UPDATE: Nine newspapers drop Coulter in the wake of CPAC remarks
As of March 13, nine newspapers have dropped right-wing pundit Ann Coulter's column after remarks Coulter made at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), where she referred to Democratic presidential candidate and former Sen. John Edwards (NC) as a "faggot." On March 8, Media Matters for America published a list of daily newspapers that carried Coulter's column at the time she made her controversial remarks -- as well as the email addresses of the editors of those papers -- and suggested that readers contact the editors to discuss their papers' decisions to carry Coulter's column.
The Inland Valley Daily Bulletin of Ontario, California, dropped Coulter's column "last week," according to an email opinion editor Mike Brossart sent Media Matters on the evening of March 12. The Daily Bulletin was not included in Media Matters' list of newspapers carrying Coulter's column, but Media Matters contacted managing editor Jeff Keating after a reader tip indicated that the Daily Bulletin did, in fact, carry Coutler. Keating referred Media Matters to Brossart, who asserted that the paper "used to run Ann Coulter's column, but no longer does." A follow-up email from Brossart indicated that Coulter was dropped during the week following her CPAC remarks.
As Media Matters has previously noted, eight other newspapers have dropped Coulter's column since her remarks to CPAC, including:
- The Lancaster New Era (Pennsylvania)
- The Oakland Press (Michigan)
- The Mountain Press (Sevierville, Tennessee)
- The Sanford Herald (North Carolina)
- The Daily Chronicle (DeKalb, Illinois)
- The Times (Shreveport, Louisiana)
- American Press (Lake Charles, Louisiana)
- Herald & Review (Decatur, Illinois)
A July 2, 2006, New York Post article about allegations of plagiarism in Coulter's most recent book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum, July 2006), reported that her column "is syndicated to more than 100 newspapers." The following is an updated version of the list Media Matters published on March 8 that takes into account newspapers that have dropped Coulter in the wake of her CPAC comments:
|
Newspaper |
State |
Editor |
Contact |
|
(Palmdale) Antelope Valley Press |
CA |
Jana Treece |
|
|
Pasadena Star-News |
CA |
Steve O'Sullivan |
|
|
(West Covina) San Gabriel Valley Tribune |
CA |
Steve Scauzillo |
|
|
Whittier Daily News |
CA |
Linda Beckman |
|
|
(Yreka) Siskiyou Daily News |
CA |
Jean Smith |
|
|
(Jacksonville) The Florida Times-Union |
FL |
Patrick A. Yack |
|
|
The St. Augustine Record |
FL |
Jim Sutton |
|
|
The Villages Daily Sun |
FL |
Larry Croom |
|
|
(Canton) Cherokee Tribune |
GA |
Barbara Jacoby |
|
|
Marietta Daily Journal |
GA |
Joe Kirby |
|
|
(Twin Falls) Times-News |
ID |
David Cooper |
|
|
(Bloomington) Pantagraph |
IL |
Bill Wills |
|
|
(Carbondale) The Southern Illinoisian |
IL |
James Bennett |
|
|
(Joliet) The Herald News |
IL |
Bill Wimbiscus |
|
|
(Springfield) The State Journal-Register |
IL |
Mike Matulis |
|
|
(Gary) The Post-Tribune |
IN |
Paulette Haddix |
|
|
(Warsaw) Times-Union |
IN |
Gary Gerard |
|
|
Bastrop Daily Enterprise |
LA |
Mark Rainwater |
|
|
(Jackson) The Clarion Ledger |
MS |
David Hampton |
|
|
(Lumberton) The Robesonian |
NC |
Donnie Douglas |
|
|
(Gallup) Independent |
NM |
Darrel Beehner |
|
|
Elko Daily Free Press |
NV |
Jeffry Mullins |
|
|
Las Vegas Review- |
NV |
John Kerr |
|
|
Lancaster Eagle- |
OH |
Antionette Taylor-Thomas |
|
|
(Mansfield) News Journal |
OH |
Carl Hunnell |
|
|
The Lawton Constitution |
OK |
David Hale |
|
|
(Greensburg) Pittsburgh Tribune- |
PA |
Colin McNickle |
|
|
(Uniontown)
Herald- |
PA |
Paul Sunyak |
|
|
(Wilkes- |
PA |
Jean LaCoe |
|
|
The Denton
Record- |
TX |
Mike Trimble |
|
|
Marshall News Messenger |
TX |
Phil Latham |
|
|
(New Braunfels) Herald- |
TX |
Douglas Toney |
|
|
Plainview Daily Herald |
TX |
Kevin Lewis |
|
|
Waco Tribune-Herald |
TX |
John Young |
|
|
(Harrisonburg) Daily News- |
VA |
Peter Yates |
|
|
(St. Johnsbury) The Caledonian- Record |
VT |
Dana Gray |
|
|
Watertown Daily Times |
WI |
John McFadden |
|
|
(West Bend) Daily News |
WI |
Jill Badzinski |
|
|
Casper Star-Tribune |
WY |
Clark Walworth |
Sounds to me like its time for Ann to make another appearance on Sean Hannity's show to stir the pot...
