Josh Marshall's lame ass excuse for advertising Ann Coulters book!

[trumad]

Fuck Josh, What next! Swift Boat adds! :mad:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_10_10.php#003663
I've already gotten a number of emails, as I expected, about the Newsmax ad for Ann Coulter's new book down there to the left. It's not a mistake. The site hasn't been hacked. A year ago, when I started accepting ads I gave much thought to the policy I would maintain for them. And I decided, for many reasons, that I would not reject ads based on political content. (I restated the policy a few days ago in this post and discussed limits of taste and appropriateness that I do apply.) Distinguishing issues of taste and appropriateness from mere political disagreement is not always easy, especially when the opinions expressed are as hateful, ugly and -- more than either of those two -- just ridiculous as Coulter's are. But this is my policy. It is consistent with my understanding of what this site is and why it accepts paid advertising. And I'm sticking with it. Your comments are of course welcome

[Stephanie]

1. Just lost my respect

I guess "integrity" doesn't apply to anyone in DC. I'm very sad to see this.

[bryant69]

16. What if his integrity forces him to allow advertising

from people who's views he despises? I mean he makes it clear that his belief is that he shouldn't judge advertising dollars based on political content. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I can respect it.

Republicans are the ones who want to silence and elminate all views that aren't theirs; we usually don't go that way.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Stephanie]

22. Ann Coulter's despicable & represents everything JMM is fighting against

Would he take an ad for Aryan Nation or CCC? Would he take an ad for Halliburton or Carlyle Group? If so then he has no principles and he's just a Beltway whore like the rest of them.

*edit* What do you find respectable about that? The fact that he doesn't allow his principles to interfere with his income?

[bryant69]

25. Do you believe in freedom of speech?

Or do you just believe in letting people who agree with you speak?

I will admit the later is a popular view; but if you believe in freedom of expression you have to allow it for views you don't like or even hate.

Also less there be no misunderstanding; I hate Ann Coulter and what seh stands for.

[Stephanie]

26. No one is impeding Ann Coulter's freedom of speech

But I don't have to promote her. By your logic I should put a Bush/Cheney bumpersticker on my car.

[bryant69]

27. I agree that you don't have to promote her

But Mr. Marshell has some space to rent on his blog; he's decided that his commitment to freedom of expression requires him to allow Ann Coulter to buy space there. You and I might disagree with that decision; but at the same time I don't think we can disagree clearly enough that he's some sort of republican sell out for allowing her to buy space.

Bryant

[H2O Man]

34. Then where should he draw the line?

If not with Ann Coulter, where? Serious question! How about the KKK? The American Nazi Party? Or is money simply money, and Josh has to do what Josh has to do?

I am not saying that he is a terrible person. But I will say this: when people want to be on the top at their job, there comes a point where they have to decide if they are willing to "rise above their principles"? And that is, of course, foolish .... because they aren't rising above their principles, they are just showing they are willing to trample them in their rush to "success." That separates people who hold fast to principles from those who prefer comfort to truth.

[bryant69]

38. I don't see it that way

I see it as a clash of two principles, both of which I find laudable.

He holds free speech and free expression as the most important and so he bases his acceptance of Ann Coulter's money on that principle; I actually do think that is kind of wrong headed, but I can respect that decision.

You on the other hand (presumably) hold that Ann Coulter's book is political hate speech (which it is), and is ugly enough that nobody on the left (certainly not someone like Mr. Marshell) should promote her views in any way. I can respect that as well; I mostly agree with that.

I don't think he's just doing it for the money; I assume that if he didn't take newsmax's money someone else would pay him.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[H2O Man]

39. I think you contradict yourself.....

If it were an issue of "free speech," than it's curious that Brother Josh is taking money for it. Free speech would be if he allowed Ann to have space on his page to explain her views. The selling of ad space is commerce. Denying that it is about money doesn't change that.

The question remains: where should he draw the line, if at all? Should he take money from the KKK or Nazi Party .... or are they too extreme? How about little Michelle Malkin, with her nice new book on internment?

[bryant69]

40. Free speech is about commerce in the modern age

Every means of communication past walking around and talking to people has to be paid for in some way. That's why they have fund raising drives here at DU every so often.

I don't know where Mr. Marshell should draw the line; I'm not him. I have to say that if you see it as a free speech issue; as Marshall seems to, than the question is hard to answer.

They are two condradictory values; it's hard to determine which one is more important in a definative way.

I mean let's go the other direction; should he accept money from, say, David Limbuagh. Or Robert Novak. Or George Will. Or Chris Matthews. Or Tim Russert. Where do you draw the line?

