July 28, 2004
— Ace Kausfiles links to this USAToday douche-nozzle, who apparently was responsible for the I DON'T GET IT "editing."
Guess what? By his own blogged confession, he "got" everything, he just didn't like the column. Why couldn't he have said that?
Why must every liberal claim that his actions are motivated by fidelity to some objective standard rather than a subjective, and politically-sensitive, mindset? What accounts for this reflexive impulsive to lie about motivations?
You won't be surprised to learn that USAToday had the idea to send Michael Moore to the Republican convention first; they then decided they needed to "balance" that, and chose Ann Coulter as the right firebrand to do so.
But it seems they never let Ann Coulter actually do any balancing at all.
And notice that while they are sending an unfair propagandist to cover the GOP, they have ended up with a much more responsible -- and much less vicious -- analyst for the Dems in the form of Jonah Goldberg. This is akin to the Crossfire situation-- the GOP is "represented" by Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson, both journalists with journalistic reputations to maintain, and thus constrained from engaging in full-on partisan venom. (In addition, CNN seems to love Robert Novak primarily because he hates the Bushes and doesn't much like Israel, and Tucker Carlson hasn't been particularly conservative at any point in his life, and especially not now.)
On the other hand, the Dems are ably represented by two bought-and-paid-for political hatchet men.
So, okay. A vicious, dishonest propagandist gets to savage the GOP, while Jonah Goldberg gets to take wry and cautious digs at the Democrats.
Seems fair to me! And remember, it "just worked out this way." USAToday tried like the Dickens to get Ann Coulter to pen a column, but goshdarnit, she just wasn't up to their high editorial standards.
You know-- the way Michael Moore is.
I DON'T GET IT.
Oh, wait, actually, I do get it.
Correction! I called this particular guy a liberal partisan. Reading the rest of his site, I'm not so sure. In fact, he seems to tilt to the right.
But the decision to kill Coulter's column was still in the hands of the higher-ups, not in the hands of this intern. And when I say he "apparently" edited the Coulter piece, I mean just that. Apparently. Kausfiles implies it, but there's no actual first hand statements to that effect.
Gawd, won't someone deliver me from the terminal case of putzitude that afflicts the media in this country?
Posted by: Mr. Bowen at July 28, 2004 10:36 AM (rZWXl)
Posted by: Mr. Bowen at July 28, 2004 10:55 AM (rZWXl)
I caught the "Umm... no-one fights to the death in a cage match unless you believe WWF hype" thing myself, but shrugged it off as a Coulterism. It's no worse hyperbole than Mikey Moore shits out every 5 seconds, and he does it with less style that Coulter.
Posted by: Ironbear at July 28, 2004 05:43 PM (U5g5D)
62 queries taking 0.9945 seconds, 239 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.