The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Profiles in Stupid: NBC Bans Ann Coulter – “We are just not interested in anyone so highly critical of President-elect Obama”

Posted by iusbvision on January 6, 2009

Problem: Ann’s book doesn’t have much to say about Obama. – Nope …no leftist bias at NBC right???

coulter-guilty

Via Matt Drudge:

Banned for life!

“We are just not going to have her on any more, it’s over,” a top network source explains.

NBC’s TODAY show abruptly cut Ann Coulter from its planned Tuesday broadcast, claiming the schedule was overbooked.

Coulter was set to unveil her new book, GUILTY.

But one network insider claims it was the book’s theme — a brutal examination of liberal bias in the new era — that got executives to dis-invite the controversialist.

“We are just not interested in anyone so highly critical of President-elect Obama, right now,” a TODAY insider reveals. “It’s such a downer. It’s just not the time, and it’s not what our audience wants, either.”

For the book, Coulter reportedly received the most-lucrative advance ever paid to a conservative author.

The TODAY show eagerly invited the author months ago, for her first network interview on GUILTY.

The exclusive was to air during the show’s 7 AM hour. The cut came Monday afternoon.

MSNBC cancelled her interview too, all this on the day her best selling book is set to release. NBC replaced Coulter with leftist talk host Rachel Maddow.

Talk about a gift from God, now Ann can say that the lefties at NBC are out to censor her and the booking was a sham to keep other shows from booking her on the day of her book release….and she would be right.

HERE is audio from the John Gibson show with Ann’s reaction.

CBS News, understanding that Ann Coulter is a ratings bonanza (even though they hate her too), rushed to book her this morning. Here is Ann intellectually toying with the small minded journalist who was stupid enough to try and engage her with the typical ignorant far left elitist attitude that Ann is a master of destroying:

It has been my experience that elite media journalists, as a demographic, are among the most uninformed people in America. They have certainly demonstrated weaker critical thinking and comprehension skills when it comes to any subjects that brings them into cognitive dissonance and in this interview it really shows. 

I particularly like the part where Ann starts pounding the idiot journalist with fact after fact about leftist violence and when he realized he is getting taken apart he starts talking over her by repeatedly saying “take a breath take a breath”  – check out the video to see Ann take on that tactic as well.

UPDATE: NBC CAVES – Invites Coulter Back. So it looks like Matt Lauer is going to get his butt kicked by Ann again tomarrow.

5 Responses to “Profiles in Stupid: NBC Bans Ann Coulter – “We are just not interested in anyone so highly critical of President-elect Obama””

  1. Ike said

    Ann Coulter’s book is not outrageous. She is part of the neo-con, zionist machine. Her books are not controversial, they are neo-con wet dreams. Read a book that’s actually been banned like “America Deceived”, not a corporate-approved Coulter ‘novel’. Don’t waste your hard-earned money on Coulter.
    Last link (before Google Books bends to gov’t Will and drops the title):
    http://www.iuniverse.com/Bookstore/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=SKU-000083883

    [Ike,

    ohhh its the evil “Zionist Machine” – its da JOO”s…. *rollseyes*

    Please provide evidence that what Ann says is “approved” by someone before she writes it. Knowing something about Ann Coulter, she would not tolerate such a situation.

    So I looked up this book you mentioned, and for a book that is supposedly “banned” it sure is easy to find. HERE is it’s Amazon entry. It stands to reason that if “they” and the “evil corporations” are out to ban a book, they didn’t think about Amazon?

    The book is easy to get, the “banned” label is an obvious play to get conspiracy theorists to buy it.

    One thing I did notice, is that several places have talked about this book, and it looks like most people said that the book is a joke. This web log gets LOTS of hits, maybe this is just a spam post to help sell your book. – Editor]

  2. L Sherm said

    I’m fascinated with this woman. She’s not particularly articulate, lashes out, and interrupts the interviewers and can’t convincingly back up her statements and yet she gets so much attention. She claims that the “liberal media” has been promoting single motherhood, and the children of those mothers are filling the prisons. The prisons may (or may not) be filled with children of broken homes, but isn’t the issue more nuanced than that? Do people actually think that these mothers (from presumably low-income areas) perusing the Times’ story about single women using sperm banks to get impregnated? Come on, it’s far more complicated than the media hypnotizing the general public. I don’t wish her to be banned from every media outlet, only ignored.

