Readers who turned to the Op-Ed page the past few Mondays expecting to find the longstanding feature pairing columnists Arianna Huffington and Ann Coulter found something else in its stead, like this column.
What’s up?, a number have asked. My response is this column. Those who have written directly to Stars and Stripes have received the following from the senior managing editor, Howard Witt:
Thanks for your inquiry regarding the discontinuation of the regular left/right columnist feature pitting Ann Coulter against Arianna Huffington. I decided to cancel this arrangement because I felt both columnists had become stale, predictable, utterly tiresome caricatures of what thoughtful political commentators should be. In their place, we are endeavoring to publish a broad selection of smarter, richer, deeper commentaries by columnists — from both the left and the right — who are more interested in making cogent arguments than throwing provocative ad hominem bombs intended to further their own book sales, Web sites and public media personas.
Coulter dismisses Witt’s rationale as “a stale, predictable, utterly tiresome caricature of what all left-wingers say about the most popular conservative columnist in America” — a reference to herself — but that “he’s right about Arianna’s columns — they are stale and predictable.”
She also challenged Stripes to conduct an online poll to see how readers feel. [See the comments section below for Coulter's full response to my request for her thoughts on being dropped by Stripes.] Huffington did not respond to a similar e-mailed query from me.
It’s not my place to say which columnists Stars and Stripes should or should not publish, but I do lament Huffington-Coulter’s passing in one important respect: The feature gave two women prominence on Stripes’ Op-Ed page, a place at most newspapers where women have long and notably been underrepresented. I hope the paper will keep that in mind when choosing their replacements.
Many newspapers try to erect a wall between their news pages, whose purpose is to tell people what they should know, and their opinion pages, whose purpose is to tell them what they should think.
That wall by necessity may not be as formidable as I would like it to be at Stripes, given its relatively small and dispersed staff. But senior executives ought to try to make it as high and as strong as they can. Stripes, after all, is owned by the government, a cause for special concern and constant vigilance, especially in the realm of bias and opinion and news getting tangled up with agendas.
To try to avoid conflicts, the editorials, columns and cartoons published by Stripes are all gathered from outside sources and are supposed to provide an overseas audience with a representative range of views prevalent back home.
Stripes writes no editorials of its own and has only one Op-Ed columnist on staff — the ombudsman, whose duty by law is to monitor Stripes for journalistic independence, balance, integrity and professionalism and to sound the alarm if any appear jeopardized.
For months now, Stripes’ staff has been undergoing a reorganization. That process has included creation of a new post, senior managing editor, which Witt came to Stars and Stripes to fill around June 1. It is a powerful position, No. 2 in the newsroom, that concentrates authority over and hands-on management of all news-editorial operations.
I find it troubling that its mandate extends to the opinions that Stars and Stripes publishes on its Op-Ed pages, even if they are those of outside journalists.
I emphasize that I am not questioning Witt’s integrity, just the wisdom of investing any one person with the power to decide both what is news and which opinions on the news are expressed.
Perhaps Stripes’ top management should reconsider the breadth of that portfolio, lest the door be opened to critics who would use it to challenge the objectivity of Stripes’ reporting or the neutrality of its choices in opinion pieces.
Op-Ed columns are among a newspaper’s most scrutinized features because their very premise is argument — making one, or inspiring one. It is said that a columnist’s job is neither to be loved nor loathed but to be read, and there is some truth in that.
Columnists, whose pictures often accompany their work, also have a much greater personal connection with readers than do reporters, whose bylines are largely skimmed over unless a particular story moves someone.
Adding or dropping columnists can be a big deal for readers, whether they love them, hate them, or just love to hate them. Although editors have every right to decide what and whom to publish (or not), reader sentiments should be part of the equation. Especially these days, when newspapers are shedding readers. Especially with prominent columnists with followings. Especially when they are part of a regular, longstanding feature like Huffington-Coulter, which drew dozens of letters to the editor over the years.
Stripes readers should have at least gotten a heads-up.
On June 3, I wrote about changes to the weather page that had sparked reader complaints — and the absence of any published explanation. The editor responsible allowed that he had meant to publish a note but that it had slipped off his to-do list among myriad other tasks. I thought that Stripes would be more forthcoming with its readers after that.
Witt, however, sees such notes as problematic. “We add and drop columnists and other features all the time and I did not want to create a precedent by which we have to explain every such decision,” Witt told me via e-mail about his Huffington-Coulter decision, adding that he does not want to feel “compelled … to explain what are, in essence, subjective editorial decisions.”
