Dear Mr LIMPERT:
This is to complain about your decision to remove Kitty KELLEY from the masthead of Washingtonian directly due to her book about the BUSH family, or actually your reasons specific to George W. BUSH, as reported in the link below.
I am writing here as an individual, not as a representative of any group, not as part of any organized movement complaining about this matter, and not as a follower of Ms KELLEY’s books in the long term, the only ones of which I have read being the ones about Nancy REAGAN and the BUSH family, both within the past year.
In the months before publication of the BUSH family book, I read many internet articles about her, the salient points that emerged being that she had never been successfully sued by any of her subjects and that she invariably documents each item with at least two sources, which amounted to reliability and responsibility in my estimation.
Upon reading the book itself in full, not your “scanning” of it, I found Ms KELLEY’s treatment to be temperate, moderated, and fair. In fact, at times I thought she was glossing over some of the more controversial versions of events, current in other places, such as the BUSH family’s alleged role in funding Nazi activities or the plane crashes and crew deaths in H.W.’s military career.
You are quoted as basing your criticism of her on respect for “the office” and being willing to “attack” the President’s “behavior”---but then as being unwilling to attack him “personally”. It would seem that you distinguish between office/person and simultaneously proceed to ban all descriptions of his behavior as an irresponsible personal attack. Would you have extended the same deference to JEFFERSON, JACKSON, or CLINTON, among many others who were the objects of personal attacks in the extreme, I wonder?
I don’t believe in many conspiracies, but DO believe that there is great strength in networking, such as your magazine owner’s appearing to have a stake in protecting the image of the BUSH family through mutual interests and cronyism. In this context, his directing you or your consulting him overtly could well be unnecessary, just an unspoken imperative in the air.
The bottom line is that for somebody with a role like yours, in professional editing, reading, and writing, it was highly unprofessional and unethical for you not to READ her book in full before passing a judgment and executing an adverse action against her, against anybody. And when your personal relationship with her going back so many years is thrown in, one might suppose that personal betrayal is also a factor.
Sincerely (never to be “Yours”)
/s/
*******QUOTE*******
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45314-2004Dec7.html.... the mag unceremoniously booted her from the masthead of its current issue, citing her controversial book "The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty." In an e-mail last week, Editor Jack Limpert lashed Kelley for what he called the book's
partisan timing and its
irresponsible reporting about President Bush:
"We are always willing to attack the policies, and the behavior, of the President," Limpert wrote to Kelley. "But it seems to us that
the office deserves respect. We don't think we should
attack a President personally -- his relations with his wife and family, his use of alcohol or other drugs, things like that -- without a very solid basis for doing so. . . . We felt strongly enough that we didn't want readers to feel that your appearance on the masthead meant we endorsed the book." ….
…owner Philip
Merrill, who she noted "has had a
long relationship with George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Dick Cheney." ….
…masthead
pruning was routine: -- names of infrequently contributing editors are cut every year. He added, "I
never talk to Phil about this."
The editor acknowledged that he has only "scanned" Kelley's book but said that allegations of past
drug use by Dubya "crossed the line for responsibility." ….
********UNQUOTE*******
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
