Web Posted: 01/17/98 23:32:47 PST -- NEWSWEEK KILLS STORY ON WHITE HOUSE INTERN
BLOCKBUSTER REPORT: 23-YEAR OLD, FORMER WHITE HOUSE INTERN, SEX RELATIONSHIP WITH PRESIDENT
**Must Credit the DRUDGE REPORT**
At the last minute, at 6 p.m. on Saturday evening, NEWSWEEK magazine killed a story that was destined to shake official Washington to its foundation: A White House intern carried on a sexual affair with the President of the United States!
The DRUDGE REPORT has learned that reporter Michael Isikoff developed the story of his career, only to have it spiked by top NEWSWEEK suits hours before publication. A young woman, 23, sexually involved with the love of her life, the President of the United States, since she was a 21-year-old intern at the White House. She was a frequent visitor to a small study just off the Oval Office where she claims to have indulged the president’s sexual preference. Reports of the relationship spread in White House quarters and she was moved to a job at the Pentagon, where she worked until last month.
The young intern wrote long love letters to President Clinton, which she delivered through a delivery service. She was a frequent visitor at the White House after midnight, where she checked in the WAVE logs as visiting a secretary named Betty Curry, 57.
The DRUDGE REPORT has learned that tapes of intimate phone conversations exist.
The relationship between the president and the young woman become strained when the president believed that the young woman was bragging about the affair to others.
NEWSWEEK and Isikoff were planning to name the woman. Word of the story’s impeding release caused blind chaos in media circles; TIME magazine spent Saturday scrambling for its own version of the story, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. The NEW YORK POST on Sunday was set to front the young intern’s affair, but was forced to fall back on the dated ABC NEWS Kathleen Willey break.
The story was set to break just hours after President Clinton testified in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case.
Ironically, several years ago, it was Isikoff that found himself in a shouting match with editors who were refusing to publish even a portion of his meticulously researched investigative report that was to break Paula Jones. Isikoff worked for the WASHINGTON POST at the time, and left shortly after the incident to build them for the paper’s sister magazine, NEWSWEEK.
Michael Isikoff was not available for comment late Saturday. NEWSWEEK was on voice mail.
The White House was busy checking the DRUDGE REPORT for details.
One of the three Baton Rouge police officers killed by a gunman on Sunday penned a heartbreaking Facebook post about treatment of law enforcement roughly one week ago.
The officer’s words, now with new meaning, were going viral hours after the shooting.Montrell Jackson, a 10-year veteran with the Baton Rouge Police Department, was a husband and father to a newborn son.
“I’m tired physically and emotionally. Disappointed in some family, friends, and officers for some reckless comments but hey what’s in your heart is in your heart. I still love you all because hate takes too much energy but I definitely won’t be looking at you the same. Thank you to everyone who has reached out to me or my wife it was needed and much appreciated. I swear to God I love this city but I wonder if this city loves me. In uniform I get nasty hateful looks and out of uniform some consider me a threat. I’ve experienced so much in my short life and these last 3 days have tested me to the core. When people you know begin to question your integrity you realize they don’t really know you at all. Look at my actions they speak LOUD and CLEAR. Finally I personally want to send prayers out to everyone directly affected by this tragedy. These are trying times. Please don’t let hate infect your heart. This city MUST and WILL get better. I’m working in these streets, so any protesters, officers, friends, family, or whoever, if you see me and need a hug or want to say a prayer. I got you.”
The Democrat party has this poor man’s blood on their hands. They can all go to hell.
— Stephen Henderson (@SHendersonFreep) June 7, 2016
Not to worry.
It’s all good.
He’s a democrat.
He’ll get away with it.
