Media Matters asks Random House to investigate Coulter plagiarism allegations
July 7, 2006
Peter Olson, Chairman and CEO
Stuart Applebaum, Public Relations
Random House, Inc.
1745 Broadway
New York, NY 10019
Jenny Frost, President and Publisher
Tina Constable, Vice President, Executive Director of
Publicity
Crown Publishing Group
1745 Broadway
New York, NY 10019
Dear Mr. Olson, Mr. Applebaum, Ms. Frost, and Ms. Constable:
I am writing to bring to your attention troubling evidence that one of your authors, Ann Coulter, plagiarized portions of her recent Crown Publishing Group book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism.
The New York Post reported on July 2 that John Barrie, who created a "leading plagiarism-recognition system," examined Coulter's book and found three examples of "textbook plagiarism." The Post reported:
Barrie, CEO of iParadigms, told The Post that one 25-word passage from the "Godless" chapter titled "The Holiest Sacrament: Abortion" appears to have been lifted nearly word for word from Planned Parenthood literature published at least 18 months before Coulter's 281-page book was released.
A separate, 24-word string from the chapter "The Creation Myth" appeared about a year earlier in the San Francisco Chronicle with just one word change -- "stacked" was changed to "piled."
Another 33-word passage that appears five pages into "Godless" allegedly comes from a 1999 article in the Portland (Maine) Press Herald.
Meanwhile, many of the 344 citations Coulter includes in "Godless" "are very misleading," said Barrie, who holds a Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley, where he specialized in pattern recognition.
"They're used purely to try and give the book a higher level of credibility -- as if it's an academic work. But her sloppiness in failing to properly attribute many other passages strips it of nearly all its academic merits," he told The Post.
The Post went on to report that Barrie also found that "Coulter's Universal Press [Syndicate] columns from the past 12 months" included "similar patterns of cribbing":
Her Aug. 3, 2005, column, "Read My Lips: No New Liberals," about U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter, includes six passages, ranging from 10 to 48 words each, that appeared 15 years earlier in the same order in an L.A. Times article, headlined "Liberals Leery as New Clues Surface on Souter's Views."
But nowhere in that column does she mention the L.A. Times or the story's writer, David G. Savage.
Her June 29, 2005, column, "Thou Shalt Not Commit Religion," incorporates 10 facts on National Endowment for the Arts-funded work that originally appeared in the same order in a 1991 Heritage Foundation report, "The National Endowment for the Arts: Misusing Taxpayers' Money." But again, the Heritage Foundation isn't credited.
I know Random House takes plagiarism very seriously, as it should. When evidence recently surfaced that Kaavya Viswanathan plagiarized from two books by Megan McCafferty, published by Random House subsidiary Crown Publishing Group, the company reportedly pressured Viswanathan's publisher -- Little, Brown & Co. -- to pull her book from stores.
According to USA Today, in April 2006, "McCafferty's publisher, the Crown Publishing Group, labeled Viswanathan's actions 'literary identity theft' and had urged Little, Brown, which initially said her novel would remain on sale, to pull the book."
The Boston Globe reported in May 2006 that Little, Brown would not publish a revised edition of Viswanathan's book, and that the publishing company made the rare decision not to publish a second book by Viswanathan, which was part of the original two-book contract with Little, Brown.
The Associated Press reported in April 2006, "In a statement issued soon after Little, Brown's announcement, Crown said it was 'pleased that this matter has been resolved in an appropriate and timely fashion.' "
Coulter has exhibited a pattern of behavior suggesting that Godless itself may include other examples of plagiarism beyond those Barrie has already identified. Now that the newspaper syndicate that publishes Coulter's column has indicated it will investigate the charges, we urge Random House to undertake a comprehensive review and consider all appropriate action, up to and including pulling the book. Coulter's unethical conduct, as evidenced through the instances of plagiarism identified in her columns, and manifested in the book itself, does not only tarnish Coulter; if immediate action is not taken, it will soon reflect poorly on Random House.
Sincerely,
David Brock
President & CEO
Media Matters for America
It probably depends on how much money they're making on the book. Given the Ann Coulter saturation in the media lately, sales are probably pretty good.
O'Reilly + Ratings = Facts.
and now...
Coulter + Sales = Literary Legitimacy.
I wonder what wacky equation will be manifested next?
"MIGHT MAKES RIGHT"
also, of course, "GREED IS GOOD".
"Greed is Good"? Hey! You "plagiarized" that from Gordon Gekko! Be careful, Bill O'Reilly cruises this web site.
BILL O'REILLY: In our back of the book segment. Those "far-left" smear sites are all abuzz over a line or two in Ann Coulter's new book that bear a vague resemblance to a line in some other book. But here's my rub. One of the posters on one of those "far-left" smear sites comments on the Coulter coincidence by using the phrase, "Greed is Good", which was "stolen" from the very lips of Gordon Gekko and the movie Wall Street. With me now -Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, who has written legislation designed to have the thief, Tex, removed from the internet - FOREVER!
But Fox Security is knocking on your door.
Now all he has to do is utter the password, 'Olbermann'.
Just so you're aware, plagiarism does NOT extend to SHORT movie quotes, and it NEVER has.
