Readback

Architects: New Building Won't Harm Brooklyn Bridge

2009-04-23T19:23:49Z

Earlier today, I posted a letter we received from Two Trees Management Co., the developers behind the building that David McCullough said would ruin views of the historic Brooklyn Bridge. To add to the fray, we also heard from the architects behind the proposed project.

Here's what John H. Beyer, a partner at Beyer Blinder Belle Architects & Planners LLP, had to say:

As the architects of a proposed building that is the subject of an opinion piece by author David McCullough (“A Masterpiece in Jeopardy, April 27), we were dismayed to discover that the article was accompanied by a rendering of the building that is inaccurate and significantly exaggerates the size and potential impacts of the building. We know this to be true because we created a rendering from this same perspective and the actual design is measurably smaller. Your rendering – which is acknowledged in a caption to be the work of those opposed to the project – is extremely misleading and your readers deserve to know that this is not what has been proposed.
The design is contextual and appropriate for this important site, and it is similar in height and massing to the nearby historic industrial buildings located in the DUMBO neighborhood next to the Brooklyn Bridge. These buildings range in height from 160 feet to 260 feet tall, and have recently been designated together as a historic district. In fact, the photograph accompanying your article was taken from an apartment in one of these buildings, 70 Washington Street, which is across the street and is about ten feet taller than the proposed building.
What your readers should have seen – were they shown the actual design – is a rendering that demonstrates that the new building will match the heights and massing of these adjacent industrial buildings. In its location next to the Brooklyn Bridge anchorage, it has been carefully positioned to minimize impacts on public views to or from the bridge. We feel that when observed in an objective light it is clearly a reasonable, sensitive contextual design.

Yes, I know. By this point, you're probably dying to see a rendering from the other side. I know I am. We are working on tracking it down in a format we can post, and will make it available as soon as possible.

UPDATE: Here's the rendering from Dock Street Dumbo's architects. They sent us the photo to show how the new building compares with the current neighborhood. If you look below, the new project is the one closest to the bridge's entryway, and the different towers are highlighted with a green roof. Note how it's shorter, and of lesser mass, than many of the surrounding buildings. (If you click on the photo, you should see a larger version.)

...

The Other Side of a Brooklyn Bridge Controversy

2009-04-23T15:04:53Z

This week, prolific author David McCullough took on the Dock Street Dumbo project, a high-rise residential building that one management company wants to build in a Brooklyn neighborhood directly adjacent to the iconic Brooklyn Bridge. In 1972, McCullough wrote "The Great Bridge," a history of the iconic thoroughfare. Now, he's gone back to the topic because, as he writes, "plans are proceeding to build an 18-story luxury apartment building within a hundred feet of the bridge on the Brooklyn side...The building, as proposed by the Two Trees Management Co., would stand 184 feet high and just about ruin the view of the bridge from on shore, as well as the view from the bridge looking toward Brooklyn—in other words, the view for just about everyone except those living in the apartments. To permit such a project so close to the bridge would be a shameful, inexcusable mistake. There is no other way to say it."

As he mentions in the piece, the building he's referencing -- which has been deemed controversial by much of the New York media -- went through the City Planning Commission earlier this week. The result? All but two members approved the project. In the end, the developers behind the building were victorious; zoning will likely be changed to accommodate the 325-unit tower, which has been reduced two or three floors in different sections as to avoid marring the vistas of the bridge. Next, the project will go to City Council. If it's approved, and presuming the developers don't run into any financial trouble, the building will become a reality.

Despite McCullough's view on the project, perhaps the Dock Street project isn't so bad. Earlier this week, NEWSWEEK received a letter refuting our piece from Two Trees Management, the company backing the project. Here's what Jed Walentas , the principal of the company, had to say:

As the primary developers of Dumbo, a neighborhood adjacent to the Brooklyn Bridge, we are incredibly sensitive to the importance of this iconic landmark. While we respect the scholarship, prominence and intelligence of David McCullough (“A Masterpiece in Jeopardy,” April 27), his opinion piece about the Bridge, in regards to our mixed-used residential project, Dock Street Dumbo, is not an accurate or fair representation of what we have proposed for the community we care so deeply about. In addition, the rendering created by project opponents and published by Newsweek, is incorrect architecturally and tremendously misleading to your readers.
Mr. McCullough fails to note that while Dock Street Dumbo will indeed include luxury rental units, it will also include the area’s first-ever affordable housing, as well as a much needed new public school that we, as developers, will be building for the City of New York. That the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission found there to be no impact on local historical resources, including the Brooklyn Bridge was not mentioned by Mr. McCullough, nor was the overwhelming support of the local Community Board, which approved the project nearly unanimously, nor was the support of Brooklyn Borough President, Marty Markowitz. These facts were supplied to a Newsweek fact checker; Newsweek chose not to print them. In fact, after careful deliberation, the New York City Planning Commission voted today to approve the Dock Street Dumbo project. The proposal now proceeds to the New York City Council for its final determination.

