It's Day Four (or three and a half?) and already I'm exhausted trying to keep track of all developments Regan-related. But most of the focus has zeroed in on what Judith Regan said in the now-infamous telephone conversation with HarperCollins lawyer Mark Jackson that was the proximate cause for her abrupt dismissal - especially now that NewsCorp has gone ahead and released a statement concerning the contents of Jackson's notes during the telephone conversation, which became increasingly heated as Regan & Jackson discussed the future of Peter Golenbock's controversial "fictitious memoir" of Mickey Mantle.

To sum up, let's borrow the lede from AP's piece by Hillel Italie: "In an explosive telephone argument that led to her firing, publisher Judith Regan allegedly complained of a 'Jewish cabal' against her in the book industry and stated that Jews 'should know about ganging up, finding common enemies and telling the big lie.'" But that's not all: the statement, released by Newscorp spokesmen Andrew Butcher & Gary Ginsberg, stated that Regan's alleged comments about the "cabal" centered around Jane Friedman, executive editor David Hirshey, ICM uberagent Esther Newberg and Jackson "constitute a Jewish cabal against her." (Are these the unnamed individuals Regan had in mind when she accused HarperCollins personnel of badmouthing her to the media within earshot of Ron last week? Only she knows for sure, and she's not telling.)

Why were these comments released to the public? As a response to a threatened libel suit from Regan's legal representative, Hollywood attorney Bert Fields, who had called earlier reports of inappropriate remarks "completely untrue" and added that the publisher "didn't have an anti-Semitic bone in her body." While acknowledging that Regan blamed a "cabal" but denying that she tagged it as "Jewish," Fields furthered explained his position to the NYT's Sharon Waxman & Richard Siklos. "There is nothing insulting to Jewish people in saying that Jews should particularly understand what it is to be victims of the big lie," Fields said. "They were looking for an excuse to fire her, and they fired her and called it anti-Semitic. It ain't anti-Semitic." He offered a similar explanation for Jeffrey Trachtenberg's WSJ report.

Ah, but here's where semantics come into play: this isn't supposed to be pointed out in the midst of a heated argument when you're clearly not getting what you want - and being threatened with another book cancellation, which is what seems to be the case with the Mickey Mantle book, clearly is a case of Regan not getting what she wanted. And when that happens, the next move is to blame as many people as possible using any means necessary - no matter how offensive - except for yourself. And damn the collateral damage; as Hirshey told the Journal, "I'm surprised because I always thought I was someone who had a collegial relationship with Judith. I edited a book for her and always admired her acumen. This comes as a bit of a shock."