Coulter's response to NY Post plagiarism charges: "How crappy a newspaper is the Post?"
In her syndicated column, Ann Coulter appeared to respond to charges that her latest book and past columns contain several instances of plagiarism. Coulter wrote simply: "How crappy a newspaper is the Post? Let me put it this way: It's New York's second-crappiest paper."
In her July 5 nationally syndicated column, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter appeared to respond to charges, first reported in a July 2 New York Post online article, that there are several instances of "textbook plagiarism" in her latest book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, and in her weekly columns. Coulter wrote simply: "How crappy a newspaper is the Post? Let me put it this way: It's New York's second-crappiest paper."
The Post reported:
John Barrie, the creator of a leading plagiarism-recognition system, claimed he found at least three instances of what he calls "textbook plagiarism" in the leggy blond pundit's "Godless: the Church of Liberalism" after he ran the book's text through the company's digital iThenticate program.
He also says he discovered verbatim lifts in Coulter's weekly column, which is syndicated to more than 100 newspapers, including the Fort Lauderdale (Fla.) Sun-Sentinel and Augusta (Ga.) Chronicle.
Coulter did not actually deny the charge -- she did not even use the word "plagiarism" -- but instead guessed that "the Post's constant harassment" is "an attempt to shake me down for protection money," adding: "I have sold a LOT of books -- more books, come to think of it, than any writers at the New York Post."
From Coulter's column:
Once considered a legitimate daily, the Post has been reduced to tabloid status best known for Page Six's breathless accounts of Paris Hilton's latest ruttings, and headlines like "Vampire Teen -- H.S. Girl Is Out for Blood." How crappy a newspaper is the Post? Let me put it this way: It's New York's second-crappiest paper.
Maybe the Post's constant harassment of me is an attempt to shake me down for protection money like they did with billionaire businessman Ron Burkle. I have sold a LOT of books -- more books, come to think of it, than any writers at the New York Post.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
I have sold a lot of books, thus accusations of plagiarism are invalid.? What sort of logic is that?
Sort of like the one espoused by people with (God help us) even more influence than Coulter: "If a president does it, then it is not illegal."
In any event, it's kind of scary to think that someone had Coulter's maniacal ideas even before she did.
That sort of "logic" is identical to O'Lielly's when he says that his ratings are higher than MSNBC's "Countdown". Since he has higher ratings, he must be telling the truth. Errr, or something like that.
Heck, Steven King has sold more books than Ann Coulter. Does that make his books more true?
Um, Ann, a shakedown would only work if the Post hadn't already revealed that you're a shameless plagiarist.
I am ashamed that I hadn't already thought of this!
Um, Ann, a shakedown would only work if the Post hadn't already revealed that you're a shameless plagiarist.
* - rusty shackleford
This is a textbook Karl Rove tactic; avoid defending the indefensible by attacking the messenger. It diverts the discussion while avoiding complex lies which could come back to bite you.
This confirms two things in my mind; Ann is another Karl Rove sock puppet...and she really DID plagiarize the passages in question.
Silence may be considered an admission of fault when the accused fails to refute an allegation made against her that a reasonable person in her position would be expected to deny.
We could learn of Ms. Coulter's "latest ruttings". They could be posted on refrigerator doors all across America. It would be a sure fire weight loss plan. Read of Ann's exploits and then try to keep food down.
.... that it would include descriptions of anal sex and fisting.
Maybe if you keep calling Rupert Murdoch's newspaper 'crappy', maybe you won't be asked back on Fox News anymore.
How wonderful it would be if Ann had no place to spew her useless nonsense.
Ann always has NBC/MSNBC to fall back on. Don't forget the wall to wall coverage they gave to the release of "Godless".
I guess the New York Times, which started and pushed the phony Whitewater scandal, actively campaigned for Bush in 2000, and pimped for the war with guns blazing, is the first crappiest in Coulter's eyes, because of its liberal bias.
The asssertion that the New York Times started and sustained the baseless Whitewater allegations is a slur on the Wall Street Urinal, which carried that little baby forward for baptism by the Rev. Dobson and his accolytes, Phil Gramm and Rick Santorum.
Shouting back is Coulter's best defense, because in this case, it's her only defense.
