Posted on 10/03/2001 11:35:13 AM PDT by BamaG
LAffaire Coulter
Goodbye to all that.
By Jonah Goldberg, NRO Editor
October 3, 2001 2:20 p.m.
ear Readers, Of course, we would explain our decision to Ann, but the reality is that she's called the shots from the get-go. It was Ann who decided to sever her ties with National Review not the other way around. This is what happened. In the wake of her invade-and-Christianize-them column, Coulter wrote a long, rambling rant of a response to her critics that was barely coherent. She's a smart and funny person, but this was Ann at her worst emoting rather than thinking, and badly needing editing and some self-censorship, or what is commonly referred to as "judgment." But this was not the point. It was NEVER the point. The problem with Ann's first column was its sloppiness of expression and thought. Ann didn't fail as a person as all her critics on the Left say she failed as WRITER, which for us is almost as bad. Rich wrote her another e-mail, engaging her on this point, and asking her in more diplomatic terms to approach the whole controversy not as a PR-hungry, free-swinging pundit on Geraldo, but as a careful writer. No response. Instead, she apparently proceeded to run around town bad-mouthing NR and its employees. Then she showed up on TV and, in an attempt to ingratiate herself with fellow martyr Bill Maher, said we were "censoring" her. By this point, it was clear she wasn't interested in continuing the relationship. What publication on earth would continue a relationship with a writer who would refuse to discuss her work with her editors? What publication would continue to publish a writer who attacked it on TV? What publication would continue to publish a writer who lied about it on TV and to a Washington Post reporter? And, finally, what CONSERVATIVE publication would continue to publish a writer who doesn't even know the meaning of the word "censorship"? So let me be clear: We did not "fire" Ann for what she wrote, even though it was poorly written and sloppy. We ended the relationship because she behaved with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty. What's Ann's take on all this? Well, she told the Washington Post yesterday that she loves it, because she's gotten lots of great publicity. That pretty much sums Ann up. On the Sean Hannity show yesterday, however, apparently embarrassed by her admission to the Post, she actually tried to deny that she has sought publicity in this whole matter. Well, then, Ann, why did you complain of being "censored" on national TV? Why did you brag to the Post about all the PR? Listening to Ann legalistically dodge around trying to explain all this would have made Bill Clinton blush. Ann also told the Post that we only paid her $5 a month for her work (would that it were so!). Either this is a deliberate lie, or Ann needs to call her accountant because someone's been skimming her checks. Many readers have asked, why did we run the original column in which Ann declared we should "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" if we didn't like it? Well, to be honest, it was a mistake. It stemmed from the fact this was a supposedly pre-edited syndicated column, coming in when NRO was operating with one phone line and in general chaos. Our bad. Now as far as Ann's charges go, I must say it's hard to defend against them, because they either constitute publicity-minded name-calling, like calling us "girly-boys" or they're so much absurd bombast. For example:
Paul Johnson has criticized Islam as an imperial religion. William F. Buckley himself has called, essentially, for a holy war. Rich Lowry wants to bring back the Shah, and I've written that Western Civilization has every right to wave the giant foam "We're Number 1!" finger as high as it wants. To be honest, even though there's a lot more that could be said, I have no desire to get any deeper into this because, like with a Fellini movie, the deeper you get, the less sense Ann makes. We're delighted that FrontPageMagazine has, with remarkable bravery, picked up Ann's column, presumably for only $5 a month. They'll be getting more than what they're paying for, I'm sure. Jonah Goldberg |
What a whining hypocrite Jonah is!
LOL
Here in California the LP once ran a whore for Lieutenant Governor.
Go Chiefs, but I think the Broncos are going to drop them this weekend. They don't lose 2 games in a row at home very often.
Nope! That will never happen since as I recall a thread here about David teaching Freerepublic how to combat the left for a week?
Nope Ann is in good hands as is Freerepublic. Thank goodness we are not in the hands of girly-man goldy.
that would be scary. Anyways the only reason he answered was because of Freerepublic and the protest and boycott.
In his girly words of oh no who will read me now, who will hit the web site.
sounds like many heard about it unless they are the left?
Now I am LOLROF over this guy. After I just saw his picture I new something was up. Sinkspur is right why waste time on this kid he will never apologize his Mommy won't let him.
Wonder who's implying that who is catty?
While I don't agree with you, I do agree that you have put you're finger on the problem. And the problem is the "conversion" of National Review.
I have been a longtime (45 year) subscriber to NR. I have always known it was not a Christian magazine. It was conservative, but Buckley was at least a Catholic -- and therefore nominally Christian.
Now fast forward to 2001 and Ann Coulter is fired for what? Suggesting that the solution to our problems with primitive pagans would be solved by conversion to Christianity. Well, here's news -- IT IS THE SOLUTION.
What is truly sad is that on this forum, people are talking about everything but the issue. I read nonsense about the length of her skirts, her hair, her bustline. None of that was the reason that NR -- of all entities -- fired her. They fired her because she SAID what every Christian KNOWS -- the solution to our problems with the Mohammedans is their conversion to Christianity.
As I have said before on this forum, I am done with NR after 45 years. Not because of Ann Coulter, but because NR has abandoned Truth. Ann Coulter's firing is a symptom of NR's disease; it has rotted from the inside.
I take it from your suggestion that you know "what the real meaning of censorship is"?
I'd appreciate it if you'd take the time from your busy schedule to explain it to me.
BTW, please note that I did not ask for an explantion of what "government censorship" is; I already know what that means. I'm looking for a simple, direct, unambiguous explanaion of what you believe that "censorship" itself means, devoid of any government context.
Thanks in advance, etc.
I agree Sir Winston the truth will come out.
I doubt it. Never overestimate your own importance.
who will read me now, who will hit the web site.
Actually, NRO will still get read and articles from it will still be posted on FR and commented on by FReepers.
You're Don Quixote, SHOW. And Ann is your Dulcinea. Keep tilting at windmills.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.