Taking a popular movie quip ("Greed is good", "You can't handle the truth", "I don't know nothin' 'bout birthin' babies") without attribution actually comes under fair use, and, not surprisingly, has been used without any serious outrage, even by politicians (such Reagan's use of "make my day" and commercial slogan "where's the beef") because such quips are widely recognized. However, plagiarism is NOT an example of "fair use" because the material is NOT widely recognized. Plagiarists rely on one of two ideas: 1) Their readers won't recognize where the material came from; 2) Their readers believe that the material is "widely-held" fact. I believe Ann relies on both ideas to let her plagiarism slide. This doesn't excuse her plagiarism in any way.
Movie quotes are more akin to proverbs which, by the way, are rarely if ever attributed to their originator(s). There's a whole book of them in the Bible which almost never receives any attribution when one selects one of those proverbs. Once a movie quote becomes part of the popular lexicon, it rarely receives due credit (for that matter, the phrase "Hasta la vista, baby"--made so popular by Schwarzenegger in T2--was used in a Jody Watley song nearly four full years before Arnold spoke it; of course, Arnold didn't even utter it first in the film, but almost no one remembers who did--Eddie Furlong as John Conner--but still I don't know of a single person who credits Jody Watley and Andre Cymone with "creating" the phrase).
I hate to tell you this, but the whole thing about the movie quote being lifted was intended as a joke! Next time I'll put little smiley faces beside these kinds of statements to let you know I was just havin' fun.
You caught me.
I will immediately turn all my ill-gotten gains, all the piles of cash, I have gained as the result of selling my post in this thread to the unwitting pubic as "MY WORK".
Whoever wrote that line in the movie deserves to be given the credit AND all the cash I tried to gain by using his work without direct accreditation.
I'm sure COULTER will follow my lead.
Rather then fulfilling their mission of documenting "conservative misinformation," MM's efforts are simply coming off as an effort to "get" Ann Coulter.
Five posts yesterday and one (so far) today. That's a lot. Is this really a good idea?
My 2 cents. Thanks.
Given her vitriolic legacy of misinformation so far, I think any effort to shut her up is a good idea.
Fight fire with fire, but at least MMFA (not including MMFA posters) can do it with civility.
---"My 2 cents"---
Suggestion:
Spend another 37 cents on a postage stamp. In your letter, ask Coulter to stop her lies and the plagiarism. If and when she does stop, you won't see her name here anymore.
MMFA might be after Ann. I'd like to think so. She has earned that. She should be taken down. Not just because she is disliked but because of what she does. Spreads hate and divisiveness. I don't care if it's her voter fraud, unpaid parking tickets or plagirism. In my mind she's shouting fire in a crowded theater. Her free speech should be revoked because she is creating an environment of hate.
While Fox News - OH, I'M JUST SO SHOCKED! - is silent on she-wolf Coulter's plagiarism, Keith Olbermann isn't bashful about covering it.
[link to www.youtube.com]
What I find interesting is that the conservative NY Post is behind outing her on this. Her response? To call the newspaper "crappy" while not bothering to address the central issue of her being a plagiarist.
Worse, they've found examples of plagiarism in her syndicated column so she's a serial offender. Newspapers carrying her column are investigating.
Will conservatives stop pumping money into the Ann Coulter cash machine? Hardly. As long as she calls liberals naughty things they could care less about the truth and honesty of her words.
Coulter = $$$$. Doris Kearns Goodwin plagurized and she wound up portraying herself as a victim. Ann is a snake and will come out smelling like a Rose on this one.
Chris Matthews has called Ann a "great author" more than once.
Will this change his opinion of her? Will he have her on? Will he ask her about this?
I went to my local public library and was looking for a number of books that had been reference in some reports recently. Couldn't find any of this books despite the fact that most were written by experts and college professors. I then attempted to find Helen THomas's new book-Wan't there. Now Whethere or not you like Thomas you can not deny her impact on jounalism and her credibilty as a legitimate author. Yet it wasn't there. The Library just recently got a copy of Brock's Book Blinded by the Right but is not on the shelf and isn,t checked out. But I tell they got 'ole Ann's book in there the WEEK it was RELEASED.
IT would not bother me so much is this was not a Publicly funded Libraray. A Library should be a place of knowlege. The infomation provided there should be valid and credible. I will admitt that are Library is limited on funds but I feel because of that they have an extra duty to see that the money is spent on credible books and not TRASH. Whether it's a left wing nut case or ring wing nut case-- before my county's tax money is spent to provide a non fiction literary work for our community, SHouldn't that book be credible.
Reality has been suspended...we now live in a world where the Grand Canyon (taxpayer funded) Gift Shop offers a book which claims that the Grand Canyon was formed by Noah's Flood. Compared to that, a library carrying Ann Coulter's screed is small potatoes.
"There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone." Serling, Rod (1959).
dear random house,
despite all the disgust we are displaying due to coulter's plagairism, we all know that is not the real reason behind this smokescreen of a letter. we are simply using these charges because the success of this book is driving us nuts and we are looking for some way to discredit it or in our dreams, yank it from the shelves. even though they are the only twisted opinions of ms. coulter herself to shock people into buying her book, we are just outraged. and the fact that coulter is her own worst enemy and this book only highlights her nuttiness, we are steamed.
so please, accept the plagairism outrage publicly, but know the real reason is we want to shut her up, for good.
sincerely, mmfa.
nt since you can't read anyway
Pun intended. ;)
You use the popular republican tactic of smearing the messenger, because you know that the accusation is hard to defend. It's both predictable and depressing.
