Daniel Tyler: Cancel Coulter
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
I would like to respond to your July 27 comments on Coulter.
Your main point, as I understand it, is that you want the newspaper to have a variety of opinions. That is good. Certainly, Benjamin Franklin would applaud.
Where I differ with you is that I don't think Coulter is one of the "biggest names in the business," and because of her brand of extremism, I don't think you should be giving her views credibility by printing them in the Steamboat Today. Of course, there are people who will read her as there are many who will read Maureen Dowd. But Dowd, in my judgment, has never gone to the extremes embraced by Coulter to defend her ideology.
Coulter has endorsed McCarthyism, suggested that Timothy McVeigh should have parked his truck in front of the New York Times, and implied that a U.S. Supreme Court justice should be poisoned. Her vitriolic cynicism seems to be designed more to fan the flames of existing hatreds than to report news, or give opinions, in an intellectually honest manner. Dowd runs off at the mouth and massages her own liberal prejudices, but she hasn't suggested invading Muslim countries to kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.
We're a small town with a small newspaper that reflects who we are. The editorial pages already represent the kind of honest debate that appeared in the Pennsylvania Gazette in the 18th century when newspapers were establishing their role in the young Republic. We don't need Coulter's voice added to this mix. It's not worthy of this fine community. I hope you will reconsider carrying her comments in the Pilot.
Daniel Tyler
Steamboat Springs
Comments
Brian_Kotowski 6 years, 10 months ago
Mr. Tyler
You state that "[Maureen] Dowd, in my judgment, has never gone to the extremes embraced by [Ann] Coulter to defend her ideology."
On May 14th of 2003, Maureen Dowd published in her syndicated column (entitled "Osama's Offspring") her critique of a speech delivered by President Bush nine days earlier. Ms. Dowd wrote:
"Busy chasing off Saddam, the president and vice president had told us that Al Qaeda was spent. 'Al Qaeda is on the run,' President Bush said last week. 'That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly but surely being decimated... They're not a problem anymore.'"
Dowd went on to sarcastically and derisively trash the President for writing off the Al Qaeda threat, just days prior to Al Qaeda executing a major bombing in Saudi Arabia.
Unknown to you, evidently, as well as to all those who are sufficiently lazy to depend upon the liberal-enabling mainstream media for their news and information, Dowd deliberately edited the President's remarks to completely change their meaning. The president NEVER asserted that Al Qaeda was "not a problem anymore."
Here is the UN-DOWD-EDITED version of the President's remarks:
"Al Qaeda is on the run. That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly but surely being decimated. Right now, about half of all the top Al Qaeda operatives are either jailed or dead. In either case, they're not a problem anymore."
The President merely stated the obvious that only those Al Qaeda operatives who had been CAPTURED OR KILLED were not a problem any more. It was too obvious and too truthful for Ms. Dowd, so she spliced & diced the President's comments until they were sufficiently distorted to be used against him.
If the editorialists whose work appears in the Steamboat Pilot & Today are a refection, as you say, of "who we are," then those of you who read Dowd are calculating and duplicitous liars.
Are you comfortable with that reflection? If not, why do you not lobby the Steamboat Pilot & Today to cancel Ms. Dowd's column?
JazzSlave 6 years, 10 months ago
Mr. Tyler:
Your assertion that "We're a small town with a small newspaper that reflects who we are" strikes me as more than a little self-centered. A newspaper is supposed to report the news. Its editorial and opinion offerings should expose its readers to a variety of perspectives, regardless of whether or not those readers agree with the opinions being espoused.
If you have been following the Coulter back-and-forth in these pages, then you are presumably aware that there are a significant number of Steamboat Pilot & Today readers who appreciate her contribution. I guess you would exempt those people from your characterization of "who we are."
A more honest statement would have been: "We're a small town with a small newspaper that should reflect Daniel Tyler's definition of who we are. All others should be expelled from the debate."
You are not unlike the Narcissus, who
Stared into the waters of a clear pool And became so fascinated with his own beauty That he pined away for want of himself
Happy navel-gazing to you.
gwendolyn 6 years, 3 months ago
"Al Qaeda is on the run. That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly but surely being decimated. Right now, about half of all the top Al Qaeda operatives are either jailed or dead. In either case, they're not a problem anymore."
Poorly spoken/written sentence/paragraph that could go either way in meaning.
"In either case..."
Is that in reference to ONLY the previous sentence declaring Al Qaeda operatives are either jailed or dead? The very sentence that Dowd replaced with ellipsis?
OR,
Is that in reference to the 2 items presented in the entire para:
....slowly but surely being decimated...
...jailed or dead...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030505-4.html
read and interpret for yourself. scroll down about 1/3 to find the para in question.
Minutiae. Even so, an incomplete quote that was corrected by Ms. Dowd in a subsequent column. Perhaps not whole-heartedly, but still corrected.
Might I ask, how does Ms. Dowd's columns compare to Ms. Coulter's when it comes to history of name-calling and labelling and spewing off at the keyboard? I'm curious as to what other people read into the language differences and ability to stay on topic without the additional spew of hatred rummaging throughout the op-ed pieces.....
If you're looking for 2 sides of op-ed journalism, are these truly the best representations we have available for publication?
Requires free registration
Posting comments requires a free account and verification.
Or login with:
OpenID