Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Newsweek Lied, People Died

Media Newsweek Afghanistan Guantánamo Bay Koran

  • Please log in to reply
142 replies to this topic

#1 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 18 May 2005 - 03:03 AM

http://www.nytimes.c...agewanted=print

Quote

A brief article in the May 9 issue of the magazine said that American investigators had confirmed that interrogators at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had tried to rattle detainees by tossing a Koran down a toilet - an act that would horrify and incense Muslims. Widely distributed reports of Newsweek's assertion were followed by rioting in parts of the Muslim world that left at least 17 people dead.

Newsweek later said its report had been based on information provided by a government official it did not identify and conformed to similar accusations made by former detainees. In its apology and retraction, the magazine said the unnamed official had later confided that he was no longer certain of the information he had provided, and the magazine said it could no longer stand by its assertion that an internal military investigation had confirmed the act of desecration.

There have been conflicting opinions as to whether the Newsweek report was a direct cause of the deadly rioting.

Afghanistan's government has demanded that Newsweek be prosecuted for this story:

http://apnews.myway..../D8A51JAO0.html

Quote

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - Afghanistan's government said Tuesday that Newsweek should be held responsible for damages caused by deadly anti-American demonstrations after the magazine alleged U.S. desecration of the Quran, and it suggested that foreign forces may have helped turn protests violent.

Pakistan joined the international criticism of the magazine's article and said Newsweek's apology and retraction were "not enough."

The article, published in Newsweek's May 9 edition, said U.S. investigators found evidence that interrogators at the military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, put copies of Islam's holy book in washrooms and flushed one book down the toilet to try to get inmates to talk.

The article sparked protests in several other Muslim countries.

So Newsweek's editorial staff reviewed an unsubstantied story and ran with it, knowing full well what the reaction of the Muslim world would be at such news. What happened to their usual journalistic standards of checking out stories? Instead they ran a rumor from one source. The question is, why?

The editors and journalists of Newsweek pride themselves on their deep knowledge of the muslim world, it is impossible to believe they could not know this story would cause deaths and mayhem. Death and mayhem was apparently Newsweek's explicit goal, because that would serve a more important purpose: Scoring political points against the Administration in Washington.

Is this what journalism has come to? Apparently the defense in some quarters is that these Islamic extremists would have killed people for any reason, so no big deal. Wrong.

This Newsweek story was released without fact-checking for the express purpose of harming America's image. Newsweek placed all of our troops worldwide in greater danger, by telling the world that our prison wardens were flushing Korans instead of handing them out. (As they did in Cuba.)

Newsweek's intent was pretty clear, it's their thought process that is equally disturbing. The staff at Newsweek wanted this story to be true, because this is how they think of America's soldiers, America's military. Just as Dan Rather and Mary Mapes "wanted" the National Guard story to be true, so they reported it and the facts be damned.

Quote

jour·nal·ism    (jûrn-lzm) KEY 
NOUN:

2. The style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation.

(Source: Houghton Mifflin )

Whatever the people at Newsweek are, they're not journalists.

-Ogami

#2 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 18 May 2005 - 03:16 AM

Ogami said:

The editors and journalists of Newsweek pride themselves on their deep knowledge of the muslim world, it is impossible to believe they could not know this story would cause deaths and mayhem. Death and mayhem was apparently Newsweek's explicit goal, because that would serve a more important purpose: Scoring political points against the Administration in Washington.

Quote

Newsweek's intent was pretty clear, it's their thought process that is equally disturbing. The staff at Newsweek wanted this story to be true, because this is how they think of America's soldiers, America's military. Just as Dan Rather and Mary Mapes "wanted" the National Guard story to be true, so they reported it and the facts be damned.

Oh, come on. :rolleyes: How can you (or anyone else for that matter) know what the editors of Newsweek were thinking when they published that story? No one besides the people involved can know for sure what their intentions were. If they only had one source, then we can say that the journalism was shoddy, but that's about it.

