Stanford: Ann Coulter can't say that, can she?

Advertisement

Scott Stanford

Scott Stanford is general manager of the Steamboat Pilot & Today. Call him at 970-871-4202 or email sstanford@SteamboatToday.com

I have only myself to blame. I'm the one who decided last year to add Ann Coulter to our ViewPoints pages.

Coulter takes sharp aim at anything she perceives liberal. Big picture is that her column isn't very different from those of others on our opinion pages - she preaches to the converted and deliberately tries to get under the skin of those who are not now, and never will be, in her choir. Small picture is that Coulter is as bombastic as columnists get. She may say the same things as Cal Thomas and Jonah Goldberg, but the way she says them always draws a stronger reaction.

Most times, I am amused at what Coulter writes and surprised that so many take her bait. Imagine the joy Coulter takes in knowing there are readers who can't stand her, yet read her week after week and find themselves getting angrier and angrier. I think that's what she would call a "win-win-win."

There are people who need enemies to give their lives purpose. If they're not beating on their boogeyman, they're not breathing. The hip term for such people is "haters." Ann Coulter is a hater, but so are Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, Al Franken, Michael Reagan and Bill Maher, etc.

That said, count me among those who took offense with Coulter's comments last week about Sen. John Edwards. Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Coulter called Edwards a derogatory term that I won't repeat. If you missed it, a quick search of Coulter on YouTube will do the trick.

My opinion was the remark justified nixing Coulter's column for good. I was ready to explain my decision in this week's column and then take all the backlash about me being a politically correct, liberal pantywaist who just can't handle the "truth."

But before I pulled the plug, I sent a note about my decision to several members of the newspaper staff. I was a little surprised when my co-workers got Coulter's back, sort of:

n Advertising Director Samantha Johnston: "I think the dialogue and the controversy that she sparks is healthy, and for as many people who dislike her, there are those who think she is on point. I don't see any reason to discontinue her column."

n City Editor Brent Boyer: "This is hardly the first time Coulter has overstepped the boundaries of decency (doesn't she do it on a weekly basis?) and it certainly won't be the last. While I rarely agree with anything she writes, I like that she adds a controversial, polarizing voice to our editorial page once a week. I say keep printing her, just as we keep printing Maureen Dowd."

n General Manager Suzanne Schlicht: "While Coulter is never nice, I sometimes agree with her. Although I cannot condone her calling Edwards (the derogatory term) ... I say keep running her."

Are you kidding me? Am I the only politically correct, liberal pantywaist in the house?

Bob Nordyke, the director of news for our owner, WorldWest LLC, said it's important "we don't make a decision solely based on what could be perceived as our own high-minded opinion." He suggested getting "some reaction from people outside our own news bubble." He even suggested letting it be our question of the week - keep Coulter or kick her to the curb?

Bob's advice is always good advice, and if you've made it this far, you've probably figured I'm following it.

There is no Coulter column this week. If you have thoughts on whether she should be in our editorial page mix in the long term, please e-mail, call or write me. And vote in our question of the week about Coulter. It will be online Sunday.

Scott Stanford's From the Editor column appears Thursdays in Steamboat Today. Contact him at 871-4221 or e-mail sstanford@steamboatpilot.com.

Comments

freshair 7 years, 7 months ago

This PC clone who has wormed his way into our paper is no different than any of the Far Left crazies who have disrupted speeches and appearances at college campuses and other public forums by those whose ideas run counter to their own. The Left are the new Fascists of the 21st century. Free Speech is an idea that only applies to those who parrot the ideology of the Liberal Left.

0

Lark 7 years, 7 months ago

I think what davinci and others fail to realize is that the word Coulter uttered so flippantly (and was parroted so easily by davinci above) is simply not acceptable.

I hate getting dragged in to these childish exchanges but feel there must be a voice of reason somehwere in this thread.

As for Coulter - I never read her bile anyway; she's the lowest common demoninator in political discourse (or political diatribe, to be more appropriate). The reason I support pulling her is not because I don't agree with her - she's a slave to publicity for publicity's sake. It's tabloid, and really no help to the conservative movement anyway.

I think she should be pulled because she should not be rewarded for the equivalent of calling someone a n*gger. For that matter, I would support banning davinci as well - not because I don't agree with you (look it up, I don't agree with a lot of people but have never supported a ban), but because there's simply no room for HATE in a forum of this type.

Dislike the "Wonko Liberal Conspiracy" or whatever your hate-flavor of the week is all you like. But the second you cross the line, you should be sent away, plain and simple.

