Gay Man Implores Hometown Paper He Delivered As Boy To Drop Coulter
(March 10, 2007 -- 1:33 PM EDT // link // )

TPM Reader EF has written in to tell us he's a gay man living in New York who was dismayed to discover the other day that the hometown paper he delivered as a boy -- the Siskiyou Daily News in rural northern California -- is carrying Ann Coulter's column.

He has now written a letter to the paper's managing editor, Deborra Clayton, pleading with her to drop Coulter. I'm reprinting much of his letter here, because it says a good deal about what this whole thing's about.

Dear Deborra:

We've never met, but I was born and raised in Siskiyou County. While I was in elementary school, I was a Siskiyou Daily News delivery boy for several years. My route encompassed the town of Weed. Some of my fondest childhood memories are of that paper route – the elderly Italian immigrants who would give me extra tips when it was snowing, and the staff at the town's only law firm who always had an ice-cold soda in the refrigerator to get me through the rest of the route in the brutal summer months...

Today, I saw a listing of newspapers that run Ann Coulter’s opinion column – and was surprised to see the Siskiyou Daily News on the list. That’s why I’m writing to you, and I hope you’ll take a moment to hear me out.

I am a gay man with a very full and rewarding life. I share a home with my partner in New York City, and I have a job that I love. I get back to California – and to Siskiyou County – regularly, but not often enough. Years after my days as a paper boy, when I lived in Sacramento, other gay people would express sympathy that I had grown up in Siskiyou County. Because it is so rural, and fairly conservative, people assumed I must have faced great hostility.

My experience was quite the opposite...Quite simply, Siskiyou County was my home, and people who lived there had known me from the day I came into the world.

In the years since, like many gay people, I have encountered occasional discomfort, disdain or subtle discrimination...Such experiences are to be expected, I think, and I believe they come from a smaller and smaller number of people.

But I don’t think hostility like this has a place in our newspapers today – and I certainly don’t think it belongs in the newspaper that I hand-delivered every day with such pride...I can’t imagine delivering a Siskiyou Daily News edition with Ann Coulter’s column in it, and I can’t imagine any of the customers on my route wanting to read the column.

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter, and for your careful consideration.

Sincerely,

EF

Sums it up.

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

Associated Press Quoted Head Of "Firefighters For Rudy" -- Without Mentioning He's A Rudy Aide
(March 9, 2007 -- 4:59 PM EDT // link // )

Oh, how embarrassing.

The Associated Press got completely snookered today in its coverage of the flap between Rudy Giuliani and the firefighters -- the news org actually quoted someone and identified him as the head of an independent group called "Firefighters for Rudy," without mentioning that he is actually a Rudy aide.

If you aren't up to speed on the story of Rudy and the firefighters, the basics are that an international firefighters union made news by slamming Rudy over certain aspects of his performance on 9/11 -- a potentially damaging story, since his allegedly Churchillian 9/11 leadership is perhaps the central selling point of his Presidential campaign.

The Rudy people struck back today, sending out a campaign release offering interviews with Tim Brown, who was identified as the executive director of a group called "Firefighters for Rudy." Here's how the AP wrote about this:

Tim Brown, a former firefighter and the executive director of Firefighters for Rudy, added: "We are honored by the support of so many first responders from across the country and are appreciative of their continued enthusiasm for Mayor Giuliani's candidacy."

As you can see, the AP treated Brown and his group as if they comprise a genuinely independent organization.

Unfortunately for the AP, however, a cursory bit of checking reveals that Tim Brown is actually an aide to Rudy, and it's unclear whether the group even has a membership larger than just Tim Brown. The phone number the campaign offered for the group is actually the same as that of the Rudy campaign's press office. Even the Daily News knew to describe "Firefighters for Rudy" as a "campaign offshoot," which isn't enough, but it's at least a start in the right direction.

Yet the AP swallowed Tim Brown and his "Firefighters for Rudy" up in one big credulous gulp. Whoops!

