WSJ rejection of Breitweiser editorial

[Southpaw Bookworm]

Sorry, DU mods, that I didn't use the correct head, but this was only one item in a larger column, the Reliable Source in the WP. Please forgive my transgression. I promise to self-flagellate later in contrition.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22538-2004May12.html

Okay, but What Do You Really Think?

• If your opinion piece is rejected by a newspaper, you'll probably get a polite note and never know the real reason. But Kristen Breitweiser, the activist 9/11 widow from New Jersey, received a cruel critique yesterday from Wall Street Journal columnist Dorothy Rabinowitz, a member of the editorial board. Rabinowitz dashed off an e-mail urging the op-ed editor not to publish a submission from Breitweiser and three other widows -- then copied the note to Breitweiser accidentally.

"total and complete -- not to mention repetitive -- nonsense from people given endless media access to repeat the very same stupid charges, suspicions, and the rest," Rabinowitz fumed.

" . . . this is just an opportunity for these absurd products of the zeitgeist -- women clearly in the grip of the delusion that they know something, have some policy, and wisdom not given to the rest of us to know -- to grab the spotlight. again,. and repeat, again, the same tripe before a national audience. My thoughts -- we don't publish nonsensical contentions that offer no news, no insight -- solely on the grounds that those who feel attacked get a chance to defend their views. For that we have the letters column."

Ouch!

"I couldn't believe the response I got. It's just upsetting," Breitweiser told The Post's Howard Kurtz. "This woman, I don't know why she hates me so much."

Breitweiser's proposed op-ed, "What Is a Citizen to Do?," catalogues government missteps leading to 9/11. She said it was not intended as a response to a column Rabinowitz wrote in April citing "the darker side of this spectacle of the widows, awash in their sense of victims' entitlement," but to the overall position of the Journal.

We asked Rabinowitz for comment. "That was a note from me to my editor, never intended for the recipient," she wrote in an e-mail. "It was inadvertently sent to that address as a result of hitting the wrong computer key."

[THUNDER HANDS]

1. question

why was she sending an opinion piece to the Wall Street Journal anyway? Isn't that paper just read by apolitical rich fatcats and Republicans?

[KittyWampus]

2. Is There Any Way To Know What Page This Appears On?

Apparently Rabinowitz has a chip on her shoulder.

But then, when you are of below average intelligence and have your job by virtue of being a Corporate/Fascist Asskisser... it doesn't take much to prick your conscience.

[MSgt213]

3. What an ass. She is entitled to present her views, but no one else is.

[Killarney]

4. Doh!

Dorothy Rabinowitz is probably so pissed she hit that wrong key.

The WSJ really has a hatred for the truth right now.

[LittleApple81]

5. I bet the rage at seeing an intelligent woman who has gotten ACTION

out of Bush*'s misadministration having the "gall" to challenge their RW richcat messages really blinded Rabinowitz. (I don't thing we would have the 9/11 commission, as weak as it is, if it were not for the 9/11 widows)

We owe these women a debt of gratitude. They have taken so many rabid attacks from the RW and kept on going.

[redqueen]

17. You're right

there wouldn't be a 9/11 commission if not for them.

[gulfcoastliberal]

6. Rabinowitz deserves the controversial B word

I'm sure Paul Gigot loved it, though.

[gandalf]

7. This is really unbelievable

not surprising, though

[Mandate My Ass]

8. God don't like ugly

Hitting the wrong computer key got her busted, but Ms. Rabinowitz still doesn't feel the need to apologize for her nasty venomous comments about the widows.

[Jacobin]

9. Isn't it interesting when you get to see what they don't want

you to see.....what they are really thinking that they say only among themselves.

WSJ is such a rag.

[LittleApple81]

10. I went looking for some info on Rabinowitz. Part of the RW conspiracy

against Clinton.
Her picture:



Article about Clinton's attacker Broaddrick:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/feb1999/wsj-f27.shtml
snip...
Of particular significance in the Broaddrick episode is the role of the Wall Street Journal. The Journal was the first establishment news outlet to break the story, publishing a lengthy interview with Broaddrick on its editorial pages on February 19. Editor Robert Bartley and writer Dorothy Rabinowitz made no bones that they were vouching for the truth of Broaddrick's allegations, highlighting in enlarged type their view that "this was an event that took place."

Rabinowitz was chosen to write the interview in an effort to lend credibility to Broaddrick's story. Notwithstanding her right-wing views, Rabinowitz earned a certain stature within journalistic circles for a series of articles she published in the Wall Street Journal and Harper's magazine some years ago exposing high profile cases in which people were convicted and jailed on false charges of child abuse. Ironically, her defense of these frameup victims was based on exposing the allegations against them as consisting of precisely the type of unsubstantiated charges that she is now supporting in Broaddrick's attack on Clinton.

Bartley had to publish the interview on the Journal's editorial pages, which he controls, because the Journal's news editors refused to carry the story. They judged it to be lacking the minimal basis in fact and corroboration required to bring it before the public. Such was the odor of slander given off by the Journal's interview with Broaddrick that three days after its appearance, Bartley felt obliged to publish an editorial protesting the reluctance of other media outlets, including his own paper's news pages, to publicize the rape allegation.

The Journal's role in promoting the Broaddrick story is nothing new. Its editorial pages have supplied the main ideological ammunition for the political destabilization drive that began within weeks of Clinton's taking office in 1993. The Journal led the character assassination campaign against Clinton aide Vincent Foster, which Foster cited in his suicide note as the thing that drove him over the edge. Then the Journal turned around and initiated the "Who Killed Foster?" editorial campaign, implying that Clinton had his long-time friend and political associate bumped off.

more at link.

[Mandate My Ass]

11. Awesome find!!!

And she talks about KB being delusional and having no facts to bolster her claims?! :puke:

[Sparkle]

12. I will always blame those right wing shills at WSJ for the death

of Vince Foster. How can those guys sleep at night?

[Alerter_]

14. this woman's articles are quite interesting

Everyone should read them.

"Rabinowitz earned a certain stature within journalistic circles for a series of articles she published in the Wall Street Journal and Harper's magazine some years ago exposing high profile cases in which people were convicted and jailed on false charges of child abuse."

Huh.

[newyawker99]

18. Hi Alerter_!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[leftofthedial]

15. man, talk about baseless tripe

what a mindless shrew

It's a shame we live in a culture that allows such vermin to succeed professionally.

[Alerter_]

13. 911 Widows being silenced by the media

Too many victims of the WTC attack aren't "getting the message".

[pinkpops]

16. never intended for the recipient

Just like the pictures, huh, better kept out of the public eye?

I had nevever heard of Rabinowitz, but here's a blurb on her
http://www.nyobserver.com/pages/story.asp?ID=8785

[kentuck]

19. Yep! She fucked up twice !

First , with her decision. And then, by hitting the wrong computer key....

[VolcanoJen]

20. I find the Rabinowitz Venom toward 9/11 Widows to be sickly humorous.

It's just further proof that when rats are backed up against a wall, they'll lash out at the most unlikely people imaginable.

Good luck winning the "hearts and minds" of your readers, Rabinowitz, when you spew such disgusting venom toward a group of women that most Americans feel sympathy and empathy for.

Disgusting. And not unexpected. Thanks, also, for being computer-illiterate, Ms. Rabinowitz. Can't hide now, can you? :D

[myrna minx]

21. I smell a top ten idiot for next week. n/t