Wash. Post didn't think Webb novel story was newsworthy until Internet gossip Drudge promoted it
SUMMARY: A Washington Post story on Sen. George Allen's accusations that James Webb's novels include "inappropriate sex scenes and demeaning descriptions of women" contained an acknowledgment that the newspaper decided to report the story only after Matt Drudge had highlighted it on his website.
On October 28, The Washington Post published a front-page story with the headline "Allen Blasts Webb Novels for Sex Scenes," about Sen. George Allen's (R-VA) accusations that novels written by Democratic opponent James Webb include, in the Post's words paraphrasing Allen's attacks, "inappropriate sex scenes and demeaning descriptions of women." The Post article, written by Michael D. Shear and Tim Craig, reported that Allen peddled the story to news media "for weeks" before Internet gossip Matt Drudge first highlighted the story on his website on the evening of October 26. The Post story, therefore, contains a telling admission: What the Post did not consider news "for weeks" became such -- meriting front-page coverage -- only after Drudge ran it on his site.
The Post article credited Drudge with running an "Internet blog [that] often breaks or promotes stories with sensational angles, most recently the scandal involving former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.)." But while Shear and Craig's mention of the Foley scandal might suggest that Drudge's efforts to promote scandal are bipartisan, his role in the Foley scandal was nothing like his role in promoting the Webb story, which, by their own acknowledgement, was treated by the media as not newsworthy until Drudge ran with it at Allen's behest. By contrast, ABC News' Brian Ross broke the Foley story, and, as Media Matters for America has noted, Drudge actually defended Foley, asserting that Foley's alleged sexually explicit communication with one underage former congressional page through an instant-messenger program "wasn't coerced." Drudge went on to say that "the kid was having fun with this" because the conversation included "[t]hese LOLs throughout the entire conversation, these 'laugh out louds.' "
The Post justified publishing a front-page story "weeks" after Allen's aides had attempted to generate media interest by asserting that following Drudge's post:
[T]he new allegations unleashed by [Allen's] campaign had become the highlight of morning talk-radio shows and cable news outlets. Conservative groups seized on the news, with one calling for Webb to withdraw for writing "Triple X" novels. Cable news shows debated the issue throughout the day.
But the Post story did not focus on the media frenzy that followed Drudge's post, undermining the Post's suggestion that such coverage justified its front-page story. The Post did note in the 14th paragraph that "Allen's attack on Webb's novels occurred three weeks after the senator gave a two-minute speech pleading for a return to issues." But rather than focus on the fact that Allen had tried to interest the media for "weeks" in a story about Webb's novels even as he denounced the media for not focusing on issues, the Post led instead with Allen's attacks on Webb.
There's more. Shear and Craig reported that Webb, while appearing with host Mark Plotkin on Washington Post Radio on October 27, responded to Allen's accusations of "demeaning descriptions of women" by noting that Allen's sister wrote a book that describes Allen's "harsh treatment" of her (in the Post's words). Readers would not know it from the Post article, but in the book, Allen's sister Jennifer Richard describes Allen "dragging her up the stairs by her hair." According to an August 16 article by Michael Scherer on Salon.com, the book "was marketed as nonfiction." Although Scherer reported that "Richard said she no longer stood by the memories she had included in her book," the "nonfiction" book described alleged actions by Allen, as opposed to Webb's writings about actions of fictional characters. The Post neither reported on the Richard's specific allegations about her brother nor made clear the distinction between alleged "harsh treatment" by Allen and fictional harsh treatment by fictional characters in books of fiction.
Moreover, while Shear and Craig noted that on Plotkin's show Webb also "shot back" by citing Sisters (New American Library, 1981), a novel written by vice-presidential wife Lynne Cheney, that reportedly, in the words of Shear and Craig, "contains scenes of rape and a lesbian love affair," the reporters simply cited Cheney's response on CNN that Webb was "full of baloney" and her denial that her book contains sexually explicit scenes. Rather than let readers decide for themselves whether Cheney's book in fact contains sexually explicit scenes that are demeaning to women, the Post reported that the book is "out of print and difficult to find" and cited "independent reviews" that describe Sisters as "highly sexual and 'steamy' " and state that it "mention[s] lesbian characters." The Post presumably could have, but apparently made no attempt, obtained a copy of the book from Cheney herself, rather than simply reporting her denials that the book was sexually explicit. Had that effort been unsuccessful, the Post could also have then reported to readers that Cheney refused to provide a copy of the book, did not respond to their request, or said she no longer had a copy -- whichever scenario would have occurred had they asked.
The Post could have checked "the google" for passages from mommy dearist's book: [link to americablog.blogspot.com]
MMFA has provided an excellent example of liberal media bias!
The Post knew about Webb's passages, but they sat on the story until it was such a big story, they had to run it. To not run the story would reveal obvious bias in favor of Webb.
Meanwhile, the Post ran with Allen's silly "macaca" "controversy" on its front page for several days. (Who had heard of the word "macaca" before this? Not many, I guess.)
Liberal bias? Of course.
