UPDATE: Several papers explain decision to keep publishing Coulter; two newspapers added to list
Several newspapers that publish right-wing pundit Ann Coulter's syndicated column recently announced their intention to continue publishing her column after remarks Coulter made on March 2 at the Conservative Political Action Conference. During her speech at the conference, Coulter referred to Democratic presidential candidate and former Sen. John Edwards (NC) as a "faggot." To date, nine newspapers have been confirmed as having dropped Coulter's column since her remarks. In addition, Media Matters for America has added two newspapers -- Stars and Stripes, a daily published for the U.S. military community, and The Morning Journal of Lorain, Ohio -- to its list (below) of papers that publish Coulter's weekly column.
Four newspapers have recently run or posted explanations by editors of their decision to continue running Coulter's column (in addition to those previously noted by Media Matters): The State Journal-Register of Springfield, Illinois; The Robesonian of Lumberton, North Carolina; the Times-Union of Warsaw, Indiana; and The Marshall News Messenger of Marshall, Texas. All four had been included on a list published by Media Matters on March 8 of daily newspapers that carried Coulter's column. In explaining their decision to keep Coulter, these newspapers' editors cited reader support and invoked free speech and censorship concerns, among other reasons.
Jamison Foser, Media Matters' managing director, recently addressed criticism by columnist Steve Young on the Huffington Post website accusing Media Matters of attempting to deny Coulter her First Amendment right to free speech.
Another newspaper, The Southern Illinoisan of Carbondale, Illinois, recently confirmed that it will continue publishing Coulter's column, but less frequently than it had in the past. In an April 3 email to Media Matters, publisher Dennis DeRossett said that the Illinoisan will instead run a rotation of conservative columnists -- including Coulter -- in Coulter's old slot, "with no set frequency for any one columnist." He also noted that the newspaper had recently replaced Molly Ivins' regular column with a rotation of liberal columnists. DeRossett added: "While the timing of this move appears to some to have coincided with the recent controversy with Ann's column, it is strictly coincidental."
In a March 14 email to Media Matters, Brooks Bowers, Stars and Stripes opinion editor of the paper's Pacific edition, confirmed that Coulter's column runs in the Pacific, European, and Middle East editions of the newspaper, but that it runs the column of Huffington Post co-founder and editor-in-chief Arianna Huffington on the same day "to balance out Coulter."
The following is an updated version of a list Media Matters published on March 13 of daily newspapers that carry Coulter's column:
|
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 |
|
|
(Lorain) The Morning Journal |
OH |
Thomas Skoch | |
|
(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 |
|
|
Stars and Stripes |
Brooks Bowers |
I applaud the vigilance of MMFA, but I've grown a little tired and weary of the F****T incident.
This was pretty neat the first couple of times, but now it's turning into the equivalent of the neighborhood battleaxe taking pictures of patrons entering the porn shop that just opened up a block away from her house.
"This was pretty neat the first couple of times"
Gee, Pete, I'm sorry if calling out bigotry, lies, and misinformation is not 'neat' enough for you anymore. Maybe it will be cool again someday.
"... but I've grown a little tired and weary"
In the mean time, I do hope you don't get too tired and weary of hearing the truth. I find it interesting that you tire of having lies pointed out, but, evidently, not of hearing the lies.
A vast majority of the time, I am in agreement with MMFA's work. If you were familiar with my posting history, you'd know this.
Some scandals have their worthwhile lifespan, and to keep beating drums because some vile hate merchant called someone a f****t is really starting to look like a waste of resources when MMFA's time could be better spent picking apart the syndicated column (i.e. the things she's currently saying) that the newspapers continue to print.
Every time liberals get angry at Ann Coulter, we validate her continued existence as a columnist. She is only useful to the Right because she makes some liberals angry. You know she is a vampire--she purposely creates negative energy so she can feed off it.
If you really want to neutralize Ann Coulter, take my advice--stop being all angry at her, and start figuring out humorous ways to point out what a laughingstock she really is.
So Crazy Annie thinks John's a f-----t? Riiiiiiight. The real truth is that Annie has a big ol' crush on John Edwards and is jealous of Elizabeth. Figure it out. ;-)
"The incident you're referring to is merely the latest in a long line of hateful, horrible things this woman has uttered or written."
IT IS? HOLY COW! WHERE THE HECK HAVE I BEEN FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS? I BETTER CRAWL OUT FROM UNDER THIS ROCK.
LOL/JK.
