Posted on 05/18/2005 4:19:07 PM PDT by Dan Evans
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."
"Muslims are slowly strangling this nation." No, actually leftist secular liberal PC poofters carrying the Muslim anti-American dogma are strangling this once great nation ... and the democrap party is the coach and general manager for 'the team'.
Ann is brilliant any way you slice it. All her 'pie' attention lately has boosted her name enormously among non-politicos who never read her columns before.
ping for later
Great read. Thank you, Ann.
As always, Ann cuts 'em down! Just where is Mr Isikoff this week? I hope this destroys Newsweak, my apologies to any real working Americans employed by that rag.
I remember the facts fairly well, but Ann is superb at using them to mow down the liberals. The most devastating part of the article is her use of facts. Her wit is great, but few have her ability to do the research. Hats off! Deep bow. Thanks Ann.
Ah, don't you love this gal!!
"Protecting ourselves before the American people rise up and lynch us for our relentless anti-American stories." Lynching too good for them; let's just make them completely irrelevent.
Actually, something good has already come out of it, as the rioters have already diminished their own number by about 17.
This is the best analysis I've seen so far.
Thanks for the post. She has a way with words, doesn't she? Wednesday evenings would be a lot less fun without Ann's new column.
Mike the "Spike" Isikoff.
My local newspaper has buried this story and is barely covering it.
Hehe, okay, we are up to post 55, and still nobody says something like 'Ann Coulter is a conservative Michael Moore...'
I always wait for that one. I admire and respect what that woman has done. As an example, I use her analysis of the slander of Joseph McCarthy. I drank the "Kool-Aid" of the historical version of what Joseph McCarthy did. I thought he was something our country should be embarassed about. And I felt that way, because all I ever heard about him was what the media wanted me to hear, and what the schools taught me.
After I listened to her analysis, it inspired me to explore the subject on my own. I obtained the transcripts of the hearings, read books on the subject that were not written by those who have a predetermined opinion about him. I read multiple books on the Venona Files.
And you know what? After looking at alternative (to the left's opinions) analyses of Joseph McCarthy and that time frame, I believe her version is far closer to the truth than what I have been spoon fed my entire life. And believe me, I have taken the time to look at the information.
As a result, I believe Joseph McCarthy was an American hero who sacrificed his name, and ultimately his life to buy precious time for our country.
The fact that Ann Coulter has pointed me to the path to make my own conclusion on this one subject speaks volumes about the depth of her analysis. Particularly when you place her analysis next to that of the people who want to demonize McCarthy.
Ann, we all owe you. You show us how to stand up to the Libs...by hitting them with the facts, speaking the unspeakable and impeaching the unimpeachable.
Ann always says it the way it is. God help our country if we don't get the liberals out of power, out of the press, out of the Judiciary and out of the country that they despise every day of their miserable lives.
bump
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.