Convenient Editing at Newsweek
'Newsweek dissembled, Muslims dismembered!' by Ann Coulter
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.