Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

L’Affaire Coulter
National Review Online ^ | 10/3/01 | Jonah Goldberg

Posted on 10/03/2001 11:35:13 AM PDT by BamaG

L’Affaire Coulter
Goodbye to all that.

By Jonah Goldberg, NRO Editor
October 3, 2001 2:20 p.m.

 

ear Readers,

As many of you may have heard, we've dropped Ann Coulter's column from NRO. This has sparked varying amounts of protest, support, and, most of all, curiosity from our readers. We owe you an explanation.

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."

Running this "piece" would have been an embarrassment to Ann, and to NRO. Rich Lowry pointed this out to her in an e-mail (I was returning from my honeymoon). She wrote back an angry response, defending herself from the charge that she hates Muslims and wants to convert them at gunpoint.

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:

  • Ann — a self-described "constitutional lawyer" — volunteered on Politically Incorrect that our "censoring" of her column was tantamount to "repealing the First Amendment." Apparently, in Ann's mind, she constitutes the thin blonde line between freedom and tyranny, and so any editorial decision she dislikes must be a travesty.
  • She sniffed to the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz that "Every once in awhile they'll [National Review] throw one of their people to the wolves to get good press in left-wing publications." I take personal offense to this charge. She's accusing us of betraying a friend for publicity, when in fact it was the other way around.
  • And, lastly, this "Joan of Arc battling the forces of political correctness" act doesn't wash. In the same 20 days in which Ann says — over and over and over again — that NR has succumbed to "PC hysteria," we've run pieces celebrating every PC shibboleth and bogeyman.

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.

The only difference between what we've run and what Ann considers so bravely iconoclastic on her part, is that we've run articles that accord persuasion higher value than shock value. It's true: Ann is fearless, in person and in her writing. But fearlessness isn't an excuse for crappy writing or crappier behavior.

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



TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: anncoulter; coulter
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 281-282 next last
To: BamaG
Jonah Goldberg had the good manners to reply to my e-mail personally.
While not going into details, he hinted at the above reasoning.
More then likely I will renew my subscription, while also praying for Ann.
Perhaps there is some spiritual warfare going on that she needs help with, and only God has that remedy.
41 posted on 10/03/2001 11:56:17 AM PDT by Psalm 73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BamaG
This is more of the same old self important conservative politics as usual. There are thousands of bright well informed people in this country who's opinions are just as valuable as Coulter's or Goldberg's. These people do not report news, they give their opinions on it, and for that they are elevated to a super star status complete with groupies. These cat fights are boring, and consume way to much time, and should be part of new class of topic on FR known as "conservative tabloidism."
42 posted on 10/03/2001 11:56:53 AM PDT by 101viking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: father_elijah
Come on....asking Jonah to write serioulsy is like asking a cat to knit a sweater.

Yeah, he'll bat the yarn around a bit, but in the end it just ends up being a big tangled mess.

43 posted on 10/03/2001 11:57:44 AM PDT by francisandbeans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: The Other Harry
They'll be getting more than what they're paying for, I'm sure."

A compliment? I think so and a pretty civil way to end the piece.

44 posted on 10/03/2001 11:57:50 AM PDT by KayEyeDoubleDee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
I'm not touching that one.
45 posted on 10/03/2001 12:00:25 PM PDT by Bikers4Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BamaG
It's no surprise to hear a thinking conservative say "The problem with Ann's first column was its sloppiness of expression and thought." What's surprising is how fiercely some Freepers resist acknowledging the fact. Some of the things I've seen posted in defence of Ann on FR call to mind the NRO's comment that "Coulter wrote a long, rambling rant of a response to her critics that was barely coherent." Other things I've seen posted call to mind NRO's comment that "Listening to Ann legalistically dodge around trying to explain all this would have made Bill Clinton blush." Mabye Ann's incoherence and inability to distinguish between emoting and thinking are acceptable to some. But my guess is that it's not so much a matter of it being acceptable as it being unrecognizable. YMMV.
46 posted on 10/03/2001 12:00:28 PM PDT by ConsistentLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #47 Removed by Moderator

To: BamaG
Ann wins with me.

Jonah Goldberg has some nerve to criticize Coulter as a writer. His columns are self-indulgent and dull, and I have given him too many chances already. I start to read his column, and he rambles about his personal life -- rambling just doesn't do it for me. He can't seem to make a strong point, or, when he does, he loses the reader after paragraph one, so what he says in paragraphs five and six don't matter.

Goldberg always seems to forget one of the paramount rules of a good writer:

"Just because it happened to you, doesn't make it interesting."

Coulter, on the other hand, focuses outwards in her writing, very seldom on herself. She may have flown off the handle recently, but she has written way too much great material to "write her off" like Goldberg did.