0

sickofitall 7 years, 7 months ago

This is just another ploy for her to get back into the spotlight. Hey it worked! She makes money, he makes money, round and round we go! Great entertainment for sure.

0

id04sp 7 years, 7 months ago

Anyone who did not see South Park last night needs to be sure to get it later this week.

0

suckerfreeforlife 7 years, 7 months ago

Too much for the fragile ears of the masses, Scotty? Thats cool, i know you got a job to do. However, if thats too much for print, then your only consistent move is to get rid of A.C., no? Or do you make an exception for her derogatory terms?

0

whyquestion 7 years, 7 months ago

freedom of speech isn't always what citizens want to hear????? isn't it wise to listen to what every one has to say even if one does not agree with them????? how else would one know what the oppisition is up to????? she can tickle someones weird sense of humor????? why not let her speak?????

0

nthasteamer 7 years, 7 months ago

Ann Coulter never really offends me, I just think she's ignorant and waste of space in the paper. She's made her way the same way Howard Stern, Jerry Springer, Andrew Dice Clay, and the dudes that write South Park have in that she doesn't have enough talent or intelligence to write or say anything clever or insightful so she's built her career on trying to be as offensive and controversial as possible because she knows it will always sell. I don't think she even means half of what she says so why keep her column going?

0

suckerfreeforlife 7 years, 7 months ago

sbvor, my confused friend, the distinction you make is a fair one, though what i said was accurate, and what Ann said was not. But, I digress. Coulter adds to the discourse like David Duke, Sistah Soljah, and Hezbollah add to the discourse. Id actually rather we saw a syndicated column from Al-Jazeera. Wed have a much better window into the Arab street. W/ FOX's burying of the Walter Reed debacle, you wouldnt think righty-journalism could have less cred than they do right now, yet here comes another baseless smear from AC, proving there is no bottom

0

techdubb12 7 years, 7 months ago

nthasteamer:

If you're serious when you say, "the dudes that write South Park...[do not] have enough talent or intelligence to write or say anything clever or insightful", then you've never actually watched South Park.

The crude language and offensive subject matter are only parts of the humor. Their underlying wit and ability to summarize cultural issues in thirty minutes is genius.

And if you don't agree with my stance, there is one additional fact I'd like to point out: It's a cartoon whose main goal is to entertain.

0

suckerfreeforlife 7 years, 7 months ago


Derogatory term for a (usually younger) female, implying trashiness or tackiness, lower-class status, poor hygiene, flakiness, and a scrawny, pockmarked sort of ugliness. May also imply promiscuity, but not necessarily. Can apply to any race, but most commonly used to describe white trash.

"You know that girl Crystal that lives in the trailer park? She's a total *"

This definition comes from the Urban Dictionary, who are equally qualified to define this word as AHD

Sounds like Ann Coulter to me.

0

Watcher 7 years, 7 months ago

I have never called the Pilot to request that Maureen Dowd be removed even though she is extremely hateful and likes to twist the truth so much you can't recognize it. If Coulter is pulled then Dowd should be as well, however if the paper decides to pull either of them I will cancel my subscription. I don't think it is going to hurt anyone to get all opinions, even when you don't lke them. What ever happened to freedom of speech. I read Dowd to better understand how far wrong the left has gone.

0

dundalk 7 years, 7 months ago

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action.

guess this doesn't apply to a newspaper editor.

0

gwendolyn 7 years, 7 months ago

As far as I know, libel (or slander) is not protected by the First Amendment.

0

bcpow 7 years, 7 months ago

Man Coulter, Davinci, numbers, worm toungue...one in the same?

0

Malcolm_Reynolds 7 years, 7 months ago

Hey, at least it isn't one of the seven dirty words you can't say on the Radio or TV! according to George Carlin.

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 7 months ago

Carlin's Dirty Words has even changed a bit. In order, you can now hear #1, #2 & #7. I want to say I've even heard #5 on an old NYPD Blue.

0

sickofitall 7 years, 7 months ago

lol, way to go Thinksnow, true evolution in progress.

0

gwendolyn 7 years, 7 months ago

"neo-Liberal Hysteria Pimps"

labeling. name calling. polarizing attack of ridiculous magnitude.

classy. real classy.

necessary? hardly. and it's not necessary when coulter does it, either.