The Post is only the biggest and latest of the outlets that have run pieces about how similar large chunks of her latest book ar to other works. Since one of the major 'sources' is the Heritage Foundation, she's probably off the hook, legally (who could see it complaining or suing her?)
The way she's responding to these charges, however, shows that in addition to being a less-than-adept writer, she's not as clever a strategist as she seems to think. There's nothing like a good plagiarism angle to make almost all media forget any bias, one way or the other.
Not only does she manage to bash the paper for not mindlessly spewing her lies (which of course makes them either biased or liberal)...but she also makes the right-wihng fallacy that the more money something makes the more value or worth it must have. She sells more books than the Post writer's so she feels she must have more value and credibility than writers for a paper that won't post her lies, hatred and plagerized stories.
LOL! Typical Republican Behavior.
Ignore the facts and message - attack the messager. Top it all off with childish 4th-grade playground antics about how she sells more books than people at the Post, as if that negates all the criticism.
not as crappy as you Ann.
... that she's a bad writer. Or that she substitutes invective for actual thought.
I read her "Case against Clinton" first book cover to cover. I supported Clinton, and was very worried that this LAWYER/writer had "the goods" on Clinton, the legal evidence and applied LAW that would bring him down.
Indeed, she promised an ironclad case which could not be denied. Chapter upon chapter she wrote, like an Olympic swimmer walking laps around the pool she intended to set a new world's record within.
She kept pacing, weaving together rumor and suspicion and innuendo with harsh personal insults and criticism ... personal opinions. She skirted around the actual LAW, arguing that "larger considerations" be substituted, like a demand for nebulous "character", which is a judgment she reserved subjectively for herself to grade in pass/fail fashion.
Chapter after chapter, she would adopt the diving stance, looking ready to plunge in and begin her record-setting performance ... only to back off and resume pacing around the pool.
By book's end, the TRUTH was evidence: She had NOTHING of substance. She had her shrill and obnoxious hatred, she had abundant self-righteousness, she had "smoke" that she equated with a fire "somewhere". She had no evidence, she had no LAW, she had no case.
After circling the pool interminably, dragging us along in her "preperation" journey, she never even got damp, let alone deliver on her promise of a tremendous plunge.
I was relieved, and actually GLAD I spent the bucks to obtain that book. After reading it, I knew for sure that the Rightwing smear machine was hoping beyond hope that their own indignation and hatred could be translated somehow to a legal case for wrongdoing.
Ann turned out to be the literary version of a "c**kteaser" ... lots of promise, lots of extravagant posturing, and ultimately NO delivery.
Buying that book has saved me the expense of purchasing any MORE of such useless tomes by this woman. Hers is a flamboyant bottle, provocative and abrasive, but it is ultimately bone dry and empty.
If she had no market in a half-million or so hardline rightwingers, she'd be pushing hair restoration products or snake oil cures. I'd say "chasing ambulances", but she doesn't have enough grasp of THE LAW to even be a quack lawyer.
Did she write that book before or after she helped set up the perjury trap they used to nail Clinton?
"Chapter upon chapter she wrote, like an Olympic swimmer walking laps around the pool she intended to set a new world's record within."
I'll have to remember to plagiarize that sometime (kidding).
Just think of all the money you saved by not buying all the works she plagurized. In the future we can think of her as a sort of Readers Digest of right wing nut cases.
Then again, it's always been that way (for the last 6 years anyway). Once you've heard one talking point, you've heard them all.
The pool image is perfect...if she screams "I'm going to break this record" long enough and loud enough, maybe nobody will notice that she hasn't actually gotten in.
The NY Post is crappy.
It is a conservative piece of garbage.
Good job Ann!!!
the Post is indeed an awful paper. You can't argue with that. Do you think she is trying to win over the liberals now?
...a word is "crappy"? Most of the words without asterisks here would work better; "abominable, amiss, atrocious, awful, bad news*, beastly, blah*, bottom out, bummer*, careless, cheap, cheesy*, cruddy*, crummy*, defective, deficient, diddly*, dissatisfactory, downer*, dreadful, erroneous, fallacious, faulty, garbage, god-awful, gross*, grungy*, icky*, imperfect, inadequate, incorrect, inferior, junky*, lousy*, not good, off, poor, raunchy*, rough, sad, scuzzy, sleazeball, sleazy, slipshod, stinking, substandard, synthetic, the pits*, unacceptable, unsatisfactory".
