Taliban Boosted By American Media

What do people think about this? I think it’s highly irresponsible for Newsweek to have published something like this if it didn’t have hard evidentiary proof.


http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=afghan.htm

AFGHANISTAN: Taliban Get a Boost from American Media

May 10, 2005: Anti-American rioting broke out in Jalalabad, when local Islamic radicals became aware of a story in an American newsmagazine, accusing U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo Bay prison, of flushing pages of the Koran down a toilet as a way to intimidate Afghan prisoners, and get them to reveal information about Taliban or al Qaeda operations. Jalalabad is a pro-Taliban town, and many locals are still upset that the Taliban is no longer running the country.

May 11, 2005: American and Afghan troops put down the rioting in Jalalabad (east of Kabul, near the Pakistani border), killing four protestors and wounding sixty others. Hundreds of protestors tried to attack American and Afghan troops, and did destroy some government, UN and NGO buildings. There were smaller demonstrations in other towns, as the pro-Taliban Afghans now have a cause to rally around. American officials say they are investigating the accusations about desecrating the Koran. American interrogators are not supposed to do this sort of thing, and the American reporters who came up with the story don’t have much in the way of evidence.

May 12, 2005: Anti-American protests have spread to the capital, sparked by an unsubstantiated accusations by a U.S. newsmagazine. Newsweek magazine published a hearsay item about American interrogators at Guantanamo desecrating the Koran to intimidate suspected terrorists. The Taliban has been trying to spread similar stories, but have no credibility. American media has more clout, even if the story in question is basically a rumor. The pro-Taliban groups will push this story as much as they can, but the Taliban support is basically restricted to some Pushtun tribes in southern and eastern Afghanistan.

May 13, 2005: The anti-American protests continue, as the United States announced it would investigate the allegations. From the beginning, however, it has been American policy to respect religious beliefs among captured Islamic terrorists. The prisoners have been supplied with religious materials, including copies of the Koran, allowed to pray and provided with Islamic clerics (usually military chaplains). Thus it is highly unlikely that abuse of the Koran, or religion in general, would occur during the interrogations. Any such incidents would have made the soldiers involved liable for punishment.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
What do people think about this? I think it’s highly irresponsible for Newsweek to have published something like this if it didn’t have hard evidentiary proof.


[/quote]

If that had read “Taliban takes in the ass and runs scared”, would you have been just as critical?

Well prof,

as THEY HAVE taken it in the ass and ARE running scared, i certainly wouldn’t. You BB?

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
What do people think about this? I think it’s highly irresponsible for Newsweek to have published something like this if it didn’t have hard evidentiary proof.


Professor X wrote:
If that had read “Taliban takes in the ass and runs scared”, would you have been just as critical?[/quote]

My criticism extends toward what seems to be the reporting of hearsay as fact.

If they reported that based on official military reports, then no, I wouldn’t be.

If they had reported “we have heard a thus-far unsubstantiated rumor that …” then no.

If they had reported: “This source says [RUMOR], while this source says [DENIAL], and we have found no factual evidence on either side”, then no.

However, that’s not what they did, is it?

[quote]Professor X wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
What do people think about this? I think it’s highly irresponsible for Newsweek to have published something like this if it didn’t have hard evidentiary proof.


If that had read “Taliban takes in the ass and runs scared”, would you have been just as critical?[/quote]

Why always the defensive tactic? Are you even ever up for a discussion?

BB-

Anything reported as fact that is in truth inuendo is bad journalism. Whether it hurts or helps America’s cause or position.

I happen to think to much is made of the fact that the press is reporting negative reaction at home vs. the war. Too much is made of the fact that ‘innocent’ people are being hurt on ocassion by patrols and military missions.

It is war, and the atrocities of war are just that. If that’s all the insurgents have left to rally the troops, I will count us as getting much closer to accomplishing our mission and getting most everyone home.

BB:

Great post.

Further proof that the liberal media has both the power and the will to change the course of political events!

Somebody at Newsweek needs to get slapped. That riot allegedly on account of the story which may or may not have any basis in truth got four people killed.

That’s not an issue of journalistic integrity, because there is none to be had in this particular case. That’s just somebody being an incredible asshole.

To whomever reported the Koran flushing story: I hope you can sleep at night you f’n jerk.

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Why always the defensive tactic? Are you even ever up for a discussion?
[/quote]

Defensive tactic? I actually agree with BB as far as this particular issue, especially when it coems down to any news article actually backing up its claims with legit sources and facts, however, the question was still posed. Am I to believe that if I ask a question that even sounds like it does not agree with your stance that it isn’t valid? Please. Maybe one day you will pull your decidedly “socially conservative” head out of your ass and realize that my opinion is no less valid than yours simply because I don’t think like you. Nothing you have ever posted on this site as of yet makes me wish I did.

Whoa Tex, I think that’s a stretch.

I think the folks that released the story may have been irresponsible for doing so.

However, depending on what the story said, it may or may not have been accurate whether or not there is proof. Did it say where and what it’s source of information was?

Sometimes things that shouldn’t happen actually do happen. Sometimes people make these things up. I don’t think, in general, that the media can’t publish speculation as news, as it does so all the time.

