|
Was review of Nikki's Smoking BBQ off base? Shooting headline missed the mark Going to question new firefighter OT in Southern California, too? Famoso coverage great, but what about ... ? The wonders of Kern and casual bikini tops Changes at newspaper, can you try being better? Forget the weather, what's with that page? Did you have to detail dog's destruction? Ann Coulter, TV Guide and dead dogs Newspaper didn't put Ann Coulter in context, reader says June 06 July 06 August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 May 06 April 06 March 06 December 05 November 05 October 05 September 05 August 05 July 05 June 05 May 05 April 05 Blog RollAsk The Californian Editorials Entertainment Eye of Bakersfield Faith Forum Fired Up! Inside Sports Neighbors Right Thinking Sound Off Talk of the Town
RSS 2.0![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
|
Newspaper didn't put Ann Coulter in context, reader says
Sound Off for July 1, 2007| Saturday, Jun 30 2007 6:20 PMLast Updated: Saturday, Jun 30 2007 6:23 PM Reader: By printing a recent Associated Press story, The Californian has participated in a great distortion. The story in question, published in Thursday's edition, quotes Ann Coulter as wishing John Edwards would be killed in a terrorist attack. The truth is Ms. Coulter never said that. What she did was compare reaction to some of her recent comments to those of Bill Maher who did state that if an attack on Dick Cheney had been successful, the world would be better off. There was no outcry over Mr. Maher's comments. Ms. Coulter then said, and I quote directly "So I've learned my lesson. If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination." The context obviously changes the entire meaning of the statement. However, the author of the story never mentions that and probably never even checked into it. The Californian, meanwhile, blindly prints the story without verifying its accuracy. It is no wonder so many people are flocking to other sources of information besides newspapers. When newspapers return to reporting news rather than hyping non-stories, circulation may once again increase. That is unless their credibility is so tarnished it can never recover. -- Wil Bergen Jenner: Not so fast. The AP story did not include Coulter's reference to Bill Maher's comments about Cheney. I agree that it should have. But Maher's statements about Cheney weren't funny in the first place. And they certainly did provoke a significant outcry at the time he made them. Further, how do Maher's comments excuse Coulter's remarks about Edwards? Do two wrongs make a right? Her statements were no more funny or appropriate. The story we published Thursday was about how the Edwards campaign is responding to -- and even capitalizing on -- Coulter's comments. It was not the most momentous story in the paper, but it's hard to see how you can call it a "non-story." Reader: Your story about Tuesday's accident at 18th and H streets left me wondering. Information regarding the accident is attributed to a person named "Pflugh." He or she is not previously identified. Is this the person who e-mailed Californian staffers with identities of your employees or a police officer? I have found this kind of editorial oversight to be far too consistent. If you want to be recognized as other than a so-so local daily blab you should make a better effort to eliminate the type of error reflected in this article. -- Mac Anderson Jenner: The person referred to is Bakersfield police Sgt. Matt Pflugh. Certainly the story shouldn't have made it to print without his first name and rank. We will strive to eliminate errors such as this. We want to be known as a great local daily blab, not one that is simply "so-so." Reader: I just read that "despite their calls, the number of complaints convinces me that our research was correct." What research are you talking about? Jenner, you are a liar! There is no research. What did you research? The people of The Californian. No, my friend, you are a liar and you just made a big mistake and you compound your mistake to add insult on the injury. On the weekends you decided that nobody wants to watch TV until 7 p.m. That's both Saturday and Sunday. Don't you realize that we want to know what's going on Saturday from 9 a.m. on and Sunday from 9 a.m. on? No, Jenner, you are a liar and I'm very disappointed in you and The Californian. -- Bill Kingsley Jenner: The research was done by American Opinion Research of Princeton, N.J. That company has used a combination of telephone interviews and mail surveys to conduct multiple readership studies for us since 2000. Every time this organization has surveyed readers we insisted that they ask about the TV section. And every year, fewer readers have said they depend on the section. As I've said, we know it's terribly important to a small segment of our readers. I believe we've heard from most of those readers in the two weeks since we discontinued the weekly section. Despite their heartfelt entreaties, we don't plan to reinstate the weekly section. I'm truly sorry we disappointed you -- but I wasn't lying about the research.