I know coulter's background. since when did having a law degree exempt an individual from breaking it? or, from knowing how to straddle it in the "gray" zone?

coulter's viciousness is simply south park on steroids. when did it become "funny" in this world to spend countless hours on vicious verbal attacks and name calling? it seems to have started out with a cartoon here or there...made it's way into mainstream TV, the press, etc. and is now on overload. What used to be a very small percentage of negative name calling by a handful is now a landfill of ugliness in newsprint and the odor wafting all around us makes it hard to breathe some days.

is there a message in the midst of coulter's attacks? if so, it's completely lost on me these days. If you take an editing pen to all the name calling and labeling in her written words there's just not a lot left. and you call THIS a good writer? um, no.

coulter is hardly the inventor of this genre of "communication" -- but she's embraced it, made love to it, and profited heavily from it as supporters pay big bucks for her to continue.

when will civility and respect in communication return to the roundtable? or, is it too late? it feels, on some days, that's there's only 1 elevator going up and it's very, very small. yet, no one is crowding around to even get on. the preference is to mire in muck, instead. sad. truly sad.

  1. "Contrary to the false assertions from neo-Liberal Hysteria Pimps in The Media, Coulter never called Edwards anything."

  2. "Contrary to many false assertions, Coulter never called Edwards anything."

Example 1 came from sbvor. Offensive and polarizing. What was your message? To attack with vicious name calling and draw attention to YOU and YOUR needs to spew?

Or, was it truly Example 2? Because if you had written Example 2 I probably would agree with you. Example 1, however, was so polarizing I didn't get to the end of your sentence before beginning this response commentary. I had to go back and re-read it to finish this posting. sbvor, I re-read your posting ONLY to make a point here. Second chance reading.

As for coulter, I'm done with second chances. Until someone tells me she's returned to the land of civility and has stopped her libelous attacks I have no interest whatsoever in reading her tripe.

And, there is no partisanship is writing this. ANY writer who fits this description of juvenile and libelous name calling and labeling (which we pretend to abhor in our public schools because it often ends in student depression and/or violence) is simply not worthy of MY time.

Why would anyone want to waste time wandering a communication landfill in search of a pearl?

0

freshair 7 years, 7 months ago

It's easy to understand why liberals hate Ann Coulter. She calls them out for what they are and anticipates their every rebuttal. "Liberals don't care to debate," she wrote in a recent book, and sure enough she's met with pies and repugnant insults meant to be shocking and offensive. "Liberals are traitors," she wrote, because liberals support flag-burning and tirades made by America-hating professors like Ward Churchill, but they don't like conservatives who dare say things like affirmative action is discrimination on the basis of race; which, whether you agree with the policy or not - it is.

Liberals just can't accept opinions different from their own. I don't have to defend Ann Coulter but I'll side with her any day over Ward Churchill, any day over the flag burners, any day over the America-haters, any day over the liberal celebrities who rush to Europe to tell them how much of a horrible country we are, and any day over those who despise the woman - all because she is bold enough to speak her mind in a way that's meant to be abrasive and brutal.

0

gwendolyn 7 years, 7 months ago

"It's easy to understand why liberals..." blah blah blah blah blah blah....

What did you write? Or, for that matter, quote?

I don't think there truly is such a thing as a "liberal" or "conservative" who can be tagged with all the assignations that are attached to the label by whoever is writing the commentary.

I'm an American Citizen. Native American and native to this continent. What I believe in is diverse and swings in many directions, based on the issue. US vs THEM thinking/writing should be reserved for true evil "enemies", if used at all. One planet. One world. Many leaders, many dictators, many gods. But survival for us all requires the preservation of dignity and respect for communication and human life. Save the cheerleader...save the world....oops, sorry, got off track with that one...

And, namecalling and labeling doesn't work well in the international arena of discussion/negotiations, either.

This country is increasingly divided in mind, spirit, and actions over polarizing diatribes. It makes me want to move as far away from "civilization" as possible. Civilization. Now there's a concept...

civilization noun (from the Heritage Dictionary) 1. An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civilization

yeah. right.

Is there anything that coulter writes or spews that is a reflection of an understanding or respect for what comprises a civilized society?

0

gwendolyn 7 years, 7 months ago

"Neo-Liberals went nuts over that "name calling" as well."

"Neo-Liberals believe there is only one cardinal sin - "name calling". "

"Proper "name calling", contrary to your assertions, can be a quite effective tool in recasting perceptions."


Let's bring this closer to home: our children.

A typical school in this country consists of jocks, wannabes, cheerleaders, emos, geeks, fatsos, brainy, nerdy, loser, etc.