The Detroit Free Press editorial page editor Stephen Henderson, Pulitzer Prize winner, is apparently beyond pissed off at the state’s republican legislatures over a recent vote concerning public school funding vs. charter school funding…
(The Federalist) – The reason? The lawmakers voted for legislation that would give parents more choices to avoid Michigan’s failing public schools. Detroit’s public schools are failing academically and nearly insolvent, the New York Times wrote in January. The Detroit News wrote in March that “the statewide opinion of K-12 education is downright ugly.” That poll showed residents didn’t think throwing money at public-union-controlled schools was the answer, with 63 percent saying it takes more than money to improve education.
While teacher unions and the politicians whom they support fight many changes to the educational system that give parents more leverage, charter schools have been making a difference in educational outcomes…
Yesterday Michigan’s Republican legislators voted to bail out Detroit’s abysmally run schools with $617 million in taxpayer funding. The same bill also fought efforts to constrain charter school choices in Detroit. Prior to the vote, Stephen Henderson wrote on his editorial page:
“We really ought to round up the lawmakers who took money to protect and perpetuate the failing charter-school experiment in Detroit, sew them into burlap sacks with rabid animals, and toss them into the Straits of Mackinac.”
After noting that charter school advocates support charter schools, he doubled down on the violent rhetoric:
“It is every bit deserving of an old-school retributive response.
A sack. An animal. A lake.
No lover of actual democracy could weep at that outcome.”
But the big question to push in Henderson’s smug face when you bump into him today at the sidewalk hotdog cart, especially if you are one of these parents, is, “Okay, so, you want the same fascistic politically-driven punishment for us too, Comrade Henderson?”
The publication Henderson works/writes for is ironically called the Detroit Free Press and oddly enough the title of his bloodthirsty editorial missive: “Michigan House’s Detroit schools bills are pure garbage, not about kids” is in and of itself deeply ironic, given Henderson no doubt strongly supports the teachers union(s) dictated public school system and this is what the unions really feel is their primary concern:
Well, she did spend a lot of her on air career working at NBC, the “edit” masters of television. Yes, NBC is very well known for their selective and deceptive editing touches to many stories they want(ed) to slant in their favored political agenda direction, or to make somebody look really bad…
(FOX News) – The makers of a new Katie Couric documentary on gun violence deceptively edited an interview between Couric and a group of gun rights activists in an apparent attempt to embarrass the activists, an audio recording of the full interview shows.
At the 21:48 mark of Under the Gun a scene of Katie Couric interviewing members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun rights organization, is shown.
Couric can be heard in the interview asking activists from the group, “If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?”
The documentary then shows the activists sitting silently for nine awkward seconds, unable to provide an answer. It then cuts to the next scene.
However, raw audio of the interview between Katie Couric and the activists provided to the Washington Free Beacon shows the scene was deceptively edited. Instead of silence, Couric’s question is met immediately with answers from the activists. A back and forth between a number of the league’s members and Couric over the issue of background checks proceeds for more than four minutes after the original question is asked…..
Only, there wasn’t a pregnant pause in silent answer to Couric’s question. Instead, there was a very well-informed and robust round of answers to her question with a lot of facts and information to dispute her premise that she obviously deliberately set-up for the editing. The raw audio is VERY, VERY damning of Couric…
The Washington Free Beacon has the full coverage here: Audio Shows Katie Couric Documentary Deceptively Edited Interview with Pro-Gun Activists …
Since this hit the fan in the last couple days the people involved are trying hard to cover their asses and explain it away, but are failing (that is also covered in TWFB link under its updates).
Ed Morrissey @ HotAir isn’t taking any bait or buying any crap coming from the documentry’s producers who are urging him to “watch the film”
As Allahpundit already noted in an update, however, the cable channel that aired the documentary (EPIX) doesn’t seem to care about accuracy or honesty. They call the substitution of the actual answer for an unrelated response shot “creative and editorial judgment.” Apparently, Couric also chalks this up to the “creative” urge. The Yahoo News anchor issued a statement in support of Stephanie Soechtig: “I support Stephanie’s statement and am very proud of the film.”