[H2O Man]

45. I'll start with saying that you

make some interesting points. While I disagree strongly with your position, I recognize that part of what you say is valid, and you are as entitled to you opinion as I am mine. I just want to make sure that it's clear I'm not disagreeing with you as a person, or questioning your values. And I think that you are equally respectful of the differences we have here. This is what discussions should be.

I've never paid a penny for having one of the hundreds of letters to the editor I have had published. They are by definition opinion pieces. The book obviously costs money. I'm not opposed to buying books by people I disagree with. But I will not fund evil, and Ann Coulter is indeed an evil human being. She preaches hatred and division, and encourages violence.

Josh is not promoting freedom of speech. He is not reviewing her book, commenting on it, debating it, or allowing her to discuss her opinions.

Placing ads does indeed involve, to a small degree, issues of freedom of speech. Should tobacco ads target the teen-agers? Is that really a free speech issue? Or can we agree that it is only "commerce," and has a profit motive as its only true goal -- despite the enormous harm that tobacco does to young people?

Josh's move to promote Ann's book is based entirely on revenue. He has the right to do that. But it will offend a significant segment of his readers who thought that he had principles that were a greater influence on him than is profit motive. They were, of course, wrong. He recognizes that Ann can access the dollar, and he erither never shared the principles that many readers assumed he had, or he has put them on hold. I must be honest and say that other than on DU, the only time I read anything by him was in regard to a story he was providing a network with on the Niger documents. So I have no idea if he "sold out" or if he never had the values that many were led to believe he did.

Where would I draw the line? I'll tell you this: I have been an editor of a Native American newspaper for about 20 years. I've never taken a penny from anyone who did not share our principles. But I wasn't trying to make a living or become famous. I was trying to spread a message of truth to the public. The paper has always been provided to the public for free. That's what I think defines freedom of speech.

[bryant69]

52. I just think you are ascribing motives to him you can't possibly know

While I respect that you have a certain standard that says you wouldn't accept such money; he has a different standard that says he would. I think that's my basic problem, is you are ascribing motivation to him. He want's Anns money so he takes her money.

Part of the difference might be just that--I read him all the time so naturally want to ascribe more noble motives to him. I like him as a writer, I think he's pretty good; a little inside the beltway sometimes, but quite good.

Not taking money from anybody who doesn't share your principles might work for you, and more power to you. But I think that's a level of purity beyond what can be reasonably expected for all.

[H2O Man]

55. Whenever anyone sells something

for money, it should be pretty easy to accept that they are doing it for money. One can easy find that financial motivation is part of what you refered to as "commerce."

It's fairly common to find that when people like someone, especially in the case of a public person, that when their flaws surface, their fans have trouble being able to fit those aspects in with the image they have. But, in truth, we are all sad and weakly human.

Hence I can say quite honestly I would prefer to think I labor for my principles, rather than them working for me. And I hope that just the opposite of "more power to (me)." (grin) Better less power to me.

[gavodotcom]

48. he's not a republican sell-out, he's just a sell-out. eom

[leftynyc]

43. First amendment rights protect us from GOVERNMENT

infringement...nobody is stopping that she-devil from writing whatever she wants. I'm very disappointed in Josh.

[H2O Man]

47. very important point!

thank you!

[bryant69]

50. I didn't mean to mention the First Ammendment

If I did I"m sorry.

Freedom of speech is more than the first amendment however. You can take away someone's freedom of speech without having to use governmental power to do it.

[H2O Man]

56. How?

With the exception of a case of family violence, school, or the military, how is that? Let's here about it in terms of Josh's site and Ann, if possible.

[mitchum]

69. Thank you, leftnyc!

I am glad that you pointed this out to the poster who seemed to be very confused about the true Constitutional meaning of freedom of speech.
I am driven batshit by those who subscribe to the erroneous received idea of the concept.

[Bombtrack]

2. I really wouldn't classify it as "lame ass". Look at it this way, Coulters

publisher is wasting money on a market that will never buy her book, which means that much less money for right-wing evil.

[trumad]

5. The dude is pushing a book for a hack who advocates

the elimination of Liberals.... By it being on his web site he is pushing it!

[cardlaw]

8. My thoughts exactly.

Perhaps Marshall is doing a favor by diverting advertising from sources that might actually help her sell her swill.

[immoderate]

49. this was my thought.

I call it win-win. Marshall gets the money. Few will buy that book through the web site. World wide liberal sales of that book CANNOT be significant.

We should encourage people to read these books. How effective is it to condemn a book that you haven't read? We shouldn't fear people reading this. I don't think it will persuade any intelligent person.

I think it does no harm to commit to the principle of free speech. And I don't think that restricting the ads will do us any good.

