Powered by TypePad

« May 18 Around The Blogs - Nuclear Summer And More | Main | Tell It To The Redcoats »

May 18, 2005




Confirmed by Applebaum prior to publishing the story?

Breath, not held.

The Kid

Applebaum may have relied on sister publication Newsweek’s Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas for confirmation before publication. The charming and ever gracious Ann Coulter notes that he justified publication of the American-Standard Koran saying "similar reports from released detainees" had already run in the foreign press -- "and in the Arab news agency al-Jazeera."

Coulter’s reaction is a hoot:

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."

I was wavering toward regarding Newsweek as acting, in Rove’s words, oppositional until I read Coulter’s account of how that mag had sat on some of Michael Isikoff’s better reporting during the Clinton years. How soon we forget that it was Matt Drudge who blew the lid off what Newsweek was sitting on:
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;
Kathleen Willey's nasty sexual encounter with the president in the Oval Office;

She adds that 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. So apparently it's possible for Michael Isikoff to have a story that actually is true, but for his editors not to run it.

She has more.


A story about Billy Jeff, a noted coozehound, getting some head from an intern isn't believeable, but a story about flushing a huge book down a goddam toilet is.



I enjoy reading Anne Applebaum even when I disagree with her. From what I've seen, she's a pretty "heads up" person.

There is a lot of confusion on this issue, but it would be interesting to know more about her source. However, she's off the rails on the Newsweek debacle. She has turned it to a "why did they (Muslims) believe the story?" slant. It almost sounds like she's one step away from "Why do they hate us?"

I suggest Ms Applebaum look at the press here and abroad in attempting to answer her own question.


Anne's reply to my e-mail requesting confirmation that prisoners were Koran-stuffing: "look them up, like I did."


As I understand it, the way things run
is this.

1. the editors check with the advertisers
2. Advertisers review for content
3. editors suggest changes to title and content
4. editors have final say on title
5. editors make publication decision
6. editors then disappear from the radar

This is so that the advertising money flows
in regardless of the heat an article can
stir up. In some cases, such as talk radio,
stories are simply fabricated in the interest
of controversy, which generates a more rapid,
partisan mindset.

In this case, Isikoff received word
from cabinet level pentagon sources
re: the koran abuse.

Stepping away for a minute, though, really its
the interplay between editor and reporter
that should be looked at. Editors , of late,
really the past 10 years - have been pressuring
reporters to put together stories along
a certain line, similiar to the fabricated
Intel that led us to war.

As I understand it, the Pentagon took a phone
call from the white house requesting redaction
and the pentagon official that confirmed to
Isikoff then called him up and redacted the
article based on updated information.

But for pete's sake! Isn't it time we
as a country move on? Scandal this, scandal

It really gets old after a while. I'd like
a nice, boring, balanced budget. Maybe
some boring, conservation success stories.
Boring education levels rising. Bragging
on kids, again. ho hum. Victory over
a ragged militia by our armed forces.

thats the kind of thing I'd like to read.
Of course, it means the government actually
has to do the job we +paid+ them to do..

I guess now they are more interested
in their nuclear option than they are
simply getting things done.. geez.. can't
you see it coming? government shutdown.
in my line of work I call it +un+ paid vacation.


"In this case, Isikoff received word
from cabinet level pentagon sources
re: the koran abuse."

So turnerbroadcasting do you have a link for "cabinet level pentagon sources"?

And speaking of government shutdowns, last time that happened I didn't notice any difference at all.


Can I vote for a government shutdown, please? Furlough 20% without pay for a week at a time. Bring them back and whack a different 20% the next week. Continue until the budget is at a surplus again.

Then cut taxes. Repeat until someone outside the beltway cares.

Paul Zrimsek

Perhaps those "cabinet level pentagon sources" work for Spencer's "Joint Chief of Staff".



Aren't infidels supposed to behave like infidels?? I mean, when did Muslims ever have a say in how foreign infidels behave toward their religion? I think the point isn't who said what and what was true or not, or even how many people died as a result. All of the comments about a false NewsWeek story "inflamed" Muslims and "damaged" US relations seem trivial since there is a presumption that somehow the Muslims were acting in good faith if the article would have been true.

I still recall how the academics and the left rushed to the defense of Rushdie 15 years ago when he wrote the "Satanic Verses." Freedom of speech or expression trumped Islamic law if the offender was British or some other western national.

Personally, I don't think NewsWeek is fit for the bottom of my bird cage, but you're going to have to censor every US publication containing items deemed offensive to Muslims.

The comments to this entry are closed.