I don't think the plagiarism charges are a big deal, personally, but it's pretty obvious that she did plagiarize. So what do you suggest that MMFA (or others) do - just sit there silently and pretend that everything's OK?
i didn't smear anyone, i simply offered my opinion as to the real motive behind the letter. i'm sorry if you didn't like it, but it was hardly a smear, republican or otherwise. mmfa has every right to write to random house, jump and down, hold an anti-ann parade, whatever they want to do. that wasn't the point. the point was what, in my opinion, should have been a more upfront and honest reason for the letter to begin with.
Just questioning their motives and diverting the discussion away from the topic, and instead making it about the messenger.
The usual tactic.
The 'real' motive behind the letter HOW? Oh, your amazing mind reading ability. I dont belive it. Oh I see you HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING what the 'true motive' for this letter is, so you pulled this ASSUMPTION directly out of your ass. On Planet EARTH as opposed to Planet WINGNUT. That is a smear.
you accuse me of smearing yet you say that i pull info out of my ass? very well said, not to mention real classy. i said it was my opinion. what part of that did you miss?
---"i said it was my opinion."---
There's no one who would love to censor or shut up all liberals--for good--than Ann Coulter.
You love what she writes and says about liberals. Godless, and so forth. And you want her to keep on doing it. Even if it's plagiarism.
Just my opinion.
In kind what I see from cons. It WAS a smear. You smeared. When you arbitrarily assign motives, when you make up out of whole cloth what you WANT a motive to be you are smearing period. Wherever it came from it did NOT come from any logical progression of thought or of evidence of any kind its a smear. I think your motive to do this is you hate America and like us looking bad, see how easy that is? Just pull it from whatever dark dank portion of our anatomy where it resides. Its specious and its cheap. And I am not above turning it back on you. I am sick of rightwingers thinking somehow that THEY have some exclusive franchise on cheap shots and personal attacks if you dont LIKE them stop MAKING them. Make a point if you decide to smear MMFA or liberals then I have no compunction in responding in kind. The whole pulled it out of your rectal database thing is pretty tame its obviously true. You had NOTHING to base this claim on NOTHING you know I said it.
And my opinion is that you molest small children. Hey no reason to call it a smear or get upset its just my opinion
That was good. And to be even more honest, you could add.
If this doesn't work, next week you will get another letter calling Ann a racist.
If that doesn't work, the following week we will find something else to write to you about.
We know our case is weak, but we are getting desperate, we can't shut her up!!
to spew her hatred and misinformation. Oh, don't worry, we're assured, Ann is her own worst enemy, and the intelligent American people will surely see through her charade. LOL! Like they've seen through Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity, or Bill O'Reilly?
Admit it, Right On; you want MMFA to shut up so that Ann and the other Right Wing Stepford Pundits can regurgitate Karl Rove's talking points unmolested.
you are as off base as you are delusional. ya right, i am coulter's biggest cheerleader and fan. you just don't get it, do you? in your twisted ultra left wing view, unless you take shots at coulter and use offensive language, exactly as she does getting right down in the mud with her, then you somehow are propping her up and promoting her. some of us consider her a clown for profit with mounting irrelevancy, you want to elevate her as some serious conservative voice because then you don't have to discuss real issues of importance - only continue to bash coulter as an easy target, easy for your reasoning skills and your flimsy leftist positions. ain't hard to figure.
You poo poo MMFA for bothering to point out Coulter's sins; you think she'll go away if we just ignore her? Interesting theory, since the media have been giving her a virtually unrestricted megaphone to spew her nonsense. MMFA is merely doing what it says it will do; pointing out conservative misinformation. If their pointing it out to Coulter's publisher gets her yanked from the shelves, too bad for her.
I enjoy your "Sensible Republican" mantra, but I'm highly skeptical that the millions of troglodytes buying Ann's book share your distaste.
first off, i didn't poo poo anything. mmfa can do whatever they feel is important for them. i merely pointed out, as many others have, that how much publicity is this website giving her and is it really worth the effort. you seem to think it is, fine. go for her then. as for the media, she is always on fox news, every show all the time, they love her, so what. as for the other's, she shows up occassionally for shock value and to outrage people like you. great marketing. as for conservative misinformation, remember - most of ann's rants are her own opinions, so it does not fall under conservative misinformation. it does fall under the jaw dropping antics of one far right wing book peddler, that's it.
"we are simply using these charges because the success of this book is driving us nuts and we are looking for some way to discredit it or in our dreams, yank it from the shelves."
Okay, you didn't actually use the words "poo poo", but I think it is basically the same. Your implication is that Coulter is so far on the fringe that she is no threat, and that her opinion's don' t count as "misinformation", is that correct?
Whether she is a threat or not will play out in time, as her rhetoric finds its way into public discourse. She often states her opinions as facts, i.e. "Liberals hate America." That is simply a lie, and qualifies as misinformation. The substance of her rhetoric, if not her caustic style, is repeated daily by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Michael Savage and Bill O'Reilly. To a lesser degree it is being picked up by "Journalists" like Chris Matthews. Tell us again how it has no effect...