Seriously, it is the only incident they mention in the post, almost as if to say this is the sole reason print media should kick her to the curb. I'm saying let's not beat the F****T incident to death when MMFA should be reiterating the long line you speak of.
I guess I just haven't gotten the sense that anyone is beating this particular incident into the ground. MMFA is providing the context that brought this particular letter writing campaign about in referring to it. But it's not the main point of the article.
In explaining their decision to keep Coulter, these newspapers' editors cited reader support and invoked free speech and censorship concerns, among other reasons
Sounds fine to me.
Nice to see not everyone can be bullied by Liberals to remove what they don't approve of.
I'm not a Coulter fan, but as long as there's an audience/readership that enjoys her columns, and TV & Radio programs want to invite her on the air, or she's hired for speaking engagements, then those that find her distasteful should simply ignore her.
Totally agree. What is MMFA point? I missed it.
She is a liar. See "Lies and the liars who tell them" : Al Franken
And you want to protect those ignorant few that may believe her?
How about making the argument to protect the public dialogue from her ignorance, hatespeech, bigotry and violence advocacy?
Solon, Just because one isn't advocating censorship regarding her columns or her appearances - does not mean one condones what she says. People should be able to make their own decisions whether they want to hear her, ignore her, support her, or speak out against her.
I enjoy reading her columns! She makes me laugh at how she constantly skewers the Democratic leadership.
I appreciate the list of newspapers. Now all I have to do is decide to which paper I should subscribe...
Go ahead all you liberals and keep crying about 'hate speech' and then go back and read what Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Durbin, Rosie, Franken, Maher, and the lefty Hollywood crowd says about Bush.
Think about it, if Coulter attacked Bush the way she attacked Edwards, you'd be defending her left and right.. (no wait.. make that two lefts.)
And when ANY of the people you listed call for assasinating Bush or poisoning Anton Scalia or beating conservatives with a baseball bat you will have a point until then your weak attempt was laughable at BEST.
What a silly argument. The list of hate speech for Bush grows longer every day by the Dems not to mention every other post here at MMFA. Just off the top I remember various Democratic leaders calling Bush a war criminal. Calling him a liar. Saying he betrayed our trust. Saying the soldiers are like nazis. Saying our soldier terrorize Iraqis in a time of war. etc., etc. etc.
I think you've said some of those things myself if I'm not mistaken.
To say one is okay and the other isn't is simply a partisan line drawn in the sand. You don't like her because of your political leanings.
Obviously Coulter uses extreme examples and hyperbole to make her points. But in my estimation it is only to shock and to get people to think. I like the fact that she says it like she sees it.
She may be at the end of the spectrum in the vein of social and politcal humorists, but she is in essence no different than Franken or Maher or the Dixie Chicks or Penn, or any other public figures who say what they think.
There's a solid basis for claiming just about everything on your list. The legality of the war is highly dubious. Our troops have terrorized Iraqis. Are you really saying that calling Bush a liar is "hate speech"? You may be the world champion of false equivalence. And who's said our troops are like Nazis? I've never heard that.
So to say that Bush is a liar, when there's evidence he's lied, is the same as wishing the NYT building was blown up? I'm not seeing the same level of exaggeration or hyperbole there by a long shot. It's not a partisan line, because there is a reality-based foundation for most of your examples. You're confusing the actions of an extremist administration with adequate descriptions thereof, trying to compare them to the extremist Coulter.
AA finds lies, distortions, ridiculous strawmen,propaganda and embarrassingly obvious projection humorous.
Ann Coulter has an audience.And their votes count the same as peoples.
HBL,
I too find your posts humorous.
Thanks for laughs! ;-)
No one deserves that kind of abuse that Coulter dishes out regardless. Besides, Bush writes his own punchline each week. As John Stewart once put it: "Please vote for the other guy, (Bush) will just make our job too easy."
Ann Coulter is a bully, and we shouldn't support bullies and those institutions that advocate bully tactics.
I see. You think it is fine for Jon Stewart to make fun of Bush but not Coulter to make fun of Dems. Now I get it.
Thanks for another example of "typical liberal logic".
What has Stewart ever said that rises anywhere near the level of Coulter's speech?
I disagree Another American.
I would never condone Ann using a prejorative against anyone...even Bush. Ann has taken political discourse to a whole new low. Haven't you noticed the bitterness in politics these days? In my state(Wisconsin) we just had a State Supreme Court Election, and the ads were probably the slimiest I have ever seen. I would like politics to be a little more respectable, and I wish people could learn to agree to disagree, because we are ALL americans and all hope for a better country...
