Ann Coulter calls Edwards a Faggot.

[Ulfrekr]

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

aye think you give her too much credit.

Dude, seriously, come on. How many times do I have to say that this isn't the point before you get it through your head? If a crazy bum off the street had walked into the convention and said what she did, and gotten the same response, it would still be newsworthy.

And I read that exact definition of pundit that you provided. Did you? Because, as others have already pointed out, it doesn't support your argument.

[dashrashi]

I don't equate Al Franken with Jon Stewart, as you'll note, because Al Franken is running for office. Like Ann Coulter, Franken purports to be something of a political figure.

it plainly states the rise of pundits phoenomenon are being considered less journalistic than entertainment...

I don't know what you're saying here, due to your abysmal grammar. Read what I wrote above. That's what it says in the wikipedia article (which, again, don't get me started on citing wikipedia as an authoritative source, much less parsing its grammar and syntax). The article said that the NEWS are seen as less journalistic than entertaining, because of the rise of pundits--who are personalities who offer partisan and illogical arguments--and does NOT say that the pundits themselves are meant to be, or are, entertainers and not journalists.

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

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.

it plainly states the rise of pundits phoenomenon is being considered less journalistic than entertainment...

I don't know what you're saying here, due to your abysmal grammar. Read what I wrote above. That's what it says in the wikipedia article (which, again, don't get me started on citing wikipedia as an authoritative source, much less parsing its grammar and syntax). The article said that the NEWS are seen as less journalistic than entertaining, because of the rise of pundits--who are personalities who offer partisan and illogical arguments--and does NOT say that the pundits themselves are meant to be, or are, entertainers and not journalists.

here is what aye am saying:


if the news at large is being considered less journalistic than entertainment...somebody has to be doing the entertaining....those doing the entertaining are personalities who offer partisan and illogical arguments...they may not mean to be entertainers but apparently they are...they are certainly not journalistic...you are leaving that part of the equation out...but good job though.

world wide wrestling on cable is not really sports either...it's entertainment...and the wrestlers are entertainers.

I don't equate Al Franken with Jon Stewart, as you'll note, because Al Franken is running for office. Like Ann Coulter, Franken purports to be something of a political figure.

many people perceive him to be a pundit...al franken is considered a pundit...at least before he chose to run for office...so you have to concede he was once a pundit...jon stewart is considered a pundit...coulter is considered a pundit...they are all pundits...some more crass than others.

do you not find them entertaining?

[! 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?
 

it is not their primary aim but because they are seen as ideological partisans who tend to do more ranting than measured commentary and are often accused of being politically biased, and of using informal logic in fallacious ways

they are another example of news devolving further towards entertainment and away from reporting.

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?

al franken's act came before colbert and stewart...(aye'm sure they didn't derive anything from him and his "lying liars routine..."} but people do consider him to be a pundit and sorry but coulter is in that group as well.




hope you understand now and are not too upset.

[dashrashi]

While Al Franken is a pundit, Stewart and Colbert are not. They are satirists and comedians. You have been the one conflating Coulter and Colbert.

Here's the thing: it's a logical leap to say that because the news are now considered to be more entertainment than journalism, then that characterization extends to the people who appear on the news. Many things which are entertaining feature people who are not entertainers (see: Gore v. Quayle debates, 1992), and you saying otherwise is simply fallacious.

Furthermore, your argument that the audience was a "captive" one seems to try to absolve them of their vigorous laughter and applause. This is disingenuous, and to me, the only acceptable response would have been to walk out. That is not rude; it is actually more polite.

I don't understand why political leaders responding favorably to hate speech is not a cause for concern, and why you continue to characterize that concern as an overreaction.

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

many people perceive him to be a pundit...al franken is considered a pundit...at least before he chose to run for office...so you have to concede he was once a pundit...jon stewart is considered a pundit...coulter is considered a pundit...they are all pundits...some more crass than others.

do you not find them entertaining?

Some people perceive the world as being flat. Some people perceive that the earth stays still and the heavens rotate around it. Some people think Jar Jar Binks was funny and one of George Lucas's best ideas. Even more people perceive that each of these things has as little bearing to the issue at hand as your suggestion that people should not be offended by entertainment.

"Some People": Coulter's use of this epithet is offensive.

Bluewarrior: Coulter is an entertainer...you are overreacting to her words.

"Some People": Coulter's status as an entertainer doesn't matter; she is an intelligent person who used a derogatory word she simply should not have. It would have been offensive no matter who said it, and it's especially offensive because it was applauded by powerful people. Had it been said by you, who is taken seriously by nobody, we would find it offensive.

Bluewarrior: Coulter is an entertainer...you are overreacting to her words...other people who entertain are offensive and some people laugh at them...some people also don't take them seriously...therefore you should not be offended by Coulter's words.

