Cancelling Time Magazine

[realFedUp]

like this suggestion...
www.dailykos.com

Cancelled Time subscription
by kos
Wed Apr 20th, 2005 at 13:25:40 PDT

My wife made the call this morning. That felt good.
Really, if you still have a subscription to Time, it's time to call it quits. As Alterman writes, after some good Coulter bashing:

While I'm alienating my friends, here, I suppose it is as bad a time as any to point out that Time's political balance of columnists is badly skewed to the right in direct contrast to Newsweek's. While the latter has the almost always excellent and genuinely liberal Jon Alter, together with the undeniably bleeding-heart Anna Quindlen to balance George Will and Robert Samuelson and Fareed Zakaria, who is perhaps America's most thoughtful conservative pundit, now that David Brooks has decided to become something else entirely. (Other possible nominee: Chris Caldwell.)
Time, meanwhile, has no one at all to balance right-wingers Charles Krauthammer and Andrew Sullivan save Joe Klein; a "liberal" of the Nick Kristof/"Even-the-liberal-New-Republic..." variety. This is no accident. Time used to publish Barbara Ehrenreich and it fired my friend Margaret Carlson, who is only just a little bit liberal, but apparently too much. It's not as if there are not plenty of people available. Just off the top of my head, E.J. Dionne or Josh Marshall could give Jon a run for his money on a regular basis and my sometimes nemesis Katha Pollitt could be Time's Anna Quindlen. And hey, wouldn't getting the currently under-employed Bill Moyers to do a regular column be a coup for any publication? (Speaking of which, whatever happened to Mike Kinsley's Time column?)

I'm not saying boycott Time because of the Coulter cover. Every publication will run something offensive to someone at any given time.
I'm saying boycott Time because it has systematically shut out liberal voices from its pages. And there's no reason our money should make its way into their pockets.

[Maat]

1. Amen!

[carnie_sf]

2. Absolutely

[realFedUp]

3. kicking

kos i can

[AlCzervik]

4. i stopped getting Time and Newsweek about a year ago

the final straw was when i saw John Meechan from Newsweek on one of the cable "Opinion" shows whoring for Bush. I now get The Nation. No corporate owned magazines or news shows for me anymore.

[applegrove]

5. I say the MSM is valuable about information. They cannot take sides

but they can report the facts. I found the article very informative. Ann is just there to amuse her friends (and encourage none self-actualizing humor..and replacing it with scapegoating humor).

We now know her role. She is easier to take on.

I said she was the blond on the Neocon 'product' saying "look at me & buy this product". Her humor is meant to teach others to laugh at their enemies and never to empathize with them. It is from the sociopathic bag of tricks. This is tribalism. This is one of the things encouraging the GOP to continually act as adolescents so they will vote without their hearts...

It also talked about her fan club of young republican men. That is clearly part of the deal too. For sure she is the girl on the car.

Very informative article. Including how cold she really is.

[realFedUp]

6. informative only to those who had no clue

and may still have no clue.

I'd say Mr. Cloud now will
be remembered for this bit of Timeless
pulp fiction.

[applegrove]

7. I'm still glad I found out she considers herself funny for her friends.

She is so unfunny I forgot to pay attention to that part of it (I only paid attention to her hate). The humorless are the sociopaths because they do not know the emotional value of words but they do know pain and to them something where someone else feels pain is funny because it was a series of events that started with Coulter & ended up hurting a victim (Helen Thomas or the victims of McCarthy). That is what is funny to sociopaths. There always has to me a 'mirror' for them to get anything out of emotion (since they cannot feel it themselves).


Because there are no human or emotional truths to punch through in the hearts & minds of sociopathic people (or the freepers who mirror them) this is a new kind of humor. Sadism is part of sociopathy - the heightened emotions others feel because of one of their actions - makes them feel good.

So when Ann tells a joke and it hurts some 'other', it makes her following 'feel good'. And, after all, isn't the point of humor to make people feel good?

Humor by Ayn Coulter is exactly the same as the humor of a sociopath.

I would not have seen it all so clearly had I not read the article. I knew she was entertaining the freepers by pandering to their baser instincts. I knew she was riling liberals and helping to emotional exhaust them with despair. I did not know how 'exactly' her humor was the exact type of humor only sociopaths can get a kick out of. She is mirroring the GOP inside the beltway sadism.