Or, does it consist of children? Mine and yours. Looking for leadership and a mentor on life they can trust. Friendship. Learning. Playing. Laughing. Crying. Growing up.

Or, they could be blown out of the building by the latest "loser" who is sick and tired of dealing with the crap, day in and day out, slung viciously from his/her peers.

I've yet to meet a child who hasn't been on the receiving end of a "label" in school. Some good, some horrific. It hits us all at some point in time in life. Mine was "the book", as I used to have a photographic memory, prior to the chemical accident at a well-known semiconductor company that changed my life and "label" forever. It was meant to be a derogatory label (like "nerd") -- but I was actually quite fond of it. Much to the dismay of the bully who planted it on me. It was meant to be mean and hateful and humilitiating and I walked away from it all and pitied the persons who felt a need to stoop to that level. How smart, kind, loving, etc., of a human being could they be if THAT was how they chose to spend their time and words? And, what does that say about the adults who sanction the behavior/words?

"Our" children are human beings who will develop into tomorrow's coulters du jour, thanks to public approval of social weapons of name calling and labeling and bullying and....

We applaud the behavior in the media and even financially support it. We abhor it in schools -- especially when a victimized child strikes back.

Two-faced messages appear in the media all around us and yet we still proclaim shock over what children are capable of doing to one another in our schools. When does it stop? Where do YOU draw the line?

0

gwendolyn 7 years, 7 months ago

continued from previous posting:


"Proper "name calling", contrary to your assertions, can be a quite effective tool in recasting perceptions."

You're absolutely right. coulter's writings have certainly recast my own perceptions of her intellectual capabilities and commitment to cause. she's more about celebrating her own sense of self-worth than anything she's purportedly championing or tearing down.

It's also quite effective in casting my perceptions about your own depth of consideration over this matter. Shallow. Short-sighted. Narrow vision. My perceptions of your response. Even so, overall I think you're intelligent and fully capable of deeper thinking and better than any of your postings to date.

Only time will tell whether or not you can lose your labelling and name calling and focus ONLY on the subject matter. Coulter can't do it, that's been proven over and over again. Give it a try, you might actually like it better than the venom (hatred) spewed with the typing of every label that comes from your keyboard.

0

freshair 7 years, 7 months ago

gwendolyn 'I'm an American Citizen. Native American and native to this continent'

Dear,if your claiming 'native' status by virtue of being 'Native American' allow me to enlighten you on the fact that recent DNA studies combined with archaelogical evidence finds only 1 % of modern American Indians sharing DNA with the earliest known human remains found on the continent. And then there is Kennewick man, a Caucasoid fossil dating almost 15,000 years ago found in the Pacific northwest. So your status of 'Native American' is meaningless in light of recent archaelogiacal and fossil discoveries. Anyone born in the country is 'Native American.' A fact that, no doubt, has been behind the refusal of Mid-Columbian Indian tribes to allow extensive testing on Kennewick man, whose DNA dating puts his presence in the Americas before the arrival of the ancestors of present-day American Indians.

0

gwendolyn 7 years, 7 months ago

Not meaningless to me or my tribe. Or to any of the 400+ tribes labelled "Native American" or "Alaskan Native" by the U.S. GOVERNMENT.

As for the Kennewick man, I believe the lawsuit filed was in relationship to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.

Helicopter scientists and medical researchers who are usually government funded are a thorn in the sides of every tribe I know. Doctors who feel the tribal genetics are worthy of their scientific invasions or genocidal efforts in the name of "population control", gas and oil companies who seek to steal the mineral rights from the land this government GAVE to them, as they RELOCATED them from what they perceived, at the time, as more valuable land. Insult after insult after insult after insult. Pillaging in every direction imaginable. And with Kennewick man, it extends to the grave.

Even so, here's part of one "injun" commentary on the subject:

"And how about that Kinnewick Man? He's a 9000 year old mummy and Northwest tribes, the federal government and archeologists are fighting over his remains. I think there's even a group of white shamans, pagans or druids who are claiming him as an ancestor. Ya see Kinnewick man doesn't look like a Native American, or someone who came up from Mongolia and walked over the Bering Straits, or by tiki-boat from the pacific islands landing in San Diego. They say he was a white guy. A lost white guy. Boy, how many of them have there been? Now you got these right-wing experts claiming this lost white guy proves Indians weren't here first. So that means Native Americans ain't even native! And we don't claim to anything about aboriginal rights, got no reason to complain about their shoddy treatment by the Estados Unidos, hell us pesky redskins just oughtta go back to Mongolia!"

http://groups.msn.com/alexjacobs/writtenworks.msnw Scroll down towards the bottom to read his entire rant.

