The Coulter Conundrum

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 12, 2006 6:18 AM

Is it time for the media to stop lavishing attention on Ann Coulter?

In her latest book attacking godless liberals, the conservative author trashes as "witches" some of the women whose husbands were killed at the World Trade Center -- precisely the kind of ugly, over-the-top invective that she knows will produce a publicity storm that will carry her onto the bestseller lists.

Matt Lauer grilled her last week on "Today," which prompted the New York Daily News banner "COULTER THE CRUEL," which in turn led "NBC Nightly News" and ABC's "World News Tonight" to examine her remarks. The question, said NBC anchor Brian Williams, was "Have you no shame?"

But are news outlets being shameless in giving Coulter a platform for her inflammatory rhetoric, knowing it will boost ratings and circulation?

"She made news," says "Today" Executive Producer Jim Bell. "I think our audience is smart enough to figure it out and reach their own opinions. It's not our job to censor people." Besides, Bell says, "she's good television."

Coulter is a savvy constitutional lawyer and onetime Senate aide who rose to prominence as an advocate of Bill Clinton's impeachment. But she became increasingly incendiary in her books and TV appearances, a shtick that made her sufficiently rich and famous to warrant a Time cover story last year.

For those who missed it, Coulter writes of the widows: "These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation, and acted as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. . . . These broads are millionaires lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities. . . . I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much. . . .

"And by the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy."

Her one valid point -- that once widows turn themselves into political activists, their personal tragedies should not shield them from rebuttal -- is totally overwhelmed by the nastiness of her assault.

A number of conservatives have turned on Coulter this time around. "Most Americans reject that kind of vitriol because it is mean and counterproductive," said Fox's Bill O'Reilly. Radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt called her remarks "beyond callous, beyond any notion of decency. It is disgusting."

But why would anyone expect anything different? This is a woman who responded to the 9/11 attacks by saying: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." That persuaded National Review to drop her syndicated column; in response, she told this reporter the editors were "girly-boys."

MSNBC dumped Coulter as an analyst years ago, and USA Today dropped her as a 2004 convention commentator after she assailed "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."

She also uses violent imagery against the media: "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."

Coulter, who made the rounds at Fox, CNN and MSNBC last week, remains unabashed, telling Time: "I'd say my 'name calling' has been a smashing success." So when the staff of "Today" or any other program books Coulter, they know exactly what they're getting: a woman whose vituperation they can decry even as they milk it for market share.

Of course, since even bad publicity is still publicity, this column, too, will probably make the Coulter cash register ring a few more times.

Tom Friedman may be a respected commentator around the world, but in certain precincts of Detroit, his name is mud.

Ever since the New York Times columnist unleashed an all-pistons-firing attack on General Motors -- even going so far as to say the company should be taken over by Toyota -- he has practically been run over by the domestic automaker's defenders.

"It sounded as if he was cheerleading for the elimination of 140,000 American jobs," says Frank Beckmann, a talk show host at Detroit's WJR Radio. "That would be an economic catastrophe for the nation, not just our state."

What aroused Friedman's wrath was GM's offer to guarantee buyers of some of its gas-guzzling models in Florida and California $1.99-a-gallon gasoline for one year. Friedman's signature theme these days is that U.S. gas prices are too low, which he says encourages excessive consumption that enriches Arab petro-states and buttresses terrorists in the region.

GM is America's most "dangerous" company, Friedman wrote two weeks ago, "like a crack dealer looking to keep his addicts on a tight leash. . . . Our military is in a war on terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan with an enemy who is fueled by our gasoline purchases."

Friedman says in an interview that he was trying to "grab their attention about how seriously I think they're getting off track by creating a kind of alternate universe in which $1.99 gas is still a real possibility."

He got more than the company's attention. The Detroit News said in an editorial that "Friedman and his fellow effete elites in New York City" fail to understand that "if the domestic manufacturers go down, they'll take a big chunk of the American economy with them."

Steven Harris, a GM vice president, wrote on the company's blog: "That a journalist of his caliber and reputation could write such a defamatory, uninformed opinion was shocking to those of us dedicated to this company." Harris says in an interview that Friedman overlooked such matters as the company's research on hydrogen cars.

Says Friedman: "Nothing would make me happier than to see GM become a hyper-competitive company. . . . But it's not going to get there by giving away $1.99 gas for some of its least-fuel-efficient vehicles."

Footnote : GM withdrew a letter to the editor after the paper insisted the automaker not call Friedman's column "rubbish," suggesting instead "we beg to differ" and, when that didn't fly, "not so."

With George W. Bush starting to hold more news conferences, it's worth looking back at the father of the modern presidential presser.

Franklin D. Roosevelt met with reporters about twice a week in the Oval Office, an astonishing 998 times in 12 years. But, says Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter in a new book, "The Defining Moment," FDR laid down strict ground rules: He could not be quoted directly (and radio coverage was banned); his comments were "on background" and could not be attributed to the White House without a spokesman's okay; and some remarks were off the record and could not be used at all. It must have worked: After that first meeting in 1933, the reporters applauded.

"He transformed the relationship between the White House and the press and made Washington the news center," Alter says in an interview.

But FDR viewed the scribes as "a collection of uneducated hacks," writes Alter. The president teased or scolded them like children and privately derided New York Times columnist Arthur Krock as "that Tory Krockpot."

Roosevelt sometimes gave the reporters misleading information, and spokesman Steve Early warned that he would "make an example" of any journalist who violated the ground rules. Of course, the press corps played along with the biggest charade of all, declining to photograph the president in his wheelchair or report that he had been crippled by polio.

Breaking with precedent, Eleanor Roosevelt became the first president's wife to hold regular news conferences on her own.

One member of the press corps became an active collaborator when Roosevelt was running for office. After Ernest Lindley, then with the New York Herald Tribune, and other reporters told the candidate that his speeches were unfocused, Roosevelt said: "Well, if you fellows think my speeches are so bad, why don't you write one for me?" Lindley did, arguing for what would become the New Deal.

The message for Bush, says Alter, is that hiring Tony Snow as a spokesman is essentially irrelevant: "The only way for a president to change his press coverage is to do it by himself."

After Republican Brian Bilbray won a special House election:

"Victory in California Calms GOP" -- Washington Post, June 8.

"Narrow Victory By GOP Signals Fall Problems" -- New York Times, June 8.

All right, so death turns out to have been a good career move for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi -- he's on the cover of Time and Newsweek, and the Zarqawi wars are continuing, with Salon's Joe Conason predicting the GOP may overplay its hand:

"The first day following the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was much like the days that preceded his elimination. Bombings in Baghdad killed at least 40 people, illustrating what military and intelligence experts already know: The al-Qaida affiliate led by the late and unlamented terrorist represents only a fraction of the Iraqi insurgency.

"That may be why President Bush welcomed the elimination of Zarqawi with unusually measured, low-key language, rather than the hyperbole that might once have been expected from the White House. Exhibiting pictures of the Jordanian thug's corpse may bolster American credibility among Iraqis, many of whom had regarded him as a propaganda creation until now; but as the president noted, the violence is certain to continue without him.

"Still, with the Bush administration so starved for optimistic news from the war front as Election Day approaches, Republicans will surely be tempted to inflate this incident's significance. . . . But the Republicans would be wise to follow the president's lead, because the likelihood of lasting political benefit from Zarqawi's removal is small. By building up the terrorist leader, the administration has increased the expectations regarding the effect of his elimination, just as it did with Saddam Hussein."

Bush, getting a five-point bump over Zarqawi?

I mentioned this Washington Times piece the other day, and now American Prospect's Greg Sargent says the story was oversold:

"FUN WITH DEM-BASHING HEADLINES. 'Democrats call Zarqawi killing a stunt' -- that's quite a headline, isn't it? It appears atop a piece by Amy Fagan in The Washington Times which is also being featured as a lead story on the Drudge Report:

" Some Democrats, breaking ranks from their leadership, today said the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi in Iraq was a stunt to divert attention from an unpopular and hopeless war.

"Of course, the majority of those quoted in the story said the killing was good news, and none quoted actually said it was a 'stunt.' Only one of the Dems quoted [Pete Stark] said anything that could conceivably be read as anything close to that -- and his quote was half-paraphrased and was chopped and mangled so badly by the reporter that it's impossible to know what he really said or what the context was. You really have to read the story for yourself to see just how breathtakingly dishonest Fagan was.

"When Dems won't say what you want them to, just make it up."

Chris at Americablog questions whether the Pentagon adopted a new rule for the late Mr. Z:

"So is it now official policy to show war dead in Iraq? Now that we are into day two of 'let's plaster photos of al-Zarqawi dead' everywhere, does this mean that the military will start showing photos of all missions and the results or is this just cherry picking? Will we be seeing American dead? Iraqi dead? I'm just trying to get this straight because it seemed like only two days ago the military was against photos of the dead and the wingnuts and WH didn't like them because it didn't help their cause. Now that they think they will receive a bump in the polls, dead al-Zarqawi is everywhere."

How far should journalists go in showing their feelings about terrorism? At Public Eye, Brian Montopoli explores the question:

"A bad guy is dead. If you're a journalist, is it OK to cheer? Not according to David Zurawik and Nick Madigan of the Baltimore Sun, who write that 'some American news organizations yesterday covered the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi with marked enthusiasm, verging on inappropriate glee.' MSNBC showed an image of the dead al-Zarqawi under the headline 'terminated,' with framing that suggested an Old West Wanted poster, according to the Sun. The New York Post's cover features al-Zarqawi and the word 'Gotcha!' There is a speech-bubble shown coming from the deceased man's mouth with the words 'Warm up the virgins.' Iraqi reporters reportedly broke into applause when Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announced al-Zarqawi's death in Baghdad. 'It's not our job in the news business to gloat,' David Zeeck, president of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, told the Sun. 'Our job is to deal with an event like this in a measured way.'

"Mainstream media journalists continually assert that they can report the news fairly and objectively -- a contention that some critics consider untenable. Certainly, gloating and applause are not objective responses to any news. But they are human responses to what seems to be good news from the perspective of anyone who opposes terror. Should journalists suppress their jubilation and strive to keep their reporting objective? Or in a case like this is it all right to let their emotional response into the coverage?"

Kos poster Susan G is giddy over the YearlyKos liberal bloggers' conference in Las Vegas:

"Remember all that talk about people feeling shy? Pffffft. Forget about it. Of course, there may be people lurking in their rooms, but for the most part, it seems barriers are really down. You just walk up to a clump or people, or turn around to whoever is walking down the hall behind you, introduce yourself, and are welcomed as a long-lost friend.

"We are hungry, hungry for each other in person. If someone is spotted with the orange lanyard around their neck, you fall upon them. Who are you? What's your screen name? Ack! We recognize it! We're all celebrities to each other from having read the names and words of each other for so long."

Adam Nagourney's NYT coverage included this gem:

"For whatever disdain that could be picked up toward mainstream politicians and news media, it seems fair to say that the bloggers and the people who love them were fascinated by their favorite targets. . . . A well-known columnist from a major metropolitan newspaper -- this one -- was repeatedly stopped by bloggers requesting that she pose for photos with them, as they expressed admiration for her work. (That would be Maureen Dowd.)"

National Review's Byron York says the netroots don't want to be seen as the nutroots:

"The crowd -- about 1,000 people were registered to attend -- loved it. And their support of Moulitsas highlighted one side of the liberal blogosphere on display at YearlyKos -- a side that is confident, cocky, and almost triumphal. But there's another side, too, and it is nearly the opposite: a frustrated side, without Moulitsas's confidence and worried that left-wing bloggers still haven't won -- and might never win -- acceptance in the mainstream political world.

"That other side was on display at a discussion session, held a couple of hours before Moulitsas's speech Thursday night, by a group of people who work with the popular liberal blog firedoglake. Discussing a new project to make their opinions better known to lawmakers in Washington, several people expressed slightly different versions of the same fear: People see that we are bloggers, the fear goes, and that we're on the left, and they think we're nuts. 'How do you avoid being seen as just a bunch of crazy bloggers?' asked one person. 'Has the work ameliorated the stigma of the crazy leftist blogger?' asked another.

"And earlier Thursday, at a workshop run by the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, one leader urged the Kossacks not to let people 'marginalize you as a blogger -- they may think that you are nutty and kind of wild.' That is the contrast of YearlyKos. On the one hand, Moulitsas speaks as if he has won the political game, while on the other side some of his followers worry that they're not even in it."

If you're following the NBA Finals, you may know that Mark Cuban, the Dallas Mavericks owner, has a blog (which he sometimes uses to go after sportswriters, as I reported awhile back). But who knows the first thing about the man who owns the Miami Heat? Well, get a load of this:

" Raanan Katz, who partly owns both Maccabi Tel Aviv and the Miami Heat basketball teams, said that the Heat's upcoming duel against the Dallas Mavericks will be very tough. . . .

" 'God can always help; we need him on our side against Dallas,' said Katz. 'Every Israeli must support us; they must go the Western Wall and pray for us. Miami Heat is no less Israeli than Maccabi. This is also a group with Israeli ownership in which many Americans play.' "

No word on whether there's been a surge of new worshippers at the Western Wall.

In other sports news, major-league Yankee fan Rudy, buying the Chicago Cubs?