Besides, are you saying that reporters should be held to account for how other people react to their stories? Should reporters censor themselves if they think that people won't like what they say? That way lies madness...
Per aspera ad astra

#3 Julianus

Julianus
  • Islander
  • 1,660 posts

Posted 18 May 2005 - 03:50 AM

Newsweek, as I understand owned by the Washington Post, blew it BIG TIME running this story without checking to make sure there was indeed documentation to back up the story. That is plain lousy journalism.
As to the deaths in Afghanistan, if it hadn't been this it would have been something else. In that region killing seems to be right at the top of the list of "things to do" when you are upset or disagree with someone.
It puzzles me that we don't hear more condemnation from the many reasonable people that follow Islam, but perhaps reasonable comments aren't considered newsworthy.
The rioters/murderers went bananas over a story. Even if it was true, murdering someone over flushing any book down a toilet is waaaaaay beyond the bounds of acceptable behavior. I don't care what the effing culture is. The press shouldn't be held hostage to a bunch of maniacal threats, but it absolutely has a responsibility to get the story right.
JMO

#4 offworlder

offworlder

    pls don't kick offworlders, we can find a place too

  • Islander
  • 5,363 posts

Posted 18 May 2005 - 04:00 AM

I didn't say this in the other thread, so I'll say it here.

Everyone at 'the political desk' knows how this game is played, so why doesn't Newsweek in the 'big media' know by now?

if you, a news mag or tv news, report that Howard K. Smithers, asst deputy vice secretary of state for Senate Liason Affairs, is making this declarative argument about campaigning Senator-candidate Curry's after hours activities last week .... then you are reporting a fact, that Howard is declaring, and you have him on audio or quoted in your shorthand book or whatever ;

if you instead say that an unnamed anonymous source (who may or may not exist, I mean, who really knows?) is making this declarative argument about the Senator's weeknights .... then YOU are making that, you're not reporting what Howard said, you're reporting what YOU say, so you are on the hook for responsibility and liability ;

Newsweek ..... said a Gitmo guard flushed it, desecrated it, and dissed half a billion people. Howard (replace with a real named source) didn't.
:yin-yang:
PS- I still can't believe a senior editor green-lighted that; maybe the story was just too juicy to say no. (but juice that sluices all over you if it ain't "one hundred percent true real juice")
"(Do you read what they say online?) I check out all these scandalous rumours about me and Elijah Wood having beautiful sex with each other ... (are they true?) About Elijah and me being boyfriend and boyfriend? Absolutely true. We've been together for about nine years. I wooed him. No I just like a lot of stuff - I like that someone says one thing and it becomes fact. It's kind of fun." --Dominic Monaghan in a phone interview with Newsweek while buying DVDs at the store. :D

#5 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 18 May 2005 - 06:26 AM

Ishikoff, who wrote the piece, says:

http://www.nytimes.c.../17isikoff.html?

Quote

In discussing the article yesterday, Mr. Isikoff, who supplied the source for the article, said: "Whenever something like this happens, you've got to take stock and review what you did - how the story was handled. The big point that leaps out is the cultural one. Neither Newsweek nor the Pentagon foresaw that a reference to the desecration of the Koran was going to create the kind of response that it did. The Pentagon saw the item before it ran, and then they didn't move us off it for 11 days afterward. They were as caught off guard by the furor as we were. We obviously blame ourselves for not understanding the potential ramifications."

"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#6 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 18 May 2005 - 06:56 AM

I don't have time to post a list of links--on the way to work--so go here:Lexis/Nexis search re: Q'ran desecration for the result of someone else's Lexis-Nexis search tracing the Q'ran desecration story back through multiple witnesses since March 2003.  These stories appeared in thoroughly dependable sources such as the Guardian, the SF Chronicle, etc.

Scroll down slightly for an excerpt from the U. S. Army's after-action report that states that the Newsweek story had nothing to do with the Afghan demonstrations' turning violent.