"liberals hate america" is not a fact, it is her opinion. can't you see why she says stuff like that? to get a reaction from you and other's. do you think she would get a reaction if she said "liberals, well i am just not sure how they feel about america, i hope they love it, but darn, gosh, i just don't know, i don't want to be unfair..................." she gets what she wants. my point is if she goes unanswered, she goes unnoticed and then goes into obscurity, eventually. if someone is there to go point for point with her, she eats it up like a cheeseburger. believe me, without you she is nothing. you don't want to admit that, but it's true. you are her greatest asset, she as much as says that when she taunts liberals to respond to her wanting to pick a fight. fact is, no fight can happen without willing participants on both sides. you want to keep her in the media's eye as much as she does. because to get rid of her, also gets rid of her wacky opinions. and many on the left live for it as much as she does, just in different ways.
You apparently are assuming that Republicans are too smart to believe what she says. Are you that naive?
Rush Limbaugh pukes out the same basic rhetoric...Liberals hate America, Liberals want the terrorists to win...etc. Do you really think his listeners dismiss this as "just his opinion?" Do you think he thrives only because of his liberal critics? Surely you jest.
what is your point, do you want to silence these people? is that what you're advocating? it's all moot anyway, whether people believe it or not probably depends on the amount of koolaid they drink, or what their blind ideology tells them to believe, or what they want to believe, or whatever? people who think liberals hate america believe it as fact but it is a subjective opinion, it can't possibly be anything else. it's like saying conservatives hate the color red. you can't make a blanket statement like that and say it's fact, that is ridiculous.
Just pointing out that they are liars, plagiarizers and bloviating morons. YOU say we ought to just keep quiet and TAKE IT. Personally I dont like that option. Ignoring Limbaugh for lying, misleading, and smearing Liberals nonstop really hasnt worked out that well for us. Then again maybe thats the idea.
this website is asking the publisher to pull her book. and you buy their lofty reasons of plagiarism concerns as a good excuse.
Just market forces at work. Look on page 32 of your GOP handbook.
Is a valid reason to pull a book it has happened before for this very reason. No one is saying Coulter shouldnt have a right to say all of the insanely stupid and hatefilled vulgarity she regularly spews. Plagiarism is a legal issue. This is not the first time she has bee accused of plagiarism and even paraphrasing without attribution is plagiarism. There is a fairly good prima fascie case against her. The idea this is not a farily well established accusation is flat out ludicrous. For THAT reason not her cruel, heartless, mouthbreathing psychosis is why it should be looked at and if the publisher agrees he absolutly should pull her book. If NOT he is liable for a lawsuit if one should be brought against Coulter. She can scream her psychotic head off plagiarism is another matter.
Is that MMFA is doing its job by pointing out these things. Will it help? Who knows, but it's worth a try. If liberals ignore Ann, the major news outlets will continue to give her a platform; the major publishers will continue to put her crap in the bookstores. Shutting her up is not possible in a free society; relegating her to the marginal fringe is a goal worth striving for. Right now, she is hip deep in the mainstream, and she's poisoning it. We can only hope that the cable shows and book publishers would become too embarrassed to give her access.
She'll have her nutbag audience whether MMFA criticizes her or not; if you don't believe that, then you're not paying attention.
Publishers do pull books for plagiarism. It is a standard practice in publishing. Their own reputation is at stake. To them their reputation is more important than one author's work.
Plagiarism is considered very serious by anyone who is involved in education, publishing, writing, scientific and all other endeavors. It is more prevalent today, and seems to get worse each year.
I understand what you're driving at, you think if everyone would ignore Coulter and those like her, they'll all go away. That won't work. Ignoring The Swift Boat Scum didn't help John Kerry in the election. Some say that if he had fought against their accusations harder, he might have received more votes. Lies and distortions must be confronted as they appear. If they are not, they could be perceived as truth and fact.
Not because I disagree with them. Because they lie and use hate speech. They yell fire in a crowded theater. What's worse they are paid to do so. Their speech directly effects how people interact and creates tension between groups of people. So yes, this liberal believe they should be silenced or at the very least marginalized a great deal. Free speech has limits after all. They use hate speech.
this is why many on the far left terrify me much more than anyone on the right. and just who is to decide "hate speech" used by coulter and others when directed at nobody specifically? you? some panel or higher authority? whew!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
lies or misleading information used to encourage hateful acts towards others. It's a hard line in the sand and these folks cross it. It may be difficult for you to disearn opniion from hate speech in this case because you are not among the group being singled out. Liberals are. This site has documented countless dubious remarks by these yahoos. I'm not alking about tucker Carlson or George Will, Ann has called for violence against liberals. She then says she was kidding after being called on it. It's pretty easy to determine hate speech when you suggest a congressmn should be fragged or a sitting president should be assasinated. There's really no reason to be afraid. These folks are out of the norm and are dividing the citizenry. With the rise of these people the level of civil political discourse has decreased.
what you are advocating is censorship, pure and simple. coulter is nuttier than granola, but to silence her and others because you don't like what she says is censorship and a slippery slope i am not sure you want to go down at all, i certainly don't. if some idiot acts on ann's rantings and hurts someone else, they, not her, are responsible for their own acts. hers is just political rhetoric jazzed up to sell books; outlandish, offensive, stupid, demeaning, insulting, mean, nasty - yes. but to silence her because you say she "spews hate" is far more dangerous to our culture than anything she could ever say.
wouldn't be the first time. I prefer to allow a fool to make a fool of themselves and free speech does offer that. But I have witnessed these hooligans lie and mislead people creating needless tension and division. Censorship is a bad thing, and you're correct in wondering who decides what is hate speech and what is not. So I'm in a quandry. I can't stand idly by and watch a handful of people use their speech to dismantle my beloved country. At the same time I do respect their right to speech. I guess all I can do is continue to bitch about them.
as much as i would defend coulter's right to say the things she does, i would equally defend yours in denouncing her. that is america.
