Posted on 07/07/2006 11:17:32 PM PDT by bugseye
Right-Wing Pundit's Work Under Scrutiny By HILLEL ITALIE, AP National Writer
(07-07) 19:17 PDT New York (AP) --
The syndicator of Ann Coulter's newspaper column is looking into allegations that the right-wing pundit has lifted material from other sources.
"We are reviewing the material and expect to have a response some time next week," Kathie Kerr, a spokeswoman for Universal Press Syndicate, told The Associated Press on Friday.
The New York Post and the Web sites Raw Story and the Rude Pundit have raised numerous questions about Coulter's columns, which appear in more than 100 newspapers, and her best-selling "Godless," already notorious for the author's calling four 9/11 widows, who supported Democrat John Kerry for president in 2004, "harpies" thriving on their husbands' demise.
Kerr said that the press syndicate had not discussed the allegations with Coulter, who was not immediately available for comment Friday. The publisher of "Godless," the Crown Publishing Group, issued a statement saying it had reviewed the "the allegations of plagiarism" in her book and "found them to be as trivial and meritless as they are irresponsible."
"As an experienced author and attorney, Ms. Coulter knows when attribution is appropriate, as underscored by the 19 pages and hundreds of endnotes contained in 'Godless,'" Crown's senior vice president and publisher, Steve Ross, said in the statement. [...]
See also: Media Matters asks Random House to investigate Coulter plagiarism allegations http://mediamatters.org/items/200607070004
and, Syndicate Will Look Into Alleged Coulter Plagiarism On Its Own -- And Possibly With Electronic Tool http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002801078
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
I saw Jaunita Williams on one of the Fox News shows, and he still had his panties all in a wad over the 2 sentances about the Jersey Harpies... Two sentances, out of over two hundred eighty five pages! This is hillarious!
Mark
Good idea. Fortunately, South40 has put together that info for us:
The information below belongs in any thread regarding Ann's alleged plagiarism.
Among the violations that the committee found Churchill had committed were falsification, fabrication, plagiarism, failure to comply with established standard regarding author names on publications, and a serious deviation from accepted practices in reporting results from research.
link
Lawrence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard who represented Al Gores case at the Supreme Court and is considered a strong candidate for to sit on that court himself, has been caught plagiarizing.
link
Al Franken Plagiarized Liberal Group's Writings
link
Joseph Biden's Lengthy History of Plagiarism
link
Sean (me me me me) Vanity....er, I mean Hannity? Take another look and listen...objectively.
LOL! You are right. The point she made about victimization needed to be made and cannot be refuted by the left ...... and they haven't.
I'll just try to leave this at this, because I got in trouble before trying to explain this. I have three of Ann's books, I love her writing and I'd like her to survive the decades to continue to skewer the left. She's one of the best at it. But she doesn't need to be "marked" or worse.
To me she went too far here and she did not have to. That is my point, she did not have to. Here's my scoop. She wrote:
"These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attack only happened to them," she writes. "They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony."..................... "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them revelling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' death so much."
She had already made her point. She could have completely left that last sentence off and the rotten left would have NOTHING to hang her on, because everything before that she said was true. "Enjoying their husbands' deaths" was in terrible taste and really unforgivable for a decent woman. (jmo)
p.s. I'm a news hound and I am near the news and talk shows all day at my job at my home. I have already seen a number of lefty (CNN, etc.) tv outlets putting that ONE sentence up on the screen to show the ignorant viewers. It makes Ann look real bad to those who don't know the whole story ....... and that's a lot of folks. She didn't need that sentence. She will live to regret it. (jmo) again
;-)
I don't wish. You got it wrong. See post # 73.
>>The more they hate her, the more she likes it.
Didn't she once say something along the lines of "I wear their hate and disdain as a badge of honor."
I'd have to agree.
Short term you are right. Wait until you see some of the things they do to her in the next five or so years. It won't be pretty. See post # 73. She could have made her point and avoided the low blows from the sickos on the left. They are out to injure her now.
Unless they physically attack her (which is not out of the question), the only way they injure her, is by getting people to believe their "take" on her words. Which you seem to be advancing.
Asking a foolish question like that of me, a guy who has three of her books and relishes her sardonic wit and brilliant writing, is about as stupid as proclaiming that Karl Rove is working for the Dems.
Get a grip.
Actually, she is both entertaining AND intelligent. She outsmarts most interviewers and debate opponents with logic and wit. That is one of the reasons she is so hated by the Libs.
How old are you? The cartoons are still on if you hurry.
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.