I disagree. Our readers are the only reason Stars and Stripes exists. We are here to serve them, and one important way to do that is to show them the courtesy of explaining significant changes that may puzzle or irk them, like the dropping of a longtime, high-profile feature.
It was especially baffling to me that Stars and Stripes published a letter July 31 (Aug. 3 in Pacific editions) asking why Huffington-Coulter was not in the previous two Monday papers — and didn’t provide an answer. I don’t know whether the letter writer got a personal reply, but once a paper publishes such a question, it ought to publish an answer as well, for the benefit of all.
Journalists who came of age before the 21st century are not accustomed to explaining themselves to anyone, let alone faceless, anonymous readers. That was journalism’s “voice of God” era, when audiences were defined (and confined) by geography and news organizations simply dispensed news and views to people with few alternatives.
Well, that era is over. Journalism is moving from monologue to dialogue as audiences become empowered by their newfound digital reach. Savvy news organizations, scrambling to survive a host of cultural, generational, technological and economic challenges, are coming to understand the need to be more responsive. Hence, they are becoming more transparent and in touch.
Journalists, advertisers and readers can track what stories and features are most popular online. Editors and reporters now regularly discuss their work with readers via chats and blogs on their organizations’ Web sites or interact with them via e-mail, on-site forums or off-site venues like Twitter.
Yes, there is a danger of going too far and applying entertainment values to journalism — “pandering to the mob,” it’s called — but Stars and Stripes is a long way from that.
And if this episode is any indication of Stripes’ new direction, it also has a long way to go in reaching out to its readers to let them know that it cares about what they think and what they expect when they do us the honor of picking up a copy of Stars and Stripes.
Ann Coulter's full response
On Thursday (8/6), I e-mailed Arianna Huffington and Ann Coulter asking them if they cared to comment on the decision by Stars and Stripes to drop their columns. Coulter did so promptly. Huffington has yet to reply. If she does, I’ll post it here.
In my e-mails to Huffington and Coulter, I included the text of the response that Senior Managing Editor Howard Witt has been sending readers who wrote to the paper asking why the paired columns were no longer appearing in Stripes. (see my column above) That is what Coulter is alluding to in her response to me, posted in full here:
Hello Mark! My response:
1) That’s a stale, predictable, utterly tiresome caricature of what all left-wingers say about the most popular conservative columnist in America -- as demonstrated by Yahoo, Townhall, Human Events and other websites’ column rankings. (And people wonder why newspapers are going out of business!) Next, you'll be replacing Rush with Air America radio.
2) The reason the military is the only important institution in America (e.g. universities, Hollywood, nonprofit institutes and the media) that hasn't been taken over by the left is that liberals are too pussified to fight . . . but I guess they can still edit "The Stars and Stripes"! Shouldn't the military hire someone who's willing to risk more than a paper cut to edit its paper? Then you’ll get my column back!
3) But he’s right about Arianna’s columns -- they are stale and predictable.
In a separate e-mail she sent later, Coulter asked why Stars and Stripes simply didn’t conduct an online reader poll on Witt’s decision. If you think that’s a good or bad idea, let me know and I’ll pass on your sentiments to the newsroom.
Readers who want to continue to read the Coulter and Huffington columns can do so via these links:
http://www.anncoulter.com
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington
-- Mark Prendergast
Ombudsman
memory problems???
Remember what happened when Ted "the swimmer" Kennedy attempted to remove Rush Limbaugh from Armed Services Radio? When the servicemen were given a ballot with the names of personalities they wanted to listen to, Rush's name was suspiciously left off the ballot. Rush won hands-down as a write-in candidate.
Just who is running Stars & Stripes? B.O.?
So, go ahead with your own poll:
Who should remain on Stars & Stripes?
1) Coulter
2) Huffington
3) Both
4) Neither
I believe Ann will be the happiest after this poll.
My vote
COULTER!!!
Coutler
Me too, she has been a supporter of us for many years. I have never known her to call us murders or savages cutting off arms and legs. Yes it's Ann Coulter today, tomorrow and always..
sorry
I apologize. I meant to write "Armed Forces Radio Network."
ann coulter
If you think Ann Coulter is stale, predictable, and utterly tiresome, you must be a self-absorbed, pompous liberal.
