| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Ken [NY]" |
| Date: |
20 May 2005 11:36:27 AM |
| Object: |
NEWSWEEK DISSEMBLED, MUSLIMS DISMEMBERED! |
NEWSWEEK DISSEMBLED, MUSLIMS DISMEMBERED!
by Ann Coulter
May 18, 2005
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 "***** 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."
Cordially,
Ken (NY)
"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure." ---Jacques Chirac,
President of France
"As far as France is concerned, you're right." --- Rush Limbaugh
Q: What would the French call a nuclear explosion in Paris?
A: Proof that more inspectors are needed.
email: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
spammers can send mail to
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
