This short but thoughtful report presents a variety of viewpoints, reasonable evidence, as well as useful context to help us interpret the "Coulter incident"

This is sort of a meandering non-story that talks about other reporters' stories. Whithout saying so, it demonstrates that reporters are damned if they do and damned if they don't -- if they report on Coulter's outrageousness they give her publicity that she seeks but if they don't they are criticized by those she defames.

This news analysis is biased in that it lacks coverage of those who are defending Ann Coulter, except for Coulter herself. The premise that it took too long before she was rebuked is used to launch a laundry list of her attackers, and the "long fuse" pretext is never fully explored.

I learned quite a bit about Ann Coulter from this story. In my view, the most telling quote is 'Asked if she would use a racial slur in a joke, Coulter said it was "semantic totalitarianism to compare everything to the N-word."' Somehow she doesn't see how apt the comparison is. Since neither she nor I are either African-American or gay, we don't get to use the N-word or the F-word, but blacks can use the N-word among themselves, and gays the F-word. This article leaves it to the reader to fill in that blank. That's what makes the article news rather than op-ed.

Kurtz still doesn't really get it, in many odd ways. Why does he say the unmentionable (at least in the WaPo) word is "offensive to gays?" I find it offensive as well, and I'm not gay. And why does he conclude that "journalists have never quite resolved the question: Is what she says news?" Obviously what Coulter said is news, given the reaction and the amount of words and images devoted to the controversy--not to mention the fact that it was said at CPAC and forced three Republican presidential candidates to dissassociate themselves from Coulter and repudiate her comments!

Kurtz writes that Coulter used a "a six-letter word offensive to gays." Actually, the word should be offensive to everyone. One important point Kurtz barely touches on is the applause garnered by Coulter's comment. That, in my opinion, is the story. There will always be idiots like Coulter, but when she is cheered for hateful rhetoric at anything but a Klan rally, reasonable people should be examining why.

The story does a good job of raising the ? of whether Coulter's remarks are news or not and offereing different perspectives on the issue. The article did not provide full transparency into the sources - and what bias or sexual preference they might have.

Nothing revealing here. It's well-sourced and gives context about Coulter's long history of venomous talk. But I don't see why Howie Kurtz scraped a whole column out of the should-we-cover-this-or-should-we-ignore-it debate.

Kurtz does a decent job of pointing to various sources of discussion around Ann Coulter's inappropriate language at the Conservative Political Action Committee conference.

Howard Kurtz gives the most balanced view I've seen yet of this controversy. Having to waste media time on the rantings of a hate-mongering provacateur is bad enough, but he tackles the task with dispassionate professionalism.