_______________THE UGLIEST STORY YET BY JOAN WALSH (02/22/99)

The headline of your article, "The ugliest story yet," promises an answer to the seemingly self-obviating non-question: "Why the Wall Street Journal ran the Clinton rape story that no other reputable news organization would touch." Yet, no such answer is forthcoming, unless it is that which is inferred. Does Salon Magazine doubt the veracity of Juanita Broaddrick's story? we are left to wonder. Indeed, if the non-specific name-calling and anti-anti-Clinton bashing are removed, the reader is left with nothing more than a lowbrow executive summary of the Wall Street Journal article. Is Salon Magazine claiming that Broaddrick's allegations are false, or that a rape committed by the president is not newsworthy? It must be one of the two, and the answer is important to those of us who prefer to loathe neo-"journalists" for the correct reasons. -- Bob Shearer Elgin, Texas I have refused to subscribe to your magazine since you gratuitously published the Henry Hyde "scoop." Even though I am a Democrat, I considered that article sorry, shoddy partisan journalism at best and was ashamed for you. Now is your opportunity to prove me (partially) wrong: Put one or more of your best investigative reporters on the Juanita Broaddrick matter and thoroughly explore it -- particularly the issue concerning the "mainstream" press's handling of it at a time when it was clearly relevant to the biggest story of 1998. -- Robert T Wright Jr. I could not help wondering why, in an article devoted to discrediting this allegation against the president, the author makes virtually no effort to enlighten readers why exactly the story has no credibility. There are repeated references to a recent interview with Juanita Broaddrick, but no discussion of the substance of this interview. Is she now contradicting the 1992 affidavit in which she denied being raped? The author notes on more than one occasion that other journalists have repeatedly "knocked down" the allegation. How? On the basis of what evidence? Please don't make mistake my curiosity for an eagerness to believe the allegation. Quite the opposite, I'm prepared to dismiss it as another in a series of right-wing revenge fantasies, but you have not given me the means to make this decision on my own. -- Jim Davis Madison, Wisc. Once again, Salon demonstrates the depths to which it will sink in its mindless, slavish fealty to Clinton. Salon's spin is that "no reputable news organization" would touch the story since it first surfaced in 1992. Of course they wouldn't. Juanita Broaddrick refused to cooperate until the NBC interview with Lisa Meyers, so they had nothing to report. Nor would she cooperate with Kenneth Starr's investigation, and so Starr had nothing to report. Salon states that "[Dorothy] Rabinowitz did not try to debunk Broaddrick's claims. She depicts her sympathetically ..." Consider the import of that statement: According to Salon, the only proper way to approach a story like this, so damaging to President Clinton, is to "debunk" it. The fact that Rabinowitz has debunked claims of sexual harassment in the past would ordinarily lend credibility to Broaddrick's story: Rabinowitz is no fool when it comes to women with stories of harassment. But the Salon spin is that it demonstrates Rabinowitz's bias. Salon makes much of the fact that Broaddrick turned to the members of the "notoriously anti-Clinton" Wall Street Journal editorial page to tell her story. But what else is she to do when she had been given assurances that her story would air on NBC, and then NBC went back on its promise? Who else could she trust to publish the story? In her mind, Clinton is doing just what he implied he would do: ruin her if she ever told the story of what happened in that hotel room. He is utilizing his power as president to suppress the story, and Salon is more than willing to help Clinton out. -- Roderic Fabian Friendswood, Texas I am 77 years old and have never witnessed anything to equal the right-wing drive to ruin President Clinton. This rape thing is so ridiculous. If the woman had truly been raped as she said, she should/would have gone to the police with the charge. He should have been charged, and any career he might have had in politics would have stopped right there. I truly don't know why the right-wing zealots have to keep on about the man. The only thing I can figure is he is too well loved by the ordinary people of this country and he tries to do for them instead of the rich. -- Margaret Canatella Santa Fe, N.M. N E X T+P A G E+| Why I'll read Slate again; "Sports Night" fans on defense