Patterico's Pontifications


Show Me the Hypocrisy!

Filed under: Buffoons,General — Patterico @ 12:00 am

A new Ann Coulter ad begins running on the sidebar today.

What a damn hypocrite that Patterico is! Here he rails against Coulter, and then he accepts an ad for her book?

You betcha!

Let’s assume that you agree with me that, while she is usually right, her brand of insensitive (and often violent) invective gives conservatives a bad name. (I know, I know. Not one of you does, in fact, agree. Have you ever heard the phrase “for the sake of argument”?)

If you feel that way, then who would you rather see taking the money? Her, or me?

Okay, then.

UPDATE: OK, I can see that I will have to offer something more than the flip and somewhat tongue-in-cheek explanation I have already given.

The bottom line is this: the advertisements here are not an endorsement by me of the opinions expressed therein, any more than the comments here are.

There are certain over-the-top opinions that, if I learn of them, I may choose not to allow to be expressed here, whether in the form of an ad or a comment. This would be rare, however. Examples include racist ads/comments, or ads/comments that seriously advocate violence. (Even that is not categorical; I might choose to leave such opinions up, to show the deficiencies of the person or organization who advocates them.)

But I don’t want to be in the position of monitoring each ad for its content, to see if I agree with it or not. Since I don’t endorse the positions taken in the ads, there is no reason to do that.

It has nothing to do with the small amount of money involved. What I get from the Coulter ad, I am going to donate to Officer Kristi Ripatti’s family anyway.

The point is that I don’t want to set a precedent that says I must agree with the ads, or else I can’t run them.

17 Responses to “Show Me the Hypocrisy!”

  1. I more or less do agree with you.

    But your justification is fallacious. There is no big pot of money associated with “Godless” that is to be split up between various parties (publisher, retailer, author and advertiser). Given the incredible reach of Patterico’s ponitifications and the fact that it’s audience are people who might otherwise not buy “Godless” isn’t it likely that by taking Ann Coulter’s advertising you’re actually helping her sell more books? Is it true that if you didn’t take her money she’d advertise on another blog that could help her sell just as many books as your blog? Don’t underestimate yourself!

    nittypig (4c1c43)

  2. “Let’s assume that you agree with me that, while she is usually right, her brand of insensitive (and often violent) invective gives conservatives a bad name.”

    Objection, compound statement!

    I agree with the last clause but heck, yes, run the ad. I’ll give a plug too. The last time I looked, was giving a (roughly) 40% discount on the book.

    nk (8214ee)

  3. Patterico:


    I’ve defended Coulter again and again on Big Lizards, not just in comments but posts. I’m not as popular as PP, but it’s not like we’re sloughing along; we get about 2000 hits a day.

    So how come *I* don’t get any Ann Coulter adverts through BlogAds?

    What do I have to do, call her long distance and beg for it, like a doggie begging his mistress for a treat? (Hm….) That’s risible and degrading, and I would never heel to her whistle!

    Um, anybody have her number?


    Dafydd (6e94cd)

  4. What nittypig said.

    You could use the same argument to carry Ward Churchill Legal Defense ads; do we want the money with you or Ward Churchill? If you do that, it’ll be consistent with this post (which I grant appears somewhat tongue-in-cheek.)

    Patterico, this is a place you could take a stand. Step back, good sir, pontificate, and take that stand.


    JRM (de6363)

  5. P, I share your dislike of Coulter, and I agree with nittypig’s reasoning. It’s not an either/or scenario. Your profit doesn’t take away from hers but adds to hers, in the likely event the placement of the ad is effective.

    Steve Ely (ff51b4)

  6. Since when are you only allowed to accept advertising from people you agree with??

    Arnold (f53dc2)

  7. Arnold, your point would have more merit if Patterico’s argument had been to the effect of “even if it benefits Coulter, with whom I disagree, I don’t mind that as long as it benefits me as well.” But he framed it as either her or him profiting, which seems to be flawed reasoning.

    There are people whom I disagree with but whose increased book sales don’t bother me. There are others I find distasteful enough to avoid driving any support to them (although, admittedly, the scenario in which I profit by driving support to them is very hypothetical for me). I might have expected Coulter would fall into the latter category for Patterico, but evidently she’s in the first.

    Steve Ely (ff51b4)

  8. There’s a fair debate to be had whether (1) it’s fair to an advertiser to take their money while mocking their product and (2) it’s proper to take an ad promoting something you don’t think people should buy.

    That said, I agree 100% with your take on Coulter.

    Crank (3fed2a)

  9. I see nothing hypocritical about taking ad money from an author with whom you disagree. Newspapers take ad money all the time from sources that contradict each other. They certainly can’t agree with both at the same time. Wait, maybe they can. 😉

    sharon (fecb65)

  10. What’s it to us or to anyone else if Patterico makes a few bucks or if the lady makes a few bucks? A good book is its own reward and a bad book contains its own remedy. Personally, the more I read Ann Coulter the less I read Ann Coulter. I have read two new releases since June 6, neither one Ms. Coulter’s book. One of the authors had four earlier books out that I had not read and I got them too. (Hmm, I seem to be marching to the beat of a different drummer a lot on this site, lately.)

    [See my UPDATE above. — P]

    nk (41da82)

  11. If I buy Ann’s book on a link from your site do you participate in the transaction? I want to buy “Godless” and would prefer to do it in such a way you get a cut, if that’s possible.

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  12. This should not be an issue.

    Patterico is employing the same advertising business model used by newspapers, magazines, radio & TV: Purchase of advertising does not imply endorsement by management.

    Dennis Mosher (47031d)

  13. The update is an entirely satisfactory explanation; setting a low bar for those who blogads hooks up with you seems like an entirely reasonable stance.

    And Kristi Ripatti’s family is indeed a noble cause.


    JRM (de6363)

  14. The left uses most of the mainstream media, the universities, trade unions, movies, TV programs, and even celebrities such as George Clooney, Madonna, Alec Baldwin, et al, in which to take jabs at ‘conservatives.’
    I’m not talking about liberal bias, here, I’m specifically talking about jabs, punches, and knock-downs.

    Even a show like “Saturday Night Live,” while it has done skits poking fun of NPR, Al Gore, and Bill Clinton—it has generally taken quite a liberal slant in its 30 year existence.

    So what is the counterweight to “Saturday Night Live” and all the other mediums which take jabs at ‘conservatives’ ?

    Ann Coulter is the counterweight.
    She takes jabs at the left, and she’s very entertaining.

    I’m very supportive of civility, courtesy, and taking the high road in most arenas in life.
    However, I do think there’s a time and place for Ann’s brand of duking it out with the liberals.

    Go, Ann, Go !

    Desert Rat (d8da01)

  15. What Desert Rat said. Too many Ann Coulters would be a bad thing. But we need one, and it might as well be her.

    Xrlq (0e6733)

  16. […] Meanwhile, Osama bin Coulter has a piece on the NY Times even Patterico might could love – if it only it had been authored by someone else. […]

    damnum absque injuria » Conservative? Terrorist? What’s the Diff? (38c04c)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2223 secs.