It sadly appears that the great author, a New England resident, has been hoodwinked into promulgating his inaccurate viewpoint by a group of neighborhood activists who have decided to use the Brooklyn Bridge as a centerpiece of their campaign against Dock Street Dumbo. We are left to wonder if Mr. McCullough is even aware of the fact that the local opposition group is led by a number of people who stand to lose their private views from their expensive condos (in fact, one such view was used by Newsweek as the accompanying photograph but failed to note that it was a view from a private apartment). These individuals – who, it should be noted, were notified of this possibility in their contracts of sale – have unsurprisingly not publicly disclosed their personal interests in the matter, choosing instead to manufacture supposed “public harm” to the Brooklyn Bridge.

An independent investigation of the Dock Street’s opponents claim, in fact, found no impact on public views of the Brooklyn Bridge and concluded “the result was objectively different from what opponents say.”

Any truly honest, objective review of this project would show that Mr. McCullough and Newsweek have been used, and sadly the only “public harm” here is the community’s potential loss of a new public school and affordable housing if Dock Street Dumbo’s dishonest, self-interested opponents prevail.

...

After 4,000 Comments, Taking the Pulse on Modern Christianity

2009-04-09T17:12:32Z

With Easter approaching on Sunday, the media has made much of Christianity this week. And with NEWSWEEK's cover, "The Decline and Fall of Christian America," many pundits have been addressing where modern religion stands (see my previous blog entry to find a round-up of the media mob regarding Christianity.) The latest comes from Colleen Raezler, a guest columnist for onenewsnow.com who wrote: "This Holy Week has been typical. Newsweek proclaimed "The Decline and Fall of Christian America" on its cover. The Washington Post/Newsweek "On Faith" blog featured a post that belittled the significance of Jesus' death and resurrection. The Discovery Channel aired a documentary that painted Jesus as little more than an opportunistic politician who caught a bad break in a trial."

Whether valid or not, it's portrayals like these that have you readers -- especially Christians -- up in arms. Yesterday, we had to disable commenting on Jon Meacham's essay because nearly 5,000 comments in a short period of time were making the site wobbly. The majority were using our forum to share their beliefs on where Christianity is headed. And as Christians, there were some great first-hand accounts of life in an increasingly "post-Christian" society. "As an Evangelical Christian from Africa, I should say this article was long overdue... I have always been bothered by Political Evangelical Christianity in America and the spreading of the same Political Christian dose in Sub Saharan Africa," wrote commenter Katm. "Any thinking and discerning evangelical Christian should take the critique in this article as a positive." Many agreed, echoing an overarching idea that Christianity in America has long been too political, and that this post-Christian America may be well-warranted. "Raised as I was, I am very familiar with the teaching of Christianity, and I am painfully aware of the holes my parents conservatism left in my education," echoed one reader."But, my favorite bible verse is the one about man being created in the image of God. Isn't that another way of saying that God and man are the same? To me it's just that simple."

With the numbers of believers down in this year's American Religious Identification Survey -- the inspiration for our cover -- I was surprised by the commenting Christians who were open about why the left organized religion. "People are not abandoning Christianity so much as abandoning organized religion," offered commenter xargaw. "Many of us have found a deeper faith in our own searching and in our communities outside of the church where irrelevant doctrine and hypocrisy are hard to ignore. There is often more of God at work in volunteerism in your town and being a true friend to someone in need than in the church building. Many are striving to live as Jesus directed rather than simply warming a pew once a week." But why forget organized Christianity? Others were quick to explain: "Most Americans still believe in God. But the last several decades the most visible voices of Christianity have been those who preach judgment, hatred, anger and violence."

Getting even more specific, there seemed to be an overwhelming amount of blame placed on the previous administration and the effect it had on politicizing religion. "I watched with dismay as the religious right hijacked the political process and decisions that were previously individual became part of a movement to impose a group's religious views on all of us," wrote Bookfan. "Abortion, intelligent design, stem cell research, and gay marriage became the property of voters' sectors--rather than a personal moral decision." Even Christians agreed, many of whom were unwilling to refute Meacham's assertion that we've entered a new era when discussing how the church interacts with the state: "Although I was raised in the US and in the Christian faith, I have come to see it primarily as something very ugly and divisive," wrote the reader 'Meditating.' "Instead of concentrating on loving one another, the Old Testament Christians (yes, it's an oxymoron) seem to have taken over the religious dialogue of my faith and turned it into a weapon intended to wound anyone who disagrees with them. What moral person would want to identify themselves with a faith like that? I don't and I am now one of those people who would not want to be identified as a Christian. It seems no one injures the name of Christ like the Christian have done."