0

gwendolyn 7 years, 7 months ago

continued from previous post:


BTW, this is the 10th year since the finding of Kennewick man's remains and....as for the outcome of the lawsuit...drum roll here....the scientists won.

Extensive testing showed DNA was inconclusive. But they did conclude his birth date as 7300-7600 B.C. My math could be wrong, but I don't think that makes him anywhere near 15,000 years old. I guess once you get into the thousands it's okay to run the numbers up.

http://www.mnh.si.edu/arctic/html/kennewick_man.html

Frankly, I just don't trust the government. Go figure. Might have something to do with the absence of information on the Arawaks and that whole Christopher Columbus thingy that seems to be missing from nearly every high school history text in the U.S.....or, it could simply be the loss of my family township in Mississippi when my ancestors were forced to relocate to Oklahoma, or... the list is simply too long to recount here.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567043/Arawak.html

Plenty of links on the Arawaks online -- with content you just don't hear about from your kids as they recount their day's learning in history class...

Gravesite robbers. Why should any NA tribe tolerate this from outsiders on their land? Would YOU tolerate it?

0

freshair 7 years, 7 months ago

'Graveside robbers'? Baloney! It's a convenient excuse for Indians to deny scientific evaluation of anything they know refutes their 'Oral' traditions. Which have already been discredited by recent finds.

0

gwendolyn 7 years, 7 months ago

It was on tribal land and dug up. That makes it a grave and quite distinctly robbed and removed from tribal lands. Did scientists attempt to set up labs ON the tribal land? Or, for that matter, attempt much of ANY cultural negotiations over this matter?

Excuses? 'Oral' traditions? Ah, the only 'good' history is that which is written down, eh?

U.S. history texts have been discredited time and again on this topic and the only people who cried 'foul' and corrected (or included) the content taught to students tended to be college history and archaelogy professors. Mainly because this country has a vast multitude of citizens who are clueless...you see, it wasn't in THEIR history texts, either....

Very few people in this country understand why Indians protest on Columbus day because they were never taught the truth. Apparently, that includes you.

0

nthasteamer 7 years, 7 months ago

Techdubb12:

Didn't mean to bust on South Park techdubb, I've seen tons of episodes and laughed at all of them. They're definitely clever and entertaining but they often use "shocking" material akin to 14-year-olds' humor and I've always seen this as a crutch to get laughs. This is the parallel I was trying to draw with Ann Coulter...she wouldn't have nearly as big an audience if she didn't partially rely on being offensive/shocking.

You're right in that I shouldn't have inferred that SP was devoid of intelligence but don't get too carried away with the cultural issues bs. Like you said, it's entertainment.

0

suckerfreeforlife 7 years, 7 months ago

FYI for those who care, those youtube links at the top are just the tip of Coulter's youtube iceberg. There is an abundance of hillarious footy on there, including a scene where ther little %$#@ (rhymes with bank) declares, with the same smug self rightousness she always wears, that Canada sent troops to Viet Nam. Dead Wrong Ann, as usual. Step up Scotty, and replace her with a column from Al-Jazeera. I double dog dare ya. Your staff wants a polarizing confrontational view, right? And there seems to be no shortage here of folks, lefty and righty, that bow down to principle of free speech and letting unpopular views be heard, so be the first kid on the block to step up and give Al-Jazeera a chance. At least we'd hear what "they" hear.

0

freshair 7 years, 7 months ago

Who were the First Americans?

The emerging answer suggests that they were not Asians of Mongoloid stock who crossed a land bridge into Alaska 11,500 years ago, as the textbooks say, but different ethnic groups, from places very different from what scientists thought even a few years ago. What's more, stone tools, hearths and remains of dwellings unearthed from Peru to South Carolina suggest that Stone Age America was a pretty crowded place for a land that was supposed to be empty until those Asians followed herds of big game from Siberia into Alaska. A far different chronicle of the First Americans is therefore emerging from the clash of theories and discoveries that one anthropologist calls "skull wars." According to the evidence of stones and bones, long before Ellis Island opened its doors America was a veritable Rainbow Coalition of ethnic types, peopled by southern Asians, East Asians-and even Ice Age Europeans, who may have hugged the ice sheets in their animal-skin kayaks to reach America millenniums before it was even a gleam in Leif Ericson's eye. "It's very clear to me," says anthropologist Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian Institution, "that we are looking at multiple migrations through a very long time period-migrations of many different peoples of many different ethnic origins."