It's hilarious to me to hear someone suggest they're credible as an author because they've sold so many books while they use the tone and lexicon of a petulant 7-year old.
When attacked for something you cannot defend, such as plagiarism, always engage in personal attacks or character assassination. What astounds me most of all is that it's only three instances of "textbook plagiarism", meaning she lifted three sentences from articles then ignored giving credit. Really, for Ann, this is such a minor transgression that I'm willing to look the other way. As for her book and its specious core thesis, um, no.
"Godless" is as idiotic and faulty an idea as space heater made out of sweaty dynamite. She's like a crazy person ranting about the blue lobsters that keep stealing her luggage. There is no reality to it yet, sadly, some dopes out there are buying her trash. I hope they are doing something constructive like making origami out of the pages. Bet you thought I was going to write some crude paper related comment, didn't you? No, I won’t stoop to her level. But as a fiction writer, which is Ann’s de facto bailiwick as well, I could potboil my way to millions, as she has, but unlike the Mistress of Rightwing Trash, I gotta sleep at night. Besides, there is no need to make up lies about Bush and company when the truth is oh-so more hurtful than any exaggeration I could concoct in a decade’s worth of opium-induced writing frenzies.
What an excellent post! I couldn't agree with you more. Keep up the good work! Maybe you could publish a book, a truthful book, with proper acknowledgements, but on the opposite end of the spectrum? I'd be more than interested in reading it.
Cheers!
CSL
I do have a novel coming out at the end of the month. The title? Tall Tales. It's work of fiction, of course. You know. Conservative talking points.
The Post is a crappy newspaper. Not that it has anything to do with the plagiarism accusations, but still.
Then again, I sort of like the Post and its crappiness. It's the only (that I know of) newspaper done in the British tabloid-style, which is rather fun, if you take it for what it is.
also uses the tabloid style. They aren't as bad as the NYPost, ironically the decent paper in these parts is the Denver POST. Kooky. But anyhow I can't stand the Rocky's conservative bent, it's headline that never matches the cover picture and yes the tabloid style. It's for lazy people who don't want to fold their paper.
The Post does have an excellent sports page. Try Phil Mushnick's columns, they are intelligent, insightful and entertaining. The rest of the paper I use to wrap the husks of corn after I have shucked it.
...claimed after he'd found a few lifted passages he gave up. Well, I downloaded his "plagiarism-recognition system" from Tucows and I discovered even more examples. All of them from Mad Magazine!!!!!!
I guess on the list of things liberals despise, Coulter ranks ahead of the NY Post. On the other hand, someone should check to see how many times Coulter has used information from the NY Post to suit HER points when no other rag would sign on.
Could Ann Coulter have been a little more original with a "I know you are but what am I?" or I am rubber and you are glue...everyhting bounces off of me and sticks to you...SO THERE!"...???
Definitions of author:
Writer: writes (books or stories or articles or the like) professionally (for pay). Generator: someone who originates or causes or initiates something; "he was the generator of several complaints". Be the author of; "She authored this play".
Definitions of plagiarism:
The act of appropriating the literary composition of another author, or excerpts, ideas, or passages therefrom, and passing the material off as one's own creation.
The false presentation of someone else's writing as one's own. In the case of copyrighted work, plagiarism is illegal.
A form of cheating by means of the unacknowledged, literal reproduction of ideas and material of other persons in the guise of new and original work.
To plagiarize is to take and use another person's thoughts, writings or inventions as one's own, without acknowledging or giving the source of the ideas and expressions.