... that has never read her column. Love her or hate her, she is one of most intriguing, witty, and unpredictable communicators, whether it be as a speaker or writer.
Really, what is this guy Howard Witt smoking? He states that her comments are provocative, but that she has become stale? Don't these two observations completely contradict each other? Makes no sense.
Howard, do yourself a favor, and stop relying on your own flawed judgment. My advice to you, when you wake up every morning, tell yourself, "I am not as smart as I think I am". Repeat again. You liberals have become so stale and predictable to us (I'll leave out tiresome because the thinking half of the country still has patience for those to whom we disagree).
You need to take a poll. Stop trying to tell the rest of us what we should or should not be listening to.
Time to Grow Up
Mr. Prendergast; thanks for giving us a small peak behind the curtain regarding S&S. You may not regard it as being civil, but believe me in our Brave New World it is.
Regarding the dropping of the Coulter/Huffington page, I must say I always thought it rather dated. Coulter obviously had an audience with soldiers, but stateside, like so many rightwing screamers, (Sarah Palin included) she’s yesterday’s news. Of course she will always be welcome to rant her stuff on FOX News, but that’s about it. Her reply to you also reveals her arrogance, massive ego, and appalling ignorance of the problems facing America. Is that what you really want in the S&S?
In another sense the Coulter/Huffington divide propagated a false view of American politics. Today, there is not such a radical difference between Democrats (or “liberals”, whatever that strange breed is) and Republicans. What that page represented was different personalities. Coulter did, to some degree, represent Republicans as to how they thought and acted, but Huffington bore no comparison to the Democrats. The collapse of the Democrats as a party that stood up for the poor and downtrodden was given the coup de grace by 9/11. But the Democrats more or less administered it themselves: they committed their own hari-kari, quit unique in politics. As to when the last real Democrat died is still being debated, but his corpse has been long time a rotting.
As for “liberals” bent on destroying America and the subject of Coulter’s and most people’s wrath and distain, they are more myth than substance, a creation of the corporate controlled media that Coulter milks relentlessly. Many soldiers who have lived and worked in Europe for some time come to understand this; they come to see it with their own eyes and how they have been brainwashed. Being exposed as they are to a different political perspective and culture. Unfortunately; many have already “drank the Kool-Aid”, as we say, and there is no hope for them.
So in conclusion Mr. Prendergast, you are not losing a daughter, but gaining a son. It’s time for America to grow up politically, mature and reject the tired, naïve clichés that it so loves and has done it so much damage, a bit like coming off drugs for some I know. A bit late in the day? Sure; but better late than never.
Response from Huffington spokesman
Folks, here's a response from Mario Ruiz, vice president for media relations at huffingtonpost.com, to the e-mail that I sent Arianna Huffington last week seeking comment. I am posting it in full here. I also asked Mr. Ruiz if he would see if Ms. Huffington would care to comment directly, but he replied that they will stick with the comment below.
Mark Prendergast
Ombudsman
Mark,
It's ironic that Arianna was included as a columnist in a left vs.right set-up in the paper, as she has long argued how such framing is lazy and inaccurate (when Arianna and the Wall Street Journal both agree about the disastrousness of the administration's Wall Street policies, don't left vs. right labels become irrelevant?)
So it's just as well that her column is no longer appearing in the paper in such a manner.
Furthermore, it's surprising that a senior managing editor of Stars and Stripes would offer such unsubstantiated criticism.
Regards,
--
mario ruiz
vp, media relations
arianna's shame
Well that's no surprise; a liberal ashamed to admit she's a liberal.
Coulter/Huffington
I particulartly enjoy the wit and sincere honesty of Ann Coulter. I don't mind Ariana's views because it helps to have insight into the musings of self deluded liberals. My vote is for choice #3 and go back to what works well. Why change a winning formula? Unless your afraid of it!
Viva discriminating audiences!
Loop to loop
1) Coulter
Ms. Coulter is original. Ms. Huffington not so much after reading my DNC email. However, since Mr. Witt has seen fit to tell us how he really feels about two women using their minds, will he be sure to remind me and my daughters we need to stay in our place too? Stars and Stripes readers have been served notice there is a new public media persona in town.
