Coulter Carves Up Newstweak

John 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 
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."

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 mailing list