USA Today Censors Coulter's Coverage of Democratic Convention
By Jimmy Moore
Talon News
July 27, 2004

BOSTON (Talon News) -- Conservative columnist and author Ann Coulter, who was hired by the USA Today newspaper staff to provide daily insights on the Democratic National Convention in Boston this week, had her first story censored for "editorial differences."

After filing her first story with USA Today on Sunday night, the editorial staff for the largest circulated newspaper in the nation decided that Coulter's piece was "unusable" and "not funny," according to The Drudge Report.

Coulter questioned whether USA Today had ever read any of her writings before hiring her to cover the Democratic coronation of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA) this week.

"Apparently no one at USA Today had ever read Ann Coulter before!" Coulter exclaimed in Boston, according to Drudge.

"Apparently, USA Today doesn't like my 'tone,' humor, sarcasm, etc. etc., which raises the intriguing question of why they hired me to write for them in the first place. Perhaps they thought they were getting Catherine Coulter," she added to Human Events, referring to the famous suspense, thriller, romance fiction author.

Noting that USA Today also hired anti-Bush liberal producer Michael Moore to cover next month's Republican National Convention in New York, Coulter remarked to Human Events, "My guess is they will 'get' his humor."

As for the forbidden column, Coulter provided the notes from USA Today explaining why they nixed it.

"Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston, conservatives are deploying a series of covert signals to identify one another, much like gay men do," Coulter's banned column begins. "My allies are the ones wearing crosses or American flags. The people sporting shirts emblazoned with the 'F-word' are my opponents. Also, as always, the pretty girls and cops are on my side, most of them barely able to conceal their eye-rolling."

USA Today inquired, "Eye-rolling? At what?"

The next paragraph from Coulter reads, "Democrats are constantly suing and slandering police as violent, fascist racists -- with the exception of Boston's police, who'll be lauded as national heroes right up until the Democrats pack up and leave town on Friday, whereupon they'll revert to their natural state of being fascist, racist pigs."

Again, USA Today asked, "What Democrats sue the police? But they won't actually revert to being fascist pigs, don't you mean the Dems will think they have reverted to being fascist pigs?"

Coulter's sarcasm about civil rights activist Al Sharpton, who is speaking at the Democratic Convention, and his shenanigans with police simply confounded USA Today editors.

"So it's a real mystery why cops wouldn't like Democrats," Coulter stated after pointing out Sharpton's experience with the police.

"Is that last sentence sarcastic? If so, you sure lost me," USA Today expressed.

Over the next few paragraphs where Coulter describes Democratic women and "nuts," USA Today described it as, "Not funny, I don't get it."

Finally, Coulter offered her final shot at Democrats at the end of her column when she asked Americans to "get a good long look at the French Party" this week.

USA Today's response was, "What do you mean by 'The French Party'? I don't get it."

When asked about the censorship of Coulter's writing, USA Today Executive Editor Brian Gallagher told Human Events that it simply had a "difference of opinion over editing -- words, voice, that sort of thing."

Gallagher added that the severance of the relationship between USA Today and Coulter was a "mutual decision -- in the end."

When asked why Coulter was selected by USA Today, Gallagher told Human Events that "she was a voice from the other side with standing and visibility."

He admitted the editorial staff was shocked by Coulter's first column and deemed it too "difficult" to edit before publishing.

Gallagher contended he was not censoring Coulter, but rather decided it was best to make a change based on "editorial differences."

Another conservative columnist, Jonah Goldberg from the National Review, has been chosen to replace Coulter for the remainder of the week to provide Democratic Convention coverage for USA Today.

Copyright © 2004 Talon News -- All rights reserved.

----------------------------------------

Have a news tip for Talon News? Let us know at newstips@talonnews.com

Ali, I will agree that they are making a huge PR mistake with this. If they did not know Ms. Colter's journalistic history, their laziness should hurt them.

However, they are within their rights to do so. I just think that it will hurt them from a PR point of view. It is just another cut against the established, elite, Collectivist news media, and eventually those little drips add up to a full tank that will drown you. they are already up to their necks.

Good enough for Whoopie?
Good enough for Coulter.
Corporations can fire anyone anytime.
That is capitalism, folks.