I am not interested in seeing Sean Hannity's head coming up from under the desk from Ann Coulter's lap and wiping his mouth again.
TMan, it's before lunchtime here.Have you no decency? *Urp.*
Thank you MMFA. Keep the pressure to stop hate speech from Ann Coulter. Hate speech should never be tolerated.
"Hate speech should never be tolerated."
Sure it should! Free speech should always be protected. That doesn't give Coulter the right to have a column in all these newpapers though.
Refusing to tolerate certain speech acts is not the same as making them illegal. "Free speech" and rejection of Coulter's comments can coexist quite comfortably. As you say, we're not talking about censoring anybody. Coulter's got her own website where she publishes her column anyway, and anyone with internet access can read her ramblings to his or her heart's content. This seems to me to be less about "free speech" as a legal or ethical position than about the sorry state of the economics of running small, local papers: to stay in business, they have to pay to fill space with material that is more provocative than informative.
Aye. I meant tolerated to the extent that there shouldn't be laws against hate speech.
Aye, aye, I agree completely.
Looking at some of the comments from newspapers I am curious about something. Are we, the MM community, in the habit of writting to the editors of papers that are not only not local to us, but completely on the other side of the country...or in a completely different country? Just my small thought but maybe this is a bad tactic to use. The people who are subscribed to the paper, and who the Editor is likely to listen to, are quite likely to get drowned out in a wash of "useless" mail from outside the circulation of the paper, and which the Editor most likely ignores.
Again, just a thought. "Think Globally, Act Locally"
Excellent point. I would surmise that local newspaper editors in medium size, Midwestern towns immediately trash letters from LA or NY residents admonishing them to drop Coulter's column. They are concerned with their readers, and they should be.
I looked at the list of papers carrying her and there were none in my entire state. If there were, I would have written.
The editor who vowed to keep Coulter referred to the letter writers from all over the country -- dismissively.
I think it has varied usefulness. Naturally, the editor of a smaller paper doesn't think any of those people read his/her paper. At the same time, the Internet has indeed made it possible to read many papers around the country or world. I still read my home town paper even though I haven't lived there for 22 years.
But it probably makes more sense overall to contact advertisers overall and say you won't buy their products if they continue to fund hate speech.
Media Matters has NO SHAME
By Layla Gonzalez on March 13th, 2007
I had posted an article on the newspapers I sent an email to that are dropping Ann Coulter - including the email addresses to these newspapers. Low and behold this morning I am receiving replies that one, they either never carried Ann Coulter, or two, they are still carrying her.
My dismay regarding this is shock. I would never have written emails to these editors had I not believed what Media Matters wrote and lists here. This is a complete classless act on the part of Media Matters.
This is plagiarism and false reporting of the facts - exactly what they accuse Ann Coulter of. I believe that Media Matters should be held liable for this and all bloggers should be outraged over this!
Here is my letter of apology to the editors at the newspapers I contacted because I believed Media Matters reported this accurately - NOT!
------
Dear Sirs and Madams:
I want to apologize for the email I sent to you in my effort to thwart what I believe is unfair treatment of Ann Coulter. I have amended this by posting on this at my blog-see below. I would never have sent the email had I known that Media Matters lied. I trusted that they reported accurately and honestly-obviously not since I have received quite a few replys that either their respective newspapers never carried Coulter or that they still do. Here is the link to that article with an excerpt for you to understand why I was mislead. Please accept my apology to you all.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703130001
SNIPPET:
A July 2, 2006, New York Post article about allegations of plagiarism in Coulter’s most recent book, [link to www.randomhouse.com] target="_blank" title="http://www.randomhouse.com/crown/crownforum/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9781400054206" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"> Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum, July 2006), reported that her column “is syndicated to more than 100 newspapers.” The following is an updated version of the list Media Matters published on March 8 that takes into account newspapers that have dropped Coulter in the wake of her CPAC comments:
My amended post is below:
Media Matters has NO SHAMEI had posted an article on the newspapers I sent an email to that are dropping Ann Coulter - including the email addresses to these newspapers. Low and behold this morning I am receiving replies that one, they either never carried Ann Coulter, or two, they are still carrying her.
My dismay regarding this is shock. I would never have written emails to these editors had I not believed what Media Matters wrote and lists here. This is a complete classless act on the part of Media Matters.
This is plagiarism and false reporting of the facts - exactly what they accuse Ann Coulter of. I believe that Media Matters should be held liable for this and all bloggers should be outraged over this!
Respectfully, Layla GonzalezWhat'll you do when you get lonely And nobody's waiting by your side? You've been running and hiding much too long. You know it's just your foolish pride.
Layla, you've got me on my knees. Layla, I'm begging, darling please. Layla, darling won't you ease my worried mind.it is neither plagerism nor false reporting. Anoying maybe. OK, they made a mistake. I do believe we were informed that the list was imperfect. Why are ou surprised that it was? wasn't the list also sourced to an outside agency? Give us a break with your over the top hyperventilation about being embarassed.
Not even close to plagiarism. You can at least put false reporting on the table for debate.
Plagiarism? How is this plagiarism? And if you're this upset about it, wouldn't a more productive use of your energy be to let Media Matters know which particular newspapers responded with e-mails that contradicted Media Matter's list?
By the way, Layla, I read the letter that you sent to these newspapers, and it seems that your original argument against Media Matters' criticism of Coulter boils down to this: 1) you think that Coulter didn't actually describe Edwards as a f4ggot, because her joke was premised on the notion that she couldn't call him a f4ggot without going into rehab; 2) therefore she never called anyone anything; and 3) thus, Media Matters is mischaracterizing her use of the slur.
This is a pretty flimsy stance, though I respect that you truly believe this. In essence, you're arguing that nothing can ever be offensive or insulting if framed as conditional or reported speech. By way of example: "I really want to say that Ann Coulter is a discursive whore" would, according to your argument, be the equivalent of saying nothing at all, since I only said that I wanted to insult Coulter but never actually did.
Or perhaps a better example: "Layla, your argument is completely stupid." Now don't get angry, because according to your logic, I never actually said that your argument was stupid: I merely presented it as an example.
Do you see how this gets a bit ridiculous?
Media Matters' criticism of Coulter's remarks was genuine and legitimate. They didn't take her words out of context, and in fact presented the video of Coulter's complete statement about Edwards and the context in which the remarks appeared. They were remarkably fair in their treatment of the statement, and to argue that Coulter never actually called Edwards anything is to claim that using conditional and reported speech insulates a speaker against all criticism.
Vysotsky, I'm having a difficult time seeing what you characterize as Layla's position. The way I'm seeing it, her position is that MMFA deliberately and maliciously listed newspapers as having carried Coulter and then dropped her when, in fact, they either hadn't carried her or hadn't dropped her, and that this constitutes unfair treatment of Coulter. Personally, I would not be inclined to put the burden of proof on MMFA regarding this allegation (though it is beyond dispute they made mistakes).
That Layla's blog is a complete wingnut fantasyland I have no doubts whatsoever.
I may be totally confused about this. As you say, her website is a bit, um, incoherent. But as I gathered from her "article" and the letters she sent to these newspapers, she wrote them to support them for carrying Coulter's column, and to argue against what she saw as MMFA's unfair portrayal of Coulter's use of the word "f4ggot" as a slur against Edwards. Then she received replies from the newspapers saying that MMFA's list was inaccurate. This somehow lead her to conclude that MMFA was guilty of "plagiarism" and false reporting.
