Why?
How can reading the rest of the article help? In less they qualified their earlier statement? I have never seen an MSM article writen in that way and i don't believe they will start today.
Headline: "Coulter Draws Fire for Bashing 9/11 Widows"
Body: "In her latest book, Coulter criticizes the four New Jersey widows who pushed for an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that killed their husbands at the World Trade Center. The women also backed Democrat John Kerry's presidential candidacy in 2004."
Now based upon the headline Ann Coulter might try to call it libel, but if you read the actual article it specifies that it was a group of widows, not the whole bunch of them.
The "Jersey Widows" appellation hasn't caught on, "Jersey Girls" is demeaning and also hasn't caught on. Most people think of these women as 9/11 widows. Since most people think of them as 9/11 widows (albeit politically active ones) and since they are 9/11 widows, Ann Coulter doesn't really have much reason to complain besides the fact that it will boost book sales (if I were her I'd be going after the spotlight as well, just financial commonsense).