--IMM

[PROGRESSIVE1]

3. Why gee Josh, by advertising mAnn KKKoulter on your website....

you really just cancel out your purpose of being a "balance" to the hard Right Wing.

I guess I should NOT VISIT your site anymore!

:argh:

[ronnykmarshall]

20. He has shamed the Marshall name!

:grr:

[Florida_Geek]

4. One less polictial site for me

I will not be going back.

Just told the same to him in an email.

[MidwestTransplant]

6. Who cares. Not like anybody visiting his site will buy it.

Coulter is wasting her money.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

19. That's what I think...

I'd love to have the RNC pour thousands of dollars of advertising revenue into DU -- they'd be poorer and we'd have new servers (plus the satisfaction of knowing they wasted their money).

[JuniorPlankton]

7. "Lame" doesn't convey

what I feel about it.

:mad:

[KoKo]

9. It upset me, too, and I'm a big fan of Josh. I read his statement and

it's odd. I can't stand to look at Coulter, so I will limit my time there, too.

[DakotaDemocrat]

10. Holy cow...

I hope the ones that are slamming him are the first ones in line when he asks for funds to keep the site going.

[in_cog_ni_to]

11. How many right wing sites advertise for Michael Moore,

I wonder. This is wrong. Plain and simple. He shouldn't accept any ads from RWers. They want to destroy us. Why the hell would he do this? Nothing Coulter has to say is taseful or appropriate. He's wrong to do this. JMCPO

[Bucky]

12. His site is a for-profit venture. I doubt it'll influence his content.

I think it's harmless. It's not like any of his readers are more likely to buy her book because it's advertised on his site. He of course has conservative readers too, but they're either swallowing her hysterics or they're not. He's just putting bread on his table.

[geek tragedy]

29. Instapundit has ads for left wing groups.

This bitching is idiotic.

JMM has been the #1 point person on leading the Sinclair boycott. Now, because he has a 100% free spech policy on his website, some people are wetting their diapers.

[Generator]

33. I love the sentiment

Exactly, the RW never hold any prisoners and we continually cave, cave cave in. At what point do you draw the line?

I agree with everyone that no one will buy the book, he's making money from it, he's a good guy, but where do you draw the line?

I would draw the line at Coulter, myself. She has not only advocated harm to liberals, but her infamous comment about invading "their countries and killing their leaders and converting them to Christianity" should have wiped her off the acceptable list for the rest of her life unless she changed her ways.

I'm not the surrendering caving in type myself. I'd rather move to another country that continue to defend my own demise.

[charlie]

13. I won't begrudge him making coin

from right-wing adverts. But Coulter is beyond the pale. Coulter's opinions are not just "hateful, ugly" or "ridiculous", they're incitements to murder. Even if you overlook her advocacy of killing liberals and blowing up the NY Times, the woman once wrote in a book that the only considerations left for Clinton were "impeachment or assassination."

Take it down Josh, you're making a mistake with this one.

[pelagius]

14. The Nation magazine...

...accepted full page ads (including at least one back cover) from Faux News. Many angry letters were sent by readers. The editors' response was "Hey! Fox News just wasted their money and we're using it to criticize their agenda."

If you follow the logic that money must be "pure" before it can be accepted, you will be principled and poor. I'll admire you for your stand, I guess -- if I ever hear of you or your cause, which is unlikely.

More power to Josh.

[JJinSF]

23. Money is money

I agree with pelagius. I find it amusing Coulter is now helping support a liberal.

[KoKo]

67. An excellent point. And I remember all of us screaming on DU about their

Faux news ad on the back cover way back. We raved on a long thread like this. But, is the Nation still worth reading? Yes...

I will swallow my dislike of looking at Coulter on his site and still read him. If he starts to seem Coulterish...I will pass him buy.

[Killarney]

15. I figure it this way...

I'm ok with it because whoever is paying for the ad (Newsmax/Coulter's publisher) is WASTING their money. No liberal is going to buy that book. And even if some conservatives do read TPM to see what the other side is saying, if they're so political that they're reading TPM, they have already heard of Coulter's book, so it's nothing new to them. The money is wasted.

All in all, this ad money is going to help TPM stay afloat which is good to us and the ad money is being WASTED which is good for us to. When Republicans waste money, I smile. :)

[MarkTwain]

17. DU: Grow the FUCK Up!

... Marshall is the preeminent progressive intellectual blogger on the internet. His blog is, by far, the most respected, read, and cited by not only the progressive community in general but, equally as important, by other progressive bloggers and media outlets as well.