Somebody should have read a few more minds--or done a bit of research--before obediently repeating the right-wing talking points on this topic. :whistle:
Posted Image

#7 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,143 posts

Posted 18 May 2005 - 08:15 AM

Ogami, on May 18 2005, 04:03 AM, said:

http://www.nytimes.c...agewanted=print

Quote

A brief article in the May 9 issue of the magazine said that American investigators had confirmed that interrogators at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had tried to rattle detainees by tossing a Koran down a toilet - an act that would horrify and incense Muslims. Widely distributed reports of Newsweek's assertion were followed by rioting in parts of the Muslim world that left at least 17 people dead.

Newsweek later said its report had been based on information provided by a government official it did not identify and conformed to similar accusations made by former detainees. In its apology and retraction, the magazine said the unnamed official had later confided that he was no longer certain of the information he had provided, and the magazine said it could no longer stand by its assertion that an internal military investigation had confirmed the act of desecration.

There have been conflicting opinions as to whether the Newsweek report was a direct cause of the deadly rioting.

Afghanistan's government has demanded that Newsweek be prosecuted for this story:

http://apnews.myway..../D8A51JAO0.html

Quote

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - Afghanistan's government said Tuesday that Newsweek should be held responsible for damages caused by deadly anti-American demonstrations after the magazine alleged U.S. desecration of the Quran, and it suggested that foreign forces may have helped turn protests violent.

Pakistan joined the international criticism of the magazine's article and said Newsweek's apology and retraction were "not enough."

The article, published in Newsweek's May 9 edition, said U.S. investigators found evidence that interrogators at the military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, put copies of Islam's holy book in washrooms and flushed one book down the toilet to try to get inmates to talk.

The article sparked protests in several other Muslim countries.

So Newsweek's editorial staff reviewed an unsubstantied story and ran with it, knowing full well what the reaction of the Muslim world would be at such news. What happened to their usual journalistic standards of checking out stories? Instead they ran a rumor from one source. The question is, why?

The editors and journalists of Newsweek pride themselves on their deep knowledge of the muslim world, it is impossible to believe they could not know this story would cause deaths and mayhem. Death and mayhem was apparently Newsweek's explicit goal, because that would serve a more important purpose: Scoring political points against the Administration in Washington.

Is this what journalism has come to? Apparently the defense in some quarters is that these Islamic extremists would have killed people for any reason, so no big deal. Wrong.

This Newsweek story was released without fact-checking for the express purpose of harming America's image. Newsweek placed all of our troops worldwide in greater danger, by telling the world that our prison wardens were flushing Korans instead of handing them out. (As they did in Cuba.)

Newsweek's intent was pretty clear, it's their thought process that is equally disturbing. The staff at Newsweek wanted this story to be true, because this is how they think of America's soldiers, America's military. Just as Dan Rather and Mary Mapes "wanted" the National Guard story to be true, so they reported it and the facts be damned.

Quote

jour·nal·ism    (jûrn-lzm) KEY 
NOUN:

2. The style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation.
(Source: Houghton Mifflin )

Whatever the people at Newsweek are, they're not journalists.

-Ogami

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



You do know that their source was in the White House?

And that the commander in Iraq said that the story really had little to do with the riots, and that it had been about to happen anyway, disagreeing with what the Administration is saying?
I'll agree it was a stupid thing for Newsweek, but I'm not convinced that anyone was killed over it.
Can't Touch This!!

#8 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 18 May 2005 - 09:00 AM

I picked this out of the BBC article on this topic.

Quote

Insulting the Koran or the Prophet Muhammad is regarded as blasphemy and punishable by death in both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

So, just so I understand this. In Afghanistan, which was liberated from the Taliban, given free and democratic elections, one can still be legally murdered for saying 'That Muhammad was a real jackass'

Anyone want to explain to me how the conquest of Afghanistan has made the world a better place? Because I don't consider the fact that I can be murdered for having an opinion an improvement in any way, shape or form

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#9 Nonprofit

Nonprofit
  • Islander
  • 2,163 posts

Posted 18 May 2005 - 09:26 AM

Quote

Kosh Posted Today, 08:15 AM
You do know that their source was in the White House?