0

techdubb12 7 years, 7 months ago

nthasteamer:

I believe we're in agreement. I meant their ability to summarize a cultural issue in thirty minutes is genius, in terms of entertainment. To be clear, I don't turn to Comedy Central to form my opinions on current events. The internet and our library are good for that.

0

Thinksnow 7 years, 7 months ago

So now the Pilot is allowing Ann to syndicate her insults, but they've removed two of my comments; the first I expected to be removed because I used awful words as examples of words that offend blacks, asians, and mexicans. The second comment was removed for no obvious reason; I did not use any offensive word other than one that would offend homosexuals. This word is in other postings above. I think all the words should be allowed. That's all my comment stated but it was removed.

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 7 months ago

Hmmmm...I used the word in question in a post above that was deleted. Since it was derogotory to the Right, I guess it doesn't matter where you fall politically to be censored. What's even funnier? I emailed Scott after posting it to say to leave it up there for a while to see responses to it. What I'd like to know is if Scott (or editorial staff) just delete it anyway or if someone hit the "Suggest Removal" button.

0

Scott Stanford 7 years, 7 months ago

All:

While I can appreciate that everyone is capable of identifying different definitions of the term in question, it is clearly a derogatory term toward a specific group of individuals. Several have been offended by its use and have suggested removal of some posts containing the term. I have gone through and removed all posts that use the term. I think all of you can make your points without having to repeat it or use other offensive language.

Those of you who have participated in these forums in the past know that I don't spend a lot of time trying to determine if a post should stay or go - I generally err on the side of the person who has requested removal and zap the post.

Scott Stanford Editor, Steamboat Pilot & Today (970) 871-4221/(970) 291-9278 editor@steamboatpilot.com

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 7 months ago

So Scott- Was it a Righty or Lefty that "Suggested Removal?" I think that's a fair question to ask since this all seems to fall under which political side is stifling which? What's good for the goose...or in Coulter's case, the Malnourished Duckling, is good for us to take a Gander at.

0

dundalk 7 years, 7 months ago

Does that include censhorship of a column that you personally have difficulty with? Where do you draw the line? Why do some conservative posters get the axe completely while others who are, shall we say, more liberal get a gentle nod from the editor and remain?

For every group who might find Coulter crass, there are another group of people who enjoy reading her column.

0

Scott Stanford 7 years, 7 months ago

Kielbasa:

I have no idea... I just get an e-mail linking to the comment that was suggested for removal.

Dundalk:

I don't personally have difficulty with Coulter's column. But I did have difficulty with her remark at CPAC, and what the reaction to that might be. I would have had the same reaction no matter the columnist.

It's important to note that the Pilot & Today has not killed the column; rather, we asked readers what they thought. Quite honestly, a majority of the feedback has been similar to the feedback my co-workers offered.

I understand the points about balance in the newspaper. I have received lots of feedback in the past two days along the lines of "if you pull Coulter, you have to pull Dowd, Friedman etc..."

For me, the question is narrowly defined - By continuing her column, is the newspaper tacitly saying that the term Coulter used in reference to Edwards and the manner in which it was used is acceptable? Or, is it possible to denounce the behavior and continue her column? Or should we just replace Coulter with William F. Buckley or another traditionally conservative columnist? But as many people know, there really isn't anyone out there comparable to Coulter... She would be difficult to replace...

It occurs to me that people for whom this is not a crystal clear issue aren't the ones providing me with feedback.

Scott Stanford Editor, Steamboat Pilot & Today (970) 871-4221/(970) 291-9278 editor@steamboatpilot.com

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 7 months ago

Heh- Let's see if it's that simple then. I guess it's changed some since the new site came up. I just hit the "Suggest Removal" for Scott's post above me. It used to be that you had to enter your handle when doing that. I just found out now it doesn't ask for it. (let's see if Scott just runs on automatic and deletes his own post!)

0

ElBorracho 7 years, 7 months ago

Kielbasa, I've read and agreed with a lot of your posts in the past but in this case, you sound like an eighth-grader. The editor is taking the time to write out thoughtful, respectful responses and you've got no better response then to see if you can "bust" him on a minor point? He said he errs on the side of caution and doesn't carefully read everything we suggest for deletion, not that he just blindly deletes batches of stuff. Grow up, dude. And on the real issue, I say leave her. What she and Dowd say is equally offensive to their respective targets. If the paper wants to react to her use of that word, why not keep the editorial and news pages separate and "react" not by pulling her column but by printing a story about whatever fallout (or lack thereof) comes from this? Besides, who really can match Dowd word for word except her? She's gotta stay.