Yes, it would be nice if it were so.
However I have and I have come to accept it as part of the times. I no longer spend anytime wishing it were different. That won't help. After all, you see it here every day.
There is no censorship involved. When did anyone say Coulter should be arrested for her spewings? Whether newspapers BUY HER PRODUCT or not, informed by comsumers how they feel about it is NOT a censorship issue. When she is being kept from spouting her hatred and advocacy of violence at her local park get back to me and you can count on me to support her right to do so, until then that was a weak strawman argument without merit.
Solon, Give me your argument on how to protect the public dialogue from her speech, as you say above.
Just what is being done. Marginalize those who engage in it by contacting those who produce the product where it is dissemenated and complaining. If enough people do it. It MIGHT clean up the dialogue as those who engage in it are held accountable.
Which is exactly what I said - speak out against her. I don't know what it was that you disagreed with then?
You calling it censorship. It isnt even close. Its not either buy her product or she is being censored thats dumb.
I did not call it censorship......I said that by not calling for her censoring does not mean I condone what she says.
Nice bit of word slicing. You raised the specter of censorship, and now that you've been called on it, you pretend you didn't. Typical Tommy Tactic.
Read it again, Bitter one.......show me where I said that.
In a thread where opposing censorship was put forth as a reason to keep Coulter in some papers, you wrote:
"Solon, Just because one isn't advocating censorship regarding her columns or her appearances - does not mean one condones what she says. People should be able to make their own decisions whether they want to hear her, ignore her, support her, or speak out against her."
The alternative to what you wrote is that people should NOT be able to make their own decisions -- that those decisions should be made for them by some other party. As though anyone here is advocating it. It's a STRAW MAN. Nobody here is advocating any such thing -- other than you, who are implying it by arguing against censorship, as though the anti-censorship position needs defending.
No you didnt THIS is what you said
Just because one isn't advocating censorship regarding her columns. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now if you can explain to ME how this is NOT calling what we are doing censorship then explain what it DID mean. I mean the word censorship is RIGHT THERE.
If you read it again, you will see. People are always saying that unless you condemn what she says or call for her removal in these colums, that somehow that means you condone what she says. That's all I said.......some do want her silenced, certainly you are not that naive to think otherwise. Maybe you don't, but there are some that do.
My point was just because you are willing to let the free market work and the newspapers decide and the people decide for themselves, doesn't mean you approve of what she said.
First as I pointed out consumer complaints ARE the free market working second you explained nothing. Your original remark cannot reasonably be read as anything other than saying those acting to get the newspapers to get rid Coulter is censorship if you didnt MEAN that you phrased it badly.
What people are those? You're arguing another point not in evidence.
And again, how is MMFA and its readers not part of the free market? Are people not free to write to a newspaper and express their opinion, cancel their subscription, or give 'em a big "atta boy?" MMFA is merely facilitating that effort by providing information toward that goal.
Tommy, and AA:
One of the (sometimes merited) knocks on liberals is that we advocate tolerance even for those who wish us harm. Well, Coulter advocates doing us violence, taking away our constitutional rights, and has advocated assassination of Supreme Court Justices. She represents the logical descent into deviancy of the campaign of demonization begun by the right a couple of decades ago. What began as hyperbolic character assassination has, in classic "defining deviancy down" fashion, become pseudo-humerous calls for our destruction. The next step is to drop the pretense of humor and seriously to dehumanize us. The step after that is brown shirts and murder. Think it can't happen here? Think again. We've already seen how fear can make Americans retreat from who we thought we were.
Why should we grant her the rights she would take away from us? Why should we not, in the interest of our own self-preservation, as well as in the interest of keeping our country from sliding further down the sippery slope of despotism, seek to silence her and all those who accuse us of treason?
Cochobar,
Your fist sentence said it right. Why else would the left defend the Islamofacists who want to kill them and attack and try to defund our soldiers who are fighting them? I am constantly amazed at the reverse logic shown by liberals.
Your slippery slope argument about liberals eventually being killed is a bit too dramatic for me and in my opionion another of the rather silly and illogical thought processes I see here.
To argue that you must silence all those who accuse you of treason must be a joke. Ann would be proud.
Do you mean Al Franken hatespeech? Is that why Air American went broke?
When you can cough up an example of Franken calling for the poisoning of a Supreme Court justice or beating conservatives with a baseball bat you will have a pointuntil then you are spouting nonsense.
