Media Matters has an article pointing to numerous footnotes from Coulter's new book that contain nothing like the claims she attaches them to. Turns out her footnotes are as fake as her religious piety.
I'm glad to see Media Matters do this, but for the record, the Daily Howler documented similar problems with her earlier book "Slander" back in 1982. Here's a link to one essay with links to his further investigations at the bottom.
Just thought I'd point out she's got a long history of this Stuff (I think it might be called lying).
Media Matters has an article pointing to numerous footnotes from Coulter's new book that contain nothing like the claims she attaches them to.
First rule of any competitive sport: don't change a winning game. She's done it before and gotten away with it despite being caught. I'm seeing a parallel here to what you wrote about women poker players earlier today, Ed.
The fact that this harpy gets regular air time after all the vitriol and outright lies she's spewed and written is way up there on the list of things that shame this country's media.
At this point, where NOBODY who cares about such things believes anything they may use as evidence for their poisonous bullying lies, and nobody on their side has any respect for such things anyway (and likely never actually reads the books, much less the "footnotes"), why don't the Bu--sh--ters like KKKoulter simply have footnotes with random references, or unrelated quotations from literature, attached to the numbers, like a certain kind of spam often does? They would still claim they had the same value (I mean, it has a NUMBER and it refers to some OTHER number in the book, so it must be a FOOTNOTE!) and, if they added, say quotations from Swift or Rimbaud, actual content would be added to their profiteering garbage.
Maybe she's not dishonest. Maybe she's just woefully, spectacularly inept at basic research. "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." Someone enroll her on an undergrad journalism course.
as penance for a lifetime of sin and corruption, I decided to watch AC's speech on C-SPAN this weekend to see how long it would be before she said something I, having no relevant professional credentials, knew to be unquestionably a lie. it took two sentences in which there were three lies (no scientists have offered any response to her expose of evolution, there are many scientists who consider evolution "bunk", the cambrian explosion occurred in an instant (or some equivalent term). later I switched back to try again and the first sentence was something about not pursuing law as a career like "that scumbag john edwards".
point being, as noted by goddogtired, anyone who ingests her drivvel and believes any of it is hopeless. IMO, rather than being accorded the respect implied by detailed fact checking, she should be routinely dismissed with something terse like "her style is a barrage of lies and hyperbole for shock appeal; if you pay any attention to her you're being played for a fool". anything more is aiding and abetting.
Maybe she's not dishonest. Maybe she's just woefully, spectacularly inept at basic research. "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." Someone enroll her on an undergrad journalism course.
Coulter is either lying or lazy. Or some combination thereof, but she knows the rules perfectly well.
Here are her credentials as posted on Wikipedia(emphasis mine):
As an undergraduate at Cornell, Coulter helped launch a conservative newspaper, The Cornell Review,[10] and was a member of the Delta Gamma national women's fraternity.[11] She graduated cum laude from Cornell in 1984, and received her law degree from the University of Michigan, where she achieved membership in the Order of the Coif and was an editor of The Michigan Law Review.[12] At Michigan, Coulter founded a local chapter of the Federalist Society and was trained at the National Journalism Center.[13][14]
...
Her abysmal scholarship isn't a result of not knowing how to cite how to cite, it's about not caring about honest, accurate citations and not having journalistic intregrity. Of course, we all knew that already, but it's nice to have evidence.
It's late for this, and I should have caught it earlier, but Steve S, it was 2002 and I will be wondering for a long time (or at least the next 20 minutes) how I ever wrote 1982.
Isn't there someone from the UK that can sue her for libel under the internet crime treaty or something?
(And when I mean "sue" her, I mean something more like "banish to a hell dimension for all eternity". )
I'm glad to see Media Matters do this, but for the record, the Daily Howler documented similar problems with her earlier book "Slander" back in 1982. Here's a link to one essay with links to his further investigations at the bottom.
Just thought I'd point out she's got a long history of this Stuff (I think it might be called lying).
First rule of any competitive sport: don't change a winning game. She's done it before and gotten away with it despite being caught. I'm seeing a parallel here to what you wrote about women poker players earlier today, Ed.
The fact that this harpy gets regular air time after all the vitriol and outright lies she's spewed and written is way up there on the list of things that shame this country's media.
At this point, where NOBODY who cares about such things believes anything they may use as evidence for their poisonous bullying lies, and nobody on their side has any respect for such things anyway (and likely never actually reads the books, much less the "footnotes"), why don't the Bu--sh--ters like KKKoulter simply have footnotes with random references, or unrelated quotations from literature, attached to the numbers, like a certain kind of spam often does? They would still claim they had the same value (I mean, it has a NUMBER and it refers to some OTHER number in the book, so it must be a FOOTNOTE!) and, if they added, say quotations from Swift or Rimbaud, actual content would be added to their profiteering garbage.
Maybe she's not dishonest. Maybe she's just woefully, spectacularly inept at basic research. "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." Someone enroll her on an undergrad journalism course.
Where did they get their time machine?
as penance for a lifetime of sin and corruption, I decided to watch AC's speech on C-SPAN this weekend to see how long it would be before she said something I, having no relevant professional credentials, knew to be unquestionably a lie. it took two sentences in which there were three lies (no scientists have offered any response to her expose of evolution, there are many scientists who consider evolution "bunk", the cambrian explosion occurred in an instant (or some equivalent term). later I switched back to try again and the first sentence was something about not pursuing law as a career like "that scumbag john edwards".
point being, as noted by goddogtired, anyone who ingests her drivvel and believes any of it is hopeless. IMO, rather than being accorded the respect implied by detailed fact checking, she should be routinely dismissed with something terse like "her style is a barrage of lies and hyperbole for shock appeal; if you pay any attention to her you're being played for a fool". anything more is aiding and abetting.
Coulter is either lying or lazy. Or some combination thereof, but she knows the rules perfectly well.
Here are her credentials as posted on Wikipedia(emphasis mine):
As an undergraduate at Cornell, Coulter helped launch a conservative newspaper, The Cornell Review,[10] and was a member of the Delta Gamma national women's fraternity.[11] She graduated cum laude from Cornell in 1984, and received her law degree from the University of Michigan, where she achieved membership in the Order of the Coif and was an editor of The Michigan Law Review.[12] At Michigan, Coulter founded a local chapter of the Federalist Society and was trained at the National Journalism Center.[13][14]
...
Her abysmal scholarship isn't a result of not knowing how to cite how to cite, it's about not caring about honest, accurate citations and not having journalistic intregrity. Of course, we all knew that already, but it's nice to have evidence.
Can plagiarism get you disbarred? It should.
It's late for this, and I should have caught it earlier, but Steve S, it was 2002 and I will be wondering for a long time (or at least the next 20 minutes) how I ever wrote 1982.