Sincerely speaking Thai, There is a big difference between USA Today and Slim Fast. Although they are both for profit companies, One is in the bussiness of disbursing news and information. The other sells a diet product and never signed up with whoopi to paticipate in publicly adopting the views of a political party. O'Rielly read it on the radio a while ago and it was scathing and very harsh. I loved it . I wish they would have run it and placed an opposing view next to it and turned it into an editorial battle of the Parties. When they hired her they knew her style and this editorial was totally consistent with her "style".

Thaiquila, your engine is running smoothly. Now don't go and tinker with it, and screw things up. "If it aien't broke, don't fix it".

there is absolutely no difference between USA Today, a for-profit business, and SlimFast, a for-profit business, choosing who they do or dont want to represent their business.

SlimFast didnt want Whoopie representing their company, USA Today doesnt want Ann Coulter's senseless trash representing their newspaper.


simple as that folks.


columnists and journalists get their articles and essays rejected all the time. in no way, shape or form is USA Today obligated to print every piece of garbage Ann Coulter defacates from the bowels of her tiny little mind.

and it is far from censorship.

censorship is when someone is DISALLOWED by the government to speak or distribute their message ANYWHERE.


Ann Coulter is free to shop her trash to any illegitimate rag that's willing to print literary diarrhea.



ps- i've actually read the article, and there is NOTHING journalistic or "news worthy" about it. it is merely more right wing Republican name-calling.

absolute trash. not even worth being used as toilet paper by a central park bum.

That is true, except that as politiphile has stated Michael Moore has been slated to cover next month's Republican convention. When he trash mouths Republicans, I suspect that there should and will be a backlash if his stories are printed. That is the point of the post, fairness and balance. It is not Ann Coulter vs Whoopie Goldberg, but Ann Coulter vs Michael Moore's s###. Conservatives will be watching. She has a radio show. Conservatives buy USA Today. Anything less than balance will be pointed out, and newspaper sales will go down, at least for a time.

Michael Moore's movie was dropped by Disney for specifically the same reasons.


which was unfortunate, because the movie has now made more than $100 Million, more than any other Disney film this year.. im sure Michael Eisner doesnt care, but all the Disney stockholders could have used that money.

too bad Disney had to punish them in a lame attempt to punish Moore and his movie.


the difference here is, Democrats have been shut out and shouted down by Republicans for nearly 3 years since 9/11.


Whoopie, Linda Ronstadt, Michael Moore, Dixie Chix, Danny Glover, etc etc etc have all had their careers hurt by un-American, anti-freedom right wingers who went on witch-hunts for anybody that wasnt "rallying behind the President"..


now that Ann Coulter gets an article refused for publication in ONE newspaper, a daily occurence in the world of journalism, all the sudden Republicans are up in arms playing the martyrs crying "censorship!!"


GIVE ME A BREAK

Huey is absolutely right (am I really saying this?) that USA Today has a right to choose whoever they want, and it is not censorship.

That said, the right has every right (funny how right = right) to call USA Today a liberal rag, and never purchase it again.

We have every right to choose in the U.S., and there is the choice, this is why it is not censorship.

If you want the take of the right listen to Rush, if you want the take of the left read USA Today.

It is what it is.

fired by a for-profit company run by a major contributor to the Democratic party



escorted out by management of the casino she performed in - no Republican witch hunt involved, {doubt has been raised as to whether a "near-riot" even happened by the audience}

career hurt? as evidenced by the numerous posts on this board his most recent theatrical effort has reached the $100 million mark your own words Huey.....

Their fan base is extensively conservative, no Republican witch hunt, Natalie cut her own throat....



So, its only ok for "left-wingers" to vehemently support their candidate? Of all those I'd say only the Chicks have had their career hurt, and that was due to one singers horrible timing and complete misjudgement of her fans, as well as a really bad ego trip.


I'll just let your words speak for me

Ann Coulter rocks! She's got more brains in her left toe that all the Libs on this forum put together. Didn't clerk for Chief Justice Warren for lack of brain-power! She is one of the Big Dogs.

No one is trying to give anyone a hard time. I think it is just telling it like it is. Boycotting has been a tactic since civil rights days. Furthermore, people have long memories. Michael Moore's 100 million in sales is probably half made up of conservatives going to check it out.

