Hmm.. that's a bit of a Catch-22. If you say you're guilty, you are. If you say you're not, you're in denial.
Coulter writes about The Media as if it's one unified entity, an entity which also includes all liberal politicians. That's the only way I can think that she'd be connecting the New York Times with John Kerry. That's no more accurate than claiming Sen. Frist, all Freepers, the Washington Times, etc. get our marching orders from Rush Limbaugh or other such conservative nerve center.
Given the New York Times twice overlooked their child stalker hero Scotty Ritter's arrest; somehow, no matter how well documented, the Ritter story somehow finds the "editor's spike."
The best part of being a liberal mass media editor, self-serving bias: I'll decide what's news.
She wasn't actually "connecting the New York Times with John Kerry", except in the puckish manner discussed below. You're straining for something that wasn't there.
Columnists don't have the luxury of being able to write individual columns for each item on which they want to comment, especially if the items deserve different amounts of treatment.
She wanted to comment on several topics, including the "how can we have a war, we're mourning" silliness, the NYT's avoidance of the Ritter arrests, and Kerry's sudden "discovery" of his Jewish roots to pander for votes. So she could either cover them as a mixed bag, which is extremely common for political columnists, or she could dump two of them and not talk about them at all, while expanding the remaining topic to a full column even if it would require fluff padding to fill the required space.
Obviously the former was a better choice than the latter.
Now there are two ways to handle a mixed bag column. The first is to draw horizontal lines between items to help the transition-impaired (or otherwise place some sort of "new topic alert" markers to aid the less adroit readers). The other is to just make the transition from one topic to another while writing and trust in the intelligence of one's audience to see a segue and understand that it is one.
Coulter's trademark method of doing this is the wry segue -- rather than just start a new topic de novo in an abrupt transition, she likes to tie obvious shifts of topic together with wisecracking remarks that highlight some sort of commonality between the topics, no matter how remote, in a conversational "oh, that reminds me" fashion. Besides being entertaining in its own right for both the writer and the reader (and the more remote, the funnier it is), it's also a good writer's device to keep the reader's attention from wandering or skipping to the next newspaper page, as would be invited by a more obvious "and now for something completely different" break. By the time the reader realizes they're starting a new topic, they're already partway into it.
This technique is even more powerful when trying to keep from getting interrupted (by the host, or another guest) during verbal debates or televised talking-head shows, where it's hard to regain the "floor" once you've lost it.
If you're misled by the headline, remember that columnists don't usually pick the headline, the "host" publication does. And even if the author chooses it, it's better to headline the primary topic in the piece than to try to list all mixed-bag topics in a short headline.
You say that she "needs a good editor", but it looks as if she's doing fine on her own on her compositional decisions.