THE NEWS BLOG

 
Steve and Jen bring you this daily review of the news
Premium Advertiser

News Blog Sponsors

News Links

BBC World Service
The Guardian
Independent
Washington Post
Newsday
Iraq Order of Battle
Agonist
NY Times
LA Times
ABC News
CNN
Blogger

 
Blogs We Like

Daily Kos
Atrios
Digby's Blog
Skippy
Operation Yellow Elephant
Iraq Casualty Count
Uggabugga
Media Matters
Talking Points
Defense Tech
Intel Dump
Soldiers for the Truth
Margaret Cho
Juan Cole
Tbogg
Corrente
Gropinator
Just a Bump in the Beltway
Baghdad Burning
Wonkette
Howard Stern
Michael Moore
James Wolcott
Cooking for Engineers
There is No Crisis
Whiskey Bar
Rude Pundit
Driftglass
At-Largely
Crooks and Liars
Amazin' Avenue
DC Media Girl
The Server Logs

 
Blogger Credits

Powered by Blogger

Archives by
Publication Date
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
Comments Credits
Comments by YACCS
Friday, May 05, 2006

Why do people keep fucking with Juan Cole?


Goddamnit, stop comparing me to that
former Trokskyite Hitchens. I NEVER
changed sides, I was always a loyal
Communist. Hitchens betrayed his own
ideals for money. The KGB certainly
didn't make me rich. But I ALWAYS
served the cause.

It may not be the biggest story in the world, but Chris "Philby" Hitchens published a series of private list e-mails to a list he apparently wasn't a member of. Cole kicked his ass in print
(pictures not work safe), but now, he's wondering why the WaPo's Slate would publish such private information.

What is really at issue is that Cole is up for a history chair at Yale, which is pretty much the pinnacle of his profession, and a lot of necons want to stop him;


Cole/Weisberg Correspondence on Hitchens

With Mr. Weisberg's permission, I am posting our correspondence on the Hitchens hatchet job on me in Slate earlier this week.

==============================

From: Jacob Weisberg
Sent: Thu 5/4/2006 6:15 PM
To: Cole, Juan
Subject: RE: Forwarded from Weisberg

Dear Juan Cole,

Thanks for yor message. I certainly know your work and have seen it cited in Slate and elsewhere. I don't want to commission a reponse from you, but you are welcome to write a response which we will post in the Fray and excerpt at the end of the original Hitchens piece. That is how we do letters to the editor here. I'm afraid I don't understand your various accusations, which presume some knowledge I don't have.

I don't know what manuscript or piece you are talking about. And how has Hitchens stolen your email? If someone you sent a message to forwarded it to Hitchens, that is not "theft" by any definition I am familiar with -- it is something that happens all the time on the web. I would suggest that you try to respond calmly on the substantive issues.

If you are making some sort of legal threat against us, I should have our lawyer
respond.


Yours sincerely,

Jacob Weisberg

============================================

From: Cole, Juan
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 12:31 AM
To: Jacob Weisberg
Subject: RE: Forwarded from Weisberg


Dear Mr. Weisberg:

Thank you so much for your prompt reply.

I will consider doing as you say and writing a response for the Fray and also for the bottom of the original Hitchens piece.

I am sorry that I did not do a better job of explaining the issue of the purloined email. It is not a matter of going to the law, but it is a matter of Slate's reputation, especially in the blogosphere . . .

The email correspondence that Mr. Hitchens published without my permission had not appeared publicly. The emails were sent to a small private list, of scholars and experts, for reaction, and I was aiming to write something journalistic or give a major address on Ahmadinejad. The list to which I sent the emails has a requirement that no material appearing there be forwarded off the list. Obviously, a list member violated his pledge and passed the messages to Hitchens.

For Hitchens then to publish early drafts of something I was working on, and to use them as a basis for a vitriolic attack on me was just wrong as a matter of law. (Again, I do not say this with litigation in mind, only as a matter of principle). It violated my copyright in my manuscript. and scooped me, reducing the value of the material. That the emails had not appeared publicly, and were not intended to be so, removes considerations of fair use. I append below, purely for your information, the reaction I got to all this from a friendly attorney.

But I think that the Hitchens article was much worse as a matter of unethical journalistic practice than it was as an infringement of the law. Hitchens, having come into this material, could have called me and interviewed me. Journalists interview me all the time. I could have been given the opportunity to set them in context and to respond to his points. How could he possibly even understand what I was getting at from a couple of disconnected emails someone handed to him? How could he do his job that way? He could have sought my permission to publish my private email. In essence, he rushed off blind to do a hatchet job on me, one he has clearly been put up to by unsavory individuals. That's not journalism, and I don't have to tell you that.

So I sppose the thing that would most sadden me would be a failure among the Slate editors to understand that what Hitchens did really was wrong and unethical and bad journalism.

cheers



Juan Cole



Appendix:

In a case where the Defendant magazine sought to use the "fair use" defense when they published previously unpublished portions of (you're going to love this) President Ford's memoirs, (you're going to love this) in The Nation magazine in an effort to scoop a sanctioned article about to appear in Time Magazine. Ginsberg wrote for the majority in shooting down fair use. Most cases have moved from the "public figure" viewpoint to "public discourse" but it's the same thing. The case also holds that unpublished material the author never intends to see the light of day is protected and that's still good law. Actually it's great law. The right of first publication looms large against the defense of fair use. The question is whether the unauthorized publication intends to supersede the as yet unpublished material. Cite: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 105 S.Ct. 2218, U.S.N.Y.,1985.

Clearly, Hitchens intended to pre-empt you and supersede your eventual publication when he printed material he expects you to eventually publish and changed its meaning to fit his own goals. There are many other factors, but that one is key. Some other things that I think factor in your favor is that the limited dissemination of this material to peers for their review in order to help you refine your eventual publication is exactly the type of pre publication work the copyright act intended to protect when it incorporated common law protections into the act. Scooping, when getting the material from another's work and not on your own, is never fair use . . .


====================

From: Jacob Weisberg
Sent: Fri 5/5/2006 10:22 AM
To: Cole, Juan
Subject: RE: Forwarded from Weisberg

Dear Mr Cole,

I have read your message and also your blog post today. In my judgment, there is no ethical issue here. Commentators are under no obligation to call people they write about. And Hitchens correctly described the email he quoted from as being from your Gulf discussion group. Your substantive disagreement about the translation and the issues around it are a fit matter for public debate, which appears to be taking place.

Yours sincerely,



Jacob Weisberg


Hitchens played dirty because he's a sad old drunk, kinda how like Philby ended his days, and couldn't debate a scholar in his subject area. Hitchens used a coward's way out and it's only a matter of time before he winds up like David Irving, defending nonsense in a courtroom and losing badly.

Weisberg has to decide if he wants Slate to be the vehicle for his humiliation or not.

The Beltway boys need to take another lesson from the Colbert appearance, people dislike them. Hitchens can stagger around and act badly, but there are people who will finally get him on the record and in a courtroom. God knows the damage his drinking has done.

Yes, you can be British and witty for a while, although his act would have been long over in the UK, but in the end, fucking with people like Cole is always a mistake. He may seem like a mild mannered guy, but so do the ex special operators I know. I wouldn't fuck with Cole myself, but that's just me.

posted by Steve @ 3:22:00 PM

3:22:00 PM

The News Blog home page





 

Editorial Staff
RSS-XML Feeds

Add to My AOL

Support The News Blog

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More
News Blog Food Blog
Visit the News Blog Food Blog
The News Blog Shops
 
 
 
Operation Yellow Elephant
Enlist, Young Republicans