"Another site I don't have to read," "He's off my list," and "Lost respect," are reactions whose abject myopia are exceeded only by their commerical and political immaturity and stupidity. Go the hell ahead and follow through on your posts: you will be the one who will have lost a invaluable source of progressive information and discourse whose intellectual value is beyond measure.

Jesus H. KeyRist. Get a life and recognize and respect a valuable member of the progressive community when he candidly discloses his purpose and his policy, applies it consistently and honestly throughout the political spectrum and, most importantly, does not evade the issue as the wingnut troglodytes would do and do do, in a heartbeat.

Get a damn life.

[ProfessorGAC]

21. Good Call, Mark

In addition, he's basically stealing from Dimbulb Annie. Nobody who goes to Marshall's site is actually going to buy her book. So, she's spending advertising dollars that will net a negative return.

She got scammed and it's completely legal. Good for Josh.
The Professor

[chiburb]

24. Couldn't agree more....

TPM is the FIRST site I click on in the morning, and has been for over a year. Because a RW hack wastes advertising $$ there is no reason for me to stop reading a balanced, intelligent writer...

[Dookus]

30. exactly right

god, people, get a grip. He's not hawking her book - he's taking MONEY from her publisher. I doubt any regular readers of TPM will be buying the book.

[H2O Man]

36. There's an interesting scene in the movie

"The Doors" that might apply here. Three of the guys in the group have signed a contract that allows the song "Light My Fire" to be used in a commercial. Morrison is angry, because he does not want the group's work to be contaminated. I think that people can have honest differences of opinions on this, and even have different values. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "growing up." If you are comfortable withthe Ann Coulter ad, that's okay. But people who have different values are certainly entitled to them. I would respectfully suggest that you're emotional response is off-base.

[T Town Jake]

68. What you said - precisely.

(n/t)

[venus]

18. Sounds logical to me. When he formulated his policy

Coulter's' book hadn't come out. Who could have predicted such hatred. Wish the Repugs had such integrity and advertised Dem books.

[abburdlen]

28. OMG!

I saw a Kerry ad on Fox! He's such a sell out! That settles it I'm voting for Nader!

/sacasm off

Really do people really have a problem with Josh taking cash from nut-jobs so he can keep posting stories about what nut jobs they are?

[Redleg]

31. I'm not going to hammer Marshall over this one issue.

He has been an intelligent, vocal advocate for Democrats and democracy so I still support him.

[GOPNotForMe]

32. Hell, take that hag's money

Not like most (any?) of his readers are going to go out and buy it anyway.

[LuminousX]

35. Oh Please

the people who read Marshall's site on a regular basis aren't the ones who would buy Coulter's book.

All in all, there are bigger things to worry about.

[Ducks In A Row]

37. Josh's head is up his ass on this

you can be fair about your policy and STILL disallow Coulter's crap ad.

[gavodotcom]

41. Truly a putz move and a lame excuse ala Nader.

I respect Josh Marshall's work.

Having said that, this is a shitty attempt at rationalizing the checks he's going to receive.

In my mind, Josh is equating himself with Nader's acquiescence with Republican efforts to get himself on the ballot. You can justify it any way you want, all you have to do is draw upon the First Amendment, harp on the 'acceptance of different viewpoints and opinions' schtick, and hope that it satisfies the civil liberties masses.

If you want to put conservative ads on your web site, go ahead. But if you're going to try to attempt to justify it with anything other than "I couldn't make my rent this month," don't fucking bother asking for credibility.

You can't sell out and expect to be thought of as principled. We all know Marshall's not a Republican shill, but there's a big difference in not calling for the bombing of FoxNews and hiding behind the notion of 'equal time' to make money--and I'm sure NewsMax, just for the pure joy of having the ad on Marshall's site, paid a pretty penny for it.

Nobody who believes in the progressive movement is going to buy Coulter's book from Josh's web site. But it's simply another feather in the hat of those who think that Republicans have a monopoly on principles.

[AVID]

42. lame

I emailed my regrets

[otohara]

44. As A Former Media Buyer .... Why Would Newsmax

advertise on Marshall site? It's to piss of his readers and to cast doubt about his site.

[H2O Man]

46. great point.

thank you!

[otohara]

59. I Recieved E-mail Response From Josh

I told him how Clear Channel is famous for dirty tricks and placing bogus ads on other stations under bogus ad agency names, just to fuck with the competition.

He doesn't seem to think this is the case in the Ann Coulter buy he received.

Okay Josh - Newsmax is an upstanding, reliable news source and wouldn't stoop to such dirty tactics.