My 2 cents. Thank you.
Conservatives unknowingly accuse John McCain of supporting and promoting a pedophile. John McCain once wrote the following priase in a review of the book in question by Webb:
[link to www.randomhouse.com]
that changes what Webb wrote? No, it doesn't.
You're trying to deflect criticism of Webb by turning attention to someone else. That doesn't work.
And you'd be hard-pressed to find a reputable politician or someone from the Allen campaign calling Webb a pedophile. I did a Google News search of "Webb + pedophile" and not one news organization in the Google database returns a result (only one conservative blog did). (a href="http://news.google.com/nwshp?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=wn&q=%2BWebb%20%2Bpedophile">here)
Not very impressive.
(here) Working?
You criticized the Washington Post for criticizing one and not the other. Why do you imitate the Washington Post by not including a criticism of John McCain, who by your theory would be a supporter and promoter of a pedophile? All I ask of you is to be consistent.
This Allen campaign must be absolutely without any convincing IDEAS. Is he really trying to turn public opinion by pointing to a work of fiction?
Does this mean Edgar Allen Poe really cut out the heart of his rival and buried it under his floorboard?
For crying out loud, why isn't Stephen King serving multiple life sentences?
Meanwhile Allen, an out and out racist makes a remark basically calling a dark skineed person a monkey and you think THAT story was blown out of proportion. What is the news value of something taken out of context from a work of fiction? Your two cents consititute considerable overcharging.
as a gossip site, when a UCLA study found drudge leaned to the left more than it did to the right, in terms of stories posted.
MMFA fails.
when I see comments like this UCLA study, I say show me the link or at least: SHOW ME THE RESEARCH!
I'll save you the suspense. I'm betting that the parameters of the study were that anything that hurts the administration is "left-wing". Obviously, that includes pretty much any mention of Iraq, legal decisions that defy Bush's programs, etc.
In other words, the truth has a left-wing bias.
when I see comments like this UCLA study, I say show me the link or at least: SHOW ME THE RESEARCH!
The "research" dismantled: [link to media.eriposte.com]
MMFA smears drudge as a gossip site, when a UCLA study found drudge leaned to the left more than it did to the right, in terms of stories posted.
MMFA fails.
Actually, the "study" you mention failed miserably to demonstrate anything other than its authors' propensity toward baroque sophistry--its absurdist methodology (which tied reality in such knots that Matt Drudge was tagged as "liberal" while the ACLU was tagged as "conservative") was debunked almost immediately upon its release.
Just like Art's posts... self-debunking, you might say.
Drudge IS a gossip site and not one with any credibility. Second the notion that he leans more left than right is ludicrous in the extreme.
That same UCLA study ranked the ACLU as the most mainstream of any group they ranked (on a scale of 1-100, the ACLU ranked a 49). Do you agree with that as well or are you just a cherry-picker?
So calling Drudge an "internet gossip" is a smear? And what "study" are you referring to? If it is this one: [link to mediamatters.org] than your argument might not hold water. Plus, did this MMFA post say anything about the stories Drudge posted?
Ugh.
all drudge does is link to other news sites and he is right about 90% of the time, whereas mmfa is wrong more than drudge is and usually fudges the facts to get the story.
...facts please. Since you insist on now 'smearing' MMFA, let's back up our claims with legitimate instances of said 'fudging'. Sounds like you have an agenda. You and Wesley must be friends (or, maybe one and the same).
have posted links to facts at least a hundred times that debunked MMFA.
MMFA is an agenda-driven organization that uses half-truths, smears and false logic as its attack modus operandi. Not that there is anything wrong with that, they are a political attack dog, that's what they do.
Drudge on the other hand is mostly links to other media. Once in awhile he breaks a story on his own. He is not a smear merchant like MMFA.
>>>"a smear merchant like MMFA."<<<
Surely your one or *maybe* two forum fans here will actually consider & enjoy your rant. The rest of us wrote your sad tune off a looong time ago.
In your DREAMS it may be true that you have debunked MMFA in reality everytime you try we tear your logic free biased nonsense to shreds. It virtually NEVER shows what you claim
Half truths are more truthful than no truth, which describes every post of yours that I've ever read. Except for your post yesterday where you said you were done posting for the day and were going to go get a drink.
Drudge never met a cheesy rumor he didn’t like.
Badly done troll comment designed to just cause reaction. No information content. Ignore...
Either cough up the evidence that your claim is true of admit you are a liar and show yourself out in disgrace. Your baseless assertions are getting tiresome. Here is a clue that you desperately need. Things arent true just because you SAY they are.
Let's not forget that Foley was attempting to solicit sexual favors from minors = pedophilia. No matter what, Foley is 100% wrong and the child is not culpable. Even if the child were to throw themselves at an adult...if the adult acts, the adult is always wrong 100%.
Too bad Foley. And, too bad to all the apologists trying to find some excuse for Foley's lecherous and unlawful behavior.
the same old Repub attack: Attack without facts; emotion first, common sense second; or are you Rotweilers afraid to?