Update: AP has now corrected the screw-up, changing it to read: "Tim Brown, a former firefighter and executive director of Firefighters for Rudy who is also a Giuliani campaign aide..." I still would love to know how many members this "group" has. If it has only one or two members, is it really a group? Questions, questions...

Meanwhile, if you're interested, you can still see the original version here.

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

And A Seventh Paper Gives The Hook To Coulter
(March 9, 2007 -- 1:11 PM EDT // link // )

Seven and counting!

As noted below, I've emailed virtually everyone on this list of papers carrying Ann Coulter's column to ask whether they intend to keep publishing her or instead are dropping her in the wake of her "faggot" comment.

And now we have a seventh paper that's giving her the toss: The DeKalb Daily Chronicle of Northern Illinois. I've just heard back from John Pfeifer, the paper's president and publisher, and he directed me to an editorial his paper published today. From the piece:

Ann Coulter no longer welcome in the Chronicle

The rapid escalation of electronic communication options and the frequent inappropriate and indiscriminate use of those options have combined to produce horror stories regarding job terminations that we have all heard about and shaken our heads over. We all know stories of folks getting fired via e-mail or through a voice-mail message left on a home or cell phone answering machine. We can't fathom the gutless and impersonal nature of such terminations. We can't fathom it -- yet we're about to do one better. We're going to fire someone publicly -- in print -- right here, right now...

Ann Coulter is not a “real” employee of the Chronicle. She isn't a freelancer or even an independent contractor. If she were an employee and referred to another human being as a “faggot,” her employment would be short-lived. As it is, the acerbic Coulter is a syndicated columnist whose material is distributed through Universal Press Syndicate. Universal President and Editor Lee Salem has responded to Coulter's remarks by saying, “She is not an employee, and we have no legal power to ‘fire' her.”

That's a lot like the Chronicle saying, “She didn't say it in one of the columns we ran, so it isn't our problem.” Wrong. It is our problem, and not dealing with it is a cop-out.

So yesterday we called Universal Press Syndicate and “fired” Coulter. What she said was wrong and hurtful and stepped way beyond the line of human decency, much less political commentary.

The full piece is here.

Coulter's replacement at the paper will be Michelle Malkin. If memory serves, this isn't the first time Malkin has been picked up by a paper that's chucked Coulter, so one rather grim sideshow here is the sight of the equally-despicable Malkin gaining from Coulter's misfortune. Oh, well -- two steps forwards, one step...etc.

Update: Relatedly, don't miss this post from Andrew Sullivan on Mickey Kaus' friendship with Coulter.

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

A Sixth Paper Drops Ann Coulter
(March 9, 2007 -- 10:58 AM EDT // link // )

I just got off the phone with Billy Liggett, the editor of the Sanford Herald, in central North Carolina. He confirmed to me that his paper has decided to chuck Ann Coulter in the wake of her "faggot" comment.

"We typically ran her in our Sunday op-ed," Liggett says. "This Sunday, we are not going to run her, and we'll explain the decision in an editorial that day." Liggett -- who says his paper has a circulation of 10,000 to 12,000 -- tells me he received 834 emails today asking the paper to drop her. That brings our count to six papers who've decided they're not obliged to publish the work of someone who makes a healthy living calling people "raghead" and "faggot" and all manner of other sandbox epithets.

"We made the decision before that," Liggett says. "It was something we had talked about prior to her recent remarks. Those were kind of the last straw -- they sealed the deal as far as our decision goes."

As noted here yesterday, a list of some of the 100 or so papers that carry Coulter's columns compiled by Media Matters can be found here.

Today this blog is emailing every one of the newspapers on the list to see whether they are going to continue carrying Coulter's columns or whether they've decided to drop her. Stay with us.

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

Radio Contact Made With President Of Ann Coulter's Syndicate!
(March 8, 2007 -- 5:48 PM EDT // link // )

I've just spoken briefly by phone with Lee Salem, the president of Universal Press Syndicate, the outfit that is under mounting pressure to stop distributing Ann Coulter's column in the wake of her "faggot" observation about John Edwards.

