Anne Coulter made a seemingly outlandish accusation against the New York Times.
I had trouble believing this, but centrist democrat blogger Mickey Kaus says NEXIS backs her up.
Can this be true? If so, does the media use “Greg Packer” the way the movies use the name “Alan Smithee” – crediting him as director when the actual director wishes to remain anonymous? Is this some sort of inside joke? Is it ethical journalism?
I have worked for (hmm…let’s count…yow) more than 50 different publications and never has that occured in my presence.
But they’ve all been in DC…
Well, considering that ALL Mickey Kaus said was that a “NEXIS backs her up” without defining his search terms or anything else, I’d say the evidence of a massive conspiracy is a little thin. And I don’t care if Kaus is a centrist Democrat or Santa Claus. When he defines his search, or at least gives more detail on what he found, then I’ll take his claims a bit more seriously.
Robin
I’m simply curious when Kaus is going to find something other than the NYT to write about. One might have thought the Raines/Boyd resignations would cure him, but apparently not.
Here is a possible explanation- JDM
And here is the same article in a more readable format, complete with picture. JDM
And if Coulter has indeed uncovered a treasonous plot involving Mr. Packer, NBA.com is in on it as well. JDM
Thank you, JDM.
And the Philadelphia Inquirer,
and the BBC,
and Newsday,
and MTV,
and XFLBoard,
And the Daily News, (in which he is in disguise)
Mr. Packer gets around-
JDM
Sounds like that Radioman lunatic who weasels his way onto every film set in NYC.
Holy smokes!
You know, I wasn’t much of a believer in the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, but some of you may have noticed that I’ve been looking into it lately.
Well, that led me to ask myself, “who, exactly, does Ann Coulter rely upon for her own man-in-the-street quotes?” I haven’t yet answered that.
But it did lead me to this article, in which Coulter defends the nomination of Ted Olson as Solicitor General of the United States. She also ridiculed the idea that something could be amiss when Richard Mellon Scaife paid Ted Olson’s legal fees for defending David Hale.
And then I found this:
It also goes on to say that Coulter went to work for The Center for Individual Rights, which is largely funded by… Richard Mellon Scaife.
Coulter’s book was published by Regnery Publishing, which is headed by Alfred Regnery, a personal friend of Ken Starr and Scaife. Regnery is part of the larger publishing group which publishes Human Events, for which Coulter also worked.
And Coulter was so deep into the Lewinsky thing that she acted as an advisor to Paula Jones’ lawyers and heard the Tripp tapes before they were given to Ken Starr.
Screw this Packer story. Ann Coulter isn’t just insane, she’s a lovingly fledged shill for one of the most un-democratic cabals in modern American history!
Governor Quinn (being the law in his state) has made his judgements on this case, based on the connected materials.
I declare Anne Coulter guilty of doing insufficient research, and sentence her to three weeks at the NY Public Library.
Greg Packer is guilty of attending too many events, and is sentenced to several days of home confinement.
All charges against the other participants in this case are dropped.
I declare this case closed.
I don’t understand in what way these legal, normal, open acts were conspiratorial:
She’s a columnist and she supported Olson’s nomination. So what?
Scaife had every right to contribute money to Hale’s defence and Olson had every right to act as a defence lawyer.
Scaife is conservative and rich, so he contributed to a conservative think tank. Coulter is conservative so she took a job with that same conservative think tank. What’s wrong?
Until recently, many large publishing houses stayed away from conservative books, allowing Regnery to dominate that market.
Coulter is a lawyer who gave advice to Paula Jones’s lawyers. Why shouldn’t she?
Not even a little slap for the Times? Like Kaus said, they ought to have this guy’s name posted in the metro section and ingrained into editors’ heads along with “No, there’s no one named Heywood Jablowme.” Betcha there’s a sign now. I sentence the Times editors each to write “I will be on the lookout for quote whores” 100 times on the chalkboard.
Well, december, among other things Coulter failed to mention in her spirited defense of the rewarding of yet another self-interested contributor to yet another Republican attempt to undermine the will of the American people that she was:
An employee of an organization that was largely funded by one of the people she was defending in the article;
An author published under the label owned by a personal friend of the people she was defending in the article;
A direct participant in a wiretapping incident which is “legal” in the same sense that Oliver North is not a convicted felon, which was part of the overall efforts to unseat a President by the people she was defending in the article.
That is scumbag journalism. You’re entitled to your own opinion as to whether or not billionaires can use their power to manipulate the press and–it would appear–appointed independent counsel in order to force the resignation of an elected official. We, um, already know what it is, though.
I wasn’t in the mood to punish the Times for that, as it isn’t really their fault that this guy’s, as you put it, a “quote whore”.
Sofa King, however, is found guilty of stealing a thread, and is sentenced to serve 3 weeks as one of the Governor’s houseboys.
(Get that dirty thought out of your minds!)
Not was, but rather had once been. And, her defence of Scaife wan’t the main point of the article. Anyhow, do think any reader was fooled into thinking that Coulter was unbiased? It’s hardly a secret that she’s a conservative partisan.
This standard is beyond reasonable. People have many friends. Leading liberals tend to be friendly with each other, and the same for conservatives.
Meaning what? She wiretapped someone? Or she provided legal advice? What did she do wrong here in your opinion?
Just as Driving While Black sadly appears to be a crime in some areas, you seem to feel that practicing law while conservative is similarly verboten.
December, I’m sure Krugman at the Times appreciates your change of heart regarding the threshold at which and how often disclosures ought to be made of potential conflicts.
But you were better off with the stricter standard. Sofa King is correct – if she took cash from the same person as Olson, that relationship ought to be disclosed.
Yes, december, they’re right.
Speaking as a publishing exec of just under 15 years she should have disclosed the connection however tenuous if she’s writing a piece involving the people she’s worked with/for. That standard should apply to all columnists and news organizations. Any other path leads only to chaos. Even a simple, “Hey, I once worked with these guys. They’re cool.” would have done it.