That's certainly a harsh response, and it's worth pointing out that many Christians who read the piece were justifiably worried that Meacham and the magazine were dismissing Christianity. That's not the case; since the cover's publication, Meacham has published a follow-up -- asserting that faith, regardless of how it interacts with politics and American society, will never disappear. "The Newsweek of my childhood would have included historical data on church affiliation/attendance in America over the last two centuries," wrote Bobsf_94117. And others agreed that they wish our article had provided more context into how we've been approaching this post-Christian status." With that, came myriad arguments explaining what the Founding Fathers intended, as Christians or non-Christians, when they wrote The Constitution. But obviously, constitutional interpretation -- even as it interacts with religion -- is a different, and very huge, topic. Another time? On that note, I won't address the hundreds of comments that went back and forth arguing whether Hitler was a Christian. Not relevant...

Of all the thousands of comments though, the story about declining Christian identification focused squarely -- and nicely -- on one topic: the purpose of Christianity in society. I'm obviously not the right person to answer that, but I was intrigued by the hundreds of readers who wished religion away in sum, despite it's long history in American society. "This can only be good for the United States," argued one commenter. "We have lost our competitiveness in Science and the quality of our Education has been declining thanks in part to religious minded people who have been corrupting both Science and Education with nonsensical concepts such as Intelligent Design." In a less-specific away, hundreds agreed: "I am pleased!," wrote commenter Thevail. "How wonderful that humans have chosen once again to think for themselves, rather than depending on "the big book of answers." Religion is supposed to inspire us to be better people, make us aspire to higher goals, make us think before we act. But the truth is that if Christianity is wounded..it's a self-inflicted wound." Immediately, a committed Christian took it a step futher: "Another sensational title by Newsweek; however, as Christianity goes, so does America....maybe, that's why this country is going into the toilet."

As I'm sure you realize, it's impossible to cull more than 4,000 thoughts on Christianity into a few concise paragraphs. But from all these viewpoints, we can glean a few things: Faith isn't headed away, but our country an impasse between what Christians want from their government, and how the rest of non-Christian America views Christianity. Whether you believe Christianity is impure, or that our Democracy itself is faulted, it's clear that both politics and religion are in a time of flux. When do you think it will settle? And how will both religion and democracy -- even in a post-Christian society -- intersect? Your comments below.

The (Christian) Media Takes on Jon Meacham

2009-04-08T21:08:39Z

Responding to the 2009 American Religious Identification Survey on national Christianity, NEWSWEEK’s Editor, Jon Meacham, lighted many fires this week with his cover story, The Decline and Fall of Christian America, in which he wrote about the declining number of American believers, especially in the Northeast. As he wrote, “This is not to say that the Christian God is dead, but that he is less of a force in American politics and culture than at any other time in recent memory.”

In saying this, and writing about the waning influence of Christianity in politics, NEWSWEEK’s heard from more than 4,000 of our readers, not to mention myriad pundits and media outlets wanting to contribute to the fray. On our own site, Meacham has responded to his critics, clarifying the difference between Christianity (which is not dying) and Christian America. We’ve also started a blog for religious thought-leaders to contribute.

But outside of Newsweek, many were dismayed by the cover. Politico’s Michael Calderone reported that the Rev. Lou Engle, founder of TheCall – “a movement emphasizing prayer, worship and fasting for Spiritual breakthrough.” – had sent a letter to NEWSWEEK’s chairman calling for the firing of Meacham. In an original version of the letter, Engle wrote: “the numbers [of declining Christians] shouldn’t be characterized as an ‘imminent fall.’ This language is sensational and offensive.” On The Huffington Post, Bruce Ledewitz agreed, adding that “Only 15 percent of respondents in ARIS identified as secular. That means that America is still a very religious country and even a very Christian one. Nor will that change any time soon.” On GetReligion.org, there’s consensus and an argument that the numbers of declining Christians are marred by the political point: “Part of the problem is that [Meacham] seems to be writing two essays. One argues that Christian conservative influence in American politics is ebbing. The other tackles morphing American religious demographics.”

Going back to Ledewitz, though, he argues – like many other reporters and commenters – that the numbers weren’t the real story. “The story is more momentous because growing secularization at some point reaches a cultural tipping point. At that point, and for the first time, large numbers of people begin to reach adulthood without religious training.” Many agreed that's why we're ending up in a “post-Christian America,” including Rod Dreher at Beliefnet, who added a political spin to that argument. “There’s a lot of talk about the error conservative Christians made in thinking that politics was the best, or at least a sufficient, way of halting and reversing the advance of post-Christian America. I think this is entirely correct.” So agreed the blog Creed or Chaos, which added that Meacham seemed to be “arguing for the separation of Church and State for the sake of the health, not only of the political order, but for the sake of the health of theology, practice and mission of the Church.”

As Meacham makes clear, politics and ideas of post-Christian America don’t signal the end of Christianity. So I appreciated this take by Eileen Flynn, the religion reporter at the Austin-American Statesman: “Of course, the pendulum does swing in this country from religious to secular. I would caution anyone against writing Christianity’s epitaph just yet.”