As you know, this blog emailed him a long list of questions earlier today. Salem says that he's received them, and judging from our conversation he's genuinely considering answering them. We may hear from him on these questions in the next day or two. This is a decent start -- we'll see where it leads. Incidentally, he's also heard from many of you, too.

One other point, one that many of you have also been raising. In the form letter that Salem emails to readers who write in expressing concern about Coulter, Salem writes:

In the case of Ann Coulter (and others across the political spectrum whom readers have urged us to drop), she is not an employee and we have no legal power to "fire" her, though, of course, any of her subscribing newspapers can drop her column at any time.

Many of you have been asking whether there's a list of the 100 or so papers that carry her column. Well, ask and ye shall receive! Media Matters has in fact compiled just such a list. Here are the first five, just to give you a bit of flavor and get you started:

(1)Antelope Valley Press (Palmdale)

(2) Pasadena Star-News

(3) San Gabriel Valley Tribune (West Covina)

(4) Whittier Daily News

(5) Siskiyou Daily News (Yreka)

The rest of them, complete with the names of the editors and contact info, can be found here.

Meanwhile, Media Matters also reports that a fifth paper has now dropped Coulter's column. Five and counting.

Drip...drop...drip...drop...drip...

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

Questions For The President Of Ann Coulter's Syndicate
(March 8, 2007 -- 2:04 PM EDT // link // )

Okay, we've now got four newspapers and counting that have now given Ann Coulter the old heave-ho for her "faggot" comment.

So now the time has come to direct a few questions to Lee Salem, the President of Universal Press Syndicate, the outfit that distributes Ann Coulter's column. I've now emailed him a bunch of them. Let's see if he answers.

As noted here yesterday, UPS is getting pummeled by demands that it toss Coulter. Yesterday, the company told me that they wouldn't be dumping her; by way of explanation they sent over the form letter that Salem emails out to readers who complain about her. That letter is here.

After I put in a request for an interview with Salem in search of more clarification, UPS' assistant vice president of communications, Kathie Kerr, said he wouldn't be available. But she later added that he might reply to emailed questions.

So here's a slightly edited version of the questions I sent him:

Dear Mr. Salem,

I'm a reporter for Talking Points Memo, the national political blog. Given the large amount of concern there is out there over Universal Press Syndicate's continued carrying of Ann Coulter's column, I was wondering if I could ask you a few questions via email and give you a chance to address those concerns.

1) In the letter you have been emailing out to readers who have expressed concern about Coulter's description of John Edwards, you write that the company has no "legal interest" in what writers do outside the relationship with you. I take this to mean that Coulter's use of the anti-gay slur outside of her column has no relevance to whether you'll continue to publisher her.

Allow me to ask this, then. What if she went on TV and said that the Holocaust hadn't happened or that slavery was the best thing to happen to Africans? Would you still continue that relationship? What if she described African Americans as "niggers" or if she described Jewish people as "kikes" in a TV interview? Would you continue distributing her column in such a case?

In other words, is there anything she might say in public outside her column that would induce you to stop giving her the platform your syndication grants her? If the answer is no, why not? And if the answer is that there are in fact things that she could say that would cause you to sever the relationship, why wouldn't her use of the terms "raghead" and "faggot" induce you to sever it?

As best as I can gather here, only one of two things is possible. Either she can say literally anything outside her column without any risk that you'll sever the relationship; or, alternately, slurs directed at some groups would cause you to end the relationship but slurs directed at other groups won't. Which of these is the accurate characterization?

The rest of the questions after the jump.

Continue reading "Questions For The President Of Ann Coulter's Syndicate"

The Politico's Editors Respond Over Dan Gerstein Flap: We Committed A "Misdemeanor"
(March 7, 2007 -- 2:35 PM EDT // link // )

Since this blog spent so much time hectoring The Politico for letting Dan Gerstein write a piece attacking Joe Lieberman's high-profile critics without disclosing that he was on Lieberman's payroll at the same time, it seems only fair to note that The Politico's editors have finally responded.

