Although we can’t always shake the nasty habit of writing in the royal we, occasionally one of our editors decides to shake off the cloak of anonymity to write a short, pithy statement long, rambling diatribe about a topic of their choice. Today, Debbie Newman is that editor.
Pot-stirring pundit (and brazen book self-promoter) Ann Coulter is no stranger to causing controversy—in fact, most conscientious observers would agree she's made a fairly lucrative career out of it. And last week was certainly no exception. After dropping by the otherwise irrelevant Donny Deutsch show*, ostensibly to discuss her new book, Coulter had tongues of all races, ethnicities and party affiliations wagging over her calm, methodical and, doubtless, premeditated statement that the Jews need to be "perfected."
Another day, another firestorm started by—and explicitly for—Ann Coulter.
Or, put another way, in the unlikely event that Coulter keeps a journal,** her entry for that day would have read something along the lines of:
"Dear Diary…Jackpot."
Although we can’t always shake the nasty habit of writing in the royal we, occasionally one of our editors decides to shake off the cloak of anonymity to write a short, pithy statement long, rambling diatribe about a topic of their choice. Today, Debbie Newman is that editor.
A few days ago, passages from Howard Kurtz's new book surfaced on the web, purporting to shed new light on what transpired behind the scenes at CBS headquarters less than twenty-four hours before the network ran its now-infamous National Guard story.
Although we can’t seem to shake the nasty habit of writing in the royal we, occasionally one of our editors decides to shake off the cloak of anonymity to write a short, pithy statement long, rambling diatribe about a topic of their choice. Today, Debbie Newman is that editor.
While curmudgeonly gossip Cindy Adams typically uses her column as a mouthpiece for lavishing praise on her yappy Yorkshire terriers, she occasionally likes to switch things up by delivering an impassioned old-person rant about the degeneration of society.
Take, for instance, Sunday's column, in which Granny Adams (bless her heart!) seemingly lumps foreigners, immigrants, diplomats and terrorists into the single all-encompassing category of "Them." She then criticizes them for failing to possess "Social Security cards…subscriptions to Reader's Digest and CDs of Kate Smith singing 'God Bless America'" (we're listening to it now, on repeat!) and launches into a perspicacious discourse xenophobic tirade on the indignities of waiting in line behind "some jerk in an ill-fitting suit…from some fourth-rate country so small it's standing in line to dare shake its fist at the United States."
And it turns out ol' Cindy's just getting warmed up.
Although we can’t always shake the nasty habit of writing in the royal we, occasionally one of our editors decides to shake off the cloak of anonymity to write a short, pithy statement long, rambling diatribe about a topic of their choice. Today, Debbie Newman is that editor.
The day after Anna Nicole Smith's death, there are still far more questions than there are answers. And so far, it's been largely a sticky mess of facts and fiction, as media outlets rush to scoop their competitors with the latest twist, newest take or most outlandish speculations as to the cause—and aftermath—of this sad story.
Naturally, the jokes have already begun, (when will TrimSpa get a new spokesperson? Perhaps Anna Nicole was smothered by her own massive mammary glands!) but right now, we're not even close to laughing. Because while we generally strive for an irreverent tone, we're simply not comfortable reporting this in a glib, patronizing sort of way.
As it turns out, not every story has a punchline, and though this one undeniably has a lot of tabloid fodder (what exactly happened? what drugs will they find in her system? what will happen to baby Dannielynn?) it seems important to remember that what happened yesterday was still a tragedy.
Editorial Director
