"It was just differences over editing of a fairly ordinary kind," said USA Today Editorial Page Editor Brian Gallagher. "We had some different conceptions of what the column should be, we tried to work them out and when we couldn't, we decided the best course of action was for us to go our own ways."It sounds as if the decision had nothing to do with the content of Ann Coulter's column as much as her refusal to go along with standard newspaper editing. (I mean, if you're gonna hire Ann Coulter, you already know what her style's like. Her views were a surprise to no one, I'm assuming.)
The plan to have Coulter take shots at the DNC got off to a delayed start after editors held her first column, slated for Monday morning's print edition, asking that she make changes to it before it ran.
"Ms. Coulter filed a column for today's paper and our editors made some suggestions and asked her to consider them," USA Today spokesman Steve Anderson said early Monday. "But by that point it was late in the day (Sunday) and there was no rush to get it in the paper, so we decided to hold it for a day." Anderson would not discuss the content of the column.
Brian Gallagher, editor of USA TODAY's editorial page, ... said the column had "basic weaknesses in clarity and readability that we found unacceptable."posted by mkultra at 12:06 PM on July 27, 2004
"What publication on earth would continue a relationship with a writer who would refuse to discuss her work with her editors? What publication would continue to publish a writer who attacked it on TV? What publication would continue to publish a writer who lied about it — on TV and to a Washington Post reporter?...Again, the main conservative mouthpiece magazine write all this three years ago. I think it's fair to say that, relatively speaking, Coulter has been more isolated and denounced by the Right than Michael Moore has been by the Left.
What's Ann's take on all this? Well, she told the Washington Post yesterday that she loves it, because she's gotten lots of great publicity. That pretty much sums Ann up...
Ann — a self-described "constitutional lawyer" — volunteered on Politically Incorrect that our "censoring" of her column was tantamount to "repealing the First Amendment." Apparently, in Ann's mind, she constitutes the thin blonde line between freedom and tyranny, and so any editorial decision she dislikes must be a travesty...
To be honest, even though there's a lot more that could be said, I have no desire to get any deeper into this because, like with a Fellini movie, the deeper you get, the less sense Ann makes."
« Older This job would be great if it weren't for the cust... | How To Insult Gay Men And Wome... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Didn't think it was appropriate to post that part in the FPP.
posted by fenriq at 10:35 AM on July 27, 2004