Tis why true & real comedians are so dangerous to people like Karl Rove. They do not understand ... what it is like... to be human or adult (an adult likes to laugh at their own dam self or their situation or their country).

[realFedUp]

8. love this from www.dailyhowler.com today

http://www.dailyhowler.com/

THINGS FALL APART (PART 4)! How bizarre is Ann Coulter? Deep in the weeds, let us show you: (cites many incidents where Coulter lied)

FRIDAY, APRIL 22, 2005

OUR SUGGESTION: If you want to understand your world, we’ll suggest you read every word of today’s lengthy but incomparable HOWLER.

snip

Do you see why we’ve told you, again and again, that Coulter’s “errors” constitute a pathology? That Coulter “misstates” as other scribes breathe, that she’s in a class by herself when it comes to misstatement, deception and slander? Readers, layers of deception are Coulter’s norm, as we see in this ludicrous episode, and as we saw in the remarkable way she “corrected” the final page of Slander (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 4/20/05). How does Coulter’s pathology work? When she “corrects” a blatant mistake, she “corrects” it to something else that is bogus! And when her footnotes show that her text is bogus, her footnotes turn out to be fake-phony too! And it turns out that her text has been plagiarized! And alas! Since normal people almost never encounter pathology of this high potency, it’s easy to be fooled by Coulter. In this case, Taylor caught Coulter in her first layer of “error,” but then passed on her next bogus claim, telling readers that Elders had said the nasty things about Thomas. With Coulter, the lying never stops. Her slanders spread all through the land.

snip

ONE LAST POINT: Who called Thomas “a colored lawn jockey for conservative white interests?” No one you ever heard of! According to the Manchester Union-Leader, the (unnamed) head of the Maryland NAACP called Thomas that in 1997. But so what! Coulter threw it on the pile and pretended that the New York Times said it. After all, it provided a brilliant example of those liberal “ad hominem attacks.”

For some reason, Time couldn’t find this.

[realFedUp]

9. and from Editor and Publisher...

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000892840

Criticism Continues Over 'Time' Cover Story on Ann Coulter

By E&P Staff

Published: April 21, 2005 12:20 PM ET

NEW YORK Time magazine continues to be criticized for putting controversial conservative writer Ann Coulter on its cover.

Media Matters for America wrote on its Web site: "'ou don't know the real Ann Coulter,' Time magazine declares in teasing its cover story on the right-wing pundit. But after reading the magazine's nearly 6,000-word profile of Coulter, readers still don't know the real Ann Coulter. They don't know the real Ann Coulter because Time carefully hid her from view, glorifying her legal work, whitewashing her habitual lies, and downplaying her -- at best -- grossly inappropriate rhetoric."

The liberal media watchdog group added that Coulter -- the author and Universal Press Syndicate columnist -- is someone who "claimed that the Democratic Party 'supports killing, lying, adultery, thievery, envy'; who said of the idea that the American military were targeting journalists, 'Would that it were so!'; who said President Clinton 'was a very good rapist'; who insisted that 'iberals love America like O.J. loved Nicole'; who said that 'I think a baseball bat is the most effective way these days' to talk to liberals; who said it was lucky for former senator Max Cleland's political career that he lost an arm and two legs in Vietnam; who has said her 'only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to The New York Times Building'; and who wrote that the only real question about Bill Clinton was 'whether to impeach or assassinate.'"

In a Salon.com article, Eric Boehlert called the cover story "fawning," and wrote: "Polemicist pundits like Coulter purposefully drive political discourse into the ground, making a cushy, albeit factually challenged career out of labeling Democrats America-hating traitors. Time magazine stands on the sidelines and cheers, confident it has, for at least another week, placated conservative critics who demand proof that media outlets don't lean left."

The Nation media critic Eric Alterman wrote in his MSNBC.com blog that the Time story calls Coulter's writing "mostly accurate." But Alterman said "you can find dozens, if not hundreds, of lies, mistakes, misattributions, and unsupported allegations in Coulter's work."

continued

[arwalden]

10. Our Renewal Card Arrived In Yesterday's Mail...

... we shredded it.