Ed Driscoll

Advantage: Ed!

Last week, I went with my first thoughts on the Ann Coulter cover controversy and thought that she and Matt Drudge were trying to crank up the hype machine just a little too much:

Matt Drudge and Ann Coulter’s attempt to create some sort of controversy over the choice of lens used by Time’s photographer to shoot Ann for the Time cover this week seems awfully silly to me.

* * *

I’m all for pointing out errors and lies and bias coming from the mainstream media, but this seems like trying to hype a pretty minor issue to me.

Today, Howard Kurtz writes:

Drudge later zinged Time by quoting his friend Coulter as saying her cover photo — in which her legs took up half the page — was distorted. But Executive Editor Priscilla Painton says Coulter went through the photographer’s portfolio in advance: “She has great looks. She has great legs. She has great ankles. All of that was on full display on the cover. Lots of women would kill for that kind of display.”

I know full well that conservatives have taken lots of potshots from the legacy media–including unflattering photos. But that Time cover didn’t seem like one of them.