>>The author of the Newsweek snippet (and it was just a brief article) is not a flaming leftie; he is the man who uncovered the Monica Lewinsky story and made Bill Clinton’s life a whole lot harder.<<
I thought that was Drudge.
I'm unclear. He didn't mention Bush, why do you call him Bush-hating?
Remind him that Isikoff and Newsweek were going to spike a detailed and cross-substantiated report on Lewinsky until Matt Drudge blew the cover off it... where was that sort of double-checking in this story? Answer: there was none. Why? Because the Lewinsky story was bad for a Democrat, and the Koran-flushing story was bad for a Republican.
Borrow heavily from Ann Coulter:
NEWSWEEK DISSEMBLED, MUSLIMS DISMEMBERED!
May 18, 2005
When ace reporter Michael Isikoff had the scoop of the decade, a thoroughly sourced story about the president of the United States having an affair with an intern and then pressuring her to lie about it under oath, Newsweek decided not to run the story. Matt Drudge scooped Newsweek, followed by The Washington Post.
When Isikoff had a detailed account of Kathleen Willey's nasty sexual encounter with the president in the Oval Office, backed up with eyewitness and documentary evidence, Newsweek decided not to run it. Again, Matt Drudge got the story.
When Isikoff was the first with detailed reporting on Paula Jones' accusations against a sitting president, Isikoff's then-employer The Washington Post — which owns Newsweek — decided not to run it. The American Spectator got the story, followed by the Los Angeles Times.
So apparently it's possible for Michael Isikoff to have a story that actually is true, but for his editors not to run it.
Why no pause for reflection when Isikoff had a story about American interrogators at Guantanamo flushing the Quran down the toilet? Why not sit on this story for, say, even half as long as NBC News sat on Lisa Meyers' highly credible account of Bill Clinton raping Juanita Broaddrick?
Newsweek seems to have very different responses to the same reporter's scoops. Who's deciding which of Isikoff's stories to run and which to hold? I note that the ones that Matt Drudge runs have turned out to be more accurate — and interesting! — than the ones Newsweek runs. Maybe Newsweek should start running everything past Matt Drudge.
Somehow Newsweek missed the story a few weeks ago about Saudi Arabia arresting 40 Christians for "trying to spread their poisonous religious beliefs." But give the American media a story about American interrogators defacing the Quran, and journalists are so appalled there's no time for fact-checking — before they dash off to see the latest exhibition of "Piss Christ."
Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas justified Newsweek's decision to run the incendiary anti-U.S. story about the Quran, saying that "similar reports from released detainees" had already run in the foreign press — "and in the Arab news agency al-Jazeera."
Is there an adult on the editorial board of Newsweek? Al-Jazeera also broadcast a TV miniseries last year based on the "Protocols of the Elders Of Zion." (I didn't see it, but I hear James Brolin was great!) Al-Jazeera has run programs on the intriguing question, "Is Zionism worse than Nazism?" (Take a wild guess where the consensus was on this one.) It runs viewer comments about Jews being descended from pigs and apes. How about that for a Newsweek cover story, Evan? You're covered — al-Jazeera has already run similar reports!
Ironically, among the reasons Newsweek gave for killing Isikoff's Lewinsky bombshell was that Evan Thomas was worried someone might get hurt. It seems that Lewinsky could be heard on tape saying that if the story came out, "I'll (expletive) kill myself."
But Newsweek couldn't wait a moment to run a story that predictably ginned up Islamic savages into murderous riots in Afghanistan, leaving hundreds injured and 16 dead. Who could have seen that coming? These are people who stone rape victims to death because the family "honor" has been violated and who fly planes into American skyscrapers because — wait, why did they do that again?
Come to think of it, I'm not sure it's entirely fair to hold Newsweek responsible for inciting violence among people who view ancient Buddhist statues as outrageous provocation — though I was really looking forward to finally agreeing with Islamic loonies about something. (Bumper sticker idea for liberals: News magazines don't kill people, Muslims do.) But then I wouldn't have sat on the story of the decade because of the empty threats of a drama queen gas-bagging with her friend on the telephone between spoonfuls of Haagen-Dazs.
