There was something on FR the other day about how the Catholic school Obama attended in Indonesia listed his religion at the time as Muslim (he was then known as Barry and went by his stepfather's surname).
Insight responds to a Washington Post attack
The liberal media establishment is at it again. For years, they have
been carrying water for liberal Democrats. Today's hit piece on Insight in
The Washington Post is another case in point.
Howard Kurtz's "Media Notes" column deals with our recent story about
the Hillary Clinton camp's role in investigating Barack Obama's education as
a young boy in an Indonesian Madrassa. Kurtz claims our story is "thinly
sourced" and cites "only unnamed sources." He further quotes officials from
the Obama and Clinton camps, attacking the story as false. Clinton spokesman
Howard Wolfson said, "It's an obvious right-wing hit job by a Moonie
publication that was designed to attack Senator Clinton and Senator Obama at
the same time." Kurtz went on to say that "Insight, like The Washington
Times, is owned by a company controlled by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon."
Finally, Kurtz writes, "No one answered the phone at Insight's office
yesterday and its editor did not respond to an e-mail request for
comment"-the impression being that somehow we at Insight were reluctant to
discuss and defend the story. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Insight's story was not thinly sourced. Our reporter's sources close
to the Clinton opposition research war room confirm the truth of the story.
The Clinton camp's denial has as much credibility as the "I never had sex
with that woman" statement. But Kurtz ran with their statement as if it were
credible. Moreover, the accusation that the story is flawed because it is
based on unnamed sources is laughable. Most major investigative stories
published in this city are based wholly or in part on anonymous sources.
Just ask Bob Woodward. Many of The Post's scoops against the Bush
administration rely on anonymous sources.
Both Wolfson and Kurtz raise the issue of Insight being owned by the
Unification Church. This is not only irrelevant, but bigoted and,
unfortunately, consistent with The Post's 25-year attempt to discredit if
not destroy the one major opposition print publication in their market. It
is a form of religious bigotry that tries to smear our credibility by
implying that we are owned by religious zealots. And hence, our reporting
should not be taken seriously. As Kurtz knows, the truth and veracity of our
reporting is what is relevant. We at Insight developed our publication
concept, gained support of the Board of Directors, and have run with it ever
since, being selected as the top conservative magazine by Rolling Stone in
just our first year. So what's the point in mentioning religion when
referencing a relevant and credible secular publication, except as an
underhanded ploy to try to marginalize us?
And here is the larger issue: The New Media-including Insight-are
surging forward in readership, influence and clout (that's why our story was
picked up by FOX News and talk radio). We provide hard-hitting, well-sourced
and aggressive reporting-just as serious and fearless journalists of old
used to do. How alone are we, in today's media conglomerate world? The
Washington Post should ask itself, does it wish to have serious journalists
aggressively following up on our ground-breaking story or does it wish to
carry water and curry favor for ambitious and aggressive politicians, and
attack its competition rather than report?
Prior to our story being published, we contacted the Obama camp for
comment. They had none.and were petrified about the story. Only when FOX and
several national radio talk show hosts jumped on the story, did they issue
their denials. We stung the Obama people by doing what journalists should
do: follow the truth, no matter where it leads. Insight reports on political
intelligence without partisanship. We have run countless stories
embarrassing and damaging to President Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. We
have few friends in the White House-and that's exactly the way we like it.
Finally, let's examine Kurtz's claim that he tried to phone and e-mail
the editors, but received no response. First, he called on a Sunday when
there is nobody in the Insight office and did not leave a phone message, so
no one can verify whether he really called or not. We learned on Monday that
he did send an e-mail on Sunday afternoon, the day before his story went to
print. This was not a genuine effort to get a real comment from us. He was
simply covering himself before publishing his hit piece. This is precisely
the kind of irresponsible journalistic practices that we teach our interns
not to do.
http://www.insightmag.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=5D3B38F8A2584DB5A77BA05660C6045C&nm=Free+Access&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=ED55FA04148F46AAAD9D572A5C9756E3
Hats off to CNN, but . . .
We seem to have touched a raw nerve with the liberal media
establishment. First, The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz and now CNN are
doing everything possible to assault and undermine Insight's credibility.
CNN ran a news segment last night on Paula Zahn's show, "CNN debunks false
report about Obama." In the wake of our story, CNN sent their correspondent
to check out the Muslim religious school attended by Barack Obama as a young
boy. CNN concluded that allegations "that Sen. Barack Obama was educated in
a radical Muslim school known as a 'madrassa' are not accurate." The school's
deputy headmaster told CNN: ""This is a public school. We don't focus on
religion." CNN's correspondent then told the "Situation Room" on Monday: "I
came here to Barack Obama's elementary school in Jakarta looking for what
some are calling an Islamic madrassa ... like the ones that teach hate and
violence in Pakistan and Afghanistan. . I've been to those madrassas in
Pakistan ... this school is nothing like that."
We at Insight commend CNN for at least showing the initiative to
follow-up on the story and send a correspondent to check it out. But,
contrary to their claims, CNN didn't debunk anything about our story. For
the record, Insight never-not once-in its article claims that Obama went to
a Madrassa. We didn't claim it; Hillary's people did. We reported-and we
fully stand by our story-that the Hillary Clinton camp had conducted their
own opposition research on Obama's Muslim past, and that the Clinton
investigators had concluded Obama had attended a Madrassa. This is what
Hillary's camp was saying and desperately trying to prove-not Insight. Our
sources also confirmed to us that the Clinton camp had come to the
conclusion that not only had Obama been raised and educated as a Muslim, but
that he had been deliberately concealing it. Moreover, our sources also said
that Clinton's people were seeking to find out about the possible radical
Wahhabi angle, and then peddle their information to their media allies later
this year-prior to the January 2008 primaries.
