Posted on 07/20/2005 9:08:35 PM PDT by CHARLITE
For months there had been a quiet buzz in both political and publishing circles surrounding "The Book" being written about Sen. Hillary Clinton. The scuttlebutt had it that New York Times best-selling author Edward Klein was in the final stages of a blockbuster expose of the former first lady, the likes of which could derail her 2008 presidential aspirations. "The Truth About Hillary" is now out, and it has lived up to its billing in the fireworks department. Except the controversy surrounds not Hillary Clinton but author Ed Klein, and the broadsides against him are coming primarily from conservatives, not the Left.
When Sean Hannity interviewed the author, he was clearly uncomfortable. Author Peggy Noonan has slammed the book. New York Post columnist John Podhoretz has blasted it. Talk show hosts Bill O'Reilly and Joe Scarborough have publicly declared they want nothing to do with it. From the rest of the media, particularly the broadcast networks and their morning talk shows, which routinely feature book interviews -- silence. Ed Klein is persona non grata.
What gives? The critics are denouncing what they see as salacious material. Tales of Hillary's purported lesbianism; allegations that all along she knew about her husband's trysts with Monica Lewinsky; questions about her questionable personal hygiene -- these are but some of the topics decried by Klein's detractors. More damning, perhaps, is the author's methodology. His charges are consistently based on reports from Anonymous Source. The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz quotes Scarborough's read: "I just applied the Kitty Kelley test. If it was inappropriate to have Kitty Kelley on because of unsubstantiated charges, it would be inappropriate to have Ed Klein on."
Agree with Scarborough or not, his position is defensible and consistent. The same cannot be said for the so-called (and really, we must stop using this wholly inaccurate term) "mainstream" media. Their refusal to interview Klein is an exercise in hypocrisy. If they applied that Kitty Kelley test on themselves today, consistency would demand coverage for Klein's book on Hillary tomorrow.
In 1991, Kelley released "Nancy Reagan: The Unauthorized Biography" which featured, ironically, some of the very same charges with the same lack of substantiation. On April 7, 1991, The New York Times saw fit to print not a book review but an actual news story on the book -- on Page One, no less. Maureen Dowd, who wrote that piece, later defended her actions in the New Republic this way: "Of course, the book is tawdry. Of course the book is, in some spots, loosely sourced and over the top … Of course, there are mistakes in it … The point, however, is that Kelley's portrait is not essentially untrue."
Newsweek media critic Jonathan Alter equivocated in much the same manner. "In a narrow sense, Kelley is an effective reporter." Later in his April 22, 1991, apologia he would add: "Despite her wretched excesses, Kelley has the core of the story right … However twisted, the bulk of Kelley's stories seem to at least be based on real events." Alter saw Kelley's book as a searing indictment of the Reagans. "If even a small fraction of the material amassed and borrowed here turns out to be true," he wrote back then, "Ronald Reagan and his wife had to be the most hypocritical people ever to live in the White House." Alter's Newsweek colleague Eleanor Clift was more unequivocal still. "If privacy ends where hypocrisy begins, Kitty Kelley's steamy expose of Nancy Reagan is a contribution to contemporary history."
Could not the very same things be said in defense of Klein? So where are Dowd, Alter and Clift now?
Kelley's attacks on Nancy Reagan merited attention as news stories on the broadcast networks as well -- and with the same ambivalence toward journalistic accuracy or evidence. On April 24, 1991, Bryant Gumbel took to CNN's "Larry King Live" to give Kelley his personal seal of approval: "I'm one of those people who generally has liked Kitty's writing in the past. I know all of the research she does. I'm aware of the fact that for all the things she's written that are controversial, she has yet to lose a lawsuit … Kitty is a very brave woman." "Is the stuff in the book true or just vindictive tales?" asked CBS reporter Mark Phillips in his April 8, 1991, "CBS Evening News" report on the Kelley book. "Who knows? Who cares?"
And that's the point. When there are juicy stories about the personal lives of conservatives -- a convicted drug dealer accuses Dan Quayle of doing drugs; Anita Hill accuses Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment; George Bush 41 is accused of having an extramarital affair; Bush 43 is a coke head -- they merit immediate national news coverage. As to the authenticity of the charges, who knows? Who cares? But when the subject is Hillary, that cavalier attitude … disappears.
The Cabal has annointed Hillary as the heir apparent. It's not about idiology. It's about power and control.
It really has nothing to do with Hillary. It has to do with the fact that conservatives are classier folks who demand proof. Klein doesn't offer it.
Char :)
A month before the election, Hillary is going to "out" Ed Klein as some kind of liar.
It's a set-up. Ed Klein is her willing strawman to get her elected.