Putting the plagiarism argument aside I would also defend Coulter and Limbaughs right to spew their insanity. It is the American way. Timid men prefer the quiet of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty Thomas Jefferson
Righton, I see you as a moderate rightie, and I am with you to a certain extent in the plagiarism issue. I don't believe MMFA should bother with trying to get Coulter's "book" pulled, because the publishers would be fools to do so, from a financial standpoint.
The problem with Coulter is that she does use hate speech. She advocates the killing of other human beings. There are many examples of this sort of speech, and for that reason, she needs to be held accountable. I hope that some of the people she continues to slander will eventually take action.
i would vigorously defend anyone's right to hold coulter accountable if they felt slandered in anyway. on that, we agree.
As a somewhat reasonable rightie, how do you feel about Coulter (and other cons) advocating assassination, gas chambers, and the like?
Sure, these folks are entitled to free speech. But isn't there a logical limit to advocating the murder, assassination, or execution of people without so much as the benefit of a crime being committed by the target of this speech?
most of her stuff is over the top invective, not some serious advocation of murder. now i am not defending what she is saying, only that to prove her intent is genuine and dangerous and not for talk radio and tv would be very difficult to prove, indeed. nobody with any seriousness takes that at face value, but rather in context of a woman who has learned how to earn a very good living spouting outrageous things. unless you can directly link her to some hideous crime committed, she is for the most part, harmless.
Rightwingers with REAL power are advocating an office of Censorship to censor REAL news outlets but the left scares you more because a guy on a website wants to shut up Coulter and Limbaugh.
fear with the right has always been to censor because of religion (book burning, etc.).
The fear with the left is censorship of ideology (speech codes such as on college campuses).
Both sides have problems.
I think Ann Coulter is as nutty and dangerous as these guys. [link to www.nytimes.com]
I read it this morning and I'm amazed that it hasn't gotten the coverage that it should. These people being recruited into our military have been influenced by all of the Coulter's, Savage's, Beck's and Limbaugh's who've been preaching hate for so many years. It is disgraceful that our military is comprised of more minorities than the general population of this country and that this kind of behavior is swept under the rug to meet recruitment goals.
...what do you suggest that MMFA (or others) do - just sit there silently and pretend that everything's OK?
No, I think that when Bill O'Reilly goes on vacation, all but essential employees of MMFA should also go on vacation.
Six out of the ten MMFA stories yesterday were about Coulter. They will be All Coulter, All The Time unless Bill comes back with live shows soon.
Not a bad idea... :D
---"Six out of the ten MMFA stories yesterday were about Coulter. They will be All Coulter, All The Time unless Bill comes back with live shows soon."---
Write an email to Coulter, asking her to stop the smears, lies and plagiarism. When she stops, you won't see her name here.
But then again, perhaps you complain about the noise from police sirens, rather than trying to do something about crime.
I believe that certain people-- including Ann Coulter, Madonna, Michael Jackson, and Prince--thrive on attention. I have said that I wonder if they lie awake at nights, afraid that they won't be in the news tomorrow. Gee, what outrageous thing can I do?
No, I will not Email or communicate in any way with Ann Coulter.
With great hesitation, I posted on this topic, sort of ashamed that my two posts will now be included in the "count".
Ann Coulter's book came out on 6/6. It's now 7/7. Isn't that Madonna doing handstands in the nude? Think I'll take a look. Aw, shucks--She's spelling out "I hate Ann Coulter" in semifore.
---"[Coulter, etc.] thrive on attention. "---
The above is simply an oft-used, clearly disguised, insincere ploy to derail all criticism of Ann Coulter. In reality, this tactic hides an actual enjoyment of her liberal-bashing rhetoric behind fake compassion for the affected targets of her venom. 'If you'd only ignore her, she'd go away', they proclaim, disingenously.
Coulter's book was released on 6/6.
You really think that after 30 days of Coulterpalooza, it is impossible that I could be tired of it??
Of course I don't want to remove anyone's first amendment rights, keep criticizing Ann as much as you want--all day, all night, week after week.
If it brings you joy, enjoy!!
Jay Cooper wrote a column this week where he laments the fact that Ann Coulter and other vitriolic denizens of the rabid right are perceived as representative of the republican party. But he doesn't denounce her - that's the whole point here. She continues to get air time to promote devisiveness with no consequence. Aren't republicans the ones who say you can have free speech but there are consequences to what you say?
Quick, what is the name of the reporter who lost his job because he wrote that Bush hid in a bunker on 911 (true, BTW!). Those words hardly equal anything Coulter has ever said, but he lost his job because of the outrage of the right, but apparently the left doesn't get the same right to apply consequences to speech. Why are you supporting one law for republicans, a different one for democrats?