[robbedvoter]

51. Well, they succeeded. I am deleting it from my bookmarks.

[pmbryant]

54. Cutting off nose to spite face

No one reading Marshall's site would ever be interested in purchasing anything by Coulter. If the RW wants to spend money supporting an important progressive writer, why should we complain?

Peter

[H2O Man]

58. Interesting.....

How is a person deciding not to read Josh, because he is accepting funds tied to Ann Coulter, cutting off their nose to spite their face? I'm curious what you mean by that.

I have to say that I like shows such as Hardball on MSNBC. But if Ann is on, I tend to turn to another show. Of course, once she's gone, I will turn back. But of course that is very different from reading a site that takes funding that is tied to Ann.

I haven't seen anyone on here advocate a boycott of Josh. But several people have said that to continue to read his site at this time would compromise their values. If we could agree that good people can have different values, isn't it possible to say that those who elect not to read Josh are not cutting off their noses? Isn't it better that they follow their conscience as individuals, rather than cut off their values to please others?

[pmbryant]

70. Here's what I mean

Refusing to support (by visiting his website) a talented, influential progressive writer that you enjoy merely because the RW is wasting money on ads there hurts the progressive cause.

The GOP slime machine is relentless and we need a unified front against them. Splitting ourselves over issues that have no negative real-world impact does not seem like a wise course of action.

Of course, I suppose I could blame Marshall for this just as well as the readers who used to like him. But one alleged mistake doesn't justify the other ones.

Please let's stick together.

Peter

[frank frankly]

53. Josh is off my favorites list.

coulter is too explicitly a nazi for me to accept.

[immoderate]

57. They're giving the book away!!!!!

Having that is worth showing it on the web site.

They have to give it away!!!

--IMM

[chimpy the poopthrower]

60. otohara (#44) is right. This is meant to hurt JM. And DUers are buying it.

I don't even visit Josh Marshall's site, but I can't believe some people are so naive that they will boycott the site because of an advertiser. You know what I heard on AAR during Franken's show today? An ad from the Saudi govt. trying to convince people how swell they are. Most liberals have issues with the Saud's human rights record. Should we all go out and boycott AAR right now?

[H2O Man]

61. It is important to place responsibility

where it belongs. Josh accepted the ad for Coulter's book. If people choose not to read him because of that, it is a consequence of his action. No one has called for a boycott on this thread, as you have implied.

You do raise an interesting point regarding AAR. I think that the media involves making choices. It sounds like Josh has a lot of value to offer. I may be more likely to read his material now out of curiosity.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

62. well... maybe not a formal boycott

But some people have said they will stop going there now.

[MarkTwain]

64. You are ABSOLUTELY correct and THIS THREAD...

.... is a disgrace.

It demonstrates that the progressive community has its own element of hysterics, politically and commerically immature, and the just plain dirt dumb and naive to have OVER-reacted to a pitiful little advertisement in the manner in which they have.

Josh Marshall is a man whose contributions to the progressive cause in one hour of any day exceeds by a hundred fold a years worth of the contributions of those who have criticized him here. Critics whose primary focus today has been to turn on Marshall. Marshall, a beacon within the progressive community and a man who has yet to even approach his ultimate greatness within his professional sphere.

All these critics can do is place bitchy little posts in a thread attacking a true friend of liberalism and threaten to "remove him from their favorites," and "never visit the site again."

Oh my. Just how will Josh Marshall ever, ever get along without such stellar folk? I'm sure he's placing his laptop on EBay this evening and hanging up his Doctorate while sending his resume to Fox News.

[senseandsensibility]

63. After his horrible, waffling performance

on c-span after the vp debate, I lost a lot of respect for Josh. Now this?

[KoKo]

66. Josh had a big story trashed by the CBS TANG affair. He has to make

a living and I've rethought my former opinion about the Coulter advertising. I'm going to give him a break because he has a career to think about and some of the DU'ers who said we can't hold him to such tight standards, make a point.

We all have to do things in our jobs..we might not want to do. Who knows what he had to deal with when "60 Minutes" dropped a story he had worked on for months. We all know what the RW can do. It's easy for us to be "pure" here on DU when we post. But, out in real life, we have to compromise once in awhile. If he has to take some RW advertising to keep informing us Democrats...then he has to.

Even DU takes pop ups that some have complained to Skinner about. None of us are so pure when we have to eat. :shrug:

[Xenus Sister]

65. Ah well, I won't be going back there. Thanks for the warning.

[sleipnir]

71. I think it's funny.

A nice bit of irony, even if Josh is oblivious to that fact.

Also, why not take their money and advertise for a book that hardly any of his visitors are going to read and even less purchase.

I do agree that this is a probably a devious ploy to destroy Josh's credibility. Time will only tell if it works.