Prominent Political Commentator Takes Strong Exception To American Reporting
Posted by Peter Quennell
Clicka above for the report.
There is a political angle here. The fiery and controversial right-wing broadcaster and writer Ann Coulter regularly takes potshots at the more-liberal New York Times.
But her takes on the case and the problems the Knox PR campaign and the biased component of the media (which is most of it) are creating are definitely well-informed.
Her reference to the Duke lacrosse case is of course satirical. The New York Times took a notoriously wrong position on that case, and stuck with it to the end.
Friends in Italy, please note?
Ann Coulter is THE most prominent and influential American commentator so far on this case. She is much more prominent than CNN’s Jane Velez-Mitchell.
Her column is syndicated in about 500 American newspapers. And she is on TV here every night.
As Ann Coulter lives here in New York, David Marriott has to be wondering if I engineered this.
No, Mr Marriott, I did not. We do not need to engineer the truth about this case. It is breaking through of its own account now, in spades.
Why don’t you simply reign in the dishonest and xenophobic campaign? It is doing REAL harm now to the United States.
And to the lost Amanda Knox there in Perugia.
Ann has what is called common sense. But generally speaking, conservative types will generally come down on the side of the law, where as liberal types will generally look for excuses as to why an obvious guilty person is innoccent: “they made me implicate an innocent person.” Any reasonable person who reads the facts of this case, and the defendants behavior, knows they are guilty. Ann is a common sense person, and common sense says these people are guilty.
Hi kredsox. Very well put. It seems that common sense here may be back in vogue.
Books will be written about David Marriott’s rancid campaign, and the kinds of broadcasts CBS, ABC and CNN have been poisoning the airwaves with.
And none of them will be complimentary.
Ann Coulter’s real target is, of course, the so-called liberal media in general and the New York Times in particular. I disagree with her fundamental premise, which is that the liberal media always gets it wrong and the conservative media always gets it right or - as Kredsox implies - common sense is only found in the conservative mindset. Idiots with agendas come in all shapes, colors and political stripes. Same with shoddy, biased, PR-driven propaganda that tries to pass itself off as news coverage. I don’t know who Jane Velez Mitchell votes for and I don’t care. She is a disgrace to serious journalism, which is probably fine by her because she is actualy in the entertainment industry. And so is Ann Coulter to some extent.
I probably have more in common politically with Timothy Egan, but that doesn’t mean he is “right” and Coulter is wrong in this particular case. Quite the contrary. I loved Coulter’s closing line and think she could have written as devastating an analysis as she did without throwing in her political bias:
“I don’t know if Knox murdered her roommate, but I am sure that America’s news coverage of this case is a crime.”
Well put, Ms. Coulter.
Hi MfromBoston. “Although Guede has already been tried, it seems that Knox and Sollecito are also being tried separately. Is that a correct assessment?”
Yes. The charges are not quite identical as you probably know. Knox has a bit more to face. There is one prosecution and one set of judges and jury, but two defense teams, and probably two different defense strategies, though we have yet to see that emerge.
There will also be two defense summations, and to the extent this is possible two sets of judge-and-jury deliberations. And there could be two different verdicts and, if either are found guilty, two different sentences.
Whether there will be one or two reports similar to Judge Micheli’s 106-page report we don’t know yet. If they are like the Micheli report they will recount what was considered to be the key evidence in considerable detail.
Judge Micheli was influenced most by the very harrowing autopsy report on Meredith and by the physical evidence at the house, especially that proving the moving of Meredith several hours after she passed away. He seemed to be less concentrated on alibis or phone events or relationships in the house or by motives or personal movements in general. Judges and jury here may differ.
Guede was found guilty of a sex crime, as well as murder, and is in the sex-crime-offenders wing of his prison. His own appeal is in November. Knox and Sollecito also each face a sex-crime charge as well as that of murder.
Just a note about reasonable doubt. Here in the U.S., I think the law has developed into beynd a shadow of doubt. I saw someone post that saying somewhere. I think defense lawyers have made it such that almost anything can be resonable doubt. The O.J. sipmson case obviously jumps out. No innocent person would have driven around in the white Bronco in the manner O.J. did. Plus all the other evidence against him. But, some jury,...I also feel that statements made by witnesses should be allowed and the jury can hear both sides of the arguement and they can decide for themselves. I don’t think Ak’s statements while she was a witness should be thrown out. What do you have to Fear? If you say they were coerced, say so in court, and let the jury decide. It seems like that is happening anyway? I also like the fact that the Italian justice system has some judges along with the jury who will decide innocence or guilt. I like the idea of professionalism in some manner. Judges for the most part have some expertise.
Oh dear, please not WorldNetDaily, aka WingNutDaily! One of WNDs columnists is Jerome Corsi who espouses “abiotic oil theory”. This crackpot theory contradicts the facts and well established theory of oil and gas deposits form. The abiotic theory seems to be inspired by Young Earth Creationists, who have difficultly explaining how oil could otherwise form. Much easier to explain if “God put it there”.
I think Corsi is supposed to a “respected commentator”, but clearly has some lunatic theories. This makes me very dubious about anything written on WND.
When Americans turn this into a US vs EU fight, or worse turn into a conservative vs liberal fight, the facts of the case are long gone and the case becomes cannon fodder.
Frankly, US politics is just a big mindgame, once you get into it say goodbye to sanity!
Hi bobc. Crackpots they may be on WorldNetDaily. But you know the saying: even a stopped clock can be right twice a day.
I don’t recall agreeing with Ann Coulter in, oh, well, forever. But she has been like a splash of cold water over the increasingly absurd coverage.
She may not stop it dead, but it was time that someone spoke up. And she bit the bullet, took the unpopular point of view, and was the first to do so.
Wallabee, not quite sure what you are saying totally, but, innocent people only have to tell the truth. They have nothing to hide. No reason to make things up, change stories, implicate innocent people. Just tell the truth, one story. But that’s just me, I guess. But I think you’ll find: innocent people tell the truth, guilty people lie, change their story, blame others,...
Given the situation I think it’s entirely feasible that a person might lie initially to cover-up or try to avoid embarrassment for an altogether unrelated matter (i.e., not murder).
What strikes me about Amanda Knox and her cohorts is that they have continually lied from the very start. As a group, their stories have changed more than 14 times!! That’s nearly a new story every month since their arrest! To me that is another major indicator of guilt, especially when combined with the other evidence.
Where next:Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page
Or to next entry The Second Misleading New York Times Comment On The Case
Or to previous entry Now CNN Gets It All Wrong - What Will They Make of THIS In Italy?