Posted on 03/11/2007 9:09:38 PM PDT by Krankor
We are going to stop publishing Ann Coulter’s column.
Coulter, as most of you know, is the conservative columnist we’ve published for about two years. She was in the news last week for her comment at the Conservative Political Action Conference, one of the most distinguished gatherings of conservative thinkers in the nation.
Here’s exactly what Coulter said:
"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I -- so kind of an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards."
Most of you will think that we’re dropping her column in response to that comment. Some will undoubtedly believe that we’re caving in to liberals, who have launched what appears to be a national campaign to get newspapers to dump Coulter’s column. Others are probably praising us for finally seeing what’s wrong with Coulter’s column.
Whatever group you find yourself in, you’re partially right.
Coulter’s comment about Edwards had something to do with it. We’re all for open discussion of the issues, but questioning someone’s sexual orientation in such a vile way goes beyond reasonable comment. It should be noted that Coulter didn’t – and wouldn’t have been allowed to – make those comments in the Herald & Review. But it’s still an indication of her thinking.
More importantly, at least in my mind, is that Coulter’s column has become a one note symphony. Every column is about how liberals can’t be believed, the New York Times is in bed with radical Muslims, the Washington Post is guilty of treason, etc. There are plenty of issues in this nation that should be discussed and we wish that Coulter would discuss more of them. Instead, her columns have become more and more frequently one issue rants.
Also, Coulter seems to adore the public spotlight a little too much, a trait she abhors in liberals. Her public comments have become more and more strident in order to gain more and more attention. Her comment about Edwards accomplished her purpose – it got her name in the news.
The decision for the Herald & Review was also based on balance. When Molly Ivins was alive she was a counter-balance to Coulter. Ivins wasn’t as acid-tongued as Coulter, but she was close, especially when the issue involved the Bush family. Since Ivins death a few weeks ago, it’s become more and more clear that there isn’t the balance there once was.
I also don’t think it’s bad for a newspaper to switch columnists every once in a while. Even the best columnists can fall into a rut after a few years and it’s always good to bring some fresh writing and different thinking to the opinion page.
The purpose of an opinion page, in my view, is to encourage people to think and discuss issues. No one should agree with every editorial, letter writer or columnist. It’s a pretty boring world if we all agree. Opinions that challenge your own views can make you think and consider alternatives. We’re not out to change anyone’s mind, but to enlighten, entertain and offer a forum for discussion.
For that reason, we think that the newspaper should publish columns from as many perspectives as possible. We attempt to have a balance of liberal and conservative columnists.
In the final analysis, we decided that there were other columnists who could state the conservative case better than Ann Coulter. We have already started the search for a new columnist and, as always, we’d be interested in your suggestions.
I think there are one or two books of Ann's that I don't own yet. I will have to remember to buy them this week to show my support.
Like Molly Ivins' columns weren't Bush-bashing 24/7??? Like Maureen Dowd's columns aren't interminable whinings of a NYT liberal??? Yeah, that's a believable excuse!
Decatur is a blue-collar city anyway.
If a given city has a lot of crime, it's usually pro-liberal.
I hate weak-kneed dishonesty. They should just say they dumped her because she called Edwards a fag.
But she is a bit of a harpie and it lessens her contributions. No doubt that she has put out some good reads but the bombastic style detracts from the core issues at times.
Why not just add some other people and spread out the message instead of cutting her?
Ouch....another dim bulb who didn't get Ann's comment. And these are the people we expect to report and analyze events of the day?
Wonder if they can afford Queen Ann?? The Dinosaur roared as its head slipped beneath the surface...
Pray for W and Our Troops
Yeah, he decided there were others who could state the conservative case better than Ann- he just doesn't know who it is yet!
----
This fish-wrapper, like all the rest of these liberal pandering wastes of pulp, line up like the lap dogs they are to the left. They have no argument other than Ann might "offend" some queer who buys their liberal trash, and they might have to "answer" to the left.
Pathetic.
Blood circulation rises.
Paper circulation falls.
"In the final analysis, we decided that there were other columnists who could state the conservative case better than Ann Coulter."
Maybe there are but they're boring an Ann isn't. I don't want conservatives who are "nice" to liberals, I want conservatives who give them a taste of their own medicine !!!
They always have to "balance" the conservative. That usually means 6 liberal columns and 1 conservative column.
We shall see if their circulation rises or falls.
The funny thing about newspapaers is that they are the airlines of publishing world, they lose money yet march on.
Can this rag be added to the Dinosaur Media Watch list?
That seems like at least 3 notes.....
susie
So how long was Molly Ivans there unopposed? God forbid a conservative gets a few months alone...
Wait just a minute. I thought being homosexual was a good thing, normal, natural, entitled to marry another homosexual, equal, better-than-heterosexual, and all that stuff. So why wasn't Edwards complimented by being called a fag by Coulter? Unless he thought she was calling him a cigarette. Now THAT'S an insult.
This is a delightful lack of logic. The Herald and whatever must be really anxious to begin losing subscribers as it meanders to the left fringe.
Have a nice trip..hey, there's a cliff over there...ooops.
"But she is a bit of a harpie and it lessens her contributions. No doubt that she has put out some good reads but the bombastic style detracts from the core issues at times.
Why not just add some other people and spread out the message instead of cutting her? "
~~~
Do you read her columns?
Why?
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.