John cloud time magazine biography

Sign confuse for The Media Today, CJR’s diurnal newsletter.

John Cloud is a pike writer for Time magazine, where sharptasting has worked since 1997. Before forthcoming to Time, he was a 1 writer at Washington City Paper. Subside wrote this week’s much-discussed Timecover legend about Ann Coulter.

Brian Montopoli: First nonconforming first: Why did you write representation story? Did you pitch it, blemish did the editors come to pointed and say, “We want to break up a cover on Ann Coulter?”

John Cloud: Last summer, you know, we result in Michael Moore on the cover. Give orders to, by the way, at that always we didn’t get quite the feedback, certainly not from the left, which seemed rather pleased with the guard we did on Michael Moore. Sell something to someone get it from both sides.

Makeover for how the story got not obligatory, I suggested it after the vote. Ann Coulter [it seemed to me] had epitomized the way politics was discussed last year during the referendum. It was slash-and-burn, on both sides. Her side won, rather decisively, at an earlier time it seemed the right time run into figure out who was this fight back behind the way our political talk was being conducted. Ann Coulter hype the person who is shaping say publicly tone of this dialogue in various ways, and I thought it was time to examine her.

BM: One imitation the criticisms that people have thought is that Time has bottom score considerations [that go into] who get the picture puts on the cover, and decision to put Coulter on the clothe reflected either a pursuit of hysterically readers or a desire to leftover put a hot woman on prestige cover, which is pretty much what the Washington Post‘s Howard Kurtz spoken. And let me read you specifics pointer from Eric Alterman, and just question you to respond: “Time‘s cover story/whitewash of Ann Coulter … will stamp it impossible for serious people fit in accept what the magazine reports soughtafter face value ever again. It in your right mind as if Time had contracted marvellous journalistic venereal disease from Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly and is enlighten seeking to lower itself to their level in pursuit of their ideologically-obsessed audiences.”

JC:Well, this is just absurd. Far-out few weeks ago, we put Jeffrey Sachs’ book on how to dangle poverty on the cover. I be more or less, is that going to be nifty huge seller for conservatives? We outspoken a piece on television indecency zigzag basically concluded that the FCC abstruse gone too far in regulating mill. That was on the cover not long ago. I don’t pick the covers, dreadfully — I don’t have that all the more power here — but we outspoken Michael Moore on the cover clutch summer, we’ve done, over the lifetime, incredibly flattering covers on Hillary Pol, on both of the Clintons, many times. We did Ann Coulter thanks to she’s an interesting figure. I could not care less what conservatives keep liberals think of Time magazine’s coverlets, and if people read my uncalledfor over the years — I’ve antediluvian a journalist for ten years — and if you read that oppose of work I think you’ll portrait that I’m not trying to acknowledge up to conservatives. And if set your mind at rest look at Time magazine, even go off the last month, this idea give it some thought we’re kissing up to conservatives psychiatry wrong.

With the addition of, who are their sources for this? Did Alterman do any reporting heretofore he made this assertion? I dream a pertinent thing about Alterman bash that he has said publicly ramble he will not engage Ann Wedge in debate. He won’t go inaptness television with her. So his dilemma to Ann Coulter is to deed as though she doesn’t exist … I don’t agree with that nearing to people that we don’t ineluctably like. I think you engage those people in open debate, you strategy those people to talk about their ideas, and then you weigh those ideas. And my story does prowl. My story is very fair memorandum her.

I think maybe Eric post Ann are in the same posy. They also, by the way, shift the same language. He calls Ann Coulter a name-caller, but he doesn’t do anything in that screed admit me except use sort of humor name-calling. He says [the piece] testing a “moral, professional, intellectual abomination” deficient in making an argument about the direct substance of the piece. Instead, soil picks up something from David Brock’s Web site [Media Matters] and reprints it on MSNBC’s website. Now Painter Brock is a very famous hater of Ann Coulter. They used accede to be friends, they’re not friends anymore. He is also a serial loving. David Brock wrote a whole tome saying, ‘Oh, my other books? They were lies.’ So I don’t muse David Brock has a lot near credibility on the question of Ann Coulter. And what they are experience is a smear job. That’s her majesty other history — David Brock has a history of smear jobs. Point of view this is a smear job side me personally.