In the course of a very spirited public debate The Politico is now having with Media Matters, Politico bigs John Harris and Jim VandeHei, along with Politico writer Ben Smith, all weighed in on the Gerstein flap. The response, in essence, was to concede that they'd screwed up, while maintaining that their good intentions were revealed by the fact that they'd noted a less direct link between Lieberman and Gerstein. As Harris puts it, this was a "misdemeanor."

Anyway, their full responses are here. Here are some excerpts.

Jim VandeHei:

On Gerstein: Yes, we muffed it. We should have clearly stated Gerstein is a paid adviser to Sen. Joe Lieberman. It was wrong to assume our readers would know Gerstein is not only a Liebermaniac but a paid one at that!

John Harris:

As long as we are talking about the left's critique of Politico, we'd be remiss in not addressing the criticism we are getting, mostly from liberal blogs, for running Democratic operative Dan Gerstein's attack on the left-wing blogosphere without saying that the former communications director for Sen. Joe Lieberman happens to STILL be on his payroll...On the misdemeanor charges, we all are looking for a plea bargain. Yes, we messed up by not disclosing Gerstein’s financial arrangement.

Ben Smith:

Second, and less important, it might have been worth mentioning that Lieberman was a client, as Gerstein's piece continued and amplified a running battle between him and his/Lieberman's enemies. I say this was minor, despite the criticism from Greg Sargent and several others, because we did disclose the central point -- that he is a Lieberman partisan.

And that, dear readers, is truly the last you'll hear about this. Barring future developments, of course. (Kidding.) Incidentally, the whole battle between Media Matters and The Politico is worth a read. Media Matters' critique is here. The Politico's response is here.

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

Two More Papers Drop Coulter's Column
(March 7, 2007 -- 11:24 AM EDT // link // )

And then there were three -- three papers that have decided that they don't want to publish the work of someone who likes calling people "ragheads" and "faggots" in public.

Following up on yesterday's decision by a Pennsylvania daily to drop Ann Coulter's syndicated column, Editor and Publisher reports that two more papers have decided to follow suit:

At least two more daily newspapers -- The Oakland Press of Michigan and The Mountain Press of Sevierville, Tenn. -- have dropped Ann Coulter's column. A daily in Pennsylvania had dropped the column two days ago.

Oakland Press Editorial Page Editor Allan Adler, when reached this morning by E&P, said Coulter's use of the word "faggot" in a Friday speech was "definitely a factor" in the decision. He also read a statement from his paper that went as follows:

"When we picked up Ann Coulter, it was because we felt we needed a conservative columnist .. and we knew she had a following. She certainly no longer represents conservatism and apparently is more interested in being a celebrity. We are searching for a new columnist and will no longer be running Coulter."

And in a story today, The Mountain Press wrote:

The Mountain Press will no longer publish Ann Coulter's weekly column, following her distasteful and irresponsible comments over the weekend about a presidential candidate. Coulter referred to Democratic candidate John Edwards as a "faggot" in a Friday speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference. Her comments were denounced by both Republicans and Democrats.

"When we agree to buy a syndicated column we expect the writer to offer responsible, reasoned opinion on national and international issues," Editor Stan Voit said. "Ms. Coulter's column drew an unusual amount of criticism from our readers when we first started running it, but we felt she was a nationally known writer offering her opinions in her own style. However we will not continue to publish the columns of someone who uses people as a punch line to get a cheap laugh and who so freely uses an offensive term to describe another human being."

As noted below, United Press Syndicate, the outfit that syndicates Coulter's column, is refusing to drop her. I've asked for an interview with UPS President Lee Salem. More soon.

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

Ann Coulter's Syndicate Responds, Says It Won't Drop Her Column
(March 7, 2007 -- 10:19 AM EDT // link // )

As you may have heard by now, Universal Press Syndicate, the outfit that syndicates Ann Coulter's column, is coming under tremendous pressure to drop Coulter's column in the wake of her "faggot" comment. The gay rights group Human Rights Campaign, for instance, launched a letter-writing campaign late yesterday demanding that UPS nix her column.

Well, I've just gotten in touch with UPS, and they've delivered their answer: No.