Dorsai, do you ride the little bus to school? Your posts don't really make any sense, even for a Republican.
It's more along the lines of: I don't want my hard-earned money used to pay the wench. Every newspaper she is printed in gives some of their money, earned by advertising dollars, to her in compensation. She doesn't write for FREE.
Those advertising dollars from the companies that wish to show themselves on the pages and websites that she frequents get their money from me and others like me. I have every right to tell these newspapers that I don't want my money going to pay for a column dedicated to hatred of people just like me, and I have every right to threaten to call their advertisers to boycott for the same reason.
If enough people like myself do the same, the newspapers will capitulate or face removal of advertisers, and the advertisers have a right to ignore me and lose my business. Whichever way the cookie crumbles, it all boils down to consumer dollars and how valuable those dollars are to the newspapers and the advertisers.
Who is the liar. Al Franken?
No Gangleskank. Duh.
Well said Jeter.........as far as I know there are still those On/Off and channel changing buttons on TV remotes. And if you don't plunk down a few quarters, you're not forced to read her columns.
The free market works.
Thats not the ONLY way the free market works. It also works this way. When the people who BUY your product complain, you listen. THAT is also how the free market works. Is ANN the ONLY thing in the paper? Might people who think she is a hatemongering weasel have OTHER reasons to buy a paper or listen to OUR airwaves? YOU HAVE NO POINT.
If you agree with the free market, then why do you have a problem with this list and MMFA's desire to out Coulter's speech for the hateful spewings it is? If as a result, nine papers have chosen of their own free will to NOT carry her writings, where's the problem?
Free speech means only that you can speak your mind. It's not a guaruntee that you will have your column published.
Slow news day? Looks like much of what MMFA is writing these days drags on and on. This is just as boring as another Anna Nicole update...
MMFA - This just in! Anna Nicole still dead but Fox doesn't disclose Rove never denied parenting her baby!
Next thing you know there will be a word count comparing Time to Newsweek and their coverage of Ann, (not Anna).
Now, Now ANOTHERAMERICAN, MMFA will kick you off of here if you keep this up.
Dorsai,
Everyone knows I harbor no ill will toward anyone, not even MMFA. I love liberals and I love chatting as they are so filled with good will, logic, love of our country and our President, and are so utterly free of any sort of hate speech themselves.
I love MMFA for allowing me to see the other side. God bless us all!
ANOTHERAMERICAN
Ok, you can stay a little while longer.
That's cute! The two 15 year old republicans are "hooking up".And they make sense to each other!
Funny.
See, normally you would put a smiley face on that, if you really thought it was funny. But you didn't. So when Coulter calls Edwards a f*****, that's funny. When someone mocks republicans here, it's not.
A partisan line drawn in the sand, as someone said...
As opposed to conservatives with their love of juvinile postings, endless wars, killing, starving children, and blind Bush idolotry. Who SAY they love our country while they so CLEARLY hate its people. Great bunch those cons.
Hahahaha....
Actually Dorsai, I applaud MMFA for inviting posters of all political stripes to post their opinions here......they encourage it and that is to their credit.
It's just some of the posters here that wish we would go away, meaning those that don't rubberstamp and parrot every liberal opinion here.
Personally I love you conservative posters who arent trolls. The repetitive inanity of the talking points from some of them is tiresome but ovverall I think you bring another dimension to the site.
Solon, I was not referring to you at all. You are an honest, unabashed and upfront liberal with integrity who I have a great deal of respect for......I enjoy your humor and you make sense, even when we disagree.
I wish others followed your posting prowess.
I appreciate that tommy but I didnt think you were talking about me I was just tossing in my two cents on what was being said. I didnt take it personally.
Hopefully the slow news day mean that MMFA is doing its job so well that the conservative hacks are slowing down their verbal diarhea lest they get slapped around here.
Much of the attention they get around here is what keeps them going for more - free publicity, that is.
Then FoX news must be the reason the Democrats took the Congress?
You keep pulling that nonsense out of your hat, but it remains untrue. Mold grows better in the dark. Cockroaches run from the light.
Doug,
To think MMFA has any influence over Conservatives is the funniest thing I've read yet today!
This is an exercise in the market. Some consumers of the news and these newspapers have made their case that they do not wish to read Coulter's hateful and uniformed column and that they would like to see it removed or else they will no longer buy the product. Free market at work. The newspapers can decide whether they want to risk the lost revenue and keep her column. On the other side, I'm sure papers are getting mail in support of Coulter and the papers are making a decision based on those letters as well. Again, free market at work. Why is this so difficult to understand. MMFA is not saying remove all conservative writers, just this particular one. That is the difference between censorship and the market.