Just as some are proud of those who speak their mind, I am proud of those unnamed ordinary people who voice their opposition to that which they do not support with their lack of patronage.

what are u talking about Cleo?

it seems more and more u are arguing points that arent even being made here.

heres the Ann Coulter story that was rejected from USA Today

i challenge anyone to point out any factually relevent statements in this entire article..


Put The Speakers In A Cage
July 26, 2004

by Ann Coulter

Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston, conservatives are deploying a series of covert signals to identify one another, much like gay men do. My allies are the ones wearing crosses or American flags. The people sporting shirts emblazened with the "F-word" are my opponents. Also, as always, the pretty girls and cops are on my side, most of them barely able to conceal their eye-rolling.

Democrats are constantly suing and slandering police as violent, fascist racists -- with the exception of Boston's police, who'll be lauded as national heroes right up until the Democrats pack up and leave town on Friday, whereupon they'll revert to their natural state of being fascist, racist pigs.

A speaker at the Democratic National Convention this year, Al Sharpton, accused white police officers of raping and defacing Tawana Brawley in 1987, lunatic charges that eventually led to a defamation lawsuit against Sharpton and even more eventually, to Sharpton paying a jury award to the defamed plaintiff Steve Pagones. So it's a real mystery why cops wouldn't like Democrats.

As for the pretty girls, I can only guess that it's because liberal boys never try to make a move on you without the UN Security Council's approval. Plus, it's no fun riding around in those dinky little hybrid cars. My pretty-girl allies stick out like a sore thumb amongst the corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons they call "women" at the Democratic National Convention.

Apparently, the nuts at the Democratic National Convention are going to be put in cages outside the convention hall. Sadly, they won't be fighting to the death as is done in W.W.F. caged matches. They're calling this the "protestor's area," although I suppose a better name would be the "truth-free zone".

I thought this was a great idea until I realized the nut category did not include Sharpton, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and Teddy Kennedy -- all featured speakers at the convention. I'd say the actual policy is only untelegenic nuts get the cages, but little Dennis Kucinich is speaking at the Convention, too. So it must be cages for nuts who have not run for president as serious candidates for the Democratic Party.

Looking at the line-up of speakers at the Convention, I have developed the 7-11 challenge: I will quit making fun of, for example, Dennis Kucinich, if he can prove he can run a 7-11 properly for 8 hours. We'll even let him have an hour or so of preparation before we open up. Within 8 hours, the money will be gone, the store will be empty, and he'll be explaining how three 11-year olds came in and asked for the money and he gave it to them.

For 20 years, the Democrats wouldn't let Jimmy Carter within 100 miles of a Convention podium. The fact that Carter is now their most respectable speaker tells you where that party is today. Maybe they just want to remind Americans who got us into this Middle East mess in the first place. W've got millions of fanatical Muslims trying to slaughter Americans while shouting Allah Akbar! Yeah, let's turn the nation over to these guys.

With any luck, Gore will uncork his speech comparing Republicans to Nazis. Just a few weeks ago, Gore gave a speech accusing the Bush administration of deploying digital "Brown Shirts" to intimidate journalists and pressure the media into writing good things about Bush -- in case you were wondering where all those glowing articles about Bush were coming from.

The last former government official to slake his thirst so deeply with the kool-aid and become a far-left peacenik was Ramsey Clarke and it took him a few years to really blossom. Clinton must have done some number on Gore. Then again, with his yen for earth tones in a man's wardrobe, maybe Gore's references to "Brown Shirts" was intended as a compliment.

Only one major newspaper -- the Boston Herald -- reported Gore's Brown Shirt comment, though a Bush campaign spokesman's statement quoting the "Brown Shirt" line made it into the very last sentence of a Los Angeles Times article. The New York Times responded with an article criticizing both Republicans and Democrats for using Nazi imagery. Democrats call Republicans Nazis, the Republicans quote the Democrats calling Republicans Nazis and both are using Nazi imagery. (It's a cycle of violence!)

The nuts in the cages are virtual Bertrand Russells compared to the official speakers at the Democratic Convention. On the basis of their placards, I gather the caged-nut position is that they love the troops so much, they don't want them to get hurt defending America from terrorist attack. Support the troops, the signs say, bring them home.

