on this ground is coulter really all that important or special?aye think you give her too much credit.
it plainly states the rise of pundits phoenomenon are being considered less journalistic than entertainment...
Quote from: bluewarrior on March 08, 2007, 04:19:08 PMit 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.
it plainly states the rise of pundits phoenomenon is being considered less journalistic than entertainment...
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.
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?
Quote from: bluewarrior on March 09, 2007, 04:10:25 AMmany 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.
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?
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.
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.