No matter how I look at it, I can't grasp the editorial judgment that kills Isikoff's stories about a sitting president molesting the help and obstructing justice, while running Isikoff's not particularly newsworthy (or well-sourced) story about Americans desecrating a Quran at Guantanamo.
Even if it were true, why not sit on it? There are a lot of reasons the media withhold even true facts from readers. These include:
— A drama queen nitwit exclaimed she'd kill herself. (Evan Thomas' reason for holding the Lewinsky story.)
— The need for "more independent reporting." (Newsweek President Richard Smith explaining why Newsweek sat on the Lewinsky story even though the magazine had Lewinsky on tape describing the affair.)
— "We were in Havana." (ABC president David Westin explaining why "Nightline" held the Lewinsky story.)
— Unavailable for comment. (Michael Oreskes, New York Times Washington bureau chief, in response to why, the day The Washington Post ran the Lewinsky story, the Times ran a staged photo of Clinton meeting with the Israeli president on its front page.)
— Protecting the privacy of an alleged rape victim even when the accusation turns out to be false.
— Protecting an accused rapist even when the accusation turns out to be true if the perp is a Democratic president most journalists voted for.
— Protecting a reporter's source.
How about the media adding to the list of reasons not to run a news item: "Protecting the national interest"? If journalists don't like the ring of that, how about this one: "Protecting ourselves before the American people rise up and lynch us for our relentless anti-American stories."
COPYRIGHT 2005 ANN COULTER
Be careful composing your letter to the editor on the internet. I posted my letter once on FR before it was accepted by the paper. They told me that because it was already on the internet, they couldn't publish.
They use the same software that colleges use to ensure that kids are stealing other people's work off the 'net. Nothing I said to the editor could convince him that I was Peach and it was my letter I posted.
The first instances of allegations about desecration of the Koran were nothing more than rumors and hearsay reported by the various organizations the author refers to. These organizations had no actual evidence that the events actually occured.
The Newsweek report stated as fact that some instances of desecration had occured and had been reported in a Pentagon internal investigation document. They relied on an anonymous source for that information who claimed to have seen the document.
That's the difference the lefties want you to forget...
There's not much point in trying to be rational with Dave Horsey. I've found him to be arguably the nastiest, most smug, arrogant sanctimonious journalist in town (Seattle), and that's saying something. He's basically a bully who is under the pious illusion that he's a nice guy.
"Dare I suggest we weigh that sin against the solidly documented instances of torture and murder perpetrated by American interrogators, both in Iraq and Afghanistan and ask which is more likely to be the spark for anti-American passions in the Muslim World?"
Are you sure you want to respond to this? Horsey isn't making an argument. He's just sneering.
I'll remind of the wise words of George Bernard Shaw: "Never have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."
"The Mainstream Media, Source of All Travail" is a straw man created by the editorialist to obfuscate the real issue. Nobody, from George Bush down to the lowliest pajama-clad blogger has ever claimed that, but for the excesses of the mainstream media, the Muslim extremists and the rest of the world would be coexisting in Utopian harmony.
The real issue, of course, is that Newsweek ran with an inflammatory, poorly-sourced accusation that was meant to embarrass our military and our president. When that blew up in its face, when riots were triggered and lives lost, the media went into spin mode. By claiming an accusation that was never made (in quotes at the beginning, above) the left-wing editorialist can use hyperbole and sarcasm to ridicule it.
It is the same tactic employed by someone who commits a minor automobile infraction, such as double-parking. As the policeman writes up the ticket, the offender might mutter something like "I guess this will clean up the drug problem" or something similar, to divert attention from the obvious fact that his car was illegally double-parked.
I used to like Horsey's cartoons...he draws well, and 4 or 5 years ago it seemed like he would take potshots at any convenient target (even if he did seem to have a liberal tilt). Nowadays he seems to be obsessively anti-Bush and anti-Republican, and the message is usually so strident that it isn't funny.
Solidly documented? Like what...videotape of some guys head being removed with a dull knife? No, wait....sorry, that's not the "solid documentation" I was thinking of.