Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Ho, Ho, Ho!

Ann Coulter is a ho. Or a whore. Or a slut. Or any nasty word you can think of. Being a nice person, I don't usually call people hos. But, I recently ran across an old column by Margaret Cho that changed my mind about what Ann Coulter was. Cho is, of course, a comedian and activist for gay rights(women's rights, Asian rights, any other kind of rights). She's very funny and a very good writer. I don't usually agree with what she says, but her piece on Ann Coulter stuck out.
In October 2003, Cho wrote:

[Coulter] is a ho in sheep's clothing, and it is about time she told the truth, the ho truth, and nothing but the truth.Because she doesn't think and she is not anywhere near being the bomb and I just wish that she could be detonated and explode. But the only way that she could blow up is to..own up to her politico prostitution.

(You can read the whole thing here. It's a riot.)

Coulter is a ho, and it has nothing to do with how she dresses. Coulter and many others give people what they want in exchange for money. Journalists are supposed to ask tough questions and find out the truth. They might do it for money, but money isn't their goal. Journalists are the husbands and wives of the reporting world. Hos are, well, hos.

Coulter has gotten a lot of attention, both bad and good, for her new book Goddless: The Church of Liberalism. In it, she says that "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much," in reference to a group of 9/11 widows who tried to get answers from the government. As far as I know, Coulter never interviewed any of the women. Nor does she explain how they were "enjoying their husbands' deaths." What kind of reporting is that?

For Coulter, the ho-dom doesn't stop there. As Cho pointed out, lawyers wear beige lipstick and hos wear fire engine red. Just like that, there are important differences in style between journalists and hos. Journalists don't make personal attacks or call people names. Coulter did both. She referred to the 9/11 women as "broads" and "the witches of East Brunswick." "How do you know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies?" she asked. None of this stuff has any place in a book that wants to be taken seriously.

But, Coulter could turn herself around. There is a kernel of truth in what she writes. On the "Today" show, Coulter said that the 9/11 women were "using their grief in order to make a political point while preventing anyone from responding." This is a thoughtful point. And, she explained her idea well, saying that no one could question the women without being seen as doubting "the authenticity of their grief." Journalists are all about asking questions, so Coulter may be on to something.

Coulter and the many other "pundits" like her on both the left and right have a place in the journalistic world, just like every ho has a street corner. But, as Cho said, every ho needs to be up front about what she's doing. So, c'mon Ann, fess up. Or, at least stop hogging the feather boa.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sadly, calling Coulter a "ho" does a disservice to those who actually earn a living in that manner. I've always been embarrassed to read her columns or see her on television, for I've long thought that she can only be acting, and that she can't really believe the outrageous things she says. But maybe it's not a ruse: after all, why would a reasonably sane person pretend to be vicious?

10:54 PM  
Blogger Amy Allen said...

You're absolutely right. She's worse than a ho. Thanks for reading.

11:28 PM  
Anonymous M.V. said...

This is one of those things that we all know, but it's always nice to hear people say it.

10:00 PM  
Blogger Amy Allen said...

Yes, thanks for reading.

10:03 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home