The Real Problem
Mark: (I’ll drop the Mr.) thanks for posting the reply from Huffington’s side – my point exactly. But it can be seen, before, and after, your latest post, that I’m a lone crusader on this page. The fact that America has just experienced a financial meltdown, the automobile industry is finished; millions of people have lost their homes and jobs, and these guys still write as if they have just arrived in a time machine from the 70’s. One thing about the military is that it provides a nice cocoon from political realities. The fact that the “masters of the universe”, the bankers and fact-cats have blown America’s wealth through greedy speculation and incompetence, that the children’s, children, of those who have posted here will be paying for it has not sunk in. That both political parties are two cheeks of the same backside, that the military industrial complex, married to corporate American, is supporting the largest empire the world has seen and like the failed banks and automobile industry must be supported by the same tax payers. Dropping Ann Coulter is the least of our worries.
Bring back Ann Coulter!
I'm not going to miss HuffPo's columns too much as she said the same thing, in the same elitist tone while looking down her nose as you, over and over and over again, as demonstrated by her response to her removal. As for Ann Coulter, however, this is just another reason not to read the Stars & Stripes. It's sad that the newspaper of the military is being overrun by journalists, editors and ombsudsmen that don't support them, but now the one voice who does support us and isn't afraid to support us even though it's not the cool thing to do, is removed from the paper, well, what's the point then? Obviously it's a personal distaste and the removal of HuffPo is to try and lower negative feedback or else you'd have taken a survey. America is still a free country, or at least it was until January 20, 2009.
Ann Coulter
Ann Coulter is singularly hands down the most provocative, intelligent, witty, effective and spot-on right writer I have ever read. The only predictable thing in her writing is that you can never predict what she is going to say. She has bigger balls than the entire collective talking-points left, and can easily dodge a cream pie while in high heels. Your Stars and Stripes publication is sadly being taken over by anti-american censoring brownshirt thugs, just like most of the rest the country. Even more sadly, our servicemen and women will not recognize the country they are fighting for when they return. Ann has razor sharp insight and understanding of exactly is happening, and you need to put her back into Stars and Stripes! Like she said, "This is like replacing Rush with Air America." While Huffington is a worn out old traitorious bag with nothing original to say, Ann is fresh, cutting edge, beautiful and courageous. Stands to reason that the most effective voices on the right are the ones most feared and most censored.
reply
In reading the response from readers to losing these two columns, I noticed that most of the responses were in favor of Ann Coulter (But, not Huffington). Not surprising as I have spent my adult life surrounded by conservatives in the military. I usually giggle my butt off when they spew the rhetoric that can only be learned from Ann Coulter, Rush, Hannity and the like. Never, have I engaged a right winger in a conversation that they haven't just repeated what their talking head “masters” have put into their heads. I usually ask them to expand the conversation beyond what they read in opinion columns or watched on FOX news, and that's where the fun begins. They have no argument except sound bites recently planted in their heads from these talkers, exactly like the response above: "...anti-American censoring brown shirt thugs, just like most of the rest the country. Even more sadly, our servicemen and women will not recognize the country they are fighting for when they return." When confronted with the opportunity to make a valid argument, the reader resorts to labeling just like his puppet masters. What’s even more predictable is the anti-American comment. This is the “quick-draw gun” that right wing talkers have used for the last 10 years: “we can’t win the argument, so we’ll vilify the left.” The only problem is that there are many “Progressives” like myself that spent a career in the military in defense of our great nation and are hardly anti-American. Lastly, if “…most of the rest of the country was anti-American” as you put it, wouldn’t that majority change the constitution and rename the country by virtue of a majority vote… Hmmmm, typical “Shoot before you think mentality from the right.”
Ann Coulter
I am surprised that Mr. Witt made such a reader-sensitive decision without polling the readership. From his lack of defense of his removal of Ann Coulter from the Opinion portion of the S&S, except with the rather ludicrous characterization that many comments have appropriately derided, that she is "tired, stale and predictable."
This is a sad day in the history of S&S.
Ann Coulter
I am well-read. Ann Coulter has never disappointed me with dull, boring, re-hashed editorials. I don't believe her being dropped is anything but a sign of how impactful her written opinions are and that the editor is a liberal with a need to censure her effective conservative message.
Good Decision
Thank you for discontinuing the Coulter Column. We don't need to have someone who hates America a forum in our military. IMHO Coulter demonstrates her hatred for America and its leaders every day. She certainly has a right to hate but we don't need to give her a forum to distract from the mission of the military.
Pathetic
I'm a bit behind the curve on responding to this, but people here have it right: It's just another liberal member of the media trying to censor a conservative voice. When are these people going to learn that this is not a path they want to go down? Keep it up.