Lots of folks are eagerly anticipating Max Blumenthal's piece on The Washington Times, which comes out next week in The Nation magazine. We're hearing what others are hearing: That Blumenthal's piece will try to prove that there is "racism and sexism at the paper."

And lots of folks have lots of theories about how the Washington Times is handling the story and whether there's going to be any internal turmoil / shake-ups as a result.

One of those people is George Archibald who, as we reported before, is working on a book about his time at the Times (which, as far as we can tell, won't be terribly flattering). In widely circulated emails from Archibald last week, he has claimed:

My very credible corporate sources in the parent company of The Washington Times told me over the weekend that [Managing Editor] Fran Coombs met with the owners' representatives last week and on Saturday, September 2, seeking 'a generous buyout,' and that Coombs is ready to resign and leave the newspaper before The Nation piece hits in the third week of September.

Coombs wrote back, cc'ing several in the newsroom, to say:

For the record, everything in that paragraph other than "My very credible corporate sources in the parent company of The Washington Times told me over the weekend that" is completely and totally false.

(Coombs' wife emailed Archibald to call him out and Archibald responded by saying that Coombs has "lost his professionalism and is unhinged,")

We wrote Coombs to see if there was any validity to some of the rumors that have been floating around, including...

...Is there an owners search committee looking for a success to Wes Pruden?

...Is Coombs going to get looked over when it comes time to replace Pruden?

...Would Coombs ever consider a buy-out?

...Has an outside law firm (Nixon Peabody LLC, specifically) been brought in to look into the themes presented in the Nation piece?

...Was there any pressure put on Human Events to not publish a similar expose by George Archibald?

He didn't specifically address those, but he did write:

Thank you for contacting me, but as I told you several months ago I really have neither the time nor the desire to deal with George Archibald's latest imaginings.

George is a disgruntled former employee of The Washington Times. Despite his pleadings in late October and again in late December of last year, we refused to rehire him for well-documented reasons that he is very aware of. Since that time he has engaged in an increasingly nasty cyber-campaign against The Washington Times and me in particular. During that same period, his definition of "reality" has become far different from yours and mine.

So what's the story? Does Archibald have some valid points? Or is he just a disgruntled ex-employee with too much free time on his hands and too many conspiracy theories in his head? And what will this Blumenthal piece have to say? And what will the reaction/fallout be in the Times' newsroom?

Also, don't forget that Robert Redding, Jr., a former Times employee now at ReddingNewsReview.com, is preparing his series of podcasts about the Times, set to be released this fall. He tells us that what he has is "interesting" and will address "the direction that they view themselvs as travelling in and why their image--and how they're portrayed--is very important to them."

He added: "I wish the Nation would give me a call. Because at this point, I'm ready to talk."