"Some People": Do you not understand that what you just said does not logically follow? Something to do with fallacies and undistributed middles, but I sense that you choose not to understand that.

Bluewarrior: Aye am better than you...aye understand things better than you...aye obtusely attempt to belittle you...now aye shall repeat ayeself...now do you understand?

"Some People": Shut up, you jackass.

aye am following the definition of pundits as entertainers...al franken and coulter are both pundits...they say irreverent things...aye guess aye don't place any strength in their words...if you care what she says than you obviously were offended...sorry that you were offended...aye was not...and aye'm pretty sure there are many people who don't care what she said either...

lighten up and go catch a stand up comedy act...you can leave right after you pay...you can even politely applaud.

you should catch an episode of southpark sometime...they are irreverent too...

hope you don't get too upset....

...ann coulter is already selling more books since her "shock pundit" routine with all the media attentionn this story received...her book sales are already going up...

amazing...


...the question is...are you going to be silent about this now?

the problem also is that you are blaming the audience for some wrongdoing...

if coulter was the messenger...the audience are only listeners...ad-libs are spinning this to blame the listeners...not the message nor the messanger but the receiver...this is fooling no one...


one thing is for sure...
people are questioning whether or not roberts is really all that strong a candidate...

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

While Al Franken is a pundit, Stewart and Colbert are not. They are satirists and comedians. You have been the one conflating Coulter and Colbert.

Here's the thing: it's a logical leap to say that because the news are now considered to be more entertainment than journalism, then that characterization extends to the people who appear on the news. Many things which are entertaining feature people who are not entertainers (see: Gore v. Quayle debates, 1992), and you saying otherwise is simply fallacious.

Furthermore, your argument that the audience was a "captive" one seems to try to absolve them of their vigorous laughter and applause. This is disingenuous, and to me, the only acceptable response would have been to walk out. That is not rude; it is actually more polite.

I don't understand why political leaders responding favorably to hate speech is not a cause for concern, and why you continue to characterize that concern as an overreaction.

franken coulter stewart colbert miller...all pundits...some not as irreverent as others...simple.

...sometimes when you are part of a captive audience ...you still have to get your coat from coatcheck...and sometimes you vigorously applaud when something boring or tedious is over...hopefully your feeling offended will be over soon...good to know that you can read everybody in the captive audience's collective minds...

[Ulfrekr]

Bluewarrior: I respectfully submit my opinion that you have proven yourself incredibly obtuse and unable to follow even the most basic argument, even after it has been repeatedly explained to you multiple times. You should probably not apply to law school, or if you are already attending, should withdraw immediately. I'm serious. Unless you are just willfully ignoring or misinterpreting everything everyone has said on here (which, for your sake, I hope to be the case), then you simply don't have the logical skills to cut it as a lawyer. I know that sounds condescending, and what the hey, it is, but you've earned that response. Plus, I'm doing you a favor. If you really don't understand what we've been saying (and everything you've said so far demonstrates that you don't), you don't have the particular kind of intelligence required for a career in the law. Sorry. Feel free to prove me wrong by gaining the requisite skills and kicking ass in law school, I'm sure we're all rooting for you.

PS. If this hurts your feelings, just consider me a pundit, conforming to your own special definition of the word. I know I found my post entertaining.

[dashrashi]

Oh, he's famous for being obtuse. But insisting on definitions that don't exist burns my ass, and I guess I can't seem to let it go.

Also, I suppose you are a pundit, because I also found your post entertaining. 

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

Bluewarrior: I respectfully submit my opinion that you have proven yourself incredibly obtuse and unable to color=red](i}[/colofollow even the most basic argument, even after it has been repeatedly explained to you multiple times. You should probably not apply to law school, or if you are already attending, should withdraw immediately. I'm serious. Unless you are just willfully ignoring or misinterpreting everything everyone has said on here which, for your sake, I hope to be the case), then you simply don't have the logical skills to cut it as a lawyer. I know that sounds condescending, and what the hey, it is, but you've earned that response. Plus, I'm doing you a favor. If you really don't understand what we've been saying (and everything you've said so far demonstrates that you don't), you don't have the particular kind of intelligence required for a career in the law. Sorry. Feel free to prove me wrong by gaining the requisite skills and kicking ass in law school, I'm sure we're all rooting for you.

PS. If this hurts your feelings, just consider me a pundit, conforming to your own special definition of the word. I know I found my post entertaining.

some entertainers like ann coulter push things too far...why would you want to silent our entertainers who use "shock tactics" as their cabaret...howard stern still gains listeners everyday...irreverent though he may be and the things he may say...like stern, as a "shock jock" coulter too gains people's interest as a "shock pundit"...an entertainer like al franken may even be soon asking for your vote...

better think about it...some of you seemed to miss my point.