IS TODAY'S AMERICAN NEWS MEDIA REALLY "LIBERAL"? NAH! I'D CALL IT "CORPORATE"!
"You neglected to mention that she has also been fired from a right-of-center magazine and censored by USA Today. The same USA Today that breathlessly prints Michael Moore's screeds as reportage. Perhaps Ann Coulter should market her work as documentary in nature. Who knows, she might win a Pulitzer."
Ahem. I posted the following response:
All of the below is just my opinion, of course, and it's long-winded like usual... but I just have to wonder from time to time if the media is really as "liberal" as many conservatives say it is.
Could the media these days maybe be more "corporate" than it is "liberal"? It seems to me they like to report on things that "sell" (like Michael Jackson, deaths in Iraq, Robert Blake, Laci Peterson, etc.) and that it's mostly about money. If special interests offer money to our media types to report things in certain ways, then I would guess the media would opt to go the money-making route. I think the media is generally like most other businesses in that the bottom line is very important.
As for Ann Coulter, hasn't she done quite well in print, making a name for herself with her books and articles, as well as with her public appearances? She does do well, but do people view her as an entertainer? As a political sage?
I think lots of folks view Michael Moore as an entertainer rather than as a guru. Does something that is at least perceived as entertaining sell more than what is not perceived as such? Rush Limbaugh may have some similar opinions to those of Coulter, but he does at least seem to sprinkle his commentary with comments perceived by many as humorous. And while I tend to disagree with most things Rush says, I will admit I laugh out loud at his comments sometimes, because once in a while I do find him to be funny.
Despite Ann Coulter being a nice-looking, well-dressed person, I think her comments and her abrupt manner cause her to come across as cold, hypercritical and humorless. Moore, on the other hand, looks more to me like a big, ugly, doofus teddy-bear type, possibly more like how he may believe an average American would look...
Whether it's an act or not, Moore just seems to me like he should have more appeal to the public than Ann Coulter due to the image he has cultivated, if nothing else.
If it's all about money and image, and if Moore is making himself more appealing to the public, I think that is what the public will buy... and therefore he is who the media will be more likely to feature when given the choice. If the media can make more money via Michael Moore than they can through Ann Coulter, my guess it they'll lean toward Moore, whether or not they agree with his political views... and Ms. Coulter won't get nearly as much air time.
The following information might be hard to find, but I think it would be interesting... I would be interested in knowing how much hate-mail USA Today got re. Ann Coulter in comparison to how much they would get re. Michael Moore. I also think it would be fun to look at sales figures for Ann Coulter's books and for Michael Moore's books... I would imagine they might be fairly close in the number of books sold.
(end of comment)
With all that being said, I think Ann Coulter sets herself up for a lot of the criticism she gets, because of her brusque manner. Maybe even more for that than for what she says, which I usually find outrageous. When the other blog-commenter uses her "plight" as an example in support of an argument for a "liberal" media... it doesn't quite seem to make sense to me, particularly when today everything in America seems to be so much about image.
What are your thoughts on the media in America today?