Definitions of plagiarist:
Ann Coulter
The sad part is that no matter how much her plagerism is exposed, her "fans" will not care at all. I thought for sure that Mr. "non-Spin Zone" O'Reilly would be hurt significantly when he paid off the woman who sued him and demanded a confidentiality clause just days after going around saying on TV that he would fight her every step of the way. Surely, there could be no greater hypocrisy than that, and his fans would turn him off, right? Wrong! Or Rush "we should throw all drug users in jail" Limbaugh. Obviously, when it turns out that at the same time he is saying this nonsense that he is an addict using his housekeeper to buy drugs, his Dittoheads would realize what a hypocrite he is, right? Wrong, again. So now Coulter, who has made a career of wringing her hands over Clinton's "lying" is exposed as a serial cheater. Who cares? As long as these pundits' fans get their daily doses of smug, disdainful comments against all the things they fear: liberals, gays, "unAmericans," etc., and they are repeatedly told that they represent all that is good and true in America, they remain sedated, and they do not care at all that the people who they turn to to help shape their opinions are hypocritical liars. Frankly, it should not matter at all, except that these people do have influence, and that is the sad part.
When these cretins spout off about "family values", what they really mean is "narrow-minded Christian dogma". It actually has nothing to do with real values like honesty, compassion, integrity or fairness. Those are for pussies.
The Soprano family, the Gotti family, the Corleone family...
It's Christian in name only. I don't know whose dogma it is, but I wish they'd put a leash on it.
I probably should have said "Narrow-minded Old Testament cherry-picked values".
The hateful things they espouse have little resemblance to the teachings of the man known as Jesus.
Ironically, Puddinhead George cited Jesus as his "favorite philosopher", yet his policies don't reflect it. I doubt if he could tell you anything Jesus allegedly said.
“I probably should have said ‘Narrow-minded Old Testament cherry-picked values’.” What the hell is that supposed to mean, Nerzog?
First you stated, “narrow-minded Christian dogma”, to which ChristianDemocrat responded, “It's Christian in name only.” So you rejoined with, “I probably should have said "Narrow-minded Old Testament cherry-picked values". Pray tell Nerzog, what are those “[n]arrow-minded” Jewish bible values you so glibly disparaged with an offhanded nonchalance?
Remember, Coulter & her ilk just love to pounce on unsuspecting or casual remarks. And they extract as much bile as they can from it. And when they spew that, they really don’t care what they’ve stepped in. But if someone else calls them on their lies & deceptions, they all cry foul while wiping their shoes on you, all the while bemoaning America’s cursed fate…all caused by whom? No, not them, for they are righteous. Yet righteous…in their deceit. Don’t help them.
"Pray tell Nerzog, what are those '[n]arrow-minded' Jewish bible values you so glibly disparaged with an offhanded nonchalance?"
-----
Spare us your pumped-up outrage. Do you wear clothes of blended fibers? If so, you're going to Hell. Do you eat shellfish? If so, you're going to Hell. Do you eat pork products? If so, you're going to Hell. If you're single and your brother dies childless, are you going to marry his wife? If not, you're going to Hell. If you believe in the Bible and don't believe every one of those things is a command from the Almighty, then you're guilty of cherry-picking Old Testament values.
The OT is full of supposed commands from the Deity telling Mankind not to do things because they didn't know about such things as trichonosis (that's why pork is forbidden, for instance).
The Bible is great literature, full of both great and awful stories, both well-told and on the level with a hack fiction writer. But a literal book? I don't think so.
To respond to your drivel…
First: No; no; no; no brother; no.
Second: Your O’Reilly-esque rantings serve no purpose. That puffed-up, chest-thumping retort you spewed, patently exposes the intellectual myopia of your mental partnership with the talking heads of Fox, you so obviously cherish…rather covertly.
Lastly: Your blind-sided, sucker punch deceitful tactics run contrary to Media Matters for America. Your diatribe bespeaks volumes of misinformation, falsehoods & lies, while correcting nothing and offers no analysis. Your inability to simply comprehend furthers rampant conservative misinformation and its covert activities, which a seemingly deaf, dumb & blind media consistently fails to report, investigate or even look into. Just as the hacked screed of your bilious harangue. Again you offer nothing.
The postscript: If you can’t be honest regarding what you believe; if you can’t admit the obvious ignorance you clumsily try to hide; if you consistently avoid truth while continually insisting your are right; if you always attack the messenger without understanding or even reading the dispatch; if you drown out others’ words so only yours’ are heard; if all you can do or say or think is deception…you are no better than those who cowardly run away after being exposed by MediaMatters. And you surely personify B.O. You both harbor thoughts in extremus tuchas.
