USA Today Reponds to Flap Over Coulter Column

Human Events ^ | Jul 26, 2004 | Chris Field

[Philistine]

I had hoped Ann's first column would have been a bit less sarcastic.

If you read the editor's comments, it is clear that the column was rejected because it was not funny enough.

So I don't think it was the sarcasm that was the problem. I think it was that the editor was too stupid to get the humor.

In my opinion it was a very funny piece, and I'm sure a lot of the USA Today readers would have enjoyed it.

Did you read Goldberg's column--about being marooned two whole subway stops from the Fleet Center? Not quite a knee-slapper, or much of anything if you ask me.

[kittymyrib]

My gerbil won't even poop on a Gannett paper...

[Graymatter]

What is missing on this thread?

[SuziQ]

it was not an attempt to silence or "censor" the columnist, but was simply due to a "difference of opinion over editing -- words, voice, that sort of thing."

They didn't like the words and voice she used, so they yanked her? Had these folks never read her work before? What maroons!

[Tao Yin]

I like Ann, but her column had little to do with the actual convention.

If USA wanted a conservative slant on the convention, they had every right to complain about what Ann sent them. While conservatives may laugh at her column, it did very little to inform anyone.

[KellyAdmirer]

When asked why his paper picked Ann Coulter specifically, Gallagher said that they "thought she was a voice from [the conservative] side with standing and visibility."

And that changed ... how, Mr. Gallagher?

[Texas Federalist]

I think it was that the editor was too stupid to get the humor.

Not too stupid, too slanted. The Dems can't see themselves how other people see them.

[Philistine]

I like Ann, but her column had little to do with the actual convention.

When she wrote that column the actual convention hadn't started yet, as far as I know.

I thought it captured the atmosphere pretty well.

[Christian4Bush]

I know it was a rhetorical question...but..

PICTURES!!!

[wjcsux]

What is missing on this thread?



Problem fixed.

[jwalburg]

Yes, words are always a problem.

[billhilly]

They wanted Ann Coulter to start a fire by rubbing two sticks together. She chose TNT, and it was far too hot for them.

Michael Moore, on the other hand, is a well known political moderate in keeping with the moderation of USA Today.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

You obviously don't understand Coulter. She's not the establishment, CNN get-along conservative. She's one of the few conservatives who'll go toe-to-toe with the lefties, she'll throw their venom right back into their faces, and yes, she uses wit, sarcasm, and of course FACTS.

USELESS Today knew what they were getting into when they initially signed her on board. The Left is scared of Coulter, bottom line.

[luv2ski]

her picture!!

[fella]

it was not an attempt to silence or "censor" the columnist,

Kind of reminds men of a car salesman when you catch him over charging you and he says "I'm not trying to f**k you".

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

They Reponded to it?

[Gunrunner2]

Agreed.

[pickemuphere]

Her column was very well written.

Her style gives me a splitting headache, but that's more the result of personal taste than any failure on Ann's part. I know a lot of people who love her columns.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...Her style gives me a splitting headache

Lefties write to fit a template. They "don't get" anything that doesn't fit the template.

She definately doesn't write to fit their template. She uses facts instead of the DNC talking points.

[Askel5]

My thoughts exactly.