NEWSWEEK LIED…PEOPLE DIED
Point is the WH had an opportunity to say something but they didn’t till after the fact. The response to this article caught everyone by suprise. It was used as an excuse for violence if anything.
Newsweek should have backed up heir story better first and even then probably should not have run it. Then again everyone has 20/20 hindsight.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
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]
Firstly, I believe it’s “Karl Rove, evil genius.” At least have the decency to spell the man’s name properly.
Secondly, was the White House supposed to do a full-scale investigation on a hearsay news report, all in time to make Newsweek’s publication schedule? Don’t reporters generally consider it a duty incumbent on themselves as journalists to verify their stories?
To borrow some analysis from the Pressthink blog:
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2005/05/17/nwsk_err.html
The very difficulty of summarizing what the faulty report said tells us something vital about it. To wit:
Newsweek, which I will call S1 for our first level source, and for which we have names (Michael Isikoff, Mark Whitaker, John Barry) said that it had sources (S2) without names, who in turn said that other sources (S3) also without names, working as investigators for the government, have learned enough from their sources (S4), likewise unnamed, to conclude in a forthcoming report for U.S. Southern Command (finally, a name!) that unnamed interrogators (S5) dumped the Qur?an into toilets to make a point with prisoners (S6) who are Muslims but also not named.
And as Newsweek Editor Mark Whitaker explained, what made this nameless, formless, virtually fact-free item newsworthy was not the “toilet” imagery itself, or some of the other equally revolting allegations, which had been reported numerous times before, but the “fact” that for the first time a government source (that would be S2) said it.
“The fact that a knowledgeable source within the U.S. government was telling us the government itself had knowledge of this was newsworthy,” Whitaker said in an interview with Howard Kurtz.
In this way of thinking–the adequacy of which is in doubt–if you trust the source, and Newsweek told us it did, then the source saying it (Qu’ran thrown down toilets) is enough to make it news. Except that the kind of news the source was willing to make was “weak” even if spot on. It was just a prediction of what someone else will later be saying, not what the source himself knew first hand.
[quote]redswingline wrote:
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.
[/quote]
Just do a google search of the reporter who was the source of the story – Isikoff – you’ll see what his perspective is very quickly…
The latest way the MSM is trying to spin this is that it’s essentially “fake but accurate,” kind of like they tried to spin Dan Rather’s fake memo story.
Interesting, in that it attempts to shift the burden of proof for seemingly baseless accusations on to the accused when there is no evidence to support the accusations.
In this case, the ultimate source of the stories seems to be uncorroborated reports by released al Queda detainees – who just may have an agenda… Other stories about pages of the Koran actually being flushed peg the al Queda detainees as the flushers, who were apparently upset about something or other.
BTW, here’s a nice piece on the rules in place at Gitmo:
U.S. Long Had Memo on Handling of Koran
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 17, 2005; Page A03
More than two years ago, the Pentagon issued detailed rules for handling the Koran at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, requiring U.S. personnel to ensure that the holy book is not placed in “offensive areas such as the floor, near the toilet or sink, near the feet, or dirty/wet areas.”
The three-page memorandum, dated Jan. 19, 2003, says that only Muslim chaplains and Muslim interpreters can handle the holy book, and only after putting on clean gloves in full view of detainees.
The detailed rules require U.S. Muslim personnel to use both hands when touching the Koran to signal “respect and reverence,” and specify that the right hand be the primary one used to manipulate any part of the book “due to cultural associations with the left hand.” The Koran should be treated like a “fragile piece of delicate art,” it says.
The memo, written a year after the first detainees were brought to Guantanamo from Afghanistan, reflects what U.S. officials said was a specific policy on handling the Koran, one of the most sensitive issues to Muslims. The Pentagon does not have a similar policy regarding any other major religious book and takes “extra precautions” on the Muslim holy book, officials said.
“They’re not supposed to in any way disrespect or desecrate the Koran, and there are a very specific set of rules the military has on handling the Koran,” State Department spokesman Richard A. Boucher said yesterday. “We made it clear that our practices and our policies are completely different” from allegations in a Newsweek article that the magazine formally retracted yesterday. The Newsweek report said that U.S. military investigators had confirmed that a U.S. interrogator at Guantanamo had flushed a copy of the Koran down a toilet.