---"so please, accept the plagairism outrage publicly, but know the real reason is we want to shut her up, for good."---
There is no call in the letter to "shut her up". There is a request to Random House to review plagiarism allegations, as other publishers have done with other authors.
One could attach motives to you just as easily, with just as much credibility. Such as that you really enjoy everything Coulter has to say about "liberals", even if it is plagiarized.
we urge Random House to undertake a comprehensive review and consider all appropriate action, up to and including pulling the book.
what would you call this, if not wanting to shut her up?
--"what would you call this, if not wanting to shut her up?"---
I'd call it holding someone responsible for plagiarism, as opposed to looking the other way because you like how she takes shots at liberals.
"Including up to and including pulling a book" --an action taken with another author-- is not shutting her up. "Hello" yourself. Another publisher will sign her. She will still be on tv, online, and in the public eye. I'm sure those who want to read her will seek her out and find her.
great rationalization for censorship, oh well it's ok if someone does it, because someone else will let her speak anyway.
--"great rationalization for censorship, oh well it's ok if someone does it, because someone else will let her speak anyway."---
Who the f--- said anything about "censorship", or wants to "censor" Ann Coulter? Do you know that there's a difference between censorship and responsibility? This letter calls on Random House to review Coulter's writings for plagiarism, not to "censor" her.
To pull a book based on plagiarism. Not even close. Now getting the book Fortunate Son pulled because powerful rightwingers didnt like the accusations made in the context of the book is censorship this isnt flat out isnt.
we urge Random House to undertake a comprehensive review and consider all appropriate action, up to and including pulling the book.
what would you call this, if not wanting to shut her up?
&
great rationalization for censorship, oh well it's ok if someone does it, because someone else will let her speak anyway. - from RIGHT ON
Let's say I get a book published in which I pass off someone else's work as my own. Then let's say I get caught and the publisher pulls my books when they find out.
Would you say I'm being censored? I'd obviously be ridiculed as an idiot if I tried to make the claim.
How is that any different from Coulter's case? Do you still want to pretend MMFA is calling for censorship?
your premise is faulty, in my opinion, because i don't believe for one minute that mmfa is asking the publisher to pull the book because of the plagiarism charges at all, despite the "convincing" letter here. they are simply using that as an excuse, when the real reason, in my opinion, is because of the book itself and mmfa's disguist of the book and coulter. you can disagree, fine.
You are assuming you know MMFA's motives again without anything but conjecture to back it up. I'm telling you, keep assuming you know what you don't, and you will get ulcers. Obviously no one is 100% genuine and up front all the time, but that doesn't mean they never are. The letter clearly outlines why MMFA believes the book should be pulled, "if" the allegaitons are true. Whatever motive you believe they truly have isn't releveant to whether or not she plagirized.
your premise is faulty, in my opinion, because i don't believe for one minute that mmfa is asking the publisher to pull the book because of the plagiarism charges at all - from RIGHT ON
No, my premise is not faulty. When it's pointed out to a publisher that one of its authors plagiarized someone else's work, pulling those books is a responsible thing to do. There is no way to see that as censorship, regardless of how that author is regarded.
Or at least I don't see how a rational person could see it as censorship.
You cannot have any evidence of the motives of MMFA you pull this stull right out of your ass. I think YOUR motive is that you hate liberals in general and just want to attack MMFA. Since you CLEARLY have no basis in FACT to do so you just make things up, which you CLEARLY did concerning their motives. I think Coulter PAYS you to tell lies about MMFA. See how easy and WORTHLESS it is to just make up motives and arbitrarily assign them to those you are arguing with? Its cheap and meaningless. What it really means is YOU HAVE NO POINT
We dont care if Gangleskank plagiarizes her work. She insults liberals. We like. Give her money.
RO,
There is no effective reason to write Random House to express one's "ulterior motives". There is good reason to write Random House to put them on notice that they are violating copyright law by knowingly distributing plagiarized information. If they don't pull the book after notice, they are liable for treble damages.
Your smokescreen argument is obtuse. MMFA is playing chess while you insist on checkers.
Using your logic, when the Untouchables went after Al Capone for tax evasion, you would have complained that Ness should told Capone that what he really wanted to do was shut down his gangster empire.
When the Supreme Court enforced laws banning interference with interstate commerce, you would have sent a letter to the Chief Justice defending whites-only hotels because the Court was really trying to fight discrimination and should have said so.
Grow up.
Come on Bro, you do know by now that RO won't respond to you. Look at his posting patterns.
thats called......... checkmate!
to be able to know what someone's true intentions are. It's amazing. Serioulsy though, why do you care so much about your perception about others true intentions? Ultimately it doesn't matter. I can't pretend to know when someone is being completely genuine or not, or if they are up to some devious shenanigans. That's a slippery slope that I think in the end only reflects poorly on the one who is making the assumption. I could question the motives of every politico I come across but I'll never really know so why bother guessing?
why are so many of you so upset about my little ole' opinion. you don't have to agree with it, fine. but it is my opinion. wow, all this uproar over someone's opinion and their free expression of it- very telling. apparently mmfa is not insecure enough to be bothered by it, they haven't pulled the threads. but many of you are having a fit over it. it's an opinion, that's all. i have said why i believe it and that's that. calm down.
