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."
Beautiful Mind!!!
Yeah, and on top of that, just look at her!
Yes. As an aviation enthusiast, I have always felt that form follows function to a degree. We all know that it is not always true that good form means good function (fakes and frauds), but it often, not coincidentally, happens that good function almost always has good form!
On a liberal newsgroup, there was a female lib who said that "fighter aircraft are phallic symbols, and that is why men think they are beautiful..." She made refererences to the "Sex Death Object" referring to anything military...
I had a REALLY good laugh at that one! Yes, we pay aeronautical engineers huge salaries to design our fighter aircraft so they resemble penises! And, of course, MOST of them are men, so that would make a lot of sense...NOT!
Anyway, she sounded like some liberal who had too many liberal psychology courses in college.
She does get to Alan Colmes doesn't she? Honestly, I think he'd just really love to throttle her. It's a hoot to watch.
Hehe, yeah, I know what you mean. It must be difficult for the 'non-violent' libs like him to stifle those impulses...:)
I'd bet the farm he needs a stiff drink to calm the quaking and twitching after an encounter with her. :)
I know this may be heresy, but I find her a bit on the bony side. Now, I wouldn't throw her out of of bed for eating crackers in the rack, but...I think she would be REALLY hot with about 15 or 20 more pounds on her frame.
That said, she does look good in that leather miniskirt!
I'm sure much wailing and gnashing of teeth shall ensue. Gotta love it.
BTW, I received my copy of Newsqueak Magazine today, and the cover said something about the Real George Washington. LOL!!! What do they know about real?
Just a Reminder to Everyone: Ann Coulter will be on "Tonight Show"
NBC ^ | 05/10/2005
Posted on 05/10/2005 3:36:53 PM PDT by Panerai
Just a reminder to everyone that Ann Coulter will be on the Tonight Show on NBC tonight.
Tuesday, May 10
Matt LeBlanc - Joey
Ann Coulter - Conservative author
Music - Theory of a Deadman
-- snip --
CLICK HERE for the rest of that thread
Nothing further needs to be added to that one.
Liberals have yet to figure out that much of the joy of reading Ann is imagining the reactions of pencil-necked-geek metrosexuals and furry-legged feminists to her absolutely devastating sarcasm and ridicule.
The victims of her scathing rhetoric must need surgery to relieve the symptoms of having their panties permanently in a knot.
I cheer and laugh myself silly when Ann really gets on a roll, and she almost outdid herself in this article. It will go down as a classic in her archives.
Thanks for that video link.
Maybe Ann would lone her cajones to the Republicans...at least until they pull the trigger on the constitutional option?
She is brutal. I love it!
From recent stories one should suspect a systemic recklessness within the traditional news agencies. The 60 Minutes story of George Bushes’ National Guard service used a document obviously created by word processing and not with a contemporary typewriter. Ken Starr maintains CBS News wildly misconstructed his interview into a supposed denouncement of the, so called, “nuclear option” concerning judicial appointments. Now Newsweek has had to retract a demonstrably false story about desecration of a Koran at Guantanamo Bay.
These failures do not result from being victims of elaborate deceptions, but from failures to follow basic vetting processes, which could appear on a sophomore journalism exam. For me negligence does not appear to be the problem, but instead attainment of a level of arrogance to which few aspire. Too few decision makers at these traditional news sources understand the stature currently enjoyed depends on continually pressing for unimpeachable credibility.
I am also concerned that so many people begin with how they feel about an issue, and then backwards engineer traditional news sound bites and tightly focused pictures into a stream of conscience purporting to be a position derived from evidence. You should be able to have a rigorous debate about conclusions, but when information before a “therefore” cannot be trusted the subsequent discussions become irrelevant.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Ironically, among the reasons Newsweek gave for killing Isikoff's Lewinsky bombshell was that Evan Thomas was worried someone might get hurt.
I guess dying is preferable than getting hurt.
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.