The market right, but not MMFA they are not the market.
I am DEFINITLY part of the market. You again make no sense whatsoever.
Are you saying that Coulter should be able to say what SHE wants, but MMFA should not have the same right?
Dorsai, I've never read a word here about making an effort to ban Coulter or any other commentator. MMFA at worst seems to be a liberal variation of many conservative so-called "watchdog" groups like AIM, which spend their time and space attacking what they perceive as liberalism in the media. The game works both ways, pallie; if conservatives boycott something in the media (Weyrich has organized many such boycotts), and that is simply accepted as "the marketplace at work" (which it is), one cannot then look at boycotts of conservative media like Coulter's and cry "censorship" when in fact that, too, is "the marketplace at work." Personally, I would not buy any publication that publishes Coulter, and you know, pallie, that's my right, just as you are perfectly welcome to not buy any publication that publishes commentators you don't like.
>>Dorsai, I've never read a word here about making an effort to ban Coulter or any other commentator.
They know that. Its just one of the talking points. Coulter and Co make purposely inflammitory comments so that they can claim that the inevidable backlash is a stifling of their speech. Its a way to push far right talking points into the mainstream without anyone really paying attention to the details.
Doug,
If MMFA were successful and was able to completely rid every newspaper of Coulter's columns, do you think they would stop?
If so I applaud your naiveness.
They will stop when the conservative misinformation and outrageous dialogue stops. I think that is job security. Gangleskank, and her newspaper garbage is just one small brick in that wall
AA, show a quote--any quote--from MMFA explicitly calling for the banning of Coulter's articles, books, appearances, or anything else. Just because they take pains to point out her vitriol-throwing bigotry doesn't at all mean they're advocating her banning.
Exactly. Book burning is the bidness of the Right, not the left. (Okay, with the occasional Huck Finn torching thrown in for balance.)
leftwing,
It is obvious MMFA is trying to encite as many as possible to write these newspapers in order to pressure them to quit printing Coulter's columns. I would think you would see that.
BTW, it is okay with me if that is what MMFA wants to do. I agree with Solon that we let the free market work. (A great conservative principle.) Conservatives use it all the time against liberals.
My point is that it is naive to think MMFA would stop there. If they were successful, they'd use that influence to try to silence other pundits they so regularly quote here.
As long as there is a basis for criticism of those pundits, what's the problem? If they're lying or making outrageous comments, what's the argument against such action?
Or maybe you think that they'll start going after reasonable republicans, at which point you're falling victim to the same slippery-slope fallacy you chided Conchobar for. It's either a blatantly partisan or hypocritical argument on your part.
Coulter's irrelevant anyway. Her time has come and gone. Just take a look at the list of papers that still run her column; mostly second- and third-tier rags in backwash red America.
Meh.
Not sure about the backwash part, but I agree with you on her irrelevancy.
I don't know if there's a hard copy of Jewish World Review, but I wrote to the online editor and said not another dime until they ditch her.
www.jewishworldreview.com
I don't know if MM misunderstood Young or if Young was wrong himself, but in either case MM needs to clear up the confusion: The First Amendment prohibits government from infringing on free speech. That doesn't mean that the rest of us can't stuff a sock in someone's mouth (figuratively, of course) if they're creating a nuisance. Likewise, these newspapers decide every day what to print or not print. No one would argue that they're trampling on the rights of the Lions Club for refusing to publish notice of a pancake breakfast. If Ann Coulter wants to play the free speech card (and I don't know that she even is), she can spout her absurd commentary on her web site -- or buy her own newspaper.
"Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime." - Potter Stewart
I don't agree with calling people f**s, f****ts etc.
Coulters censorship and the way Media Matters are pushing for her censorship, is just as wrong. Are you going to have book burnings next?
I had to re-post because of your censorship, what crap. Like Frank Zappa would say they are just words.
If this site was really so into censorship, opposing viewpoints would not be allowed. Think about it.
These and other newspapers have as much right to publish Ann Coulter as you do publishing some of your wasted crap.
Nobody's saying they don't have the right. The newspapers can run a daily column by George Bush's dog if they like, the point is it doesn't make them look good.
Is she serious? Then she crosses the line continuously. Is she just kidding? Then a serious newspaper shouldn't give her credibility.