The piece could kinda maybe be some kind of hit on Coulter. It’s definitely unkind. But as usual, we have a columnist for a pretty large newspaper talking about how “the media” gives Coulter a platform to spew her hatred and how it’s incomprehensible, and then that same columnist admits to having profiled her at one point, and not in an FBI kind of way.
This kind of passive-aggressive, well, it’s phenomenon, we’ve got to cover it because there’s coverage and that proves people want it covered, kind of crap drives me bonkers. It’s a key component in the right-wing strategy of disseminating these things that aren’t true but sound good repeated on the radio and in the beauty shop. If popularity truly determines coverage, then that’s one thing, and it’s one shameful thing that should be admitted up front so people can use their reading time for other things. But if you’re going to do what Carr does here, sniffing disdainfully about how people give that hateful Coulter coverage and that makes her important so then he has to cover her too, it just makes you look like an idiot. The more you justify your actions the less justified you look. Cover her, don’t cover her, but quit pretending it’s beneath you and you’re forced into it and you have nothing to do with the wurlitzer cranking out her bullshit day after day after day.