundit as "just an entertainer whose words have no meaning and should not be reacted to in any way." And besides, if Tom Cruise or Mel Gibson or Kelly Freakin Clarkson had called Edwards a faggot in front of an audience at a political convention and gotten laughs and applause, it would be no less objectionable. Why are you not getting that point?

don't forget ann coulter might be gay herself...like sandra bernhard who enjoys using the f....t word.

Seriously, does context mean nothing to you? This didn't happen at the Laugh Factory or the Apollo- it happened at a convention for a group of political leaders, whose decisions have a direct affect on the lives of Americans, including gay Americans. If you replaced Coulter with Sandra Bernhard in this story, the reaction the comment got from the audience wouldn't suddenly become totally okay. Moreover, the Bernhard analogy makes no sense, since Bernhard is openly lesbian/ bi, whereas you're only speculating that Coulter could be. Your argument is similar to saying that we shouldn't be offended by a politician applauding Michael Richards for using the n-word, because Kramer might, unknownst to anyone, be a very light-skinned black man, and it's not offensive when black people use the n-word. Until Coulter starts dating Ellen, it's going to be offensive when she calls people faggot, or any other slur associated with the subjugation of a particular group of which she isn't a part.

But I don't really give a crap if someone is offensive- that's their right, and it generally doesn't affect me unless I let it. What's scary here isn't that Coulter said something offensive- it's how political leaders responded to what she said, in a political forum.

Duh.

sorry pundits don't get much of a reaction out of me because no matter what they say aye still think of them in the more accurate definition of a pundit which is that of an entertainer.  and the point of what they say gets them tv shows...and appearances in many venues...aye am sure if stewart got the call he would be trying to push the envelope in whatever venue he performed...no matter how serious you think the audience is...the speaker is the primary not the bystanders...nor the car wreck rubberneckers...nor the audience who has to sit through and be polite.

the reason people watch pundits or listen to them is to see how far they will take it and how much controversy they can stir up...

it pays the pundits bills...so they push the envelope.

aye still don't find her as "cutting edge" and irreverent as much as liberals paint her.  lennie bruce was cutting edge...howard stern was cutting edge...


here...let me re post a most modern definition of "pundit" for ya...aye guess you are too shamed to look it up...this is from the wikipedia...aye am sure you have heard of it...


In the English-speaking West, pundits write signed articles in print media (blurbs included), and appear on radio, television, or the internet to opine on current events. Television pundits may also be referred to as talking heads.

In the strict use of the term, a "pundit" has recognized expertise in a particular field. The term, however, increasingly refers to popular media personalities who express opinions without necessarily holding recognized expertise in the area on which they opine. In recent years in the US, with the increased popularity of prose, television and radio personalities such as Ann Coulter, Al Franken, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, pundits are increasingly seen not as experts, but as ideological partisans who tend to do more ranting than measured commentary. They are often accused of being politically biased, and of using informal logic in fallacious ways. This perception has caused the term "pundit" to take on derogatory overtones, with more of the sense of an arrogant loudmouth than an educated commentator. Thus, the term has begun to take on a negative connotations and is often used as a term of disparagement. There is a perception that the popularity of punditry has become harmful to journalism, as many perceive it as another example of news devolving further towards entertainment and away from reporting.


on this ground is coulter really all that important or special?

aye think you give her too much credit.

[dashrashi]

A: where in the wikipedia article (which, let's not get into that) does it say that a pundit's primary aim is to shock and/or entertain?

B: where in the same does it say that Jon Stewart or other people whose job it actually IS to entertain are considered pundits? I see Al Franken on that list, but Colbert and Stewart aren't included. Is that just an omission?

She's not cutting edge or irreverent; she's offensive and incapable of making a good argument. Remind you of anyone?

ANN COULTER IS NOT A COMEDIAN OR AN ENTERTAINER.

The part you made red simply says that the rise of pundits, who are personalities and partisans and rarely make good arguments, has led to the news at large being considered less journalism than entertainment. Nowhere does it say that the news being considered more entertaining than journalistic means that the people who appear on it consider themselves, or are in any meaningful way, entertainers.

[AJF]

Right, Cum Laude graduate of Cornell, Editor of the Michigan Law review, and incapable of making a cogent argument...

[dashrashi]

Have you read her books? There aren't so much holes in her argument as caverns. Seriously. I'm sure she didn't do this while a student, but really, her arguments are actually laughable.

[dashrashi]

Right, Cum Laude graduate of Cornell, Editor of the Michigan Law review, and incapable of making a cogent argument...

Alright..she might be capable but chooses not to?

One can only hope. Although perhaps she has forgotten how?

[! B L U E WAR R I O R..!]

A: where in the wikipedia article (which, let's not get into that) does it say that a pundit's primary aim is to shock and/or entertain?

B: where in the same does it say that Jon Stewart or other people whose job it actually IS to entertain are considered pundits? I see Al Franken on that list, but Colbert and Stewart aren't included. Is that just an omission?

She's not cutting edge or irreverent; she's offensive and incapable of making a good argument. Remind you of anyone?

ANN COULTER IS NOT A COMEDIAN OR AN ENTERTAINER.

The part you made red simply says that the rise of pundits, who are personalities and partisans and rarely make good arguments, has led to the news at large being considered less journalism than entertainment. Nowhere does it say that the news being considered more entertaining than journalistic means that the people who appear on it consider themselves, or are in any meaningful way, entertainers.

al franken? forgot about him...another pundit

it doesn't simply say...it plainly states the rise of pundits phoenomenon are being considered less journalistic than entertainment...

al franken...mentioned in the definition is an entertainer and pundit...a clown.
an coulter...mentioned in the definition is an entertainer and pundit...a clown.