Soechtig eventually offered this non-apology of the “I’m sorry that my brilliance was misunderstood” variety:
“There are a wide range of views expressed in the film. My intention was to provide a pause for the viewer to have a moment to consider this important question before presenting the facts on Americans’ opinions on background checks. I never intended to make anyone look bad and I apologize if anyone felt that way.”
— Under The Gun (@UnderTheGunDoc) May 25, 2016
Why would I watch a "documentary" in which the director and star faked responses? How much else got faked? https://t.co/h1BEdSmhjO
— Ed Morrissey (@EdMorrissey) May 25, 2016
This isn't a "watch it and decide for yourself" issue. It's objectively dishonest. https://t.co/h1BEdSmhjO
— Ed Morrissey (@EdMorrissey) May 25, 2016
Also, please note the irony of the documentary’s tag line: In the gun debate, truth is the ultimate weapon. Good Lord.
Yep, the liberal/leftist MSM has done a fantastic job of not only cooking its own goose these last over 8 years, but burning the Hell out of it.
And, Goebbels— er, Katie, if you’ve lost the very liberal/left WaPo and HuffPo you’ve really lost it:
And now some are calling for Katie Couric to be fired for her deliberate deception…
Reason TV give Mz. Couric a bitter taste of her own edit treatment:
HotAir blasts “The Hill’s” choice of words:
I am perplexed about liberals.
I would love it if you could explain yourselves to me.
You worry about man made global warming and ask me to worry along with you when we cannot predict the weather for two days in advance but must care about the health of the planet 50 years from now, but you do not care a hoot about the world my grandchildren will have to cope with because of your irresponsibility in the dangers of your man made disastrous economic choices.
You want me to care about a woman’s right to choose because it is wrong to tell anyone what to do with her body, but you do not have any concern for the clump of cells you decide to define as irrelevant. And you bully everyone into ignoring the rights of that clump of cells. And in general you opine on choice incessantly, but take away my choices in every area of my life from religious liberty to schools to what I teach my children to what I eat and to what I am allowed to believe.
You lecture me not to blame all Muslims just because some of them commit acts of terrorism, kidnap, behead, burn people alive, drown people in cages or rape women and children. You make assumptions about me because you are so much better than I am — you are not prejudiced the way I am.
But it is fine for you to define ALL tea party members as racists, bigots, homophobes, etc. What happened to not using a broad brush to define groups in that case?
I have yet to find one tea party member who is any of the things you call us, yet if some exist who are like that, it does not give you cause to define ALL of us that way. And anyway, not one tea party member has yet done one of the things that certain Muslims have done.
And it’s also okay to blame Jews and Israel for whatever is wrong in the Middle East or to be even handed to get a “solution” to the “cycle of violence,” making an equation between Arab terrorism and Jews who just want to live their lives. And you call it “the occupation” something you never call it when Isis takes over countries or when the U.S. won territory in a war.
And you refuse to call it Islamic terrorism or even to call this bad behavior evil.
You care about my health and want me to stop drinking soda, not to smoke cigarettes, or eat fatty foods or whatever your instruction of the day is, but you want to force me into a health care plan that costs me too much, takes away my freedom to choose my doctor and hospital, makes me buy a one size fits all coverage that covers me for things I will never use but will be forced to pay for; and in the end I will have no good health care at all as good doctors and nurses leave the profession and all I will have access to are the dregs, which means my health will suffer.
You want everyone to have freedom, but you vote for Hillary or Bernie whose every word is about taking away our freedom.
Bernie rants against big business, Wall Street and billionaires (are there even one hundred billionaires in this country? I doubt it.) who control us. But everything he says in his speeches shows how HE wants to control us.
He rants about immediately forcing all businesses to give $15. an hour to employees as if that is a magic number. But he honeymooned in Cuba when individual Cubans earned $16 — not per hour, not even in a day, but in a MONTH. And this does not phase him or seem to represent any inconsistency to him. Why is anyone voting for this guy?
You HATE Ted Cruz because he is religious and wants to tell us how to live. Ha. Name one word in any speech of Hillary or Bernie that is not an example of telling Americans how we must live, what we must think, all that they want to do to control us.