The Pentagon memo, among other directives, barred military police from touching the Koran. If a copy of the book was to be moved from a cell, the memo said, it must be placed on a “clean, dry detainee towel” and then wrapped without turning it over at any time. Muslim chaplains must then ensure that it is not placed in any offensive area while transported.
In an effort at damage control, the State Department transmitted the Newsweek retraction to all U.S. embassies in Islamic countries yesterday along with statements by top Bush administration officials about U.S. respect for the Koran.
Let’s face it the reason that Newsweek story was such a touch-paper was the fact that America is seen as being on a ‘holy/race war’ (now I’m not saying it is, I’m just saying thats the perception in Europe, let alone Muslim countries). Whatever Newsweek prints there is little dispute that hearts and minds have not been won. Just take a look at the Al Jazeera website if you want to see how the Arab world views America, and it is in fact very moderate.
On Iraq:
Relating to 9/11 and Afghanistan:
Al Jazeera’s code of conduct (if only Fox and CNN followed this):
[quote]JohnGullick wrote:
Let’s face it the reason that Newsweek story was such a touch-paper was the fact that America is seen as being on a ‘holy/race war’ (now I’m not saying it is, I’m just saying thats the perception in Europe, let alone Muslim countries). Whatever Newsweek prints there is little dispute that hearts and minds have not been won. Just take a look at the Al Jazeera website if you want to see how the Arab world views America, and it is in fact very moderate.
On Iraq:
Relating to 9/11 and Afghanistan:
Al Jazeera’s code of conduct (if only Fox and CNN followed this):
Yeah, we need to follow what Al Jazeera thinks about us.
Was Neville Chamberlain your grandfather?
Christ.
What do people think about this? I think it’s highly irresponsible for the Whitehouse to force suppression of the facts due to hard evidentiary proof.
Note: I will refrain from being as pleonastic as BB and only print the sections that make my point. Click the link to view the entire article.
Under intense pressure from an angry Bush administration, Newsweek has formally retracted its report that American military interrogators flushed a Qur’an down a toilet at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.
Newsweek had apologized in yesterday’s edition (May 16) for the May 9 item, but had pointedly not retracted the story
The protests and condemnation forced Washington into the same type of damage control it had to engage in after the publication of photos last year of abuse of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison.
But in interviews with U.S. media outlets, he said: “We’re not retracting anything. We don’t know for certain what we got wrong.”
That sparked anger in the administration.
Newsweek apologized but did not retract the story according to today’s Toronto Star. If the information published was not factually based the Whitehouse would have legal recourse against Newsweek; and I am sure they would exercise it. There has been no talk of “legal action” by the Whitehouse. Based on this evidentiary proof, the whitehouse is again forcing certain media to refrain from printing facts that run afoul of it’s agenda. This only feeds the right wing orgiastic fervour of BB and his ilk and has nothing to do with the truth.
Dude - nothing you quoted proves anything other than it’s he said/she said. And the Satar believes the She Said.
It’s from the Toronto Star. Hardly as radical as the Globe and Mail, but hardly an objective source either. You use no proof, only a regurgitation of Newsweek’s position.
Please try and form an argument before making a personal attack.
FYI - you need to try real hard to paddle towards the shallow end. You are in WAY over your head. son.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
redswingline wrote:
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.
Just do a google search of the reporter who was the source of the story – Isikoff – you’ll see what his perspective is very quickly…[/quote]
The same Isikoff who was allover Clinton with the Paula Jones BS case? The same Isikoff that conservatives have been praising all this time? One things for sure, this is the king of unreliable sources—whitewater, Willey, Jones, this guy is a real joke, and to boot complaining about cbs’ handling of rather’s unreliable sources!
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Dude - nothing you quoted proves anything other than it’s he said/she said. And the Satar believes the She Said.
It’s from the Toronto Star. Hardly as radical as the Globe and Mail, but hardly an objective source either. You use no proof, only a regurgitation of Newsweek’s position.
Please try and form an argument before making a personal attack.
FYI - you need to try real hard to paddle towards the shallow end. You are in WAY over your head. son. [/quote]
I guess you would be one of the ilk.
