 | |  | |  | |  | |  |
By David Rogers
Friday, May 6, 2005
The New Editor
We don't write about Ann Coulter at The New Editor, in part because there is such a large
gulf in the attitudes in the staff about her. To be clear -- I'm the one who owns all her books
and laughs out loud at her essays.
Regardless of how you feel about Ann Coulter, though, you have to be sympathetic to her
based on the abuse that is heaped on her by left-wingers, particularly the campus Left. The
folks at Powerline have written extensively about the abuse Ann took from whack-jobs and
campus administrators in Minneapolis recently; in Arizona a pie-throwing demonstrator was
arrested for attacking the physically slight columnist.
And now, at the University of Texas, the Vulgarians have attacked Ann again. You can read
reports about the attack, and the general abuse, from the Daily Texan here, here, and here.
The Smoking Gun has the police report on the incident.
This level of 'debate,' which Coulter accurately characterizes as kindergarten-level, is
unfortunately unsurprising to us at The New Editor. We've written about it before.
The abuse, and the level of debate generally seen from the Left, is metastasizing, like a
cancer. Powerline has written extensively about the low level of conversation about Coulter
and her critics in the Minneapolis paper.
Like cancer, the unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks have spread to the local Austin
newspaper.
" ... [W]hat is good for Coulter and her right-wing screeds is bad for the university, which
has seen this kind of thing before. Whether it's Henry Kissinger, Ward Connerly or Coulter, a
coterie of radical students and professors insist on sabotaging speakers whose views they
oppose."
Hmmm... Kissinger, Connerly, Coulter. What do these speakers have in common? And why
is it that when the campus left is being criticized by liberal newspapers, they are called
"radicals" instead of "liberals," "Democrats," "left-wing," or even "far-left-wing?" Are these
"radical" students liberals or conservatives? The reader must draw his own conclusions,
because the newspaper certainly won’t tell anyone.
"Coulter is obnoxious, so much so that it's doubtful she believes even half of what she says
and writes. But her provocative discourse has made her rich, and the protests, like the
absurdity at UT, only add to her bank account."
"Coulter is obnoxious" is reported like a fact, like the sky being blue. There is no effort to
support this statement, or even to particularize it, as in "this statement by Ann Coulter is
obnoxious." No, the newspaper simply proclaims that this multiple-best-seller writer, attorney
and columnist is "obnoxious." Why does the writer find her obnoxious? Could it be because
Coulter is not a left-wing Democrat? Is he envious of her many best-selling books or her
appearance on Time magazine's cover? Or does he object to her hairstyle? The reader must
speculate.
"The antidote for hate speech is truth, not more hate speech. Students at a top university
should have learned that by now."
Ah- the coup de grace! The newspaper has announced that Ann Coulter's speech is "hate
speech," without bothering to quote or paraphrase a single word. And – miracle of miracles –
without having a tape or a reporter present at the event, and without even knowing what she
said.
Apparently, the newspaper is the new home of the psychic friends network. And they say
bloggers aren't careful!
David Rogers is a contributing editor for The New Editor.
Paul Geary
David Rogers