Coulter losing newspapers, fast
I'll never understand the media zeitgeist. Ann Coulter has been utterly offensive for a very long time now, but I guess she finally crossed some imaginary line. Editor and Publisher reports that yet another newspaper has dropped her column.
And that's what the issue is about. Fox and Coulter have First Amendment rights, but as one editor explained in the E&P article, newspapers have to choose whose columns to run. Choosing not to pay Coulter is not censorship, it's an editorial decision about the relative value her column has for readers. Just because very vocal and often hateful conservatives seem to enjoy Coulter's rants doesn't mean there is any intrinsic value in what she has to say.
Sorting out the relative credibility of dozens of opinion writers is something most people don't have the time to do. By publishing columnists, newspapers are putting their imprimatur on them.
This doesn't mean we can't have vigorous debates, and it doesn't mean the internet tubes are going to calm down. I certainly throw some elbows on this blog. But this is, after all, a blog, not a newspaper. We may occasionally do some "reporting" when time and circumstances allow, but in general most people are probably smart enough to figure out we have a particular point of view.
But if newspapers are going to continue to insist that they are somehow special, better and more trustworthy, then they all need to take a good hard look at the columnists they choose to pay. In other words, actually be special, better and more trustworthy, rather than printing the absurd right wing pieces from the likes of Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and Jonah Goldberg., to name just a few. It's more than a question of tone, it's a question of intellect and credibility.
Yes, the righties will stomp their feet and hold their breath if they don't get to enjoy the name calling and breathtaking stupidity of Coulter, Malkin and Goldberg, but exactly where is it written that a function of journalism is to make political extremists happy by allowing insults and falsehoods to appear unchallenged? Surely in a country this large some smart conservative writers could be found.
Last week, at least seven daily newspapers around the country announced that they had decide to drop Ann Coulter's column in the wake of her latest offensive comment, a reference to former Sen. John Edwards in which she used the term "faggot." An eighth paper has now cut the column: The Herald and Review in Decatur, Ill.Combined with the victory over Fox Noise Channel, it's clear that the tide is running against right wing extremists.
And that's what the issue is about. Fox and Coulter have First Amendment rights, but as one editor explained in the E&P article, newspapers have to choose whose columns to run. Choosing not to pay Coulter is not censorship, it's an editorial decision about the relative value her column has for readers. Just because very vocal and often hateful conservatives seem to enjoy Coulter's rants doesn't mean there is any intrinsic value in what she has to say.
Sorting out the relative credibility of dozens of opinion writers is something most people don't have the time to do. By publishing columnists, newspapers are putting their imprimatur on them.
This doesn't mean we can't have vigorous debates, and it doesn't mean the internet tubes are going to calm down. I certainly throw some elbows on this blog. But this is, after all, a blog, not a newspaper. We may occasionally do some "reporting" when time and circumstances allow, but in general most people are probably smart enough to figure out we have a particular point of view.
But if newspapers are going to continue to insist that they are somehow special, better and more trustworthy, then they all need to take a good hard look at the columnists they choose to pay. In other words, actually be special, better and more trustworthy, rather than printing the absurd right wing pieces from the likes of Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and Jonah Goldberg., to name just a few. It's more than a question of tone, it's a question of intellect and credibility.
Yes, the righties will stomp their feet and hold their breath if they don't get to enjoy the name calling and breathtaking stupidity of Coulter, Malkin and Goldberg, but exactly where is it written that a function of journalism is to make political extremists happy by allowing insults and falsehoods to appear unchallenged? Surely in a country this large some smart conservative writers could be found.