Imelda Marcos Reads About Herself on Newsweek.com

2009-04-08T20:45:56Z

Over at our new global economics blog, Wealth of Nations, my esteemed colleague, Barrett Sheridan, has taken a hilarious look at The Philippines' Imelda Marcos, who was recently featured as one of Newsweek's greediest people. You see, if you google "NEWSWEEK and Greed," you'll get many hits from the Philippines, where our recent greed list has made headlines. Marcos isn't mad though. In fact, she confesses that she's "guilty" of greed.

Barrett's just as confused as I am with her NEWSWEEK-inspired confession. As he writes:

Two weeks ago our crack digital team released a package on the history of greed, which included a photographic parade of some of the greediest figures of all time. Nestled amongst the likes of Genghis Khan, Charles Ponzi and Bernie Madoff was the Philippines' own Imelda Marcos, the widow of former dictator Ferdinand Marcos, who ruled the country from 1965 to 1986. During that time, Ms. Marcos achieved notoriety for her fashionable taste -- while the average Filipino lived on less than $2 a day, Ms. Marcos jetted to New York and Rome for $5 million shopping sprees, and built up an impressive collection of 3,000 pairs of shoes.

It seemed fitting, then, to open the gallery with the above image of Ms. Marcos, her rouged cheeks, jade earrings and blinged-out ring fingers a perfect glimpse into modern materialism.

Apparently, Ms. Marcos doesn't disagree. NEWSWEEK's selection of her provoked a bit of controversy back in the Pacific island nation, enough that Ms. Marcos eventually had to address the issue herself:

I plead guilty. For me, greedy is giving. I was first lady for 20 years, you have to be greedy first to give to all. It is natural. The only things we keep in life are those we give away.

Righhhtttttt. Check out the video of her "defense" here. (Her English-language statement starts about 35 seconds in; footage of some glorious shoes and jewels is just after the minute mark.) Something tells me that the perfectly matching flower brooch and purple necklace she's wearing, should she choose to "be greedy" and "give to all," could support several Manila families for quite some time.

But give her points for being a First Amendment fan: She says she won't sue NEWSWEEK for the honorific.

After a triple murder, Readers reevaluate Compton

2009-04-01T15:20:11Z

Over the weekend, three people were shot dead in Compton. The event comes at a peculiar time for NEWSWEEK, and especially for Jessica Bennett, who put together a forward-looking package on Compton last week. "Two decades later, Compton has a new lease on life," she wrote. "The community is still poor, and unemployment is more than twice the national average. But the number of homicides is at a 25-year low, slashed in half from 2005."

Three homicides might not change that, but it did remind many NEWSWEEK readers that Compton's still in need of change. "Three people were maliciously gunned down and all you say is that 'Compton got it's groove back'?," asked one reader, before adding: "It's irresponsible "writers" like you who have no idea what you are writing about. You sneak in during the day, see a few retail outlets, built on the outskirts of a ghetto and basically lied." Other readers from the area agreed, noting that the appreciate the positive outlook on the community, but feel the city still has a lot of work ahead. "Compton has made great strides from the shadows where it once was," wrote commenter ag.primed. "The sad truth, though, is that it won't last. Not to be a naysayer about the ability of the citizens to change; it is the leaders of the city who will erase Compton's successes." Another reader noticed that, "Very, very little has changed. There are some changes, but they are largely cosmetic. However, there are still gunshots EVERY SINGLE NIGHT."

Jessica's piece was tenured largely on crime stats, which make it clear that Compton is trading its past for a new image. Even prior to this weekend's tragedy, that message hit home with many readers, who appreciated the positive message behind the article. "These comments are really sad," wrote one reader. "I've lived in Compton my entire life and no one has pulled a gun on me. I've never been on welfare and I have plenty of Black and Mexican friends who are hardworking and educated. The solution is not to desert Compton, but to improve it." Commenter rjorgy agreed, adding that Jessica's article should be seen as inspiring. "It is really good to hear that the murder rate has dropped so significantly. Give the city some credit where credit is due."

As the original story mentions, it will take time -- and new programs -- for Compton to become a renewed city. After the piece was live, the author heard from one of her sources, Albert Camarillo, a professor at Stanford University who grew up in Compton. Here's what he said: "Compton became known in the media as the 'murder capital' of the nation, a reputation as a ghetto of gangs, drugs and violence. They are pushing back, albeit not without tension, conflict, and misunderstanding among themselves. But these tensions exist alongside efforts to bring residents together, and this is the important story about the city that must be told."

So, while a triple murder is a tragic afterword, it doesn't erase the successes that Compton has had. As Jessica told me earlier this week: "By all accounts, Compton has suffered a volatile past. As I wrote in the piece, gang life is still a right of passage for many young people here, and last weekend's triple-homicide is a painful reminder that violence is still very much a part of daily life. But there are many,many people who are working tirelessly to turn Compton around, and I do believe we're beginning to see the trickle-down effect of that effort. Remaking a city isn't easy; But there is hope in Compton, and you don't have to go far into the community to see it."

Blaming Jim Cramer for the Economy? Really?

2009-03-16T20:39:25Z

Last week, the business network CNBC was the latest target of the economic meltdown. It all came to a head when the face of network, "Mad Money" Jim Cramer, appeared on the Daily Show to defend himself in front of Jon Stewart. In our Signal or Noise poll, we asked readers whether Stewart's insistence that the biz press failed us was legitimate or a ploy for great ratings. The results of the poll? Readers thought Stewart's smackdown was more than warranted, saying that Cramer's in the tank with Wall Street, not the public.

"All signal folks," wrote one reader. "We have been waiting to hear this from someone -- anyone -- and for it to come from Stewart? Great." Many others praised the comedian, calling him everything from a God to the greatest and most serious journalist of our generation. "Stewart has exposed Cramer for what he really is: an entertainer in the investment field," wrote commenter sverigeman, while others added that "Cramer looked like he was going to cry," and that this was "the most damning indictment of the financial news networks ever heard." In the end, many thought the debate was warranted, if only because it got to a larger point that supported Stewart's attack: "Stewart's attack was on the media for not doing the jobs the media used to be paid for - not taking things a face value, but investigating to get to the truth of the matter," explained one reader.

But should Cramer (or Erin Burnett, or any other CNBC host) really be blamed for a systematic meltdown of our financial system? Of course not, said one reader, who argued that "Cramer is a scapegoat being used to divert from other sources that has just as much responsibility to inform the American people." A reader that goes by MT2910 also came to the stock-picker's defense, adding that "Cramer is only one man... the media does not create or write the policies that allowed the banks to over-leverage themselves and write sub-prime mortgages." Just as many thought it was definitely time to find someone to place the blame on, scores of readers think that idea, in itself, signals how we're feeling: "The American people want to blame somebody for their pain," writes one reader. "Since they can never find a real culprit, they were settle for the closest thing they can get. Cramer, with his juvenile antics, and pretensions to know-it-all, makes the perfect target."

Did you hear that, Ben Affleck? Maybe you can stop blaming Newsweek now.

Wanted: Your Tweets

2009-03-10T20:35:02Z

Two stories that we here at Newsweek know we’ll be covering for a while are the economic downturn and the continuing rise of social media. Recently, we’ve tried to get a good look at how the recession hits home with stories like Lisa Miller’s piece on worried investors stockpiling gold and our gallery of evictions across the country. We’ve also talked about how Twitter, one of the Web’s fastest-growing social networks, is revolutionizing communication and even, as Andrew Romano found out last week, changing how some entrepreneurs do business. The next step is to see how these stories converge, and to do that, we’d like your help.

Newsweek’s My Turn column is interested in publishing a few personal essays on Newsweek.com about how the recession is impacting our readers, but we also recognize that we can’t fully capture the effects of the downturn in one or two columns. To solve that problem, we’re calling for all of your personal recession stories, with one catch: we need them in 140 characters or fewer. This week, send your recession stories to us via Twitter. You can reach us @Newsweek (reply to one of our tweets about the contest), and use the tag #rcstory to help us keep track. All of the tweets will be streamed on Newsweek.com, and we’ll contact the authors of our favorites for a chance to write an 850-900 word My Turn column for our Web Site and earn $500. We’re teaming up with our friends at NPR’s Planet Money (@planetmoney) on this project, so some of the best tweets will also be read on their podcast.

We know it’s hard, but we need to limit this to one tweet per person. So be as witty, funny, and honest as possible, but remember to keep it short and tweet--er, sweet.

Conspiracy Theories: Newsweek's Map Flap

2009-03-06T21:52:52Z

Conspiracy theory is all about finding signs among the innocuous. And when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, every word and image of media coverage is parsed and dissected by both sides in search of any signal of bias or favor.

So when Newsweek.com made a coding error on a recent map, critics pounced. Our mistake: Our map showed the state of Israel, rather than the West Bank and Gaza, as Palestinian territory--when we meant to only highlight the Palestinian areas. The graph accompanied our recent cover story on radical Islam, and assigned religious freedom scores to Islamic countries, based on data from the Hudson Institute.

“The fact that you labeled Israel as a ‘Palestinian Territory’ calls to question your whole credibility when it comes to Islam,” wrote one reader. “Either you are too stupid to know basic geography … or you deliberately exposed your true agenda.”

Newsbusters posted a screenshot of our original map and said, “Perhaps Newsweek hired some nice Jihadis to create its website.” Another commenter on that site added that he “hopes the editor gets a personal visit from someone in the Israeli embassy.”

NEWSWEEK sincerely regrets the error, which we corrected immediately. For the record, the mistake was simply that--a bad mistake.

Lab Notes: The Doctors Respond

2009-03-03T20:46:03Z

On her Lab Notes blog, Sharon Begley details the response from physicians to her story Why Doctors Hate Science:

Among the many, many (really many) doctors who have written in to berate me for my column in this week’s magazine claiming that “doctors hate science” (which was shorthand and headline-speak for “why doctors are so reluctant to embrace evidence-based medicine and comparative-effectiveness research”), quite a few made a crucial point. Doctors may be paragons when it comes to using only treatments that have been proved to work. Patients are a whole ‘nother story.