And the MSM who helped plant the lies will never report that fact.
Like, who is that womyn Matt Cooper is married to? Might there be an unholly alliance if there ever was one. Time magazine star reported and Hildebeast chief of staff/top advisor (Josh Lyman).
Thank God there is no such thing as media bias!
Does this mean that "JFK - The Man and The Myth" written by Kelly tells the truth when she reports how the spawn of Bobby were all heroin addicts??
GOOD!
The Cabal has annointed Hillary as the heir apparent. It's not about idiology. It's about power and control.
------
Yes it is. The MSM has burned their bridges and have invested all in the far-left. They are and will continue to pay for that sickening decision. It is fair to say the majority of we Americans who took the time to investigate the Clinton history (before the first election) knew what the country was about to give itself, by and large -- but we ended up getting a double-dip of criminality and hypocrisy that the country was just not prepared for.
Ed Klien did this country a favor. The media wonks can run and hide all they want. The American people have finally gotten a real snout load of Hitlery, the person behind the FALSE MASK. Bill Gertz did an excellent job of chronicles on the Clinton crimes (Betrayal) against America at the highest levels, to say nothing of what the impeachment exposed and the list goes on.
The MSM and others in the media can try to avoid the reality of the Clintons, but they cannot. The legacy that these two people provided this great country with, will foreever be a huge black stain on our history and an indicator of the ENEMY WITHIN OUR OWN BORDERS that would again savage our country with ANOTHER CLINTON IN THE WHITE HOUSE. God save this great country from a second visit to hell.
Kids did the same thing in high school. To tame a vicious rumor (a true tale), they'd attach a worse story to it (a provably false one). It works.
I take it that you have read the book and examined his hundreds of footnotes?
The same reasons that Bush did not lead the swift boats Veterans parade are applicable here. There is nothing to be gained by doing so.
Actually, those talk show hosts don't know what they are missing.
Klein was interviewed on the KSFO Morning Show and he is a great interview. Very interesting information about HC, clearly written and discussed.
I agree with you. There is no one who detests her more than I do (well, no...I take that back. I'm sure Vince Foster's loved ones have more reason). I live in one of the few red areas of NYS and I would love to see Hillary go down, but I still say we need more than Ed Klein. We need his sources to start talking themselves, otherwise she will get away with murder, as she has up to this point.
AMEN to that. Thanks, Eagle. I feel the same way. We can not afford one more minute of either one of these rapacious reptiles in our White House.
They went back to see the unveiling of their "official portraits." That was it - "finita la musica" forever for any Clinton in that stately mansion, which both of them LIBERALLY disgraced.
Char
You mean sources like John Kerry gave before the Vietnam commission?
I would love to see Hillary go down
NEVER NEVER use that phrase again. Scary stuff!!
but I still say we need more than Ed Klein. We need his sources to start talking themselves
We need just one of Hitlery's lesbian lovers to break silence and that would do it.
Amen to that!
The surprising thing to me is that more true feminists do not stand up and say:
"This woman is not what being a feminist is about. This is a woman whose career has been built on the popularity of her husband, not on her merit."
We have been wringing our hands about the media, and their bias against Republicans all of my life, yet I have lived through the Eisenhower years, all eight of them, the Nixon, Ford years, all eight of them, the eight beautiful years of Ronald Reagan, The term of George HW Bush that lasted, unfortunately, only four years, and now George II who is well on his way to completing his eight years. Lets see, beginning after Harry Truman completed his own full term in the white house in 1956, by my count the republicans have served 33 years and counting during the past 49 years. Even with Bill Clinton's eight years (the only democrat to serve two full terms since WWII) we are way ahead, without the approval of the media.
During that same time the Republicans have gained and held control of both houses of congress, most governorships, and they have become competitive in state legislatures.
Also, during that time the dominance of big media has been shattered by talk radio, the internet's rapid response, and bloggers. One entire network, FOX News, has shown that there is a market for presenting both sides of the news.
Brent, it appears that we have won, but don't tell the losers. Let them continue on in their whining ways. We will continue on in our winning ways.
It is time for us to coin a new term for the dying newspaper/television newsmedia empire cabal, which is clearly in some stage of cracking apart...
I have read "msm"/MainStreamMedia, legacy media, lamestream media, has-been media... all close, but no Cubano...
How about "SlimeStream Media"? It is descriptive, evocative, powerful and accurate both broadly and narrowly, and it rolls off the tongue euphoniously!
I claim "dibs" and credentials for being the first to use it definitively here and now in FReepdom.
I christen thee {curse thee?} "SlimeStream Media"; short may you live, poorly may you serve, wretchedly may you perish in ignominy!
A.A.C.
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.