Battle of the nuts: Ann Coulter vs. Joseph Farah

It's a case of an insane right-wing nut criticizing a slightly more insane right-wing nut, as Ann "attention-whore" Coulter aggravates WorldNutDaily's Joseph "need-brain-pleeze" Farah in not only refusing to believe the particular nugget of kookery that is the "birther" movement, but also accusing Farah and the WND of merely pushing that craziness for popularity. (Because, in the realms of the loonisphere, advertising stupidity and ignorance is sure to boost your reputation – whilst sinking it like a 10-ton anvil everywhere else, naturally.)

Farah felt the need to defend himself and his shitty excuse for a news outlet, and so he begins his column with a truly amusing sentence:

WND provides what I believe to be the broadest forum of political commentary anywhere – not just on the Internet, but anywhere.

You've got to be kidding me. The only way WND could be more deeply entrenched in the realms of the far-right wingnuttia is if it were nailed and soldered there.

Here're the "vicious personal attacks" that Farah took such an issue with:

"not one known conservative public figure or publication believes this – except WND, which I believe is pushing it to get website hits, bc no sane person could believe it – but the MSM keeps interviewing the nuts to make all conservatives look crazy and to distract from the serious problems with obama."

Seriously, that's some awfully tepid stuff. Not something you'd expect a "thick-skinned journalist" like Farah, as he calls himself, to get bent up in a huff over.

And so, the whining begins:

It really grieves me that Ann Coulter dismisses the one real investigative news agency's work and relies on warmed-over pabulum from the American Spectator and an unknown blog. There's a reason the American Spectator is named as such. It is a spectator when it comes to news. It is simply untrue that the Spectator found the birth announcements during the campaign. The first known source of the newspaper birth announcements was a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger in the summer of 2008.

Coulter's problem seems to be her contempt for real reporting – unless it is conducted by a pedigreed "conservative" source. Unfortunately for Coulter, as a lifelong journalist involved in investigative reporting for 30 years, I can tell you there is no such animal as a pedigreed "conservative" news outlet that does real investigative reporting. Apparently WND is just too "independent" for Coulter's trust.

[...]

To suggest we did this – that I did this – "to get website hits" and "that no sane person could believe it," is really hitting below the belt. I have grown to expect that sort of insult from the insanely jealous Michael Medved and the delusional Keith Olbermann, but not from Ann Coulter.

Oh, boo-hoo. Send yourself some flowers. Seriously, what the heck did you expect? Coulter's made her entire "profession" out of insulting others and making disparaging claims. Hell, she's said it herself: she's just out to get reactions. (Which, in my mind, inherently voids anything she has to say, if her focus is to get people to react rather than to actually spread good, valid information and news ...)

I also like his amusing referral to WND as "the one real investigative news agency". Think I might've choked on the donut I wasn't eating, there.

He also brings up the incredible 300 stories ("incredible" as in "Jesus, got nothing else to write about?") he and his rag have published over the past few months concerning the birther movement and all the "evidence" (which keeps failing spectacularly and hilariously) as though it were a beacon of success or any form of valid achievement, when in reality it merely confirms – hugely – the fact that WND is hopelessly biased and, frankly, obsessed with the birther nonsense. I love it how he then tries to deny that they truly believe it or show any bias – he's just said it, right there: "It would not be inaccurate to say that WND's 300 groundbreaking stories on this topic rival the world of all other media combined.". Your own words, Farah. Remember them well.

Though, in the end, you can always count on a feel-good reconciliation full of mushy-wushy feelings:

But, you know what? Even though Coulter's gossip hurts, I forgive her. She's been a good friend for many years. Her good work overshadows what I hope is a momentary slip. I fully expect Ann Coulter will toast me one day for pursuing this unpopular story when no other news agency would. That's just the kind of gal she is. And that's just the kind of guy I am.

How the delusion runs so very deep. "One day", Coulter will be remembered as an attention-seeking wingnut who'd sell her own mother if it got a reaction, and Farah will always be regarded as one of the most passionate kooks who ever lived to spread their insanity in a "news outlet" ('cause you just can't use those words to describe WND with a straight face).

Just curious: whom do you pick as being the more insane?

(via Dispatches from the Culture Wars)

Technorati tags: kookery · worldnetdaily · ann coulter · joseph farah · birther · wingnuts