I think all anyones is trying to point out to you is that you are questioning the motives behind the letter versus the merit of the accusations in the letter. Again, it's irrelevant what true motives MMFA may have, if she is guilty of plagirism the facts will speak for themselves. What you appear to be doing, at least in my mind, is belittle the behavior of Ann Coulter and demonizing Media Matters based on opinion not on factual evidence.
Is you molest small furry animals, you dont have to agree but there is no reason to get upset
Not to get off task here but I believe the quote at the Shareholders/ Employee meeting was, " Greed, for lack of a better term, is good." Paraphrasing is still legal if attributed correctly (Helpful Hint For Ann) and btw Ann, Clyde the orangutan called and he wants his hands back.
I stand corrected! That WAS the exact quote. So Tex didn't "steal" it. Usually, I CAN'T STAND THE TRUTH!!!! Oops.
Oh, and while I'm at it... Right On, you reek of a usurped opinion structure. The Neocon talking point list must have arrived in your mail early. The "if-you're-not-with-us-you're against-us" mentality of your faith-based (not religious) Republican diatribe serves no one. We (moderates) attack Ann Coulters' ad hominem rhetoric because "important" Gee-oh-Pees publicly hold her in high regard. The "real issue of importance" is that she reflects the mindless adherence to Ne0con dogma that is prevalent on the far-right.
very funny how you use the term rhetoric yet your post is riddled with it unending. not really worth addressing a "moderate" such as yourself, but one question. what important "gee oh pees" hold coulter in high regard and can you detail the effusive praise they heep on her, please.
I have not seen any Republicans praise her (at least not any politicians). I wouldn't be surprised if Democrats like her better. :)
But I do suspect that some Republicans who despise her rhetoric are willing to silently accept her, since they know that to publically denounce her would leave them open to attacks for being "liberals" or "anti-republican".
many on the elected right are in a quandry where she is concerned. some don't want to praise her publicly, even though they may agree with some of what she says, because she is too controversial and will alienate reasonable and moderate voters. other's don't dare diss her either, because many far right voters love her and to diss her is to diss their base.
all of it makes you want to bathe, politicians who straddle the fence and come down on both or neither side, gee - what a shock?
Take Bush and the Swift Boat ads. He wouldn't outright support them nor did he denounce them. By deflecting or ignoring, he became a de facto supporter of their message, that Kerry was a traitor.
The deafening silence from the Right, as a whole, is nothing short of a thumbs-up to Ann Coulter's demagoguery.
You disagree with many here but continue to stick around and put up with the guff. It is to be commended. And I'm not saying that just because it's Friday afternoon and almost quitting time. Everyone! Attention! let's hear it for the folks that disagree and the ones that do. In our own way we are going about the work it takes to make our country strong. Peace out and have a great weekend.
i enjoy the back and forth with people who like to engage in substantive discussion on all sorts of topics. you are reasonable and intelligent. we disagree on much, that's cool. i learn from other points of view, that is why i am here.
Yes it was documented here MARY MATILIN- the leading Democratic Stragistist, Once in a top postion of the National GOP and one of the most influential Republicians on the Scene. While she may not hold an elected office, She is still a valid representative of the Republican party.
Rhetoric is the use of language to persuade. So, yes, his post is, by definition, rhetoric. Perhaps you wanted to add an adjective there, e.g., empty, mere, etc.
Why would Random House pull Viswanathan's book of the shelves and not Ann Coulter for the same offense?
Easy.
Viswanathan: non-white
Coulter: blond beast
Coulter will get preferential treatment since she is a man.
For proof she is popular on the right, refer to the sales numbers.
you weren't talking about her popularity, i never denied that. you specifically said this > "We (moderates) attack Ann Coulters' ad hominem rhetoric because "important" Gee-oh-Pees publicly hold her in high regard".
i asked you to show me who, you cannot.
Mary Matalin is one a very IMPORTANT MEMBER OF THE GOP.
i would hardly call what matalin said about coulter "holding her publicly in high regard"
MATALIN: Well that's her stock in trade.
IMUS: But I'm surprised that you won't condemn her for these repugnant remarks.
MATALIN: I don't know her. I haven't read the book.
While some may not see it, The GOP does, in fact, support Ann Coulter very publicly by allowing The White House Channel (read: Fox News) to defend her positions and allow its hosts to pitch her softball questions. So Right On, I feel honored that you found the time in your day to respond to me. I feel so less inconsequencial since you set me straight.
that is the most hysterical post i have read in awhile. i have never heard such leaps and bounds and downright paranoia in any post lately.
Calm down pal...there's no need for all the histrionics Right On. Your argument has been refuted by cold logic. If you wish, however, to continue painting "liberals" as irrational so that you may make your position appear reasonable allow me to help you out with a few synonyms to replace those tired cliches:
overblown, ranting, turgid, melodramatic, fanatical, fervent, fervid, heated, impetuous, impulsive, overwrought, pathetic, zealous, exaggerated, overdramatic, overemotional, agitated, berserk, beside oneself, carried away, convulsive, crazed, crazy, delirious, distracted, distraught, emotional, excited, fiery, frantic, frenzied, fuming, furious, impassioned, impetuous, incensed, irrepressible, mad, maddened, nervous, neurotic, overwrought, panic-stricken, passionate, possessed, rabid, raging, rampant, raving, seething, spasmodic, tempestuous, turbulent, uncontrollable, uncontrolled, unnerved, unrestrained, uproarious, vehement, violent, wild, worked up
Then you don't read Ann yourself?