I formed an argument. [quote]You are in WAY over your head. son.[/quote] You just missed it. My point is and was: In such a litigious country as yours why are there no lawsuits, criminal or civil, against the author of the story and/or Newsweek itself for printing an article that, conceivably, could jeopardize the perception of America, by the rest of the world, and lives of American soldiers. I contend that if the article were not based on facts that could be proven The Whitehouse lawyers would be all over Newsweek. Sorry for hiding the argument in the concluding paragraph. Next time I’ll put it at the top so you don’t miss it.
[quote] FYI - you need to try real hard to paddle towards the shallow end.[/quote] You really have an unwarrantably high opinion of yourself.
And don’t call me son, boy.
teklearn: So your argument here is that “The story has basis in truth because otherwise the WH lawyers would be all over Newsweek.”
Wow.
How about “Newsweek published an apology because they know that their story is full of shit.”
and
“Maybe the WH lawyers DID make a few phone calls, and Newsweek did their little song and dance to save their sorry lying asses from being sued.”
How’s that sound?
You guys are really trying hard to blow this up. Newsweek didn’t lie. I merely see “an unnamed source told us…”, which is the truth. Did Newsweek make a mistake? Yes, journalists have to constantly make determinations as to the trustworthiness of their sources. They put more faith into this source, a source that had proven to be trustworthy in the past, than they should have. Some of you are trying to make it sound like everything in the article was fabricated.
I also see that Newsweek gave a copy of the of the article to the pentagon for review before publishing. No denials were issued. Some of you claim to be mad because because Newsweek didn’t print opposing denials, but none were issued.
At lastly, it’s amazing how the riots were Newsweek’s fault. Has it been lost on some of you that killing people wouldn’t be acceptable even if Newsweek had completely lied? Oh I get it, it’s not the Taliban’s fault, it was the evil American media for saying mean things. The solution is to say nice things to the Taliban so that they won’t be angry. Give me a break.
Our military leadership agrees that the Newsweek article was not the cause of the rioting:
Yes, we’d all like to see our media do a better job, in a variety of ways, but all of this overblown rhetoric is nauseating.
Question,
You’re a reporter.
A trusted government source with plausible access to the information he’s providing tells you he’s heard that an ongoing investigation has found evidence of physical abuse at guantanamo bay.
You write an article that says “A source told me…”.
You show it to two sources at the pentagon. They deny minor aspects of your article, which you remove, but neither deny the physical abuse element.
Do you publish it? I would…
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
You guys are really trying hard to blow this up. Newsweek didn’t lie. I merely see “an unnamed source told us…”, which is the truth. Did Newsweek make a mistake? Yes, journalists have to constantly make determinations as to the trustworthiness of their sources. They put more faith into this source, a source that had proven to be trustworthy in the past, than they should have. Some of you are trying to make it sound like everything in the article was fabricated.[/quote]
I’m sorry, so then we WERE flushing pages of the Koran after all, huh? Yes I’m saying that the piece was inflammatory and not based on truth. It’s not just a lie, it’s a damned lie. The only way to make it worse is if Newsweek had said 45% of all interrogations involve flushing the Koran down the pooper… then it would be a statistic.
Maybe it’s like this: Moriarty, we are hearing from unnamed sources that you panhandle on the corner of Fifth and Bradwell for crack, is this true?
.
.
.
Hmmmm… no denials. I guess it’s true then. I’m sure that if the Pentagon had time to see this piece of crap, they would have said something. I think it’s ludicrous to think that some pentagon official looked at this, and said: “Yeah, we’re busted. I guess that Newsweek is gonna own us now. Darn, I was only halfway done flushing the Koran, too.”
Well then if the General says it wasn’t the article, I’ll buy that and admit I was wrong about the 4 deaths being on the conscience of the Newsweek dude. Still, he was full of shit though. And he still sucks.
[quote]tekteach wrote:
What do people think about this? I think it’s highly irresponsible for the Whitehouse to force suppression of the facts due to hard evidentiary proof.
Note: I will refrain from being as pleonastic as BB and only print the sections that make my point. Click the link to view the entire article.
Under intense pressure from an angry Bush administration, Newsweek has formally retracted its report that American military interrogators flushed a Qur’an down a toilet at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.
