Text 12750, 122 rader
Skriven 2005-05-19 05:06:00 av Jeff Binkley (1:226/600)
Ärende: Newsweek
================
http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20050518/cm_ucac/newsweekdissembledmuslimsdi
smembered/nc:742


'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."

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10
 * Origin:  (1:226/600)