POL--I wonder what the author of this story's opinion of Ann Coulter is?
 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/....ap/index.html

The story seems like the typical tempest-in-a-teapot kind of thing.

But look at the last sentence of the article. Huh?

Yeah it doesn't seem to be much of a big deal, and the "enjoying their husbands deaths" thing is pretty old and stupid to just insert at the end of the article.

I never understand these things. I mean c'mon whether it's Ann Coulter, Ralph Nader, or me if the election commishioner asks for my address isn't it simpler to just tell them then to say "call my lawyer"? I mean give them the address and there is no story.

Does the last statement show the bias of the author? Probably does. No different than what Coulter does when she writes is it? Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Could it be malicious? Maybe. But, to be fair to the author of this story, the whole "enjoying their husbands death" thing was the last time Coulter was newsworthy. Remember all the ridiculous the hubub about it? So, if anything, the last line is like a reminder of why this story is even newsworthy (which I don't think it is) in case someone forgot who Coulter was (I envy these people).

I think this is a pretty common technique for this kind of piece. Like Sweed said, It's not the author's fault that Coulter is the "See You Next Tuesday" who made the ridiculous comment. Live by the sword, die by the sword indeed...

I take anything Coulter says to be about as relevant as anything "Stone Cold" Steve Austin, Trish Stratus, Kurt Angle, Vince McMahon, or any other "professional" wrestler would say while "in character." She's nothing more than theater. She says outrageous shit just to say it and stiry up faux controversey, so that she can sell more books/make more TV appearances. She's fucking ridiculous. She should be dressed in motley and have loud theme music and pyrotechnicss whenever she makes an appearance.

Yes, stooping to her level is a great tactic to get people to take you seriously.

I don't think it is. If anything, it's a straight-up recitation of the facts. It was Coulter's most recent 15 seconds of fame. I don't see the spin here.

Bzzt. Wrong.

Different because Coulter is a columnist/op-ed page writer, while this article appears to have been intended as straight news.

That said, the last line of the story looks to me like pretty standard form these days. Not with regard to any bias, but rather with attaching some frame of reference to the end of a story. I would even go so far as to suggest the possibility that the reference could very well have been part of an even longer background paragraph that was edited down to the single sentence.

In other words, I don't really have a big problem with that snippet being included in the story.

You are correct, sir!

As usual.

;)

What's that saying about that blind squirrel and a nut again? :D

This type of thing happens all the time and is rarely if ever done maliciously or on purpose. Nonstory.

This is the kind of amunition people would use to say there is a liberal bias in the media. The story about her was negative enough just by following the facts. Throwing the last sentence in at the end is like the reporter trying to remind us that we should dislike Ann already. It seems to go beyond reporting news to editorializing on the subject.

I would agree that this is more of the corporate bias than the liberal bias. This was clearly an attempt to "sexy up" a boring article about somebody that was sort of famous.

The point I think, is not that this is a case of liberal bias, but that the sentence, more than usual, just kind of hangs out there. To me, I definately see it as a "WTF?" line. The only thing it was missing was the bold font. :)

If this is an example of bias, it is pretty sloppy in its obviousness. It is one thing to try to change the tone of an article, but this addition does give a WTF feeling.

On an unrelated note, is voting in the wrong district really that big an issue? I suppose it could let a person vote in local elections that they shouldn't, but it doesn't seem like it would be that big a deal for national or state elections.

What would stop you from voting multiple times in different districts?

That, obviously, would be a bad thing. I didn't think the article mentioned that as an allegation though. I was wishing recently that I could vote in the wrong place since I wouldn't be able to make it to my polling location next Tuesday, but absentee ballots took care of that issue.

Well, I guess it's a "big deal" in the way it's written into Florida law, since the penalty is up to five years in prison.

At least I think I've figured out what was going on here, after reading one of the local articles that includes some more details.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/pbccent...ter.html?imw=Y

Looks like this may have been about keeping her physical address off the public record, rather than some bizarre plot to vote for the wrong city council candidate. (The former I can make some sense of, the latter had me scratching my head)

Yeah, one person does not equal multiple votes.

Now, if she voted in multiple districts, I would wonder how you can track that? Maybe we should get a black ink mark on our index fingers after we vote. :)