READ THE WHOLE THING HERE

Rep Takes Issue With FactCheck Article

2009-02-27T20:18:18Z

A recent article by our partner FactCheck.org on health care provisions in the stimulus package generated a healthy amount of discussion. Among the letters we received was this one from Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona:

Newsweek recently republished a piece from FactCheck.org about Republican concerns regarding a controversial health care provision in the so-called stimulus package.

But, ironically, FactCheck’s piece is in serious need of fact checking.

FactCheck.org accused Republicans of being deceptive: “Conservative politicians have claimed that the stimulus bill requires that doctors follow government orders on what medical treatments can and can't be prescribed. But the bill doesn't say that.”

The truth, however, is that FactCheck is the one being deceptive. I didn’t claim, as misleadingly suggested in the article, that the bill forces doctors to do its bidding – rather that it sets the stage for that dreaded day.

The bill sets aside $1.1 billion for comparative effectiveness research – a method used in countries with government-run health care to decide which treatments and medicines to allow or deny patients.
And you don’t have to take my word for it. Here’s how the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee’s own report on the stimulus described the provision: “Those items, procedures, and interventions… that are found to be less effective and in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed.”

In fact, right now in Britain, 2,000 cancer patients may face premature death because of this kind of government research – the UK’s health care bureaucracy has pulled the life-extending cancer drug Tarceva because it’s been deemed too costly. What patients and doctors want doesn’t matter.

Estimates show that leading Democrat health care reform proposals could put 40 million more Americans into a government-run health care plan in year-one – with millions more likely to follow. Many politicians have openly called for mirroring the nationalized health care models of Canada, Britain and France – all of which ration medical care.

My argument is, and always has been, that this research will be used to wrench medical decisions away from you and your families – it has never been, as FactCheck.org falsely asserted, that this stimulus provision has the enforcement mechanism to do so. That will come when even more Americans are put on a government plan.

Tom Daschle himself – who nearly became Secretary Daschle – has called for a government health care board with the power to ration drugs and treatments.

In short, Americans have never been closer to losing their healthcare freedom. And I would hope, with so much at stake, that FactCheck.org will address this debate more honestly in the future.

FactCheck.org updated its article to respond to Rep. Shadegg's letter.

We Appreciate the Mention, Congressman. Now About Reading the Story…

2009-02-16T14:00:57Z

We here at Newsweek love when we get people into vigorous and thoughtful debates. Particularly when they're inspired to do so by something we've published. So you can imagine how we felt to see this week's cover story about America's increasingly socialist approach to broad problems (under the headline asserting We Are All Socialists Now) get a cameo in the seat of power. It happened on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, during an exchange between Rep. Todd Akin (R-Missouri) and Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), who used our publication as a prop to oppose the president's stimulus bill.

But it quickly became clear that both lawmakers had somehow missed the point of the article (which was to say America's fierce borrow-and-spend capitalist policies over the past decade have left us looking more, not less, like France). In fact, it soon seemed that neither had actually read it.

Akin disagreed with our cover headline (a riff, it should be noted, on Richard Nixon's 1971 assertion 'We're all Keynesians now'), but the shots Akin took at what he assumed was our foundation were something we just couldn't let squeak by. So we collected some points we wanted to correct -- for the record:

"Now what we're talking about here [referring to the stimulus bill] is socialism. We're going to take, after the economy takes a hit, we're going to spend money like mad. We're not going to create jobs. We're just going to slop it around and hope somehow it is going to make the economy better. And the facts of history are that it doesn't work… There was an interesting cover on Newsweek. It says, we are all socialists. I think there's an awful lot of people in…my district that are thankful for [Carter's] common sense and willingness to just basically state it the way it is." - Rep. Akin

Well, to start our story didn't address any single piece of legislation, certainly not the stimulus bill debated over the past few weeks. In fact, that was the point. Editor Jon Meacham and Editor-at-Large Evan Thomas argue that we find ourselves all to be socialists because of loose regulatory policies that led to massive borrowing and spending, leaving us in our current precarious spot where more borrowing and spending seem to be the only solution.

"Sometimes when you hear the term "socialism,"'...young people really don't know what you're saying. But they do know people interfering with their lives. Because quite frankly, whether they were going to college and paying exorbitant fees to go to school, or whatever it is, as they have moved into the workforce, they see that the government is available to interfere with their lives. And the real issue here is we're growing government and we're giving government the ability to interfere more and more in the lives of people." -Rep. Carter

"So when the economy gets better, we have more money to spend. And that is what has always made America great. It's because there are certain basic true principles that are not smoke and mirrors. It's not a whole lot of government redistribution of wealth, and not everybody is a socialist, in spite of what the cover of Newsweek wants to tell us." -Rep. Akin

Our story (the deep content inside the cover the congressmen seem so fixated by) offers no such individual prescription. There aren't masked socialists hiding among us eager to take over the government. No, we're all closer to being socialists because of the manner in which our government has decided to respond to unstable markets and industries over the past year. The solution, we can all agree, is a stimulated economy. But, as our story states, "since neither consumers not business is likely to do it, government will have to stimulate the economy."