That's my new position on all government workers, except the 5% who aren't useless, which is to say cops, prosecutors, firemen and U.S. servicemen. I love bureaucrats at the National Endowment of the Arts funding crucifixes submerged in urine so much -- I think they should go home. I love public school teachers punishing any mention of God and banning Christmas songs so much -- I think they should go home.

Walking back from the convention site I chatted with a normal Bostonian for several blocks -- who must have identified me through our covert system of signals. He was mostly bemused by the Democrats' primetime speakers and told me he used to be an independent, but for the last 20 years found himself voting mostly Republican. Then he corrected himself and said he votes for the American.

I'd say I love all these Democrats in Boston so much I want them to go home, but I don't. I want Americans to get a good long look at the French Party and keep the 7-11 challenge in mind.

Funny article; Who cares if it is "factually relevant"? I didn't see anyone checking Whoopee Goldberg's "facts".
Ann Coulter's not bad looking, but for kite flying purposes, I prefer the stunning conservative Asian writer named Michelle ...something, that is on Fox News once in a while. I want to have her babies!

Do you have her book Treason?

It's great, a must read for any conservative.

1) Whoopie Goldberg is a comedian, and was hired by the Democratic fundraiser to do comedy. there is a big difference between a comedian and a journalist/political columnist.

when writing political non-fiction, facts are essential. the same cannot be said of Whoopie Goldberg, so your analogy is incorrect.


2) its funny that the Republican party emphasizes looks rather than intellect and journalistic integrity.

basically what that says to me is: u can be dumb as a brick and write false, misleading, disingenous and factually incorrect articles as a writer, but the only thing that matters is looks.

sounds pretty sexist to me.



ok, thats your opinion.

i asked for RELEVENT FACTS, not your opinion of Ann Coulter.


as of yet, no one has pointed out anything relevent Ann Coulter wrote in that article.

maybe the fact that her article is factually incorrect, offers nothing but 3rd grade level insults, and is full of offensive stereotypes and generalizations is why USA Today chose not to have its newspaper represented by this Ann Coulter article.

Georgie, you mean Michelle Malkin? She's a cute little bugger!


Unfortunately, she is married and already has two children. Sorry to burst your fantasy bubble there.

Oh, and thanks for the article Huey. you are doing us all a great service by including it in your post. It's probably the best thing you have done for quite a while.

and who is Ann Coulter to call anybody ugly?

LMAO.

anybody who finds this bony, bleach-blonde, stringy haired transsexual sea-hag even remotely attractive is either buzzin off Moonshine and a few hits of strong acid, or has a very questionable sexual orientation.

Huey, Just a simple question here.

How old are you?

Oh did you forget the line you posted? That's what I was commenting on.
Here let me refresh your memory, I'll even duplicate your new posting style to empha-size the point:




Since you need it spelled out I was arguing that the list of celebrities who have supposedly had their careers hurt by "right wingers who went on witch-hunts" (and I assume right-wingers is equitable to Republican), perhaps didn't have their careers hurt by "right wingers who went on witch-hunts"

If their careers were hurt it was by Americans, expressing their opinion, which they are free to do. Just like USA Today has that freedom.

oh and


It was an editorial, they don't usually have relevant facts.....

I am not surprised USA Today did not allow the story. Lot of anger in that there article, but no different I guess than some of the things that Michael Moore says.

Comments about the unpleasant appearance of Ms. C are VERY RELEVANT and DESERVED. Why? Did you read the trash she wrote about the appearance of the women at the Democratic National Convention? Disguting tripe. She deserves to never work again but if she can find some fool rag to pay her, that is her right.

Ann Coulter is a genius, and quite beautiful as well.

It's so bloody refreshing to hear someone really go after liberals and expose them for the collectivist pyschos that they truly are.

She's not a best selling author for nothing.

are u heterosexual?

or do u think if u just get drunk enough, u wont notice "her" massive adams apple?

Huey, does this mean that you have a throat fetish? Mine is a nice pair of legs and a trim bottom. I think that I like my fetish better.

Probably is a heterosexual.
They are the ones who usually go for the DRAG QUEENS.

it depends on how deep the throat is.


and i mean that in the Nixon/Watergate way, in case the moderators are wondering

The picture does not do her justice. She is very attractive. Everyone has their own scale, but I would give her an 8/10. Her analytical style is uniquely Ann Coulter. She is fairly sarcastic, and certainly a fitting counterweight to Jeanine Garofalo and Michael Moore. In any event she is at least twice as attractive as JG and MM.

