So the Commercial Appeal once again ran an Ann Coulter column. This one was about the Troy Davis case, ostensibly, though it was so full of bile and lies, I could hardly bring myself to read it. I would link to it, but as far as I can tell , the CA doesn't put Coulter's columns on their website, though all their other syndicated columnists' pieces are posted.
Coulter's column (as most of them do) contained blatant, provable falsehoods. She claimed, for example, that no innocent man has been executed in the U.S. since 1950. I assume she came up with that date the way she comes up with most of her "facts" — by pulling it out of her ass. Anyone who does the absolute minimal amount of research can come up with many instances of people who were executed and later exonerated, either because the real culprit confessed or post-execution DNA determined that the executed person was not guilty. Trust me, this is not difficult to do.
This raises a couple of questions for me: Why does the CA run Coulter's column in the first place, if it's filled with lies? And why does it print the column in the paper yet not put it on the website?
Two answers to the first question come to mind: a) The CA editors just don't bother to check the "facts" in Coulter's column, even though she has a long history of spewing total bullshit, or b) they do check her facts and run it anyway, knowing that her venomous lies are red meat for the cro-magnon sector of their readership.
I would tend to go with: "b"
So why don't they put Coulter's crap-bag column on their website?
I would tend to go with: They don't want the evidence that they run this garbage in the paper out there for all the world-wide-web to see.