"It's not the job of the government to take everybody's property away from them and to slop it around and redistribute it. That is socialism. This idea was tried by the Soviet Union. The government is going to provide you with a job and with health care and with food, and the government is going to give you your education. That idea died in the dustbin of history when the Soviet Union collapsed." -Rep. Akin

That is indeed what socialism is, at its most extreme. And yes, history has proven it doesn't work so well in practice as in theory. But as Michael Freedman notes in his piece accompanying the cover story, the emerging trend is rather toward "what could be called a European model of governance, regulation and paternalism." Or perhaps what really spooks Rep. Akin is the picture Freedman lays out later: "Think about it, and it's very easy to imagine a chorus of former American individualists demanding cushy French-style pensions and free British-style health care if their private stock funds fail to recover and unemployment inches upward toward 10 percent and remains there." If, that is, Rep. Akin actually read the story and was thinking of the future.

Jon and Evan figured that some members in congress would disagree and even dismiss our assertions. And that's okay. But the meat of the argument spoke directly to men like Akin and Carter -- those in government who continue to see the challenge of the future in the context of the past. They write: "If we fail to acknowledge the reality of the growing role of government in the economy, insisting instead on fighting 21st-century wars with 20th-century terms and tactics, then we are doomed to a fractious and unedifying debate. The sooner we understand where we truly stand, the sooner we can think more clearly about how to use government in today's world."

We just wanted to clear that up.

Challenging Oprah (Again) on Hormone Therapy

2009-02-12T21:09:05Z

Early this week, our two resident menopause experts, Pat Wingert and Barbara Kantrowitz, took issue with an Oprah special on Hormone Therapy. In the episode, the television host praised her guest, Suzanne Somers, for a health plan that places heavy emphasis on taking too many hormones. Here's the money quote, from one doctor: “Oprah is the most influential woman in the world, and I don’t think she comprehends the amount of damage she has done to women’s health.”

In summing up their argument, Pat and Barbara pointed to six things the that Oprah and Somers did wrong: They downplayed the risks of Hormone Therapy. They failed to discuss cancer. Meanwhile, they encouraged a false fountain of youth. The television show prescribed a one-treatment-fits-all philosophy, while blaming menopause for everything a woman may be going through. Overall, they say the episode lacked clarity when discussing the issue.

Many readers agreed, asking: “Why is Suzanne Somers on stage being lauded as an expert as the doctors sitting in the front row added very little to the conversation?”

But much of the commentary completely dismissed our two writers. “Talking with Kantrowitz and Wingert about [hormone therapy] is like talking to a Republican senator about the economic stimulus plan,” wrote one snarky reader. Others argued that they have found doctors that agree with Somers and that our two writers present a completely one-sided argument.

That’s the start of what’s developed into a series of offensive comments, which have culminated in accusing the writers of being on the take from drug companies. “The article's authors were clearly coached and prompted by the pharmaceutical industry to sing its song-and-dance routine to attack anything that threatens their bottom line,” suggested one reader. “I'm shocked that Newsweek would allow its editorial integrity to be so transparently hijacked by these phonies who are doing nothing but parroting the drug companies' script, practically word for word.”

Given those strong – and untrue – accusations, I asked my colleagues to put together a response to the piece, clarifying their points about Hormone Therapy. Here is what Pat submitted:

We appreciate the fact that this story has generated a lively discussion among readers but would like to offer a couple of clarifications. Some commenters have attempted to explain away the concerns we raised about the safety of compounding-pharmacy-produced bio-identical hormones by accusing us (and/or Newsweek) of being on the take to pharmaceutical companies.

These accusations are not only offensive but absolutely not true, and we hope readers are skeptical enough to note that not one of these posters has offered a shred of evidence to prove their point. The magazine accepts advertisements from a wide variety of legitimate businesses, including drug companies, but in the more than 20 years Barbara and I have worked for Newsweek, we have never been asked to slant our reporting or writing to benefit an advertiser. Our advertising and editorial departments have always been separate and independent.

Secondly, there seems to be a lot of confusion about what constitutes a "natural" hormone. Natural hormones are those produced by the human body. Period. Any type of hormone product, including those used in hormone creams, sprays, rings, pills and patches, are synthesized from plants or animal products. That means they are all synthetics, even if they are chemically identical to those produced by the human body.

Those who insist that all hormones made by drug companies are "synthetics" and those produced by compounding pharmacies are "natural" are creating a false distinction. The same can be said about presumed risk. Since all these products have similar effects on the body, the presumption by the scientific community is that they likely all have the same risks, unless proof emerges to the contrary. So far, we don't have that proof.