I spoke with Kathie Kerr, UPS's assistant vice president of communications, and asked about calls to drop Coulter. She told me that UPS has a response letter that UPS editor and President Lee Salem sends to people who write in about Coulter. Here is his letter:

Thank you for taking the time to write. The contracts with the many writers and cartoonists we represent call for specific products and we have no legal interest in what they may do or say outside of that relationship. In the case of Ann Coulter (and others across the political spectrum whom readers have urged us to drop), she is not an employee and we have no legal power to "fire" her, though, of course, any of her subscribing newspapers can drop her column at any time. Whether the words she chose in referring to John Edwards were misplaced humor or outright bigotry, we would not have distributed them in her column.

Lee Salem
President and Editor
Universal Press Syndicate

I asked Ms. Kerr if UPS would be issuing a response directly about HRC's campaign. From her email to me:

Universal Press Syndicate Editor and President Lee Salem is answering some emails that are not form letters, as these from the GLBT blog are generating. Our response to this campaign and others are basically the same as we have always said, which is we can only address what is said by our columnists in their print column.

So there you have it.

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

CNN Didn't Think Hillary's "Drawl" Was Significant -- Until Matt Drudge Said So.
(March 6, 2007 -- 3:49 PM EDT // link // )

Okay, channeling Mark Halperin again, here's some more fodder for the idea that CNN's new slogan should be:

Matt Drudge Rules Our World -- Because We Happily Let Him Do Just That.

Here's the evidence: I've gone back and determined that CNN didn't think the Hillary "drawl" story was at all significant -- that is, until Matt Drudge said it was.

Let me make the case. On Sunday, the day Hillary spoke in Alabama, CNN devoted substantial coverage to her speech. This was a day before Drudge posted his huge banner headline yesterday pointing out her southern drawl, a story that this blog has done its best to debunk.

Interestingly, none of CNN's Sunday coverage even took notice of Hillary's "drawl" at all, as best as I can determine. CNN's Sunday pieces on the speech are here, here, here, and here. Can you find any attention being given to the drawl? I can't. A Nexis search turned up nothing. I can't promise that there was none whatsoever on the air, but it certainly looks as if they didn't take note of it.

At the very least, it's very obvious that the CNN reporters, editors and producers who watched the speech simply didn't think the drawl very noteworthy, if at all. CNN analyst Candy Crowley commented directly on the speech without mentioning it, too.

But that was before CNN assignment editor Matt Drudge issued his call yesterday for coverage of the drawl:

After that, CNN was suddenly all over the drawl. On Monday CNN's Paula Zahn and John Roberts completely followed Drudge's lead, airing the quote out of context exactly as Drudge had done and pointing out what a pandering phony it revealed Hillary to be. CNN's Lou Dobbs -- who on Sunday didn't cover the drawl -- dutifully aired the video of it on Monday. And CNN's Candy Crowley -- who a day earlier had commented on the speech without noting the change in accent -- suddenly had lots to say about it:

CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: I think what this does do is feed to that image that Hillary Clinton is very, very studied, that she does everything with a purpose, and that she makes her message so that it points toward a particular audience. So, that's where the harm is in this.

Yep, on Sunday, Crowley didn't give the drawl even a passing mention. But on Monday, after CNN assignment editor Matt Drudge had made it his lead story, Crowley suddenly thought it was a sign that Hillary is "very, very studied." It doesn't get any clearer than that.

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

Behold Your Media: CNN's Paula Zahn, ABC, MSNBC All Push Bogus Hillary "Drawl" Story
(March 6, 2007 -- 11:37 AM EDT // link // )

Incredible. CNN's Paula Zahn, MSNBC's Chris Matthews, and ABC News have all now covered the Hillary "drawl" story that Matt Drudge pushed yesterday. And guess how many of these shows shared with their viewers the simple context that would have revealed just how dishonest the Drudge story actually was? Exactly zero.

It's almost as if these big news orgs are looking to Drudge as their de facto assignment editor. Channeling Mark Halperin, It's almost as if their motto could be:

Matt Drudge Rules Our World -- Because We Happily Let Him Do Just That.

