A one-stop source for news, links, source documents and gossip about journalism in Scranton, Wilkes-Barre and environs. Send tips to email@example.com.
I see. If you declare Ann Coulter's "shtick" to be tasteless, offensive, and factually inaccurate, designed only to draw attention to herself no matter who she hurts, then you must be a "librul." Got it!
Kind of sad to read an editor-publisher who doesn't understand what censorship is.But in Connor's case, no big surprise.Censorship is the government telling you what you can write or publish.An editor/publisher can't "censor" his own publication. That's called editing, when someone like Connor looks at Coulter's column and decides it's not worthy of your publication.That's called taking responsibility for what you put on the street, and real editors do it every day.
Good editorial pages and their op-ed cousins are the voices of the papers in which they are found. One has to wonder about the role of Coulter's columns in that mix. How does tasteless, inane, stupid, devoid of any facts, and downright nutty fit into the mix of taking a leadership role in the community? More likely "filling the page" is most appropriate in this instance.
Many of us like Coulter's columns. Sort of a female Steve Corbett as far as abrasiveness goes. I, for one, do not care for most female writers but she's entertaining.
That's the problem, 10:47. "Entertainment" has taken on a meanspiritedness in larger proportions than ever before. If Ann Coulter is supposed to be entertaining, perhaps her column should more appropriately appear on the same page as "Dear Abby" and the sudoku puzzle, not on the op-ed where some people might mistake it for serious food for thought.
I don't know what the Times Leader circulation is, but I feel safe in assuming that 1,000 e-mails calling for the removal of Ann Coulter received in only a single day must constitute a pretty significant voice of the readership.
"1,000 e-mails ... received in only a single day must constitute a pretty significant voice of the readership."Don't count on it. An enterprising person or small group with the proper tech savvy can easily generate a huge volume of e-mails. You falsely assume every e-mail came from a reader/subscriber and not a right-wing Coulter lover posing as a reader(s).
If you read the column, you would know that most of the e-mails were from people outside of the area who probably never even heard of the Times Leader.
I can think of a dozen columnists whose work is thoughtful, insightful and factual. Ann Coulter's "work" has none of these attributes.
She's reportedly "intelligent, witty, and highly approachable." It's a shame that she puts none of those attributes to use in her published works.
Just because you don't agree with her doesn't mean she isn't a good writer. Grow up already. You people are supposed to be journalists. You know the business. If you don't like something, turn the page. Stop whining.
The topic of this thread is response to a column about Ann Coulter's work. Many people find her writing to be gratuitously offensive and substance-free. She has a fine vocabulary, yes, and I have no doubt that her grammar is above reproach. I have no quibble about her ability to string together poly-syllabic words into complex sentences. I suppose one could say that makes her a "good writer."
She's a good columnist because people read her, whether they do so because they like her style or they are looking for something to carry on about. A good columnist attracts readers.
Yes, that's the same argument I always use in defense of Rosie O'Donnell, Michael Savage, Paris Hilton, Kevin Lynn, and similarly outrageous media personages.
Post a Comment