Newsweek had apologized in yesterday’s edition (May 16) for the May 9 item, but had pointedly not retracted the story
The protests and condemnation forced Washington into the same type of damage control it had to engage in after the publication of photos last year of abuse of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison.
But in interviews with U.S. media outlets, he said: “We’re not retracting anything. We don’t know for certain what we got wrong.”
That sparked anger in the administration.
Newsweek apologized but did not retract the story according to today’s Toronto Star. If the information published was not factually based the Whitehouse would have legal recourse against Newsweek; and I am sure they would exercise it. There has been no talk of “legal action” by the Whitehouse. Based on this evidentiary proof, the whitehouse is again forcing certain media to refrain from printing facts that run afoul of it’s agenda. This only feeds the right wing orgiastic fervour of BB and his ilk and has nothing to do with the truth.
[/quote]
It looks like someone learned a new word on his “word of the day” calendar (“ilk”) and is now trying to wedge it into conversation. Good for you! That’s what I used to tell my SAT students to do, so I hope it works well for you… Next time, see how many times you can work in “pleonastic” over several posts. Of course, you’d probably do it in a pleonastic fashion…
Anyway, if I were you I’d get grounded in U.S. 1st Amendment law, which pretty well protects the press from any liability over mistakes of this kind – gross negligence. You’d have to prove they had actual knowledge it was false at the time it was published, and also published it with complete disregard for the consequences to even begin to have a case.
I wonder how many cases you could find over the last 50 years or so when any government or politician successfully sued a media organization or reporter for false reporting? Perhaps if you find one you can let me know…
Oh yeah. The rest of your article. Well, what we have here is a series of unsubstantiated accusations by a lawyer representing some detainees, and one – count him, one – released detainee. Maybe I missed someone else in there who was making unsubstantiated accusations?
At any rate, the fact Newsweek, “pointedly isn’t withdrawing the story,” merely means they are taking the stance that until the unsubstantiated accusations are PROVED FALSE (and I’m assuming you are aware how difficult it is to prove something DID NOT happen, which is why the burden of proof falls on the accuser), they don’t need to retract their story.
To the effect that Newsweek wants to continue to be a trusted news source, I would suggest they take a less cavalier attitude concerning the burden on journalists to verify their stories, or to suitably make it known how flimsy the allegations are.
BTW, do you guys notice that I can’t win when I post articles? When I post the whole thing, which is often, Prof X calls me boring and people complain they’re too long, or even overly academic. And when I occasionally post an excerpt, someone like tekteach “or his ilk” will use it to accuse me of cherry-picking. Ah well, c’est la vie. BTW, tekteach, what part of the blog post that I apparently purposefully didn’t excerp was relevant and undermined what my point was?
Also, rainjack, glad you’re my “ilk” bro. Does that mean I get preferential waiver status in fantasy baseball? Maybe we should make jackets: “BB’s Ilk”. Bumper stickers?
[quote]tekteach wrote:
And don’t call me son, boy.[/quote]
This little bitch slap right here proves the worthlessness of your attempts at debate.
You get on here spouting the standard canadian “america sucks” bullshit, which is really starting to get old, and tell me your making an argument?
Sorry sparky - my “ilk” requires more than your B.S. to be considered an argument.
Is your "ilks’ manhood naturally this fragile, or is that a personal problem?
What’s also very intereesting is the shift to the “fake, but accurate” line that the MSM seem to be parroting…I know there have been critical articles of Newsweek now, but they don’t seem to me to contain the proper level of condemnation for publishing an inaccurate and false story. So, the disconnect between the media and the poublic grows.
Speaking as a Canadian, I’m an unabashed supporter of the US. (not unthinkingly, and I’m simplifying - but I really believe that you’re the good guys. Some people seem to think otherwise) Up here, this classifies me as a right wing war mongering madman.
I found this amusing.
So Bush is evil because he relied on hundreds of intelligence reports to go to war with Iraq some of which were innacurate, yet this guy uses one source, which is unsubstantiated, and runs a story that starts riots, kills a few, and injures many and you guys are defending him?
Come now, He was in the wrong for being over zealous in wanting to write something bad about america because he knew it would be a good story. I’m not asking for anyone to sugar coat something or focus only on the good, but at least get your damn stories straight before trying to run america through the mud.
V