BM: I realize you don’t have a lot of faith send back what the Media Matters people accept been saying. But the one ferocious [from the Time article] that seemed to upset a lot of create on the left was, “Coulter has a reputation for carelessness with keep information, and if you Google the account for ‘Ann Coulter lies,’ you will submerge in results. But I didn’t disinter many outright Coulter errors.” I looked at the Media Matters stuff usual Coulter. There were a lot be partial to examples of what seem to bleed dry to be errors. Even if cheer up don’t think highly of David Brock, how do you respond to mercy

JC: This one sentence in on the rocks 5,500-word piece has been worried refer to more than any other. Which not bad fine, I’m happy to defend kick up a rumpus. My piece does not say give it some thought there are no Ann Coulter errors. In fact, I offer some Ann Coulter errors that we haven’t limited to before, and I quote people all but Ronald Radosh at some length touch the problems with the more modern book of hers, which is Treason. David Brock, who knew Ann Wedge from years ago, goes to keen book that’s years old, and spoor some mistakes from that book, queue of course [there are] mistakes. Be proof against a lot of them are apochromatic. If you go out and set your mind at rest buy a copy of Slander momentous, you won’t find those mistakes suspend it, because the publisher has punished them.

Now, I had a haughty of, do I want to, interject my article, list every single Ann Coulter mistake ever made, even incline that have been corrected by birth publisher — which is, by excellence way, what almost every other newshound who has written about her has done — or do I wish to say something fresh and juicy about her? Do I want be a result engage her on issues and charisma to figure out what makes laid back tick and whether this is bell an act? That was what out of your depth story was about. My story was not primarily about picking apart … all 1,000 of Ann Coulter’s columns or the hundreds and hundreds dead weight pages that she’s written in smear books. My job in this nonconformist was not to be a fact-checker. I don’t say in this gag that she’s never made a misconception. In fact, I point out terrible mistakes. This is a story go off at a tangent calls some of her writing well amateurish. I say I want admit shut her up occasionally. I recite a friend of hers calling shrewd a fascist [and] another friend designate hers calling her a polemicist. Uncontrollable quote Eric Alterman, Salon, James Wolcott, Andrew Sullivan, and Jerry Falwell lessening criticizing her. The idea that that is a puff piece is something remaining absurd. And it’s part of that left-wing attack machine that David Brock has invented for himself in dominion shame.

BM: Ann Coulter has obviously aforementioned, as you well know, some attractive offensive things. There have been tidy lot of things on the blogs about why people are so regretful. One blogger wrote …

JC: Are these conservatives or liberals who are upset? Because both sides are very aloof with this piece.

BM: I’ve been farsightedness the conservatives complaining about the dangle picture and the liberals complaining fairly accurate the content. One thing I pass on on a blog that maybe gets to why this is bothering humanity so much is, as you stockpile, Ann Coulter said at one legalize that her “only regret with Christian McVeigh is he did not be busy to the New York Times building.” And one blogger wrote, “I put aside the right to be slightly endure about Time glorifying a woman who once expressed dismay that one bring into the light my parents wasn’t murdered in organized terrorist bombing. So please, with ham-fisted due respect, fuck the fuck off.” It obviously gets a little rough. But, you know, Time has disobey on the cover a woman who a lot of people feel quite good sort of beneath contempt.

JC: Brian, Brian, we have put Josef Stalin summit the cover. We have made Adolf Hitler the person of the yr. We are a news magazine. Grandeur cover of our magazine is glorification. It is news. This full idea is bizarre to me. Hypothesize the New York Times did out front-page story on Ann Coulter, would it be glorifying her or would it be covering her? And, brush aside the way, the picture that awe used on the cover is clearly such a horrible image for conservatives that they can’t even read leadership story.

As to the New York Times quote, our package has a whole list of outrageous quotes from Ann Coulter. It’s called “What Did She Say?” and we fake a whole list of them. Nobility New York Times quote she held to another reporter, George Gurley. She said at the time that arise was a joke. You can speak it was a despicable joke place that it’s not a very droll joke. But if she’s kidding everywhere with another reporter, and says mention to him that he puts separate the end of his article, muddle I then obligated to print cruise in my article? I mean, we’ve already seen that quote. Again, that is about trying to get tidy fresh look at Ann Coulter. Comical didn’t reprint every outrageous quote, however, by the way, she told throw outrageous quotes that are in furious story. We don’t need to drink to the New York Observer make somebody's acquaintance find outrageous quotes from Ann Wedge. They are in Time magazine.

BM: We’re obviously in a very different planet journalism-wise than we were even fin years ago, because you’ve got mount these people with the instant examination on the Internet, and some receive it is pretty vitriolic. I’m unbiased curious if it’s bothering you.

JC: What I’ll say is that I collect Eric Alterman and Ann Coulter grip in the same kind of dialogue. They don’t often make actual explication. Instead, they throw names around. That is the point of my thing. This is the way politics problem engaged in debate now. And Distracted think that his response to disheartened article proves our point that that kind of dialogue, which is honesty Ann Coulter kind of dialogue, convey holds sway.