29 comments from 13 users
1
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Jul 2, 2007 at 10:20 AM
posted by
kortneeluv
on Jul 2, 2007 at 10:21 AM
Ann Coulter is obviously off her medication again, why do these "news" programs have her on anyway? who is she? all she does is spew hate filled craziness. why does this woman warrant so much t.v. air-time and space in the newspapers? i notice she is never quoted saying anything remotely sane, she is just a publicity hound. posted by
mattloch
on Jul 2, 2007 at 10:23 AM
posted by
randomfactor
on Jul 2, 2007 at 10:23 AM
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Jul 2, 2007 at 10:24 AM
Does the Californian make the newspaper out of sludge from LA? You heard it here folks. posted by
mattloch
on Jul 2, 2007 at 10:26 AM
posted by
mattloch
on Jul 2, 2007 at 10:39 AM
Coulter is making a "joke" by taking Maher's comment out of context and directing it against someone who's actions have in no discernable manner cost people their lives. Then someone comments that her quotation was taken out of context. Irony much? The fact that the writer claims that the newspaper is hyping "non-stories" while defending Coulter (the queen of distraction and ad homonym attacks) is just the icing on the cake. The delicious, sweet, irony cake. posted by
GrpThink
on Jul 2, 2007 at 12:02 PM
why do these "news" programs have her on anyway? Because people are sick of hearing about Paris Hilton and they need a new dumb blonde to fill the airways. posted by
randomfactor
on Jul 2, 2007 at 12:04 PM
posted by
GrpThink
on Jul 2, 2007 at 12:04 PM
This guy has the right idea:
Bill, posted by
sagefever
on Jul 2, 2007 at 12:05 PM
posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Jul 2, 2007 at 01:10 PM
Actually, Annie serves a very useful purpose -- helping us distinguish the good-hearted conservatives with character apart from the deeply malicious, conscienceless ones. The deeply malicious ones are the ones who defend her at all costs. We owe it to her for making the separation of wheat from chaff a much easier task.
posted by
randomfactor
on Jul 2, 2007 at 01:12 PM
posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Jul 2, 2007 at 01:14 PM
I don't know. I seem to remember Joe Scarborough frowning on it. But I see your point. A decent conservative -- let alone a liberal or libertarian -- has a much tougher time getting and keeping a job in the national opinion media. posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Jul 2, 2007 at 01:16 PM
Slight change of subject: It's nice to see that Hugh Hewitt, himself a far-righter, holds a very low opinion of Dinesh D'Souza's latest hate-spewing.
posted by
sfinboston52
on Jul 2, 2007 at 01:20 PM
posted by
steveeswenson
on Jul 2, 2007 at 01:30 PM
posted by
randomfactor
on Jul 2, 2007 at 01:31 PM
Hardliner, I don't read that into Hewitt's column at all. What he's saying (IMHO) is that yes, we need to hate teh gay and the liberal Hollywood elite are despicable slime (but gimme that blockbuster summer movie anyway) *BUT* just agreeing with the Islamoramofascists won't keep them from killing us all. Oh, and their idea of America is decades out of date, from the Good Old Days when gays and nigras and wimmin knew their place, dammit. Hewitt doesn't need the threat of Islamaramadingding to hate libruls, he's got his own reasons. . Sure, he throws a bone towards unity--but that's because the country *IS* unified. He's just on the wrong side. posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Jul 2, 2007 at 01:34 PM
Random, you're forgetting that to wander just a step or two off the thin red line of opinion conformity risks being labeled a traitor.
posted by
mattloch
on Jul 2, 2007 at 01:35 PM
Did anyone else catch her confrontation with Elizabeth Edwards? posted by
mattloch
on Jul 2, 2007 at 01:40 PM
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Jul 2, 2007 at 01:41 PM
Did anyone else catch her getting pwn3d by Elizabeth Edwards? There, fixed it for ya. ( ; (I couldn't figure out how to do the strikethrough) posted by
mattloch
on Jul 2, 2007 at 01:43 PM
Thanks for the fix, though. Coulter has no business complaining about personal attacks by "the left" or anyone else. Hypocrisy FTW. posted by
jasonsperber
on Jul 2, 2007 at 03:01 PM
Matt and Pete, just for you (heh), we'll add a strikethru to the RTE, next to bold, italicize and underline. (Don't ask me when, though, but we'll do it.) But re: your suggestion, the RTE does have 6 fonts in a pull-down menu, plus a size menu and a format menu, plus a color palette and the aforementioned styles (bold etc.). What else did you want? :) posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Jul 2, 2007 at 03:04 PM
posted by
redkernhero
on Jul 2, 2007 at 03:33 PM
I resent that, Ann Coulter is not cheap!
posted by
sagefever
on Jul 2, 2007 at 03:53 PM
posted by
NancyII
on Jul 2, 2007 at 04:48 PM
posted by
nkoby3
on Jul 17, 2007 at 05:48 PM
The major difference is that the world really would be a better place if Dick Cheney were killed. I'm not so certain if the same holds true with John Edwards.
1
|