Every adminstration monkey ever aired on Fox has had his or her feet kissed. Tony Snow? anyone? anyone? Bueller? How can fact be considered paranoia? How about taking your own advice and discontinue your attempts at obfuscation.
Right On translated:
"you liberals are a bunch of whiners, our truth is the real truth"
"the world will be a better place once you all just shut up and take it"
That's what you're really trying to say, aren't you Right On?
Just admit it..
If your opinion is that MMFA has some ulterior motive for writing Random House about Coulter, then you must hate the fact that we still are able to express concern about distortions and misinformation that are being propagated by the likes of Coulter and the rest of her ilk-mates..
(and plagarizing those distortions at that!)
Why don't you admit that you have an ulterior motive as well...
(apologies for any spelling errors)
We're just a bunch of ignorant, hateful fools to Right On..
If we are in your mind, why do you bother with us?
I guess you're happy with the media pulpit given to the hate-pushers such as Coulter...
I'd better be careful what I say else Right On may report me to the DHS and have me investigated by the FBI for being a liberal
Guys, I am about as liberal as most sane people, but get off RightOn. I happen to agree with him to the extent that the plagiarism thing is rather minor.
If MMFA wants to target Coulter, they should start with all of the borderline things she says all the time, lies she spreads about people, and, as mentioned earlier, advocating killing people. MMFA should help those slandered and libeled by Coulter to stand up and mount a lawsuit to "shut her up" - in this regard anyway.
The difference being that one earns her living as a writer. If she plagiarizes someone else's work, then she is not a writer, but a thief. There are no excuses. As a writer, she should know this. As a lawyer, she should know this.
Sometimes you just can't help it. Right On is a smart guy although I completely disagree with you that he is a moderate. He is a conservative in the extreme; just ask him about his theories for taxation and social issues. And Lord knows the man-boy-girl whatever can be so damn haughty and arrogant much like Tucker Carlson.
If you can't stand the heat get out of your opponent's camp.
Why is it that you're not furious over AC's misinformation, faulty logical conclusions, and outright lies?
Why is it that you are not disgusted that she has plagurized others works, not only in her recent book, but in other books and columns?
Do you realize many view her as a spokesperson for right winger, and the Republican party, and she's crapping on all right wingers and Republicans?
She also stole an apple from Adam:
[link to i.timeinc.net]
and
[link to www.ramdac.org]
As much as any big business likes to sell it's products, there are some lines that can be overstepped. I believe that with the Pirate Ann, she stepped over that line when she supposedly hi-jacked text from several unnamed or referenced sources for her books and articles . Random House is a legitimate printer and publisher and they should take plagiarism real and as a threat. If they let Pirate Ann get away with it, imagine what a black eye it would have on them and their book sales. The whole industry would look upon them as a joke. Imagine what would be done as other publishing houses had to deal with plagerism. This would set off a major firestorm and people would lose faith in reading anything from any of the publishers. So, I'm having some faith that Random will come through and do the right thing and boot Pirate Ann out onto the curb with rest of the trash.
More evidence of Ann Coulter and plagiarism?
Michael Smerconish is a Philadelphia Daily News columnist and radio host. He is often a guest host for Bill O’Reilly on the Radio Factor as well as a guest host for Joe Scarborough on MSNBC’s Scarborough Country. In 2004, Smerconish authored a book called Flying Blind: How Political Correctness Continues to Compromise Airline Safety Post 9/11 (Running Press). On page 39 of Flying Blind, the following passage appears: “As the subject of whether we should be taking a long, hard look at young Arab males was getting daily play on my radio program, some listeners sent me e-mails alerting me to the fact that Ann Coulter published a column the very day of my National Review column that hit on the same subject. I was thrilled that someone who commanded more of a platform than I was also on the case. Coulter also focused on Lehman’s question about an Arab quota for airport screening, but she mistakenly said that, “In a sane world, Lehman's statement would have made headlines across the country the next day. But not one newspaper, magazine or TV show has mentioned that it is official government policy to prohibit searching more than two Arabs per flight.” (19) (I sent an e-mail to her web site saying that she was mistaken, and I had published three days earlier in the Philadelphia Daily News.) I never got a reply.” The footnote within Smerconish’s writing (No. 19) references Coulter’s column as follows: “Ann Coulter, ‘Clinton’s Policies Invited 9/11’, Front Page Magazine.com, April 15, 2004.” A check of the Philadelphia Daily News’ archives reveals the basis for Smerconish saying Coulter was “mistaken”. His own column on the same subject, based on an exclusive interview with Secretary John Lehman of the 9/11 Commission, ran in the April 12, 2004, Philadelphia Daily News, and was promoted by the newspaper on its front page with a headline that read “1 Man’s Tough Questions”. This column was then reprinted in both National Review Online and the NY Post. In other words, when Coulter claimed on April 15, 2004 that she was reporting on a subject that not one newspaper magazine or TV show would touch, the exact same subject had already been addressed on the front page of one of the nation’s largest newspapers three days prior, a fact she failed to credit, as she offered a perspective that Smerconish had already put in print.
This woman has obviously never had an original thought in ler life. Maybe someone needs to take a good look at her academic and legal work also. At least if she is going to for the red meat, it should be right off the cow and not leftovers!