Once again though, the media, whether liberal or not, has a poor track record of being able to know what it should or should not publish with respect to foreign interpretation or impact.

We’ve heard it…

“With Freedom Comes Responsibility…”

I think that what often leaves people frustrated is “freedom” is often used to defend what the press often does (which I don’t disagree with…)

However, it’s seems like “responsibility” takes a DISTANT second. People either died and/or were put in great danger as a result of irresponsible reporting.

Mufasa

Oops. We’re sorry.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Further proof that the liberal media has both the power and the will to change the course of political events!

Whoa Tex, I think that’s a stretch.

I think the folks that released the story may have been irresponsible for doing so.

However, depending on what the story said, it may or may not have been accurate whether or not there is proof. Did it say where and what it’s source of information was?

Sometimes things that shouldn’t happen actually do happen. Sometimes people make these things up. I don’t think, in general, that the media can’t publish speculation as news, as it does so all the time.

Once again though, the media, whether liberal or not, has a poor track record of being able to know what it should or should not publish with respect to foreign interpretation or impact.[/quote]

“I think”…“may have”…“don’t think”…“in general”.
Do you ever take a stand on anything?
Do you hit the gym and say “I think I’ll go for the 200 pound bench today because in general I may be able to make it”…if so, I guess that further 'splains why you’re weak as water.

[quote]“I think”…“may have”…“don’t think”…“in general”.
Do you ever take a stand on anything?
Do you hit the gym and say “I think I’ll go for the 200 pound bench today because in general I may be able to make it”…if so, I guess that further 'splains why you’re weak as water. [/quote]

Why don’t you go read the “last salvo” thread for a good explanation of why I don’t always jump in with an opinion.

Besides, all jumping in with a dumb opinion on this thread would do would give people like you an excuse to attack me.

Interestingly, you do so anyway, perhaps because you never actually have anything of substance to say.

[quote]vroom wrote:
“I think”…“may have”…“don’t think”…“in general”.
Do you ever take a stand on anything?
Do you hit the gym and say “I think I’ll go for the 200 pound bench today because in general I may be able to make it”…if so, I guess that further 'splains why you’re weak as water.

Why don’t you go read the “last salvo” thread for a good explanation of why I don’t always jump in with an opinion.

Besides, all jumping in with a dumb opinion on this thread would do would give people like you an excuse to attack me.

Interestingly, you do so anyway, perhaps because you never actually have anything of substance to say.[/quote]

In general, I think, you may have a point. Or you may not.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Besides, all jumping in with a dumb opinion on this thread would do would give people like you an excuse to attack me.

Interestingly, you do so anyway, perhaps because you never actually have anything of substance to say.[/quote]

BTW, I find it funny that the guy who did and does the attacking is the one crying the loudest, mr. vroom.
While you accuse others of eating soy and stuff.

more on the msm:

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Newsweek magazine backed away Sunday from a report that U.S. interrogators desecrated copies of the Quran while questioning prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay naval base – an account blamed for sparking violent riots in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

and: (from editor&publisher.com; May 15/05)

Asked who they voted for in the past election, the journalists reported picking Kerry over Bush by 68% to 25%. In this sample of 300 journalists, from both newspapers and TV, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 3 to 1–but about half claim to be Independent. As in previous polls, a majority (53%) called their political orientation ?moderate,? versus 28% liberal and 10% conservative.

I’m curious as to whether Newsweek backed off the story becuse they didn’t get their facts straight or if it was because of outside pressure. According to Newsweek, a senior official confirmed the report, and it was also backed up by other similar activities at the facility. The US military also saw the report about 11 days before it was published and didn’t do anything about it.

It sounds to me that all parties involved were shocked by the reaction to the article. The fact that the senior offical backed away from his original story indicates that somebody got to him or he censored himself given the riots in Afghanistan.

Newsweek gave this story to the WH for review prior to publishing and the WH declined to comment.

After the story was printed the WH attacked.

LOL

The same thing happened to CBS with the ‘memo’. ROTFLMFAO!!!

FYI to the MSM…don’t print a story that the WH declines to comment on prior to publishing.

Carl Rove the evil genius stikes again!

[quote]Soco wrote:
The fact that the senior offical backed away from his original story indicates that somebody got to him or he censored himself given the riots in Afghanistan. [/quote]

If he had censored himself before the riots; the town I’m at would have been spared 4 deaths, several injuries, several thousands of dollars of damage, the evacuation of the UN and world food program, and he wouldnt have put the lives of US servicemen and my local national employees in danger. But as long as he got a good story. We must all have our priorities I guess.

[quote]sjoconn wrote:
Soco wrote:
The fact that the senior offical backed away from his original story indicates that somebody got to him or he censored himself given the riots in Afghanistan.

If he had censored himself before the riots; the town I’m at would have been spared 4 deaths, several injuries, several thousands of dollars of damage, the evacuation of the UN and world food program, and he wouldnt have put the lives of US servicemen and my local national employees in danger. But as long as he got a good story. We must all have our priorities I guess.

[/quote]

well struck, sir.