More to the point, we are a magazine that focuses on political
intelligence. Our stated mission is to provide our readers with credible,
reliable, cutting-edge information on what is really happening behind the
scenes in the corridors of power. We did that in this case: we revealed what
is truly going on in the Clinton camp.
Insight's reporting and scoops have placed us consistently ahead of
the curve. We have a proud record for accuracy and independence. We have
broken numerous major stories that later appeared in establishment print
publications such as Newsweek, The Washington Post and The Washington Times.
We were one of the first to report tension between President Bush and his
father, the tremendous resentment by the GOP leadership against the White
House, conservative threats to stay home during the elections, fights over
strategy, and the resignations of key White House officials over the
Republicans' loss of Congress.
Insight operates with seasoned journalists and a limited budget.
Although we are not able to send correspondents to places like Jakarta to
check out every fact in a story, we harness our resources for what we do
best-providing our readers with political intelligence.
As for CNN's investigation into Obama's Muslim school, we are not yet
convinced. To simply take the word of a deputy headmaster about what was the
religious curriculum of a school 35 years ago does not satisfy our standards
for aggressive investigative reporting. The State Department portrays
Indonesia as a hot bed of radical Islamist activity. Christians and
non-Muslims face persecution on a daily basis. CNN's claim that Obama
attended a multi-confessional, secular public school needs verification by
other news outlets-such as FOX News-who will look the facts straight on,
without a vested ideological interest in downplaying Obama's Muslim
heritage.
Some would say if Obama has a Muslim background that could be a good
thing, given the global threat from militant Islam. That is not for us to
judge. Ours is to report, so the American people can have the information
they need to make informed decisions. Recent history and contemporary events
have shown that the religious belief systems of Jimmy Carter and George W.
Bush were significant in their policy-making. The same might be true with
Obama-whatever he believes. And perhaps also with Mitt Romney, Bill
Richardson, and all other candidates standing for election to the highest
office in the land.
The media uproar over our reporting reveals a media establishment
choosing not to ask the tough questions about Obama's Muslim past: If he was
raised in a secular household (as he claims), why does he have-or
retain-Muslim names, Barack and Hussein? Were his father and stepfather as
secular as he says? What is the exact nature of Obama's current religious
affiliation and what are the beliefs and teachings of his current church in
Chicago, the Trinity United Church of Christ? Does he adhere to these
teachings or is he a Sunday bench warmer only? These kinds of tough
questions need to be asked of all presidential candidates regardless of
political party. This is the duty of a responsible press. We at Insight do
not intend to shirk our responsibility-no matter how often we are attacked.
http://www.insightmag.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=5D3B38F8A2584DB5A77BA05660C6045C&nm=Free+Access&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=1E5D1BDD15754861AAECE0B1163DD85A
I may have found another motivation for Hillary going after Obama on his Muslim heritage. I read an article earlier today from My Headlines entitled "Hillary and Barack battle it out for Hollywood elite's millions" http://www.myheadlines.nl/source99-501.html :
Barack Obama's surging campaign for the White House is winning him new friends in Hollywood, where chequebooks speak louder than political opinions and some of the most influential entertainment industry figures are already promising big-money contributions that might otherwise be going to Hillary Clinton... Hundreds of invitations went out earlier this week to southern California's most generous political donors, including studio heads, A-list actors, directors and producers... The Illinois senator is clearly enjoying his rock-star status, even as people wonder if he can maintain the momentum. While a handful of Hollywood luminaries have pledged their unambiguous support for him - among them George Clooney, Oprah Winfrey, Halle Berry and the politically-connected talent agent Ari Emanuel - others are either hedging their bets or waiting. The first caucuses and primaries are, after all, still a year away...Southern California is where the first skirmishes take place as it is the richest source of political money. As one prominent activist and consultant, Rick Jacobs, put it: "California is the nation's ATM when it comes to presidential primaries. Candidates fly in with pillowcases, clean out our bank accounts then leave to spend weeks with families in Iowa and New Hampshire."
Obama or Clinton? Where Hollywood stands so far
George Clooney: Obama candidacy would be 'the most electrifying thing'
Jeffrey Katzenberg: DreamWorks boss backs Obama all the way
Halle Berry: 'would collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear'
Steven Spielberg: Hosted Obama dinner but may also do so for others
Steve Bing: Producer of Beowulf (and Liz Hurley's ex) is a Clinton man
Sherry Lansing: Former studio chief at Paramount is a confirmed Clintonista
Elizabeth Taylor: Wrote Hollywood's first cheque to the Clinton campaign
Now you see why Hillary accused Obama of being educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage: http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Obama_2.htm
Obama was going after HER campaign war chest(formerly HIS, Bill). In her typical condescending manner she probably thinks Obama is not worthy of those dollars, not being a serious contender in her eyes. Yet the percent differential in their polls standings show Obama is gaining from her attrition, meaning that the gap is closing from BOTH sides. Is Obama smart for stepping back from a frontal assault of Hillary in counter-attack, to pointing the finger at conservative media, allowing Hillary to get off the hook for raising this issue, and joining him in attacking conservative media?