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 7 months ago

Borracho- As I explained, it was a test since when the new site first came into being, hitting the "Suggest Removal" used to prompt you to put in your handle. He answered my question saying he had no idea who submits removal requests. Since I knew for a fact it used to ask for your handle, I wondered why he said that. That's when I tested it on his post so as not to have someone else's post deleted just in case. Sorry if you couldn't quite grasp that.

The closing remark was a dig to see how well he actually even reads any of the post or only "errs on the side of caution." The whole issue is about censorship, since it was Scott's thoughts on canning Coulter that started this thread. If he's willing to do that when he tends to actually read her column, why shouldn't everyone on this forum be accorded the same courtesy? On a whim, based on his policy, anyone can go around just hitting the "Suggest Removal" button just to screw with people, even if the post has nothing wrong with it. It's all about playing fair with everyone.

0

gwendolyn 7 years, 7 months ago

"why shouldn't everyone on this forum be accorded the same courtesy?"

Not everyone on this forum wants this 'courtesy'. Coulter is extremely offensive, libelous, and wasting space in this paper, in my view.

Write only for yourself. Please.

0

suckerfreeforlife 7 years, 7 months ago

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis... These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them... I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much".

"I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo"

0

suckerfreeforlife 7 years, 7 months ago

Bill Clinton "was a very good rapist";

"I'm getting a little fed up with hearing about, oh, civilian casualties";

"I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning.

"The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man's dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet - it's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars - that's the Biblical view.

"They're [Democrats] always accusing us of repressing their speech. I say let's do it. Let's repress them. Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment.

"They're never very high in anyone's caste system, are they? Poor little Pakis.

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building.

"If Chicago had been hit, I assure you New Yorkers would not have cared. What was stunning when New York was hit was how the rest of America rushed to New York's defense. New Yorkers would have been like, 'It's tough for them; now let's go back to our Calvin Klein fashion shows.'

0

sickofitall 7 years, 7 months ago

Didn't ya hear? Newt is coming out with an affair too! It was during the time he was investigating B.C. . And hey! I can't wait to see who the highest bidder is on that escort service client list in DC. Holy moly, we have guns and prostitutes in D.C. I think these guys need a Time Out!

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 7 months ago

Gwen- I'm surprised that you actually wish for censorship, from the sound of your post. More power...no, that would be "less power to ya."

What surprises me most is that people have no problem with a newspaper...an entity that thrives on free speech...that censors what they don't agree with, yet hold up the 1st Amendment on a pedestal when others want the paper to be censored. Funny how those things work.

Personally, I have no love for Coulter or Dowd, but the 1st Amendment allows them their say. It's our choice to read it or not. Don't like it? Don't read it.

0

JazzSlave 7 years, 7 months ago

suckerfreeforlife:

Thanks for the quotes. Sounds like you & Ann need to get a room.

0

suckerfreeforlife 7 years, 7 months ago

Jazzslave, i hope you dont mistake me as the author of those quotes, those are all AC originals, i thought thatd be self evident.

0

gwendolyn 7 years, 7 months ago

The 1st Amendment was just that: the first amendment.

The 1st amendment doesn't provide an individual any immunity from liability for libel or slander or obscenity or court directed gag orders or inciting violence or an overthrow of the government or false advertising or ....or, or, or....the list goes on.

So many people tout the right to "freedom of speech" and either neglect to consider the multitude of legal rulings that have been handed down over the years that distinctly impact what is broadly considered "freedom of speech" OR are simply lacking the proper education to know any different OR simply refuse to research the issue further.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/


In regard to censorship...the news is censored every single day. Not merely 'edited' -- but censored.

When was the last time you saw a picture of a wounded soldier in the newspaper?


0

JazzSlave 7 years, 7 months ago

suckerfreeforlife:

Um... duh. It's just that I've never seen Coulter quoted so prolifically as by you. I can come up with only two explanations for your yeoman's work:

  1. You worship at the shrine of Coulter, and wish to spread the word.

  2. You loathe Coulter, and are trying to demonstrate why. In which case, Coulter is to be congratulated for getting someone as gullible as you to take the bait.