STILL WAITING FOR THE RESEARCH
you'll be waiting a while.
I think media matters (or some other site) debunked the study about a year ago. I also think the study found that this current Congress leans slightly to the left (which is laughable) using some bizarre methodology.
Is just one of many websites I check out each morning. I also read:
Hindsights, RawStory, Captain's Quarters, The Huffington Report, NewsHounds, The Nation, The American Spectator,TownHall...etc.
While Drudge does delve into "gossip", the site ALSO covers hard news. The SAME could be said of several of the Liberal sites I've listed above.
I personally think these "revelations" [and I use the term VERY loosely] about Webb's FICTIONAL novels is a load of bunk and a desperation move by Allen's camp.
it's a deperation move.
Whether we like it or not, Drudge often sets the tone for the republican media. I visit Druge every day. I'm sure the republican media does also. My guess is that it's the home page for many.
Drudge is trying to help Allen's campaign by making this the dominant issue. We'll see if it works. I hope not.
you must have a lot of free time.
That is the question.
Where an increasing amount of feedback between the Traditional News Media and Internet News sites. This is, on the whole, a good thing. The main problem with Traditional media has been a too narrow view of events. However, taking what is being published on the Internet as "truth" and distributing it through the traditional media sources (as was done by the Post) does not substitute for basic Journalism 101. Check your sources.
I would not want to see any traditional news media to put forward stories only based on information from an Internet site like Drudge, any more than I would like them to use this site. The power of the Internet is that it can be a source of primary information for traditional media. They can find important events happening almost real-time and, with some work, find links to primary sources to validate their story.
However, they must have the skill to understand when a site like Drudge is just "blowing smoke" and not really putting out reliable information. The problem is that most Traditional Media "Journalists" are just not too computer literate and (I suspect) have poor Internet searching skills. The Post story is a good example.
The Richard Mellon Schiafe funded Newsmax or Worldnutdaily puts something out poorly sourced or just made up. Then someone like Hannity throws a fit that the mainstream news wont report the story and reports it AS BEING REPORTED BY NEWSMAX. Then the NYTimes or Washingtone Post picks it up and reports ONLY that it was reported by these sources still it has now hit the Mainstream press and has some measure of credibility.
George Allen has a big part of this. My sister says if he gets elected she's moving out of Virginia. So what if someone writes a novel that has some sex in it? Maybe they want a book with blood, guts, and gore?
Let's see... George Allen's own sister accused him of brutality and oafishness. College classmates recall him as a thuggish racist bigot. He publicly insuslts a young Virginia resident with a racial slur. He's repeatedly exposed as a liar IMO. And we're talking about Jim Webb's novel?
I don't recall that book about Allen having gotten any serious airplay. If the Webb campaign is worth its salt they will see to it that it gets played up in the coming week. If the Post reports junk like this about Webb, they should easily be persuaded to do a report on the book about Allen. Then I fully expect to see the Allen book as a main topic on the cable news channels toward the end of the week. If not, the Webb campaign isn't doing its job. The stuff in there can definitely get airplay and catch fire. Maybe they've avoided it till now because they didn't want to peak too early.
George Allen sounds like a secret David Duke admirer... with his rebel flags and racial remarks. Webb SHOULD do more to expose Allen. What's amazing is that the Reblicans are/were seriously considering Allen as a presidential contender in 2008. Then again, that's not terribly amazing considering how slimey the Republican Party is.
One could also argue that the Washington Post BURIED the story until it was EXPOSED by the Drudge Report, thereby making the case for LIBERAL BIAS by the Washington Post. One could make that argument.
Does citing passages from a 20+ year old work of fiction count as legitimate political news?
Turn the tables and place Allen as the author and it still makes no difference to anyone but the prudish and petty.
HEY YOU KNOW DRUDGE AND ROVE NEW ABOUT FOLEY BEFORE IT CAME WHY DO YOU THANK THEY STOOD BY HASTER.
MMFA did not include the WAPO contact information on the right side of the page for us to complain about their bias.
the blurb on the book):
Sisters (ISBN: 0451112040) Lynne V. Cheney
Book Description: N A L, New York, New York, U.S.A., 1981. Paperback. Book Condition: Very Good. From Lynne Cheney, the wife of Vice President Dick Cheney, comes a riveting tale of women in the American frontier. The novel of a strong and beautiful woman who broke all the rules of the American frontier. Sophie Dymond had overcome nineteenth-century prejudices to succeed as publisher of a hugely popular women's magazine. But when she left New York to revisit her native Wyoming, where her sister had died mysteriously, she left her prestige and power far behind. Waiting for Sophie was a world where women were treated either as decorative figurines or as abject sexual vassals.where wives were led to despise the marriage act and prostitutes pandered to husbands' hungers.where the relationship between women and men became a kind of guerilla warfare in which women were forced to band together for the strength they needed and at times for the love they wanted. In her effort to grasp the meaning of her sister's life and death, Sophie discovers the secret that tainted her life and begins to understand the experience of the vast majority of silent, trapped women.