I was trying to take issue with her first argument: that MMFA mischaracterized Coulter's remarks, and that newspapers should not listen to complaints based on MMFA's coverage of Coulter.
You and I are both hesitant to probe the troubled mind of Layla too deeply, but it looks like "plagiarism" is just a desperate attempt to charge Anne's critics with what Anne herself was caught red handed at in one of her books. Layla does not appear to know what the word means.
Sorry, "Ann". Wish you could read the page while you're posting.
nice try
all bloggers should be outraged over this!
Why only bloggers? Shouldn't THE WORLD be upset about this? What's so special about bloggers?
If as Layla claims MMFA was incorrect on it's list of newspapers that have dropped Coulter's column then they [MMFA] should correct the error and amend the list.
Simple.
And if in fact this list is incorrect, I'm a bit surprised a this shoddy research on MMFA part.
Wow!
Nice website.
Now be honest. Do you really expect us to believe that you read an item here and because of what you read you wrote in error to the editor of one of these newspapers?
Your website is a stereotypical wingnut fantasy land. You have links to fundamentalist religious nonsense about how all muslims must convert to Christianity and also a link to the Swift Boat Veterans site.
I wish I coult take one of those papers still running Ann Coulter's column, roll it up, and hit her on the nose with it while saying, "Bad dog, bad, bad."
Of course she'll say that's my denying her free speech rights.
If I weren't such a nice guy, I would say that Layla seems to have some serious psychological problems.But I won't, because I'm too nice.
Hey, that works great!
if ya want a good scare just go onto Layla's site
Hey MarkCyst-- Yikes !!
That glamour shot is almost as funny as the Coullter photo above the word "sane".
She says she hasn't "heard back" from Media Matters. I guess that means she won't be back. Pitty.
No one loathes Coulter more than I do but do we really want to support a free press by pressing for the censure of outrageous speech?
Criticize her to be sure but let an unfettered press run free.
Peter Tatiner
New Jersey
I'm with Ted Rall on this one:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003557013
I think that Coulter is a miserable lying sack of bovine excrement, but this campaign feels wrong to me.
I think the proper response to stupid crap like this is brutal , unrelenting, merciless mockery. Thought the same about Jimmy the Greek and Marge Shotz (sp?) and that Rock guy (the baseball player - don't follow sports...). Yeah - and Micheal Richards, too.
I guess I don't want to provide the wingnuts with more evidence for tirades about 'political correctness'. I know, I know, sometimes they use "political correctness" when the issue is simple common decency, but you cannot enforce common decency.
Call her the most vile of names, throw pies at her - whatever - but pressuring her syndicator and the papers only feeds her sense of martyrdom.
I don't want Coulter 'Dixie Chicked", is the bottom line.
Turnabout is NOT necessarily fair play.
(And why do I not see Rall's letter anywhere on the site? I really like much of what Brock has put togeher here. Please have the courage to acknowledge that ther are legitimate counter arguments and then debate them. Thank you.)
All:
You might want to add "The Stars & Stripes" the "unofficial" publication for military personnel overseas.
Ann Coulter is a Brilliant author and has the courage to stand up to the insane liberal media blitz. I hope the smart people can see through this "ad hominum" attack on her. We will see a backlash on the insane liberal newspapers. If only the idiots would just read one of her enlightening books... but then again they would no longer make good idiots any more if they did now would they?
OK, Alto, I'll take the bait: how is she brilliant? I mean, I find her very clever and well-educated, but her arguments lack the virtue of being correct, and her rhetoric is less convincing than it is shocking and provocative. Her critics aren't taking issue with her intellect but with her vileness.
Altosax, Sorry guy. No sale.
It seems that Media Matters' filter won't allow me to use the very terms that Ann Coulter doesn't feel are offensive. (See the related link.) I just wanted to say that if she doesn't think those terms are offensive, then she needs a quick trip to any principal's office in any public school in this country.
Somehow, however, I can't imagine that, given her lack of real ability to use logic, Ms. Coulter ever passed high school. I wonder if she finds the term "flunker" offensive--but, I really think she is a "flunky," at least for the Rove/Bush/Cheney camp.