Coulter Carves Up Newstweak
blueoval at 1SMARTISP.NET
Thu May 19 17:51:51 MDT 2005
'NEWSWEEK DISSEMBLED, MUSLIMS DISMEMBERED!'
By Ann Coulter
Wed May 18, 7:01 PM ET
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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."
Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
News/Press | Contact | Company | Privacy | Terms | Affiliates |
For customer support, please visit our Help Section
More information about the Rushtalk