How do we know this?  I've heard reported as it prisoners who told of the flushing.  Yeah,  we can believe them to tell the truth. Of course these are the same folks who burn our flag at any given moment.  I don't recall any riots here in the U.S.


Quote

Spectacles Posted Today, 06:26 AM
  Ishikoff, who wrote the piece, says:

http://www.nytimes.c.../17isikoff.html?

QUOTE
In discussing the article yesterday, Mr. Isikoff, who supplied the source for the article, said: "Whenever something like this happens, you've got to take stock and review what you did - how the story was handled. The big point that leaps out is the cultural one. Neither Newsweek nor the Pentagon foresaw that a reference to the desecration of the Koran was going to create the kind of response that it did. The Pentagon saw the item before it ran, and then they didn't move us off it for 11 days afterward. They were as caught off guard by the furor as we were. We obviously blame ourselves for not understanding the potential ramifications."

This would be called passing the buck.  Isikoff isn't taking the blame for what he wrote.  But he is merely passing the blame onto the White House and this administration and this Pentagon.  When its Isikoff fault for not doing his job.  Just believing his source is not good enough.  He should have checked the sources claims out and found some documents to back this up before going with the story.  That is how he can  justifying it blame someone else after the fact.


Quote

offworlder Posted Today, 04:00 AM
Everyone at 'the political desk' knows how this game is played, so why doesn't Newsweek in the 'big media' know by now?

Couldn't be more true that they should know by now.  If they want to play,  they must take the blame for crappy stories.

RuReddy

edited.. I don't really give a rats butt who Newsweek blames as we are use to it always being Bush's fault for everything. But what really chaps my A$$ is the danger this story has put our troops in.  They are already in a bad spot but this just adds much more to the pile. Grrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited by RuReddy1, 18 May 2005 - 09:34 AM.


#10 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 18 May 2005 - 09:54 AM

Kevin Street wrote:

Oh, come on.  How can you (or anyone else for that matter) know what the editors of Newsweek were thinking when they published that story? No one besides the people involved can know for sure what their intentions were. If they only had one source, then we can say that the journalism was shoddy, but that's about it.

What has Newsweek been doing these past few years now, but reporting on 1) "Torture" at Abu Ghraib, and 2) criticizing the Bush administration's quality of military intelligence on Iraq?

They printed the story because it fit their preconceived notions of what the American military is like. If some people were demeaned at Abu Ghraib, well then it must be true at Gitmo, was the thinking. No journalism entered into it at all, the goal was to "get" Bush, and no facts were required to follow that ultra-partisan agenda at Newsweek.

Given the vetting Newsweek gives to their own "intelligence" sources, this is the last we should ever hear from them on the quality of our intelligence on Iraq's WMD programs. Newsweek has far lower standards now than our own intelligence community at the time.
_____________________________

Julianus wrote:

The rioters/murderers went bananas over a story. Even if it was true, murdering someone over flushing any book down a toilet is waaaaaay beyond the bounds of acceptable behavior. I don't care what the effing culture is. The press shouldn't be held hostage to a bunch of maniacal threats, but it absolutely has a responsibility to get the story right.

I agree in principle on that, Julianus, the violence was caused by islamic extremists. But it is unbelievable that Newsweek published this without knowing what the worldwide consequences could be. They cannot claim that naivity, not when their editorial position on America's military has been so blatant. They wanted this story to be true.

And let's be clear that Newsweek itself does not agree with your definition of culpability. Here's just one of the hundreds of stories Newsweek ran on Columbine, where Newsweek is looking for scapegoats for the violence:

http://www.msnbc.msn.../site/newsweek/

If we use Newsweek's own standards for finger-pointing and blame on Columbine, then we know that is precisely and entirely to blame for the violence over their Koran-flushing story.
__________________________

Spectacles quoted Newsweek's Michael Ishikoff

The Pentagon saw the item before it ran, and then they didn't move us off it for 11 days afterward. They were as caught off guard by the furor as we were.