Behold the truthful behind of her other book…The Godless Church of Ann Coulter's Liberalism of Evolution Misinformation, with an “Executive summary” excerpt:
Moreover, if all of Ann Coulter evolved from some single-celled organism beginning in a little mud puddle, why hasn't Ann Coulter made a little more progress? Was it ever desirable in any of Ann Coulter’s many dirt holes to mutate eyes or legs or a brain?
a Karma will run over their Dogma.
But it sure is FUN to watch Ann self destruct! (I mean, come on, did this ex-lawyer, actually use the adjective "crappy" in her column?).
Here is another "Ann Speak": Do you know what is more FUNNER? Observing the countinous support from her fans as she self destructs. My all time personal favorite..."Well, she was just being sarcastic and funny. By golly, ya'll liberls just don't git comediAnne's humur. She's one funny gurl"
The nim-rods who buy her books.
Dear Ann, You got caught, big deal. Just let everyone know that these bad people are saying bad things about you and that it is not fair. So you didn't write some of the stuff in your book--just let them know that the nasty stuff you say is all yours. It is something you can be proud of. Do not listen to these people because they aren't on TV and you make more money than they do. They are JEALOUS of you.
Signed MOM and DAD
P.S. We taught you well and are proud of you...and SEND MONEY
. . . and I predict it will be that her "research assistant" failed to give credit to the real writers.
Was Ann Coulter calling the New York Post a "crappy" newspaper because they run her column, or because they don't?
Additionally, if they are a "crappy" paper, and uncovered her deceptions, doesn't that make her even more of a "crappy" writer herself?
I mean correct. What a great point. Kind of like to old addage--Don't crap where you eat.
It's not surprising that she is a plagiarist, Coulter has always struck me as intellectually lazy, rarely coming up with her own take on politics (except in those cases where she's mocking someone, or borderline slandering); she just reiterates conservative talking points. The closest she comes to being insightful, and this is a stretch, is claiming the 9-11 widows are enjoying their husband's deaths, that's a unique interpretation only because it's so distasteful that even conservatives wouldn't have entertained it.
I have a certain amount of respect for other conservative writers/pundits; Buckley, Will, etc. always struck me as intelligent and thoughtful, even if I disagree with their views. But Coulter. . . well. . . she's just shrill and hateful and self-concerned. Look at her respomse to the Post-- she ignores the charge and hurls her own counter charge. She does that a lot-- if you bring up a GOP politician accussed of a crime she responds with "Kennedy. . . Chappaquidick. . .!!" as if this is a "GET OUT OF JAIL FREE" card.
Someone should look over her old high school and college papers and see how far back this problem goes.
I agree about Buckley, Will (sort of agree), but I get your point. As long as they make clear that X is their opinion, and Y is fact, then I have no problem. But, what I detest (and what has been happening alot lately) is when they try to pass their opinions off as facts.
"I have sold a LOT of books -- more books, come to think of it, than any writers at the New York Post."
Yes, that's so. And that's sad. It's sad that millions of Americans are willing to support someone as shrill and mean as you. Your statement reveals your pride and your vanity, neither of which are Christian attributes, which is odd for a woman that alleges that the left is Godless. Just what are your Christian attributes, Ann? The Bible says that a person that believes will be forced to manifest Christ-like qualities. In what ways are you like Jesus Christ? Do you have his humility? His disdain for wealth? His preference for the poor? Do you heal, Ann, or do you hurt?
Excellent point Holly. And let us also remember other memorable moments from the Bible. "Thou shalt not steal.", "Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor.", and the ever popular "Judge not lest ye be judged"
The flying lunatic is a verbal hitman (and mess) for the far right. The NY Post is a conservative paper. This is strange. what? NY Post not conservative enough?????
This screeching fascist bitch is going to go down like that Repuke blogger at the Washington Post did a few months back. Should be entertaining.
Steamboat Annie should mind her manners, After all her biggest single forum for spewing her venomous crap is none other than the FOX News Channel. They give her free reign to do or say any outrageous thing she wants to. And guess who owns FOX news? None other than Rupert Murdoch who also happens to own the "second crappiest newspaper in New York." Better watch your step Annie or or O'Reilly may boycott YOU!!!
Weak, Anne.
Have you ever admitted fault in anything? An honest mea culpa?