[inkling]

I think it's pretty obvious that her use of the word "refused" implies that the WSJ was blacklisting Coulter's defenders. If you wish to parse the headline a la Bill Clinton, you can say it was value-neutral. But semantic gymnastics aside, her headline places blame upon the Journal.

The WSJ Editorial page spent a lot of the Nineties blasting Clinton -- was it then their obligation to print every pro-Clinton letter they received in response? Newspapers have VERY limited space to print letters and they are under no obligation to print any of them. A less accusatory headline would be "An Open Letter to the Wall Street Journal." That wouldn't imply guilt by the WSJ Editorial Board.

[thegreatbeast]

What is obvious, and understandable, friend, is that the WSJ didn't want to print a letter that quickly and simply showed one of their columnists to be a harridan bereft of facts.

[ontos-on]

You are ridiculous on this, and I am only up to post # 21. I cant imagine what facts you have twisted by the time you get to my posts. Sayonara.