LOL Come on! So we should shift the blame to the Pentagon, for not rebutting the story "fast enough"????? As if Newsweek goes by what the military tells them to do, what an unbelievable excuse by Michael Ishikoff. Since when has the military-loathing American news media gone by military denials on a "hot" story, especially a story that once again sticks it to a war and an Administration that Newsweek "just knows" is abusing everyone.

The staff at Newsweek does not sit around plaintively hoping that the Pentagon likes their stories. The approval for this story was inexcusable, and lame attempts at shifting blame won't help the weasels at Newsweek. They knew perfectly well what they were doing, Ishikoff wanted explosions, mayhem, and preferably attacks on American soldiers. That was his goal, and Newsweek's goal, not journalism.

-Ogami

Edited by Ogami, 18 May 2005 - 09:55 AM.


#11 Zwolf

Zwolf
  • Islander
  • 3,683 posts

Posted 18 May 2005 - 10:13 AM

I'm not going to take up for Newsweek, because I've never liked the magazine - it's pretty much the People magazine of news publications.   It's the literary equivalent of canned vanilla pudding, like Reader's Digest.  And if they didn't get backup for their story, they shouldn't have run it... and probably shouldn't have, anyway, considering that it wouldn't do any good.  But, I think blaming them for the riots is misplaced.   For one thing, that "flushing the Koran" story has been making the rounds for a couple years already - they're not the first to report it, just the first to claim they had some kind of official evidence on it... which, apparently, the Pentagon assumed they did, too.   Also, the uprising in Afghanistan was composed of people dissatisfied with the current government there, including a lot of Taliban holdouts, as well as opium farmers who were peeved that we finally destroyed some of those poppy fields - blaming it on Newsweek seems to be little more than another attempt to make it look like everyone's happy with their new government, as well as drive a wedge between the public and the media, so we'll ask fewer questions and accept whatever the government tells us as "the truth."  It's unlikely - not impossible, but unlikely - that a Newsweek story was much of a contributing factor, since it's not likely that the magazine's widely available over there, especially in their language.  They've jumped on it now, o' course, since debate over the validity of the story is all over the news, but that Koran story had been going around for a long time before Newsweek reported it.  I know I'd heard about that before the Abu Grahib scandal even broke.   It's a typical type of wartime rumor - "the enemy desecrates things that are holy to us."  Maybe it's true, maybe it's not, but I agree that Newsweek shouldn't have reported it unless they knew it to be true... and maybe not even then, since it could cause further angst against our troops.  But blaming the deaths directly on Newsweek when there are so many other contributing factors seems to be oversimplifying things a bit much.

Cheers,

Zwolf
"I've moved on and I'm feeling fine
And I'll feel even better
When your life has nothing to do with mine."
-Pittbull, "No Love Lost"

"There are things that I'd like to say
But I'm never talking to you again
There's things I'd like to phrase some way
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'd put you down where you belong
But I'm never talking to you again
I'd show you everywhere you're wrong
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you."
- Husker Du, "Never Talking To You Again"

#12 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 18 May 2005 - 11:06 AM

Zwolf wrote:

I'm not going to take up for Newsweek, because I've never liked the magazine - it's pretty much the People magazine of news publications. It's the literary equivalent of canned vanilla pudding, like Reader's Digest.

I preferred Newsweek as a teenager and read it religiously. I guess I preferred it over Time just because of the full page of cartoons. Live and learn. ;)

For one thing, that "flushing the Koran" story has been making the rounds for a couple years already - they're not the first to report it, just the first to claim they had some kind of official evidence on it... which, apparently, the Pentagon assumed they did, too.

From the stories on official protests by Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Newsweek's rebuttal, the story came from Newsweek, there's no ambiguity and they haven't disavowed it. But you are certainly right in that rumors like this have been floating around since November 2001. What Newsweek did was assume the story was true because "everyone knew" it was true, facts be damned.

It's a typical type of wartime rumor - "the enemy desecrates things that are holy to us."

Exactly! Newsweek ran the same kind of story that Al Zarqawi and Bin Laden have been telling people for the entire War on Terror! Zarqawi has been putting out misinformation stories like this on Al Jazeera for quite some time now.

Newsweek and Al Qaeda apparently had the same precise goal with this story: Incite the muslim world, pin the blame on Bush.

Newsweek did not make a naive mistake, they knew precisely what they were doing. They are not impartial, they, like much of the mainstream press, want America to fail or be seen as losing the war on terror. (Cause Bush lied, don'cha know. Everyone at Newsweek agrees with you on that, Zwolf.)

-Ogami

Edited by Ogami, 18 May 2005 - 11:07 AM.


#13 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 18 May 2005 - 11:10 AM

Kevin Street, on May 18 2005, 08:16 AM, said:

Oh, come on. :rolleyes: How can you (or anyone else for that matter) know what the editors of Newsweek were thinking when they published that story?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I can only guess it was to try and attack the administration. The Liberla Media machine is showing againa and again that rather tha checking thier facts they want to just get Bush. Let the facts and truth go to the side.

BTW when is Dan Rather going to join Liberweek... Sorry Newsweek's board of editors. They seem made for each other. In Particular the fact checking or actually the lack there of.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#14 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 18 May 2005 - 01:20 PM

The best way to deal with Newsweek's playing partizan politics, without them checking facts and running with a BS story, is to simply boycott them. Hit them where it really hurts...their wallets. If people stopped buying their magazines then perhaps they would reconsider their actions.

Of course they'd probably just run with a story about how the Administration was forcing people not to buy them, because they publish "The Truth:...which also would be a BS story, so they would be keeping true to form.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#15 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 18 May 2005 - 03:55 PM

I hate to be uncivil or anything, but here's General Richard Myers last week:

It is the judgment of our commander in Afghanistan, General Eichenberry, that in fact the violence that we saw in Jalalabad was not necessarily the result of the allegations about disrespect for the Koran, but more tied up in the political process and the reconciliation process that President Karzai and his cabinet are conducting in Afghanistan. He thought it was not at all tied to the article in the magazine.

Oh dear me.  Why do the facts have to be so gosh-darned rude?
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#16 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 18 May 2005 - 07:14 PM

Don't get me wrong: I think it was not a bright idea to publish that story. But as Zack points out, Myers said last week that the violence was resulting from a number of factors, not solely the Newsweek story.

What I'm curious about is the vetting Newsweek did prior to publishing it. On, I believe, Hardball, I heard one of the editors say that the source was high-placed and reliable. And they didn't just rely on the one source. Evidently, they ran the article past someone else at the Pentagon, who encouraged them to alter something that they did take out, but said nothing about the "Koran down the toilet" thing. He let that go.

So I'm wondering if that story is going to be altered. Clearly, it was a mistake to publish this information because of its inflammatory nature. But apparently, not one but two sources at the Pentagon vetted the story. Now there is considerable back-tracking. I wonder if it's because the story isn't true or if it's because Newsweek is falling on its sword in hopes that a retraction will help to simmer things down. I don't know that we can know the facts--or that we will. I just find it curious that after the one editor described the vetting process on Hardball, all subsequent reports I've heard have presented this as a one-source, unvetted story.

And as for Ishikoff, it's interesting to see him villified as a liberal Bush-hater. After all, he's the guy who broke the Monica Lewinsky-Bill Clinton affair, for which he was villified (or revered in some circles) as a conservative Clinton-hater. In fact, breaking the Monica story earned him so many props among conservatives that many right-wing commentators are going out of their way to protect him in this.

http://mediamatters....ms/200505180002

Quote

Ed Rogers, Republican consultant:
ROGERS: Hey, I don't know what can be done, but a lot of damage has been inflicted, and so there's going to be a lot of hue and cry here in Washington. There's going to be calls for investigations. There's going to be calls for reform. But who knows what's going to happen? I mean, the next shoe to drop -- but it never will, because they won't reveal their source -- but was this just an opponent of the administration trying to make life difficult that made up this story and that gave it to Newsweek? Now, the reporter that wrote this is actually a big-time pro, who I don't think could be deceived. But nonetheless, it has real consequences, and it's done real harm, so there ought to be a real inquiry into this. [CNN's Crossfire, 5/16/05]

Brit Hume, Fox News Washington managing editor:
HUME: This is Michael Isikoff, the veteran investigative journalist, a guy we all know, who has been on this program, somebody who has compiled a pretty good record over the years. [Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, 5/16/05]

Fred Barnes, Weekly Standard executive editor:
BARNES: He's a very honorable reporter. [Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, 5/16/05]

... and then shifted the blame to Newsweek's editors and management:

L. Brent Bozell III, Media Research Center president, and Sean Hannity, ABC radio and Fox News host:
BOZELL: One would be hard-pressed to lay the blame directly at the feet of Michael Isikoff. Michael Isikoff is also the reporter who broke the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky story for Newsweek magazine.

HANNITY: Yeah. I wouldn't mind putting Isikoff on and getting his take on this, and I don't want to rush on the Isikoff-bashing bandwagon here because if I had to bet dollars for donuts, he probably told them, "I have a story, I have a source, I'm not ready to go with it yet, but I'm writing it out and we gotta investigate it." And they probably just said, "Hey, great! Let's run with it!" [ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show, 5/16/05]

Hannity, on his Fox News show:
HANNITY: By the way, I don't think it's Isikoff. I think it's the people above him, just for the record, Bill [Press, guest]. They make the decision, not Isikoff. He doesn't decide what gets in that magazine. [Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, 5/16/05]

:D

Edited by Spectacles, 18 May 2005 - 07:15 PM.

"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#17 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 18 May 2005 - 07:27 PM

I don't mean to derail this thread or anything, but I *would* like to chime in and compliment all thread participants thus far for keeping things civil.  This has the potential to be a VERY hot topic, and I'd be lying if I said the mods weren't a little bit nervous, but you all have done an outstanding job keeping things polite.

;)

:welldone:

Keep it up! :cool:

-Nick

#18 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 18 May 2005 - 08:10 PM

Zwolf666, on May 18 2005, 07:13 AM, said:

I'm not going to take up for Newsweek, because I've never liked the magazine - it's pretty much the People magazine of news publications.   It's the literary equivalent of canned vanilla pudding, like Reader's Digest.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which is, incidentally, desecration of vanilla.  :p  Canned pudding.  :eek:

Nonny
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#19 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 18 May 2005 - 08:15 PM

G1223, on May 18 2005, 08:10 AM, said:

BTW when is Dan Rather going to join Liberweek... Sorry Newsweek's board of editors. They seem made for each other. In Particular the fact checking or actually the lack there of.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Proud of you, G!  :)  You're no lingweenie!  Of course, confusing "liberal" with "false" when "conservative" will do could be a problem, but good try!  :)

Nonny
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#20 Norville

Norville
  • Islander
  • 4,501 posts

Posted 18 May 2005 - 08:55 PM

Zwolf666 said:

I'm not going to take up for Newsweek, because I've never liked the magazine - it's pretty much the People magazine of news publications.

What's really pathetic is that Time Magazine, which used to have a good reputation (as I recall), has become trash, too; I guess that a dumbed-down Time is a sign of our dumbed-down times. ;)
"The dew has fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning."
- Marvin the Paranoid Android, "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"

Rules for Surviving an Autocracy
Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
http://www.nybooks.c...s-for-survival/



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Media, Newsweek, Afghanistan, Guantánamo Bay, Koran

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users