And finally, about the advantage of FDA regulation: No one thinks that the FDA does a perfect job, and we all know that they have made mistakes. But there's no doubt that the FDA safety and efficacy testing saves many lives every year.

How Should We Define Pro-Life?

2009-01-29T21:22:01Z

Earlier this week, Sarah Kliff wrote a story about the new political climate and how it changes pro-life strategy. "The election of a pro-choice administration and a Democratic Congress has divided the pro-life movement," Sarah writes, "between those who are preparing for the fight of their lives [against Roe v. Wade] and those who see an opportunity to redefine what it means to be pro-life [by focusing on reduction strategies]."

Of course, abortion stories are controversial. So, along with the 300 comments that populate the forum, National Right to Life has put a hit out on Sarah Kliff, calling her such wonderful things as "uneducated." (She's not.)

In their long essay, they accuse our piece of, essentially, making up a pro-life strategy that they say doesn't exist, squaring the blame on Sarah for saying that groups of people are working together when they actually aren't. Click above to read their essay, which ends with this line: "There will be no end to stories [like Newsweek's].Their objective is to convince us that people and organizations, whose entire reason for existence is to multiply the number of abortions, have suddenly seen the bipartisan/compromise/common ground light."

Because of this, I asked Sarah to go back through her reporting and respond to the criticism. Here's her take:

As I write in my story, even when you arrive at the “common ground” of abortion politics, there are complex fault lines to navigate. The pro-life movement is not giving up their fight to overturn Roe v. Wade - nor does my story suggest that they should. There are, however, some activists and legislators pursuing additional strategies, including the abortion reduction legislation that I explore in this story. One of the complexities to navigate here is language: what defines an 'abortion reduction' strategy? Restricting access to clinics that provide abortion has been one way the pro-life movement has attempted to reduce abortion in the United States.

Now, some pro-life legislators and activists are considering a different definition: reducing the need for abortion through socioeconomic supports. The Support Pregnant Women Act is a good example of this. The legislation aims to reduce abortion through, among other provisions, better Medicaid assistance and more resources for parenting students. It has received support from many legislators with strong pro-life records, including Chris Smith (R-NJ) who spoke at the March for Life I attended. The pro-life leaders I spoke with didn't see these strategies as forcing activists to ‘give up the fight to pass legislation,' but another way to pursue a pro-life agenda.

That clears up concerns about whether this is a legitimate trend in abortion policy. That said, what do you all think of these new strategies? Comment below.

More on our Friend, Ben Affleck

2009-01-26T16:41:58Z

Over at Media Matters for America, they didn't think our apology to Ben Affleck was quite so funny: "Newsweek's making fun of Affleck because he's an actor and everybody knows actors don't know anything about TARP, or journalism," writes Eric Boehlert. "That's why Newsweek didn't even bother to address the serious nature of Affleck's comments."

I'm sorry... but the serious nature of Ben Affleck's comments? Journalism criticism is one thing, but accusing us of actually influencing the economic bailout package? That's ludicrous thinking -- especially for a Cambridge boy like Affleck. But Boehlert continues, adding that one of our esteemed commenters got it right when he said, "I haven't seen much in the way of real, critical, responsible journalism in quite a while, and having some hipster [...] rail against the comments of some celebrity doesn't really break the funk."

It should be known that we probably would have railed on anyone, not just a celebrity, who conflated our King Henry cover with congressional policy. That said, sorry to offend people like New York University Journalism professor Jay Rosen, who took the time to respond to Readback on his twitter feed: "King Henry! Newsweek suggested he's the man for the moment. But Paulson had no idea what to do. Is Newsweek sorry? Uh, no."

Now's the time for a special thanks to New York Magazine for actually, you know, getting the joke. Lest we devote any more ink to Ben Affleck (and making all you other readers jealous), here's this piece from Jessica Pressler that appears in this week's issue. It's short, so here's the entirety:

Ben Affleck, like most Hollywood stars, thinks that magazine covers really matter. Last week, he was criticizing the TARP bill to a reporter for Politico and said that “Newsweek, I feel like, is basically culpable for the first [$350 billion],” referring to the weekly’s “King Henry” cover about Henry Paulson, which he called a “hagiography” as well as “presumptuous.” “I was surprised,” says the story’s author, Daniel Gross, who is, he noted, a fan of Good Will Hunting. “We called [Paulson] King Henry because, at that moment, he was the absolute monarch of the financial system,” he says. “He was the one deciding who should live and who should die.” And in September, it seemed like Paulson was making the right decisions. “Everyone forgets this, but when it happened, people thought it was a great idea to let Lehman Brothers fail.” Paulson’s bungled handling of the TARP happened later. Besides, “would that a Newsweek cover story mattered so much that it could sway policy and move markets,” says Gross. “It’s like blaming Gigli for Hollywood’s problems with DVD residuals.”

Enough said.