Plagiarizin’ Annie seems to be getting a lot of attention. Just not the kind she usually seeks.
Barrie, whose analysis of Coulter’s work was first reported by the New York Post on Sunday, has recently been contacted by the Today Show and Good Morning America, he told me. In addition, AP, the New York Times and others have called him for stories they’re working on, and the New York Post is planning a follow-up piece, he said.
“It’s picking up,” Barrie told me this afternoon.
Meanwhile, Universal Press Syndicate, which distributes Ann Coulter’s caustic columns to over 100 newspapers nationwide, says they might use two different tools to audit Coulter’s past columns, in light of the recent allegations.
So they’re telling Editor & Publisher, anyway. UPS spokeswoman Kathie Kerr has yet to respond to my email this afternoon asking for an update on the matter.
I love the smell of karma in the morning.
Nobody would care about Ward Churchhill if it wasn’t for the right. Nobody would care about Ann Coulter if it wasn’t for the left. Controversy will keep selling these people’s products as long as we give them attention.
“Nobody would care about Ann Coulter if it wasn’t for the left.”
Not true, I’m afraid. Have you seen the ads for “Godless” on Drudge Report, NRO, TownHall, WorldNetDaily and NewsMax? How about her regular spots on Fox News? The Right can’t get enough of this dismal charlatan.
Brandcn, you’re half right. Only the right cares about Ward Churchill. Coulter, on the other hand, keeps getting hired and getting talking-head spots in real MSM organizations, even after she gets fired time after time for saying vile things. She’s a syndicated columnist for UPI, she had a gig at TNR, she’s on cable talking-head shows all the time and she made the cover of Time Magazine. Ward Churchill, OTOH, really is just some obscure academic that nobody had ever heard of until the right wing picked up on something indefensible that he said.
Coulter keeps getting hired because she isn’t afraid to defend her extremes. Chuchhill on the other hand won’t defend himself. He’s had one interview with a conservative and it was on Hannity and Colmes. Both of them are political satirists and they use extreme sounding rants to get their point across.
Wait – clarify that last Brandcn – they behave differently, so why can’t we see they’re the same? Eh?
To be perfectly honest I still have no idea who Ward Churchill is – I haven’t bothered to look him up yet. Ann Coulter on the other hand, keeps getting shoved in my face – by my conservative mother, not by the left. That, at least, is why I feel she needs to be countered. Too darn many people on the right listen to her and nod approvingly.
They are the same in that both of their extreme rants is out of touch with American people all together. Even though they come from opposite sides of the aisle. I mean I am conservative but I know that Coulter is wrong. However I don’t think that anyone should pay them any mind because they are satirists hell bent on forcing an agenda. I bet your family has fun debating. I only have one hard core democrat in my family but he’s an old time southern democrat but it still makes for some lively debate.
Oh, don’t you dare mention Swift, Brandcn.
Or it’s the wolverines and oil for you.
She’s just bluffing, Brandon.
Go ahead and mention Swift.
Haha.
I’m a very reasonable conservative though. I don’t make your ears bleed that bad do I ?
Just the eyes.
When did Ward Churchill ever hang out at the Democratic convention? Do talk shows, write books that are bought and read by liberals? Wear little cocktail dresses while talking about how other people are “Godless”?
Rick Dement,
That would be a fair guess. I definitely didn’t see Churchhill hanging out at the conservative forum.
I’ve never looked up Ward Churchill either, but he doesn’t sound like someone I want to see in a cocktail dress.
It is very important to counter the extremist of the right, the left has been wanting for proactive debate and look where we are now? Although Bush and his team sometimes seem like a far left sabotage crew, sabotage that’ll take decades to fix isn’t really in anyone’s interests.
Who the hell is Coulter plagerizing from and what? Her essays? I don’t think I’ve ever read her writing, ‘cept for something here, but you mean she had to go out and steal the meat to support her rather thin reasoning?
Like the saw, oftentimes reality is better than fiction.
I *would* like to see Ward Churchill in a cocktail dress. it’d raise my opinion of him at least a little bit. granted there’s pretty much nowhere to go but up.
per the (plagiarizing) toxic blob of ectoplasm:
pulling up lawnchair
cracking open beer
popcorn at the ready
and they’re not frigging satirists.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/editorial/14952574.htm
Is Coulter sincere about the things she says? That’s a silly question, like asking whether schoolchildren are sincere in the taunts they throw at each other across the school yard. But that doesn’t make her a satirist, as her defenders like to claim — usually with the implication that her literal-minded liberal critics don’t get the joke.
Satire depicts things as grotesque in order to make them seem ridiculous — what Stephen Colbert does in his Bill O’Reilly persona or Christopher Buckley does with the pointed caricatures of “Thank You for Smoking.” But Coulter isn’t actually sending anybody up — not herself, certainly, and not the targets of her remarks.
Her fans may enjoy hearing her talk about poisoning Justice Stevens or say that it’s a pity Timothy McVeigh didn’t park his truck next to the New York Times building. But that’s not because the remarks make either Stevens or the New York Times seem particularly ridiculous. It’s because Coulter seems to be able to get away with unbridled aggression by presenting it as mere mischief, leaving her critics looking prim and humorless. (“Perhaps her book should have been called `Heartless,’ ” said Hillary Clinton after Coulter’s remarks about the widows, inviting the response, “Oh lighten up, girl.”)
That rhetorical maneuver doesn’t really have a name, but it’s a close relative of what we think of as smut. In the strict sense, of course, smut is the leering innuendo that veils sexual aggression. But in a broader sense, smut can be any kind of malice that pretends to be mere naughtiness. It might be a leering vulgarity, a racial epithet, or simply a venomous insult — what makes it smut is that it’s tricked out as humor, so that if anyone claims to be offended you can answer indignantly, “Can’t you take a joke?”
…holy crap! yeah i know, cheap shot the appearance, but damn! that photo! maybe the honeymoon really is finally over.
that probably is killing her more than anything else.
remember that one interview, Time was it, where all she could talk about is how unflattering the photo was?
suffer, baby.
Okay I think Coulter does a great job at depicting things as grotesque in order to make them seem ridiculous. That is exactly what she does.
RELEASE THE WOLVERINES!