As detailed here yesterday, Drudge and the winger shock troops were out in full force yesterday pushing an audiotape of Hillary adopting a southern drawl in Alabama, something which allegedly proved what a phony Hillary is. But a simple fact check quickly revealed that this audio plucked Hillary's "drawl" quote out of context, making it look as if she'd adopted the language, hokey accent and down-home grammar as her own, when in fact she was quoting a hymn written by someone else.

This info was just way too much for the networks to handle, however. Here are CNN's Paula Zahn and John Roberts, discussing on the drawl and showing a Hillary clip of her quoting the hymn without saying that that's what she was doing:

ZAHN: Out in the open next: a pair of Yankees with Southern accents.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Don't tell me I'm not coming home when I come to Selma, Alabama.

SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D), NEW YORK: I don't feel no ways tired.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: I come too far.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: Not only does running for president seem to change the voice we have become accustomed to. It might even change your clothes -- coming up, even more proof it is a crazy campaign out there already....

ROBERTS: But -- but, you see, Hillary, the knock on her is that she's so scripted, that -- that she's pandering to her constituency. And, when she goes to a place like Selma, Alabama, and she effects a Southern accent, even if it was unintentional -- maybe she just got caught up in the moment -- it -- it adds more fuel to this idea that everything that she does is plotted, and a lot that she does is pandering to a particular audience.

Of course, Hillary the "Yankee" spent many, many years in Arkansas. Remember? And note Roberts' hapless floundering, too -- his assertion that perhaps this was "unintentional" reveals very clearly that he only listened to the audio cherry-picked by Drudge, and never bothered to compare it to the whole speech. Matt Drudge Rules Our World -- Because We Happily Let Him Do Just That.

MSNBC and ABC after the jump.

Continue reading "Behold Your Media: CNN's Paula Zahn, ABC, MSNBC All Push Bogus Hillary "Drawl" Story"

Yet Another Wingnut Sliming Of Hillary Proven To Be Bogus
(March 5, 2007 -- 6:03 PM EDT // link // )

Another day, another wingnut tale proven to be highly dishonest. Today's exhibit of winger mendacity -- pushed today by Drudge, Fox News, and some of the big winger blogs -- concerns the southern accent Hillary put on in Alabama yesterday.

Here are the details. For much of today the Drudge Report has been running the following enormous banner headline:

The Drudge headline links to this audio of Hillary speaking yesterday. If you listen to it, the main thing you'll hear is Hillary speaking in a southern drawl, saying phrases that sound like her own words:

"I don't feel no ways tired..I come too far from where I started from...Nobody told me that the road would be easy...I don't believe he brought me this far to leave me."

As you can see, this clip makes it sound like Hillary is adopting not just this drawl, but this language and this down-home grammar, as her own. The righties have been waving this around to prove what a phony Hillary is. This audio was promoted by, among others, PowerlineBlog, Free Republic, Instapundit, and Fox News, which linked to it under the headline, "Will the real Hillary please speak up?"

But as always, a simple fact-check shows this latest wingnut preoccupation to be highly dishonest. The audio clip Drudge linked to cherry-picked that quote and removed it completely from its context, which would have shown that Hillary wasn't adopting this accent or grammar or language as her own at all.

Rather, it turns out that Hillary was actually quoting the hymn lyrics of someone else -- while clearly and very openly imitating (not very well, it turns out) the cadences she thought the lyrics would traditionally have been delivered in. There was nothing phony about it at all. Watch for yourself:

Click To Play

Here's a transcript of the passage in question:

My friends, we have a march to finish. I will be reintroducing the Count Every Vote Act, to ensure that every voter is given the opportunity to vote, that every vote is counted, and each voter is given the chance to verify his or her vote before it is cast and made permanent.

We have to stay awake. We have a march to finish. On this Lord's day, let us say with one voice the words of James Cleveland's great freedom hymn, "I don't feel no ways tired/I come too far from where I started from/Nobody told me that the road would be easy/I don't believe he brought me this far to leave me."

