Search Salon

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Recently in Salon News

The bloody truth about Kosovo
No amount of whitewashing can cover up the mess the Clinton administration has on its hands in Yugoslavia.
By Arianna Huffington
[12/14/99]

Murder in Colombia
American Indians seek to avenge the murder of one of their leaders by leftist rebels.
By Ana Arana
[12/14/99]

Online panel to rate debate on SpeakOut.com
The 700 GOP primary voters watching the Des Moines debate on MSNBC will closely mirror Republican voters nationwide.
By Speakout.com
[12/14/99]

Goodbye, cruel world
Video footage made by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold leaves unanswered questions about whether their parents could have stopped the massacre at Columbine.
By Dave Cullen
[12/14/99]

Bush gets religion
The GOP front-runner extols Jesus and criticizes McCain in his third debate.
By Jake Tapper
[12/14/99]

Complete archives for News

- - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

But there's yet another new wrinkle to the story.

As the Baltimore Sun first reported this week, the original galleys of Isikoff's book, "Uncovering Clinton: A Reporter's Story," presented a timeline for these events that matched perfectly with the information now emerging from the documents from the Tripp proceedings. In the pre-publication galleys, Isikoff wrote, "About twelve-thirty a.m., Jim Moody showed up at Newsweek's Washington bureau with one of the tapes."

But the version published in the book reads rather differently: "Late that afternoon, Linda Tripp later testified, Jim Moody showed up at Newsweek's Washington bureau with one of the tapes."

Why the difference? Some of Starr's critics have speculated that Isikoff changed the timing of the meeting to cover up for Linda Tripp's perjured testimony and perhaps, by extension, Starr's false denials about the chain of events leading to the eventual release of the details from the tapes.

Isikoff's most detailed response appeared in Howard Kurtz's column in Wednesday's Washington Post, in which Isikoff was quoted as saying that he had revised the section "to make it clear I was referring to information that was already a matter of public record."

When Salon News asked Isikoff what he meant by this quote, he referred us back to the quote he gave Kurtz.

On the face of it, that explanation doesn't make any sense. It's quite clear that the meeting in question took place in the middle of the night of Jan. 16-17. Newsweek originally published the story with that time and date. And Ann McDaniel, who was present when the tape was played, told Salon News Wednesday that though she could not remember the specific date, it was "definitely the middle of the night, and not the afternoon."

So what did Isikoff mean? Reading between the lines of Isikoff's remark, he seems to be saying that he still felt himself bound by some agreement of confidentiality with Moody, or some other party, and thought that he could not describe the event from his own notes, but instead used Tripp's description of events because they were already on the public record. Kurtz, presumably relying on an off-the-record conversation with Isikoff, attributes the difference of time to an editing error. Whether one accepts that explanation depends largely on how much benefit of the doubt one is inclined to give Isikoff.

But none of this affects the underlying implication of these new revelations: that Starr's office knowingly went out of its way to provide James Moody with a copy of the incriminating tape in order that he would be able to play it for Isikoff before Isikoff's deadline, and thus make the material available for Isikoff's story.
salon.com | Dec. 16, 1999

- - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

  Get a printer-friendly version

  E-mail a friend about this article

  Backflip this article to find it again

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Search Salon