Niagra, I just happened to see Ms. Garofalo on Fox last night. And I must tell you, she is nothing to proudly take home to mother. However, that aside, what is far more important here, is that G-d awful high pitched, mealey mouthed whine she calls speech. Just fifteen minutes listening to her was enough for me to want to show her the door. I can understand, although I do not condone, why some men are driven to murdering their wives.

The reverse can also hold true also. Sorry Cleo.

that was a disgusting post.

"i can understand, although I do not condone, why men are driven to murdering their wives."

u can actually UNDERSTAND the feelings of someone who is sick & twisted enough to kill their wife?

for their VOICE no less??? you're sick buddy.

and u run around sayin us LIBERALS dont have values??

i can rightly say that the thought of killing ANY of my ex-girlfriends, or even my ex-fiance (who at times could be as %$#% as they come), has NEVER crossed my mind...



that shows u alot about a person tho, and where they comin from.

rather than comment on what a WOMAN has to say, some people simply criticize their voice or their appearance or some other superficial characteristic..

and i guess what John L is saying is that if he doesnt like one of those superficial characteristics, it's understandable why someone would want to murder her, or any other woman who's superficial characteristics don't meet their standards.


that's really disturbing.

Although my ex-wife was an alchoholic, and maintained more than one blossuming personality(this happened after marriage), I never struck her. I finally got up out of disgust and left. I never once struck a woman. I was only trained to put men down.

But, I can understand why some men do so. And I can also understand why some people shoot others. Having been forced to tolerate you for this short of a period, I can not help but entertain the thought of using an entrenching tool on you. Actually, I would prefer that instrument over a rifle, because it would be far more personal, and one would be certain of his or her effort. And I can't see wasting the cost of one good M118 on you.

This may get me in trouble with the moderators, but it is with some reluctance that I must conclude that you are indeed a functional idiot! So, I would suggest that both you and I steer away from each other in the future, ok? I wll allow other masochistic members here on this forum to put up with your totally moronic ramblings. So, in the future, please leave me alone, or I will be forced to visit the Administrator with a suggestion concerning you, you cretin!

Now, out Damned Spot!


PS: to the moderators, I must apologize for my behavior here. However, I simply cannot contain my feelings any longer with regards Huey. Either he leave my alone, or simply leave the forum, OR I will be forced to treat him with total disdain. I'm serious here. I am seriously considering dark thoughts with regards to this............person?

One can choose to be offended...or not.

John L u are seriously overreacting.


this is a message board on the internet. no one should be having thoughts of killing other people for what they write here.

keep in mind this is also an open forum. i simply comment on the topic of the post, or to other's comments. i dont single u out to harass u, or anybody else for that matter.


being that this is an open forum, u have the right to choose not to read what i write.. but pleading to the moderators to have me removed simply because u dont agree is overboard.


step away from the keyboard, take a few deep breaths, then come back and join us in our friendly political debate.

this board would be no fun without people like u and me. this is POLITICS, we arent supposed to agree.

I saw Ms. Garofolo interviewed by Hannity on Fox the other night. That is why I mentioned her. She is contemptable. Her one contention that I found particularly agrivating was when Hannity asked taht if she found Bush's going to war over CIA information wrong, would she also not criticize Kerry's agreeing to go to war, using the same CIA information as also wrong. She said that she would not because she mantained that Bush had caused/forced the CIA to come up with that information, which is a totally unprovable assertion. Debating is an art form. The democrat method of debate is to insert a false premise into the arguement, and hope it is not pointed out to be false.

Not only is she UGLY, her manner of thought processing is pure spin doctoring.

Laura Ingrham and Ann Coulter are both similar in looks and political advocacy. I enjoy listening to both.

I wish John L luck in dealing with Huey. They seem to approach the art of political posting from opposite directions. John L and the mods like the use of technically good english, and Huey does not. And that is just the beginning of the dissimilarities between the two.

Here's one!

"the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston"

I admire Ann Coulter for having the guts to speak a point of view that needs to be heard and is too often silenced. It's always the first thing liberals to to try to discredit or belittle a person who tries to expose them for what they really are.