And we know -- we know -- we know, if we finish this march, what awaits us? St. Paul told us, in the letter to the Galatians, "Let us not grow weary in doing good, for in due seasons we shall reap, if we do not lose heart."

See? The audio Drudge and all these other hapless wingers promoted reproduced the hymn lyrics as Hillary's words, without sharing the fact that she was quoting someone else. It's so misleading that all you can do is laugh at the audacity of it.

Look, Hillary's real sins here were being corny as hell and painfully tone deaf. But phony this wasn't. You'd think that after having so many of their silly tales blow up in their faces these wingers would start checking the facts once in awhile -- if only to stop making themselves look so damn foolish all the time.

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

Rudy Biographer Blasts Newsweek's Giuliani Puffery
(March 5, 2007 -- 2:09 PM EDT // link // )

It would be hard to overstate the enormity of the favor that Newsweek is doing for Rudy Giuliani this week. The mag's enormous cover story is a profile of Giuliani bearing the cover line "The Real Rudy," which under normal circumstances would lead you to expect that you'll be getting an unvarnished portrait of the former New York mayor.

But I just checked in with Rudy's preemient biographer, Wayne Barrett. His take on Newsweek's effort? "It's an application for access, that's what this piece is. They wanted access to the Giuliani campaign, they had none. They submitted this application."

The piece actually has this title:

...and is filled with comically hyperbolic phrases like this one:

Born in 1944, Rudolph William Giuliani was raised to be tough in moments of peril.

What's more, while the piece does revisit some of Rudy's infamous low points, it also recycles myths about Rudy's mayoralty that, to put it charitably, didn't belong in a piece bearing the cover line "The Real Rudy." Newsweek says:

As long as Rudy got results, the public didn't particularly care how he did it, or how many fights he picked. The squeegee men were gone, as were turnstile jumpers and the more notorious pornographic emporiums.

This is bullshit, pure and simple. The public did in fact care "how he did it." Polls showed that while New York City residents did applaud the goals Rudy reached, majorities were decidedly opposed to his tactics. A New York Times poll in April of 2000, in the wake of the police shooting of Patrick Dorismond, found that 50% disapproved of Rudy's handling of crime, his signature issue, and concluded that "New York City residents have a decidedly negative view of Mr. Giuliani's handling of race relations." This is not a small falsehood on Newsweek's part, incidentally. The discomfort New Yorkers felt with Rudy's tactics, as opposed to his results, go directly to the heart of questions about the man's character -- and whitewashing this discomfort out of the public record is just dismal journalism.

That's not all. The notion that Rudy banished the "squeegie-men" from New York is another myth, according to Rudy biographer Wayne Barrett -- yet there's little question that this myth will figure centrally in the heroic narrative of Rudy that's taking shape with the help of publications like Newsweek. Barrett told me: "The squeegie men were gone before Rudy took office. Ray Kelly [the top cop under former Mayor David Dinkins] got rid of them. [Rudy police commissioner] Bill Bratton admitted this in his 1998 book. He wrote that `ironically, Giuliani and I got credit for the initiative,' and that `only politics prevented David Dinkins and Ray Kelly from receiving their due.'"

Finally, there's the small matter of Rudy's conduct on 9/11. Barrett's latest book details a wealth of counterintuitive info about his performance that day. Barrett tells me that he spent an hour and a half on the phone with a Newsweek reporter, much of it discussing the stuff he uncovered about Rudy and 9/11. But get this -- while Newsweek did credit Barrett for a revelation about the criminal past of Rudy's father, the mag didn't include a single word from Barrett's interview or book about 9/11.

"A serious magazine like Newsweek shouldn't refuse to ask any questions about what happened that day," Barrett tells me. "I don't care if I'm quoted or not -- that's not the point. The only thing I care about is getting journalists to look critically at his 9/11 performance. If Newsweek just rolls over and bows to myths, they will help make him President."

You mean like this?

Update: The piece's author, Jonathan Darnan, has responded to our request for comment with an email saying, "we feel we published a balanced piece that deals with many of Rudy's perceived strengths and weaknesses."

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.