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 7 months ago

Okay, Gwen, let's get the to the heart of the what she said, word for word. As AJ stated earlier (cripes, using AJ for reference- died and gone to Hell), Coulter is a lawyer. What she said walked a line that I'm sure she knew couldn't be anything but vulgar, and not illegal. It's how she works.

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 '**,' so I ... can't really talk about Edwards."

If it really came down to it, you could only make an allusion to her calling Edwards homosexual OR that she just can't put a sentence together properly, since it could be construed as talking about 2 separate things that have nothing to do with each other the way the sentence reads.

Where in her sentence did she actually call Edwards a homosexual? Don't point out the allusion to it, just the the exact point it became slander. This is important because this could give Edwards (another lawyer) the opportunity to sue Coulter if slander is proven. Maybe he just can't come up with it for himself, so he needs your help. Show me exactly where it is, please.

Bad taste in words used is not illegal. Tasteless, yes; not illegal unless it has to do with swearing in public earshot of children. (At least from the guy on the lake in Denver a couple of years ago). She did not incite any riots that I know of on this particular episode. Plus, who can judge "taste?" Obviously, Scott tried to poll his office workers and basically came to a split, same as on this forum, as Scott said.

Next, it comes to which words do we agree on to censor. Why censor the "f" word when you can just say "frickin' " or the like? "Frickin' " is used in the exact same context as the "f" word, yet it's okay since it is NOT the "f" word. You hear "frickin' " (or "freakin') on TV all the time. Heck- watch the South Park episode about The Word of Curse to see what a pain to figure out context allowances.

On the other side, you call someone a "British term used for cigarette" or homosexual. Why is it okay for a black person to call another black person a derogotory term for negro in an affectionate manner, yet when a caucasian does the same thing in the exact same context, it's wrong?

See? There are double standards all the way around on this topic, even though I personally dislike Coulter and the filth she spews. All I can do with her is ignore her, feel sorry for her insecurities. In Suckerfree's Coulter quotes, you can see her double standards of bombing everyone and converting them to Christianity, but as anyone who's read the Bible knows, it doesn't preach violence; it just gets interpretted wrong. See where this is going? Right back to your statement about educating people about Free Speech.

0

gwendolyn 7 years, 7 months ago

Instead of skipping over that op-ed space that holds her bubbling spew, wouldn't you just like to read something worthwhile that's there instead?

There are a LOT of great columnists writing interesting material that don't stoop to sensationalist ME ME ME ME ME tactics and I, personally, would prefer to read any of them than see coulter continue in the daily Pilot.

0

suckerfreeforlife 7 years, 7 months ago

Jazzslave So, you got it pinned down to i either love AC or hate her. Impressive. Try not to think so hard, youll hurt yourself. Whod figure actually quoting AC would be relevent to the discourse. Res ipsa loquitor.

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 7 months ago

Gwen- sure I wish something else were in that space. Since there isn't, I go on to the next page or read something else. If more people did that, maybe she'd stop getting published. This doesn't mean I'm calling for her to be ousted because she's a hateful idiot.

0

JazzSlave 7 years, 7 months ago

suckerfreeforlife:

If Coulter was an obscure unknown, your copy & paste fest might be compelling. But thank you so much for reinforcing the redundantly obvious.

You whine about American ignorance of the "Arab street." Why not put your money where your mouth is, and try to dispel THAT, instead of magnifying the over-exposed? You could, for example, have directed people to memri.org the Middle East Media Research Institute. The memri tv link is comprised almost entirely of Al-Jazeera product, scrupulously translated for the English speaking among us. littlegreenfootballs.com is another excellent resource; a California-based blog dedicated to spotlighting what Arabs are being told by their media, their politicians, and the extent to which Islamic extremism hovers over it all.

Incidentally, for all your caterwauling about Fox, it is the ONLY mainstream outlet where I have ever seen Al-Jazeera segments consistently aired (I'm not quite sure how all this measures up to your "relevant to the discourse" yardstick of the Ann Coulter discussion: maybe you're the one who has sustained the intellectual injury).

0

suckerfreeforlife 7 years, 7 months ago

JS

1)Reduntantly obvious? Thou doth assume too much.

2)The Al-Jazeera stuff is a side issue, reminding folks that Ann has the cred of Bagdad Bob was the priority, but this one's for you.

Hey people, go check out jazzslaves awesome links to scrupulously translated Arab media. Therrrrrrre Great. Really, i mean it.

3) Uhhh... sure... if you say so...

3a) Not much, it was an addendum you got hung up on.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.