New Low in Deception From Media Matters In Bogus Attack on Ann Coulter (PART I)
As duplicitous as Media Matters has been in the past, a post on August 7, 2006, attacking Ann Coulter is especially low for the organization.
Staffers at Media Matters spent considerable time combing through the text and endnotes of Ann Coulter’s latest book, Godless. MMatters has examined her book with the proverbial fine-tooth comb. They exert a depressingly desperate attempt to discredit her, but the one who ends up getting discredited is Media Matters.
As it turns out, and as we illustrate here, most of the examples that Media Matters claims are "misrepresentations" by Coulter are nothing of the sort. In fact, Media Matters itself misrepresents the sources that it cites!
Let another debunking of MMatters begin! (We address MMatters’ issues in order of simplicity:)
1. (MMatters #3) MMatters takes issue with endnote 14 in Chapter 4 of Godless.
The relevant notes in the back of Coulter’s book read exactly as follows:
12. David D. Kirkpatrick, "For Democrats, Rethinking Abortion Position Meets with Mix of Reactions in Party," New York Times, February 16, 2005.
13. Gloria Febit (President, Planned Parenthood Federation of America) "Doctors’ Opinions," Chicago Tribune, July 1, 2004 (letter to the editor).
14. Ibid.
Endnote 14 should refer to the source that cites fundraising numbers of pro-life’s NRLC ($1.7 million) and pro-abortion’s Emily’s List ($34 million), but it doesn’t. Endnote 14 says, "Ibid," and it gives readers the wrong impression that the fundraising numbers that Coulter cites come from a 2004 letter to the editor written by Planned Parenthood president Gloria Feldt.
What’s the truth? Quite simply, the correct notes should read as follows (emphasis mine):
12. David D. Kirkpatrick, "For Democrats, Rethinking Abortion Position Meets with Mix of Reactions in Party," New York Times, February 16, 2005.
13. Gloria Febit (President, Planned Parenthood Federation of America) "Doctors’ Opinions," Chicago Tribune, July 1, 2004 (letter to the editor).
14. David D. Kirkpatrick, "For Democrats, Rethinking Abortion Position Meets with Mix of Reactions in Party," New York Times, February 16, 2005.
The fundraising figures that Coulter cites clearly come from Kirpatrick’s New York Times article (read the article yourself), a source she already cited in endnote 12. Due to an apparent mixup/error/foul-up/whatever, an "Ibid" was printed instead of a repetition of the NYTimes citation from endnote 12. Got it? Is this really a big deal? No.
This is an example of a simple clerical error. It’s hardly evidence of any "distortion," "misrepresentation," or "inventing facts" on Coulter’s part.
Media Matters wants you to believe there is something more deceptive going on here, but, as we’ve shown, there isn’t.
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
2. (MMatters’ #6) Media Matters takes issue with endnote 7 in Chapter 6.
The relevant notes in the back of the book read exactly as follows:
6. Richard Vedder, "Comparable Worth," Education Next, 2003.
7. Michael Podgursky, "Fringe Benefits," Education Next, 2003, http://www.educationnext.org/20033/71.html
8. Ibid., 63.6 years old for women and 63.7 for men.
Again, only a simple error has been made in the listing of the sources. By checking Coulter’s text with the text of the two articles above, we see the correct citations should be:
6. Richard Vedder, "Comparable Worth," Education Next, 2003.
7. Ibid.
8. Michael Podgursky, "Fringe Benefits," Education Next, 2003, http://www.educationnext.org/20033/71.html
Is this an example of some kind of intentional "distortion" by Coulter? Of course not! Again, it appears that only a simple editing error has been made. Media Matters is deceiving its readers by giving the false impression that something sinister is going on.
By the way, MMatters writes, "It is unclear where Coulter arrived at her ‘60 percent less’ figure, but it certainly did not come from the source she cited." Well, if the folks at Media Matters took the 20 seconds that we did to look at Richard Vedder’s "Comparable Worth" (cited in endnote 6), they would have gotten their answer! See?
The last comprehensive analysis, performed during the mid-1990s, indicated that average private school salaries were slightly less than 60 percent of average salaries in the public schools (though the gap between public and private schools narrows substantially when religious private schools are excluded from the analysis. See Michael Podgursky’s article, “Fringe Benefits,” on p. 71 of this issue).
Again, Media Matters’ claim that Coulter has maliciously misrepresented anything is flat-out wrong.
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
3. (MMatters #14) In addressing endnote 39 from Chapter 3, Media Matters makes the following false claim:
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! The 9-11 Commission "found" no such thing, and MMatters’ own source shows this! Here is what the commission actually says in its "Report Notes" section at the end of its report (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.pdf, p. 480, emphasis mine):
President Clinton, in a February 2002 speech to the Long Island Association, said that the United States did not accept a Sudanese offer and take Bin Ladin because there was no indictment. President Clinton speech to the Long Island Association, Feb. 15, 2002 (videotape of speech). But the President told us that he had “misspoken" and was, wrongly, recounting a number of press stories he had read. After reviewing this matter in preparation for his Commission meeting, President Clinton told us that Sudan never offered to turn Bin Ladin over to the United States. President Clinton meeting (Apr.8, 2004).
The commission simply relayed what President Clinton had told them. They did not "[find]" or conclude that Clinton had "misspoken." Media Matters is simply wrong on this. For the eye-opening truth about how the Clinton administration missed an opportunity to have bin Laden seized, read this: "How Clinton Kept Bin Laden Free," by Richard Miniter, Washington Times, September 8, 2003.
In addition, MMatters’ claim that NewsMax "distorted" Clinton’s tape is outright baseless and false. NewsMax did nothing of the sort. Listen to the Newsmax tape (.mp3 file) yourself. Here’s what Clinton actually said in February 2002:
"Mr. Bin Laden used to live in Sudan … And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again. They released him. At the time, ‘96, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."
It is clear that Clinton clearly impled that he at least had the option to have bin Laden sent to the United States from Sudan. Media Matters is wrong.
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
Due to the numerous distortions and deceptions by Media Matters in their attack on Ann Coulter’s endnotes, this site plans to post even more examples in a second post ("PART II"). Look for PART II of this post in the next week or so (before August 19, 2006).
Thanks for reading!
