Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Newsweek accused of breaking deal (with Kitty Kelley)
AP ^ | 9/13/04

Posted on 09/13/2004 1:28:57 AM PDT by ambrose

Newsweek accused of breaking deal

By Hillel Italie, Associated Press

September 13, 2004

NEW YORK - The publisher of Kitty Kelley's controversial new biography of the Bush family has accused Newsweek of allegedly violating a pre-publication agreement and said the magazine owes "substantial damages."

"We demand public acknowledgment and additional remedies," Stephen Rubin, president and publisher of the Doubleday Broadway Publishing Group, said Thursday. Rubin declined to say how much money Doubleday is seeking and whether the publisher will sue.

Newsweek spokeswoman Rosanna Maietta said Thursday that the magazine had no comment.

Kelley's The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty comes out Tuesday.

A letter sent this week to Newsweek editor Mark Whitaker cited a signed confidentiality agreement from August in which the magazine promised not to disclose details of the book before publication. Newsweek was to receive an early copy.

According to the letter, Newsweek violated the terms when correspondent Howard Fineman appeared on Don Imus' radio show Tuesday and "disparaged" the book, saying the magazine would not publish excerpts, because of questions about Kelley's reporting. The letter also noted a Washington Post report that Newsweek had decided not to run an advance story on The Family, citing similar concerns. The magazine had allegedly promised such an article.

Kelley's book has already reached the top 10 on Amazon.com and Barnes&Noble.com amid reports, and denials, of cocaine use by President Bush. The initial printing of 600,000 has been increased twice, to 722,500.

Kelley, 62, is known for writing gossipy best sellers on Elizabeth Taylor, Frank Sinatra and Nancy Reagan. Reports emerged earlier this week that Kelley's new book includes an allegation that George W. Bush used cocaine at Camp David while his father was president.

Sharon Bush, former wife of the current president's brother, Neil Bush, was cited by Kelley as her source. Sharon Bush denies ever making such an allegation.


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: kittykelly

1 posted on 09/13/2004 1:28:57 AM PDT by ambrose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ambrose

Newsweek should be accused of having at least some survival instincts by backing away from Kitty Kelley.

This is the Weekly World News, writ large.

Regards, Ivan


2 posted on 09/13/2004 1:30:42 AM PDT by MadIvan (Gothic. Freaky. Conservative. - http://www.rightgoths.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
The book is so crappy that not even Newsweek will touch it.

What an amazing coincidence however that this trash-Bush book just so happens to come out AFTER the soft-money CFR ban in the few days before the elections, hmmm?

3 posted on 09/13/2004 1:39:33 AM PDT by ikka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ambrose

When you deal with morons you got to expect this kind of crap. Tough luck for Newsweek.


4 posted on 09/13/2004 1:42:46 AM PDT by NewMediaFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ambrose

Advertising by martyrdom


5 posted on 09/13/2004 2:15:42 AM PDT by leadhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ambrose

I could care less about Newsweek, but it seems the adage "Lay down with dogs, you get fleas" is being proven correct.

Or maybe a new one for this episode, "Make a deal with kitty, and you're laying in litter."


6 posted on 09/13/2004 2:22:03 AM PDT by Dane (Trial lawyers are the tapeworms to wealth creating society)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
Howard Fineman appeared on Don Imus' radio show Tuesday and "disparaged" the book, saying the magazine would not publish excerpts, because of questions about Kelley's reporting.

HA! When "Newsweak", the comic book of serious journalism magazines won't carry your story...oh boy!

7 posted on 09/13/2004 2:48:21 AM PDT by Caipirabob (Democrats.. Socialists..Commies..Traitors...Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
the magazine owes "substantial damages."

"Rubin declined to say how much money Doubleday is seeking and whether the publisher will sue."....<<<<PAGING JOHN EDWARDS ...PAGING JOHN EDWARDS...PLEASE PICK UP THE RED COURTESY PHONE!...
8 posted on 09/13/2004 3:04:42 AM PDT by M-cubed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caipirabob

How many rules of Journalistic Ethics does Newsweek violate every week?http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1214455/posts


9 posted on 09/13/2004 4:13:05 AM PDT by John Thornton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
GarbageGate: Kitty Kinky in Fantasyland.

"When you have nothing bad to say about someone, make something up!"

10 posted on 09/13/2004 4:34:52 AM PDT by Ed_in_NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane

I could care less about Newsweek, but it seems the adage "Lay down with dogs, you get fleas" is being proven correct.

Zactly. Newsweak apparently entered the deal w/ eyes wide shut, so they can just pay up as far as I'm concerned.

11 posted on 09/13/2004 4:39:30 AM PDT by elli1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: All
Can someone explain to me why Bozos like Litterbox Kelly and Slob-extraordinaire Michael Moore aren't sued for their falsehoods? I'm no lawyer, obviously, but shouldn't "non-fiction" books and "documentary" movies be at least within a hundred miles of the truth?

Surely the First Amendment doesn't protect lying prostitutes who are only lying so they can sell books and/or movie tickets. Does it?

12 posted on 09/13/2004 5:08:46 AM PDT by geedee (Who is more foolish, the child afraid of the dark, or the man afraid of the light?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: geedee

Yes, the Supreme Court has made it next to impossible for public figures to sue for libel. In the Sixty Minutes case, you would essentially have to prove that Dan Rather knew that the memos were forged---not that he should have known they were and closed his mind to the possibility for political reasons.


13 posted on 09/13/2004 5:37:19 AM PDT by John Thornton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ambrose

How DARE you tell people what a flimsy, baseless piece of trash it is? People need to read that for themselves or we'll never sell any copies.


14 posted on 09/13/2004 5:45:28 AM PDT by kennedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ambrose

Were there any stats on how well this book was selling?


15 posted on 10/12/2004 1:53:00 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson