Re: Pagliesque
Thu, 17 Sep 1998 17:39:40 -0400 wrote:
> CNN Talk Back, today: Talbot - the purveyor of Paglia, Horowitz and other
> creative thinkers* - defends posting the Hyde story in Salon magazine. "We
> pay no one for their stories - we're not a tabloid," he claims.

Thats funny, because, according to the Associated Press:

"His daughter, Robin, sold one photo for $1,500 to the Internet
magazine, Salon, that
broke the story. "

I guess paying for a story would make Salon a tabloid, but paying for a
picture is still legit. :)

> Never mind
> that the mainstream press rejected the Hyde story, partially because of its
> stilted-husband perspective. Being "independent," Salon is free to print
> whatever it wants.

I just love Salons justification for this smear campaign:

The editors of Salon, which often has attacked Clinton critics, said
they decided to run the Hyde story because ``Clinton's enemies have
changed the rules.''

``Does the fact that Henry Hyde engaged in an adulterous affair, and
tried to keep it hidden from his family and constituents, mean he is not
fit to hold public office? Absolutely not. And the
same is true of President Clinton,'' the editors said.

I'm a big fan of Salon, read it inside out on a weekly basis, but geez,
I've gotta point out the obvious here: Hank Hyde, Helen Chenoworth and
Dan Burton were not on the bent-over end of a sexual harrassment
lawsuit, and did not lie, blatantly, under oath, perjuring themselves,
about their affairs. They haven't committed a crime, then covered it up
for seven months at huge taxpayer expense. *BIG DIFFERENCE*