    [Ann backs up her case in her book with varifiable evidence, quotes and statistical evidence and she fully footnotes her books. Ann is attacked for how she says things, she isn’t credibly challenged on the factual case she makes. It is important to keep in mind that the destruction of the traditional family and morality was one of the far left’s stated goals. Look up a book by former FBI Agent Cleon Skousen called the Naked Communist.

    http://www.amazon.com/Naked-Communist-W-Cleon-Skousen/dp/1568493673

    http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm

    – Editor]

  3. coffee said

    confession: i know she’s abrasive, but i totally have a crush on Ann Coulter

  4. lj sherm said

    I wouldn’t even criticize AC’s for her presentation. She’s intentionally provocative for the sake of riling people– and it works. What is traditional? One man, one woman and kids. No birth-control, thus many kids? The idea that the “Destruction” of the traditional family is supported by, or a goal of any group, is not a viable statement. If you or AC is suggesting that a non-traditional family (with one mother, two mothers, two fathers, etc.) is destructive and immoral, this is subjective. I don’t buy that children brought up by non-traditional families are filling the prisons. More likely it’s children from low-income, young, probably broken families, with little education and presumably on gov’ aid. It’s pretty obvious to me– these families are not proceeding in this fashion because the media “Approves” their way of life. Sure she finds evidence to back her statements. If one digs long enough, you can “Prove” your point. From Holocaust deniers to child-rearing experts, everyone seems to have “proof”. Conversely, I believe that the rigid ideal of a family unit is being pushed on me by the likes of AC, but I’m not biting.

    While I did not vote Mr. Obama, he’s a pretty grounded person. Both intelligent and seemingly a good “Family man”. As everyone knows, he came from a very non-traditional (or in some minds, distructive) family– thank goodness. Even with a name that includes Hussein– which AC bandies about– he’s a Christian– or is there proof he’s a Muslim?

    [Sherm – the tie in with illigitamacy and social problems is perhaps the number one most documented social ill. This started with the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Report (in 1969 if memory serves). Even philosophers such as Nietzsche wrote of this. If its all about income and such, how come we did not see such crime during the great depression?? Kids brought guns to school in those days and they didn’t have problems.

    As far as your question about Obama, no one knows what he is. He has used one office as a stepping stome to go to the next he has never done anything. He voted present 133 times in the state senate so no one has any real idea what he will do. – Editor]

  5. lj sherm said

    I can tell you that in Chicago most of the crime is in the low-income, South and West sides of the city– poor, black, lousy schools. Again, these are not people waiting for validation of their lifestyle from The Atlantic or The Nation. There have been great leaps in our culture since the depression– not only the structure of the family. Our culture is impatient, self-gratifying, violent, indulgent. Life is cheap. Material goods have replaced real life experiences and interpersonal relations. Many children (from one, two, more parent households) are not taught that being part of the family is contributing. Kids are aimless and overly privileged. Schools don’t teach life skills, or even explain the point of why their learning the things they’re taught. The American culture almost embraces violence. This seems to be the way to solve problems– whether is the via Government action, or on a one-to-one level by smacking your kid. Children of the depression help support their families, thus had a purpose. Children respected adults. Respectful children to not automatically appear because they’re part of a traditional family. As for children bringing weapons to school in the 20’s, I have no idea, but know that Switzerland is armed, but not violent. What’s the story with the family structure there? This seems to me more of a religious debate. But I digress, AC intentionally baits, and the interviewer bites. She basically shuts down any chance of a real conversation (and the interviewers don’t help)…. it’ entertainment. This is an enormous issue. I can’t imagine that AC could address it in a thoughtful way. But alas, I did not read the book, and it’s unlikely I will… her credibility is lacking.

    What is Obama? Does this mean, you’re unsure of his religion? if so, who cares? separation, you know, of church and state. I was obviously commenting on his character. As for what he’ll do, my expectations are low, but I’m hoping for the best.

    [Good Post – and there is a great deal of truth about what you said here, esp about inner city schools that fail so utterly that it has become like a form of racism.

    I disgree with your point about separation. None of the Founders had the view of seperation that was invented by the courts in our generation, not a one of them. What Thomas Jefferson was talking about when he said that in his letter to the Danbury Baptists was that no branch of Christianity will not be held over any other sect. So the court deliberately misinterpreted that letter to use the “logic” they did. The Justice who made that ruling was Hugo Black, a member of the KKK who hated Catholics and his ruling was designed to undermine Catholic influence in the country.

    Should Rev. Martin Luther King been told to shutup and to leave his religion out of how he wanted to change the country? Should the abolitionists been told to cram it because they opposed slavery on religious grounds and set out to force that view on the country (and were successful)? – Editor]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: