I don't usually write about things like this, but there are multiple absurdities in this story just crying out to me. First of all, I'm amazed to learn that Rupert Murdoch's New York Post has written a story accusing Ann Coulter of plagiarism.
This comes on the heels of news that Murdoch hosted a fund raiser for Hilary Clinton, hardly the darling of the right-wing, or Murdoch's own Fox News. Media genius Murdoch may be sensing a change in the weather, hedging his bets, or both.
In any case, Ms. Coulter delighted in trashing Jayson Blair and the New York Times for having committed plagiarism. What's her response to charges she did the same thing?
How crappy a newspaper is the Post? Let me put it this way: It's New York's second-crappiest paper.
Doubtless that's what influenced her to sit down for an interview with a Post reporter.
Note that Ms. Coulter did not deny the charges of plagiarism (In fact, she didn't even mention them). She's got an interesting approach to making an argument. Why defend yourself? Just loudly condemn someone else, change the subject as quickly as possible, and hope no one notices.
That approach seems to have served Ms. Coulter well. Why should she abandon it now?
Posts