You tell us to love each other and get along and you criticize the right for being divisive, and yet you celebrate those who chant “black lives matter”, who think they have the right to seize microphones to prevent anyone from speaking who is not them. You tell us it is free speech when these people disrupt private meetings and bully people or close down streets or highways and you ask us to be proud of them.
But if there is a Tea Party rally, we are disgusting people, we who love the Constitution and liberty, who leave the place where we demonstrate in immaculate condition and who bully no one, are the ones who disgust you.
You celebrate a president who harms or shuns our allies, who thinks it is beneath him to go to Nancy Reagan’s funeral or to France after terrorist acts, but thinks it is just ducky to tell Raul Castro that our revolution is like their revolution and America has a lot to learn from Cuba, and who gives Raul the ability to borrow money that Americans will have to pay back because Raul surely won’t, and who makes friends with the Mullahs of Iran and gives them money and a deal that was made in hell, yet who urges Congress to shun a speech by Netanyahu – and the dems LISTEN to him. Tyrants and villains are welcome here, but not allies.
And who, not only does not come home, but goes to a baseball game in Cuba and dances the tango in Argentina while Belgium is suffering from a recent terrorist attack. and who prematurely took our troops out of Iraq, and whom I blame for the rise of Isis helping it to new safe havens and weapons and power to carry our its bad deeds and who then blames Bush for this debacle.
And you support Hillary who proclaimed that no one died in Libya, and if I have to explain why that is horrifying, then where have you been?
Why are you not ashamed?
You liberals have a lot to answer for and I cannot understand why any of what I am saying to you is news. But if I try to ask you or tell you anything all I get is, “I don’t want to talk about it” or “I never heard that; where did you hear that?” because you are so busy reading your left wing sources and ignoring any others that everything I say is news to you. You have slogans, “I don’t see it the way you do” but no substantive responses.
You have double standards. You want your money and lifestyle – you’ve got yours – but you are indifferent to the sufferings caused by your progressivism in this country and in the world, and you take no responsibility for any of it . You blame Bush and me for anything that is wrong.
You say, “We must never forget,” about the Holocaust but you are indifferent to the one going on today as Islamists are killing Christians by the thousands.
Do you know what? You can answer me all you want. It won’t do. It just won’t work any more. And, more likely, you will ignore my rant here, anyway.
I am tired of you. You weary me. You have a lot to answer for, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
After the last several months of chipping away at the two stage GOP field, Donald Trump is estimated to have enjoyed over $2 billion worth of free publicity in the MSM’s hyper-coverage of him and his campaign.
Well, if nothing else, Trump knows how to make people work for him…
(BuzzFeed) – Two network sources also confirmed the unprecedented control the television networks have surrendered to Trump in a series of private negotiations, allowing him to dictate specific details about placement of cameras at his event, to ensure coverage consists primarily of a single shot of his face.
Network officials say the ratings have born out commercial incentives to devote their campaign coverage to largely unfiltered streams of Trump talking. CBS CEO Les Moonves quipped that Trump “may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS, that’s all I got to say.”
But many inside the networks are growing increasingly disturbed with what they’ve helped create.
“As a programmer, it’s an easy decision, people watch it,” said one producer. “As an American, I’m sort of troubled by it, because I feel like we contribute it.”
According to two sources familiar with the call, the Trump campaign, citing security concerns from Secret Service, dictated to the networks that their camera crews can only shoot Trump head-on from a fenced-in press pen.
Under the Trump campaign’s conditions, camera crews would not be able to leave the press pen during Trump’s rallies to capture video of audience reactions, known in the industry as “cutaway shots” or “cuts.” Networks would also not be able to use a separate riser set up to get cutaway shots.
The terms, which limit the access journalists have to supporters and protesters while Trump is speaking, are unprecedented, and are more restrictive than those put on the networks by the White House or Hillary Clinton’s campaign, which has had Secret Service protection for its duration.