Posted on 09/24/2007 8:24:26 PM PDT by jdm
Both Hillary Clinton and GQ have a lot of explaining to do if the Politico has this story correct:
According to Ben Smith, Hillary's campaign pressured GQ to kill a piece critical of her by threatening to withhold Bill Clinton's cooperation in the future. The editors of GQ caved into the threat and spiked the article:
Early this summer, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign for president learned that the men’s magazine GQ was working on a story the campaign was sure to hate: an account of infighting in Hillaryland.
So Clinton’s aides pulled a page from the book of Hollywood publicists and offered GQ a stark choice: Kill the piece, or lose access to planned celebrity coverboy Bill Clinton.
Despite internal protests, GQ editor Jim Nelson met the Clinton campaign’s demands, which had been delivered by Bill Clinton’s spokesman, Jay Carson, several sources familiar with the conversations said.
Instead of running the article on Hillary Clinton, the magazine decided to opt for a December puff piece on her husband. George Saunders traveled with Clinton to Africa to write the article after GQ's surrender, and his article will run in the issue where GQ selects its Man of the Year. As Smith reports, Bill Clinton's face on a cover can help sell product -- and GQ had to sell out to get it.
That puts an interesting spin on media relations, especially by a federal elected official. While it's certainly not illegal to demand that a story not be run, and even to threaten to cut off access if it does, it makes the quid pro quo of the Clinton story arguably an in-kind donation. After all, the Clinton campaign knew it was valuable enough to buy off GQ, and the deep-six of Josh Green's article on Hillary had at least an equal value to her campaign. It also calls into question just how far the Clintons will go, once back in the White House, to pressure media outlets into shutting down critical reporting on their activities.
The Politico notes that Hollywood celebrities often pull power plays on the media in the same manner, but there's a large difference. Hollywood celebrities don't make national policy or wield governmental power. The media's job is in part to inform the American public of their performance and to keep them from becoming corrupt and unaccountable. If Hillary the candidate manages to push the media around this easily to silence criticism, imagine what Hillary the President would do to those who report negative aspects of her performance.
Does Hillary believe in a free press? It doesn't appear so, but she believes in one she can buy off cheaply.
UPDATE and BUMP: Actually, I'm in agreement with Carol Herman in that GQ deserves more ire than the Clintons in this case. Mickey Kaus puts it succinctly, as usual (via Hot Air):
Obvious Questions: Could the piece have been as bad for the Clinton camp as the publicity they're now getting? Are they still not quite operating in the internet age? ... Doesn't Bill Clinton want to be on the cover of GQ a month before the Iowa caucuses? You'd think [GQ editor Jim]Nelson would have some leverage of his own.
The Clintons can't roll over the press unless the press lets them. GQ obviously wilts under a mild amount of heat. Who else wants to publish Josh Green's piece? I'll be happy to do it, if Green doesn't take Mickey up on his offer.
ping.
Democrats are allowed to strong arm people. That’s why this is a non-news story.
When Ed Klein’s book came out, the Clinton thug team was sending out fax warnings to stations not to have him on the air. I spoke with a talk show host at a small station in New York who got the warning before he even knew of the book.
You know she is. If you don’t agree with her, you are dead.
Amazing and sickening.
Of course they pulled the story. The clintons have a long record of getting unfriendly reporters fired from their jobs and pressuring companies to fall in line by siccing the IRS and/or the regulators on them.
That’s one of the differences between crossing hillary (although she is only the junior senator from New York) and crossing Bush (although he is President of the United States). If you cross hillary, you’re dead. If you cross Bush, he’ll smile and pat you on the back.
So, what’s a prudent publisher to do?
I’m not advocating that Bush should behave like the clintons, but I do wish he’d wake up and understand that politics requires you to reward your friends and punish your enemies, or you will gradually become irrelevant.
I wonder what is keeping her primary fund raiser, Mr. HSU alive. He tried to commit "Suicide" recently but was unsuccessful. I'm sure the next time he tries it, he will succeed.
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.”
"It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, for the few, and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."
"We can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.""
"We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own turf in order to create this common ground."
"I certainly think the free market has failed."
"I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in the entire economy, that they are being watched."
"What I want to do is take those profits and apply them to alternative energy."
Karl Marx or Frederick Engels said none of these things; Hillary Clinton said them all.
She more than believes it. . .She DOES it; and whether cheap or not; Hillary gets away with it; and will continue to; in spite of Drudge or the internet, unless a huge ISSUE is made of this by media and/or at the least a few screaming Repubs- and with a more inclusive story that goes beyond GQ as well.
Missed the news. ..did Brit discuss this tonight. . .Anyone at Fox News? If they did not; will they tomorrow?
This is not a small issue; it represents a core MO of these little, socialist-stallinists. . . The Clintons can't roll over the press unless the press lets them.
Of course, they will. . .and have. Everyone knows it; no one talks about it. For this cycle, criticize Hillary. . .and you get a 'go to jail card'. . .
Aaah, comrades, she has learned well, this one! Lucky us.
President Clinton:
http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2000/01/13/drugs/print.html
With this deal in place, government officials and their contractors began approving, and in some cases altering, the scripts of shows before they were aired to conform with the government’s anti-drug messages. “Script changes would be discussed between ONDCP and the show — negotiated,” says one participant.
Did you expect anything less from Karl Marx with breasts?
Is it possible the anti Christ is a woman?
For 40 years running.
Why do Republicans only campaign during campaign seasons?
The problem is, Hillary’s not even as smart as Karl Marx.
Unless this is about the free press (without caps)...
She is infinitely more dangerous than Marx.
Marx and Engels were academics and eggheads whose ideas sounded good in theory.
Hildabeast is calculating and will try to put it into practical effect to gain power and ruin the last great country on Earth.
It’s amazing to watch this woman claw her way to the top. She reminds me of Joseph Stalin in her level of determination.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.