Ann Coulter: “Poor Rupert Murdoch”

It will of course come as no surprise to many that Attila Ann Coulter is quick to Rupert Murdoch’s defense and comparing the hacking of phone messages by NewsCorp’s News of the World London tabloid with that of other mainstream newspapers who are also guilty of some hacking.  There of course is no outrage in Coulter’s claims about the violation of privacy here regarding Murdoch’s Newscorp, just a rebuttal against those Ms. Coulter claims are “demanding the death penalty for Rupert Murdoch right now.”  Really Ann?  The death penalty?  Hyperbole is also ladled on in most of her columns.  It’s extra thick here.

Of course most reasonable people would agree that what has taken place with Murdoch’s tabloid is a far cry different than what other newspapers are guilty of.  The News of the World hacked the private voicemail messages of Murdered teenager Milly Dowler and the parents of murdered Soham schoolgirls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman along with that of 9/11 survivors and quite possibly the loved ones of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan that worked for Murdoch’s News of the World.  SOURCE

  slain teen Milly Dowler

Set this next this Coulter’s comparison of the NY Times’ release of a private conversation between Newt Gingrich and other House GOP leaders back in 1997 talking about a House ethics committee investigation of Gingrich.  Courts eventually ruled the taping was illegal but the “hacking” hardly compares to the invasion of non-public officials who had lost loved ones through crime, terror and a war.

These hacked conversations by News of the World were conversations whose outcome would not impact national political conditions and who were not under investigation for ethics violations.  You may condemn the invasion of privacy but you would be hard pressed to find any but the hateful right-wingers like Coulter feeling much sympathy for Newt Gingrich.  Coulter has in the past called a spade a spade regarding wire tapping but in her rose-colored view of the Bush White House’s phone privacy invasions, they were only done against known al-qaida sympathizers.

To sugar coat her case for Murdoch she even refers to him as “an American”, not what he really is, an Australian that became a legalized American citizen.  Nothing wrong with this of course unless you are one of the doofezoids that listen to right-wing extremist like Coulter and the Murdoch-owned FOX network, and were unaware that his origins are not native-born American.

It’s one thing to rail against those who expose those who violate privacy rights that make your people look bad, but it s another thing to defend the same actions when it is your people, a former employer in fact, found paling around with creepy voyeurs.

12 responses to “Ann Coulter: “Poor Rupert Murdoch”

  1. I mean like, what do you expect from Ann Coulter? What amazes me is how quick all the right-wing ideologues to fall in line with all the republican talking -points.

  2. She is an idiot. There is a thing such as journalism ethics and tapping phone lines definitely crosses that line. Another nazi woman among us. Why are there so many?

  3. Nothing more than a greedy money grubber. She has nothing in her life but riches. Nothing. No love. No real friends. She’s just an old whore owned by the corporatist men who pimp her. Preaches Antichoice but doens’t have any children and is against gay marriage because she couldn’t find a straight man to marry her. She has never been married and doesn’t have any children and old white freaks read her boring books full of hypocritical lies. What man would be attracted to a woman who is 6 feet tall and as manly as MAnn Coulter? Not many men want to be with a woman who is more manly than most men are unless they are gay.

  4. This is beyond amazing; if I didn’t know better, I’d say Coulter story is tongue-in-cheek.
    She admitted to listening to them and it’s almost certain that she MADE COPIES FOR HER BOOK!
    How could someone whose entire career was catapulted by an illegal recording call NYTs hypocritical?

    Coulter’s hypocrisy angle makes no sense…
    1) According to her logic the only way NYTs avoids being hypocritical is to ignore News Corp. story. OR even better perhaps condone News Corp.’s behavior.
    2) Unlike News Corp., NYTs DID NOT illegally tap into phones…So I fail to see any correlation.
    3) The issue of 16-year-old story that Coulter ignores is that recording catches Newt breaking an agreement he made with House Ethics committee.
    The recording was made THE SAME DAY Gingrich admitted he had violated House ethics rules. The tape confirmed that Gingrich was attempting to rally opposition to the committee’s decision to reprimand him (something he agreed to NOT to do as part of his agreement w/committee…BTW: Newt was fined $300,000).
    4) Coulter’s contrived outcry centers only on the illegality of the Gingrich recording rather than the illegality of what was being discussed.
    5) NYTs received the tape from an Ethics Committee member, not from a sleazy private detective it hired (as News Corp. did)…NYTs printed data leaked from a UNITED STATES CONGRESSMAN…somehow this is hypocritical?

    • Thanks for your comments Pat. I don’t know if Coulter was being tongue-in-cheek with this though I suspect she knows that it was trite, but then she wasn’t trying to appeal to objective thinking people. Your added insights enhance how off the wall this lady really is with this story.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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