Enabling Ann Coulter

By: Dave Astor When Ann Coulter makes an inflammatory comment, she doesn't apologize. She repeats it.

Coulter slammed some 9/11 widows in her new book and on TV earlier this month, and then skewered these so-called "witches" again in her June 21 column distributed by Universal Press Syndicate.

She implied in a recent interview that maybe Rep. John Murtha -- a former Marine officer who now opposes the Iraq War -- should be fragged (murdered). Then she repeated the fragging reference in her June 21 column and on Fox News.

Murtha is the latest person to join Coulter's ever-expanding wish list for extermination. Others have included Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, New York Times staffers, Arabs, and Muslims.

Coulter has said on occasion that she's "joking," but at the same time she wants to be (and is) taken seriously as a political pundit. And, as far as I know, she has never apologized for any of her murderous fantasies. I also haven't heard a Coulter mea culpa for her column barb calling Helen Thomas an "old Arab," for allegedly voting in the wrong Florida precinct, and so forth.

The conservative Coulter may not be capable of an apology, but I am. I apologize for once writing a positive E&P story that partly focused on Coulter.

It was a November 2003 piece about a Universal editor who has the ideologically dizzy experience of working with both Coulter and "The Boondocks" creator Aaron McGruder (the liberal cartoonist now on sabbatical). I quoted this editor as saying Coulter is "a very good sport," receptive to editing, blah, blah, blah.

But shouldn't journalists write positive stories about people whose views they might disagree with? Sure. I've done plenty of positive stories about other conservative creators, including columnists Cal Thomas and Kathleen Parker. But giving good publicity to someone who "jokes" about killing people feels like a disservice to journalism and humanity.

If Coulter wants to spew vitriol, let her do it on her own Web site and in her many speeches. A major syndicate and 100-plus newspapers shouldn't be helping her, especially since her freedom of speech is hardly at risk. But her newspaper clients and syndicate seemingly believe she has a First Amendment right to do the journalistic equivalent of yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater.

Ah, but Universal cartoonists McGruder and Ted Rall are just as incendiary, from the liberal side, aren't they? Actually, no. Rall and McGruder often do very pointed commentary that some find offensive, but they haven't "joked" about killing journalists, a Supreme Court justice, a Congressman, and entire ethnic and religious groups.

Rall, like Coulter, criticized some 9/11 widows (in a 2002 cartoon). But his language wasn't as vicious as Coulter's, and he paid a price -- losing WashingtonPost.com as a client and freelance business.

Coulter's price for calling some 9/11 widows "harpies" who are "enjoying" the death of their husbands? Losing zero newspaper clients. Yes, the so-called "liberal media" is at it again.

In her June 21 column, Coulter concluded: "Finally, a word to those of you out there who have yet to be offended by something I have written or said: Please be patient. I am working as fast as I can."

With her newspaper clients and syndicate enabling her, many more people will be offended by Coulter. Hopefully, her hateful rhetoric won't inspire some nut to murder one of her many column targets.


***

Additional recent E&P coverage of Ann Coulter:

In New Column, Ann Coulter Again Slams Murtha and 9/11 Widows

Latest Ann Coulter Outrage: On 'Fragging' and John Murtha

9/11 Widows, New York Papers, Respond to Coulter's 'Slander'