She doesn't need Goldberg, anyway. She will always have an audience, and anyone who picks up her column will do well.

48 posted on 10/03/2001 12:00:54 PM PDT by Silly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
So, does this remove for you your ban on NR? Or will you keep up the fight? Let us know.
49 posted on 10/03/2001 12:01:01 PM PDT by TKEman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BamaG
To girly-boy Goldberg -- what about your proposal to invade, conquer and bring "civilization" to Africa?

Damn you, you girly-boy hypocrit. I will never again purchase National Review so long as you remain affiliated with it, and I am a former subscriber!

50 posted on 10/03/2001 12:02:59 PM PDT by Jay W
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BamaG
Those who worship at the alter of Ann will continue to make "girly boy" comments

I'm not going to "alter," and I ain't no "girly boy," pal. Ann, you can "pump me up" anytime!

51 posted on 10/03/2001 12:03:44 PM PDT by Map Kernow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lady lawyer
The attempts at self-justification on both sides just make them look small.

Yep.

52 posted on 10/03/2001 12:04:39 PM PDT by borkrules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BamaG
Those who worship at the alter of Ann will continue...

Ann has an alter?
And who might that be?

53 posted on 10/03/2001 12:04:43 PM PDT by Publius6961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BamaG
Not that anyone cares, but I have quite a few things I want to say about this.

1. Ann Coulter got a lot of attention because of her appearance - not her brains. If you actually LISTEN to her, she says the same things over and over and over and over.. well, you get the idea. She understands the Constitution - well, big deal - lots of people do. Remember Betsy whats-her-name, the FORMER Lt. Gov. of NY who suddenly became a Clinton defender during impeachment? She too was always a Constitutional scholar. Well, Betsy and Ann didn't agree on a thing - it was politics they were arguing, not the Constitution. The Constitution was argued in the Courts and we won some and lost some. The Supreme Court has weighed in and I think their decision will stand.

2. Ann is not very professional. The hair and the mini skirts get a lot of attention, but for all the wrong reasons. No professional woman would go to work looking like this. I have asked quite a few men about her, and most found her too skinny and loud - all hair, no substance.

3. If Susan Estrich wrote that article about the death of one of her good friends, we would have a collective fit. Grief is not an excuse to write indefensible things and expect management support. Barbara Olson had a lot of friends, but I sure didn't see articles such as this from THEM.

4. Ann is doing exactly what so many of us hate - she's being a VICTIM!!! She's also being vindictive - how many of you could get by with calling your bosses 'girly boys'? That's insulting and not the mark of an articulate, intelligent professional person. If she wants to express her opinions about them, then let her do it on a forum such as this.

5. Jonah Goldberg is funny and has a way with words. Do I agree with him about everything? Of course not. I like Rich Lowery. I also know without William F. Buckley there likely would not BE a major Conservative movement in this country.

6. The Geraldo's of the world will make good opportunity to denounce those 'petty, mean spirited' conservatives. If Ann isn't careful, she's going to be David Brock in a skirt.

7. There are many bright, articulate and attractive Conservative women who do a better job than Ann, IMHO ... Monica Crowley, Hearther Nauert, Laura Ingraham, etc.

54 posted on 10/03/2001 12:04:43 PM PDT by SmartBlonde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Other Harry
I don't think the column served any purpose that as public punch-back.

Make that "scratch-back". Meooow!

Poor little Jonah. First Coulter accuses him of being a "girly man" and then he comes right out and proves her right.

55 posted on 10/03/2001 12:05:45 PM PDT by Aristophanes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Justin Raimondo
Uh, What was the stupid part ?
56 posted on 10/03/2001 12:06:04 PM PDT by prov1813man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Silly
I like Jonah for the reasons you state. If I want Gerge Will, I'll read Geroge Will. I like Jonah for his inclusiveness of his audience. Sometimes it's like reading an email from a friend, I think that's his MO
57 posted on 10/03/2001 12:06:20 PM PDT by francisandbeans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
he should have edited out the cattiness in this column. It's, well, unmanly.

You mean like the "thin blonde line.." cuteness?

58 posted on 10/03/2001 12:07:14 PM PDT by Publius6961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BamaG
They had an ABSOLUTE right to drop her. She had an ABSOLUTE right to say what she did and Front Page Magazine has an ABSOLUTE right to hire her. I also have have an ABSOLUTE right to listen to her on Michael Medved's radio show in a few minutes. Ann=ANTI PC! GO ANN!
59 posted on 10/03/2001 12:07:16 PM PDT by PISANO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BamaG
"Crappy writing"? Ann Coulter? Crazy, arguably, but crappy? I think not.
60 posted on 10/03/2001 12:07:48 PM PDT by Sloth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 281-282 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson