Newsweek Debacle

[Proletariat]

Nice one.

Newsweek admits that they screwed up the story where they claimed US interregators have flushed copies of the Quaran at Gitmo.

Oopsies.

Great reporting which so far has directly lead to more than a dozen deaths, and indirectly to countless more, and has inflamed the entire region, threatening to remove all progress that has been made diplomatically in recent years.

Of course no doubt 95% of the people who have seen their hatred of the US inflamed by this story will never see the retraction.

Not only should people be fired for this mistake, people should be prosecuted.

[Fragony]

I hope it is a fluke, because I would be pretty angry if it wasn't. How to win 'hearts and minds' by tearing down their most fundamental values, stupid stupid stupid. How could they do such a thing.

Anyway, true or not, it is a bit late now.

[Hurin_Rules]

I've already got a thread on this:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=47670

[Goofball]

Nice one.

Newsweek admits that they screwed up the story where they claimed US interregators have flushed copies of the Quaran at Gitmo.

Oopsies.

Great reporting which so far has directly lead to more than a dozen deaths, and indirectly to countless more, and has inflamed the entire region, threatening to remove all progress that has been made diplomatically in recent years.

Of course no doubt 95% of the people who have seen their hatred of the US inflamed by this story will never see the retraction.

Not only should people be fired for this mistake, people should be prosecuted.

I think we all need to back up a minute here. The recent events in no way mean that the alleged Quran desecration didn't take place, only that we are less sure of it. First, let's look at the reason that Newsweek is back-pedalling:

Whitaker added that the magazine's original source later said he could not be sure he read about the alleged Quran incident in the report Newsweek cited, and that it might have been in another document.

It is important to note that the source has not said that he never actually read in a report that the Quran was desecrated, only that it may have been in a different report than he originally thought.

This article also says:

Whitaker wrote that the magazine's information came from "a knowledgeable U.S. government source," and writers Michael Isikoff and John Barry had sought comment from two Defense Department officials. One declined to respond, and the other challenged another part of the story but did not dispute the Quran charge, Whitaker said.

Now, I agree that that certainly is not strong enough corroboration, and that Newsweek should have dug much deeper before printing what they did.

Having said that, I am inclined to believe that the Quran flushing actually did take place. Why do I believe this? Because I have already read dozens of accounts of abuse at Gitmo and Abu Gareib. I have seen pictures of detainees being forced into mock sexual acts with each other and being forced to wear panties on their heads.

When a system that has already been shown to allow (even condone) that type of treatment, then flushing a Quran down the crapper is not such a stretch for me to believe.

Quite frankly, the U.S. military's overblown indignation about how they have been so hard done by by this Newsweek article is a joke. If they had had their house in better order, then the world would not be so inclined to accept articles like this at face value. Unfortunately, they have made their own public relations bed, and are now being forced to lie in it.

[PanzerJaeger]

LoL its the military's fault Newsweek put out an unsubstantiated report?

No, im afraid thats a lame attempt at passing the buck.

Newsweek has followed in the steps of CBS and put their political agenda over reality and now people are dead. That might work for politicians but not for a supposed objective news source.

This whole incident is disgusting. When did the media change from wanting to report the news objectively to feeling it was necessary to subvert the government in a time of war? Vietnam? I know this kind of crap wouldnt have happened during WW2.

It really says something about liberal bias, subjective news, opionated journalism or whatever you want to call it when an American news outlet gets an ubsubstantiated report that sheds negative light on the military and decides to print it anyway. They didnt check up on thier story because they wanted it to be true... just like Mr. Rather. Pathetic and subversive.

[Goofball]

LoL its the military's fault Newsweek put out an unsubstantiated report?

Sorry, but where in my post did I say that?

Go set up your straw men somewhere else.

[Redleg]

Sorry, but where in my post did I say that?

Go set up your straw men somewhere else.

Probably from this statement of your's Goofball

Quite frankly, the U.S. military's overblown indignation about how they have been so hard done by by this Newsweek article is a joke. If they had had their house in better order, then the world would not be so inclined to accept articles like this at face value. Unfortunately, they have made their own public relations bed, and are now being forced to lie in it.

When a news agency does slopply reporting in order to get a scoop ahead of the rest of the world's news media - it often leads to problems. Your comment here shows how well some will buy the position that its the past wrong doing of the subject of the story who is at fault - and not slopply journalism on the journalists part.

Frankly what is disrupting about your comment is that you want the United States Military to be fully responsible for its wrong doings (which I agree with) but are unwilling to hold the media fully responsible for its wrong doing.

Regardless if the allegation is correct or not - the way the story was done in its content was not correct - nor was proper and ethical journalism on the the part of Newsweek followed. However it seems you rather hold Newsweek to a different standard.

[PanzerJaeger]

Unfortunately, they have made their own public relations bed, and are now being forced to lie in it.

How is the US military's "public relations bed" at fault for a news story that is printed and cannot be substantiated? Its kind of hard to have good public relations when the media simply make things up about you..

Your whole assertion that in fact the military is to blame for this debacle because of previous public relations issues is apologist.

Its no ones fault but Newsweek's if they print a story that cannot be proven or even substantiated and it causes problems.

My how our standards have changed havent they? Consider your opinion in comparison to your Iraq War stance.. You and President Bush seem to have the same thought process when it comes to believing what you want to believe.

[Goofball]

LoL its the military's fault Newsweek put out an unsubstantiated report?

Sorry, but where in my post did I say that?

Probably from this statement of your's Goofball

Quite frankly, the U.S. military's overblown indignation about how they have been so hard done by by this Newsweek article is a joke. If they had had their house in better order, then the world would not be so inclined to accept articles like this at face value. Unfortunately, they have made their own public relations bed, and are now being forced to lie in it.

Both you and Panzer need to pay a little better attention to what people are actually saying Red.

I never said, or even implied that the U.S. military is responsible for the sloppy journalism of Newsweek. Nor am I excusing Newsweek. Apparently both of you missed this part of my first post, so here it is again:

Now, I agree that that certainly is not strong enough corroboration, and that Newsweek should have dug much deeper before printing what they did.

The point of my post is that the U.S. military has a very poor record of late when it comes to the treatment of prisoners, and because of that stories like this one, whether they are true or not end up having the effect of nuclear explosions instead of farts in a duststorm.

An analogy:

If careless passerby flicks a cigarette butt on your driveway and it bursts into flame and burns your house down because you spilled an entire can of gasoline when filling your lawnmower and didn't clean up the spill, then yes, the cigarette flicker is clearly at fault and should be held accountable for starting the fire. However, your life would have been a whole lot easier if you had just cleaned up the gas spill rather than letting it sit.

If the U.S. military didn't have such a poor track record when it came to the treatment of (prisoners (particularly muslim prisoners), then its metaphorical house wouldn't burn down every time some careless writer flicked the equivilant of a journalistic cigarette butt.

[Don Corleone]

I hear what you're saying Goofy, but I have to disagree. You are right that WE would probably be more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but if the US Army had acted like a bunch of Boy Scouts, and Newsweek had printed that article, the end result would have been much the same. I don't argue that stories like Abu Grahib (sp?) certainly do little to resist stories like this, but I argue the ability to resist them regardless of the conduct of the military.

Reason for my conjecture? The Egyptian street is STILL convinced that the CIA and Israel brought down EgyptAir flight 660. Through the Arabic world, the theory that Israel & the CIA were the ones who blew up the World Trade Center are abundant, and well received. They didn't need Abu Grahib (sp?) to jump to the acceptance of a deliberately planned information attack by Newsweek. My only question is who paid off Newsweek, and why?

[Goofball]

I hear what you're saying Goofy, but I have to disagree. You are right that WE would probably be more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but if the US Army had acted like a bunch of Boy Scouts, and Newsweek had printed that article, the end result would have been much the same. I don't argue that stories like Abu Grahib (sp?) certainly do little to resist stories like this, but I argue the ability to resist them regardless of the conduct of the military.

I'll concede that you have a partial point there Don. You are right, the true fanatical U.S. haters will always believe the worst about your soldiers no matter what the reality is. But in this case, there have been riots involving hundreds (thousands?) of average citizens, not just extremists. If there hadn't already been so much anger at real U.S. abuses, then the extremists would not have been able to stir up so much violence and hatred so fast. This Newsweek screw-up would not have been the straw that was able to break the camel's back.

[Don Corleone]

It's hard for me to know where the percentages of the 'Arab street' lie. I know that much like here, there's probably a wide breadth of opinion. I've always gotten the impression from our news that a large majority are actually anti-US, anti-West for that matter, but that there were large numbers of folks who weren't. Can't say how many people who used to just sit on the fence or even supported the US were driven to violence by this story that wouldn't have been if Abu Grahib hadn't happened. One point I'd like to make is that in the case of AG, it was an internal US Army investegation into itself that brought it all to light. It wasn't a Woodward & Bernstein moment.

[Redleg]

Both you and Panzer need to pay a little better attention to what people are actually saying Red.

Actually I read and quoted exactly what you stated there Goofball maybe its you who needs to be more clear and concise with what you are saying and what your statement means. Maybe its you who should read again what I stated before attempting to say I did not read something there. I could even get more defensive like you just did with this opening statement - but what the hell you should get the point by now.

I never said, or even implied that the U.S. military is responsible for the sloppy journalism of Newsweek. Nor am I excusing Newsweek. Apparently both of you missed this part of my first post, so here it is again:

What you fail to realize is that I am not discussing your intial paragraph but your last as it relates to the point that Panzer made.

The point of my post is that the U.S. military has a very poor record of late when it comes to the treatment of prisoners, and because of that stories like this one, whether they are true or not end up having the effect of nuclear explosions instead of farts in a duststorm.

Then you should of said that instead of what you did stated if that was your point. The initial paragraph says something totally different when its read.

If careless passerby flicks a cigarette butt on your driveway and it bursts into flame and burns your house down because you spilled an entire can of gasoline when filling your lawnmower and didn't clean up the spill, then yes, the cigarette flicker is clearly at fault and should be held accountable for starting the fire. However, your life would have been a whole lot easier if you had just cleaned up the gas spill rather than letting it sit.

doesn't apply to the point I was making about your initial comments.

If the U.S. military didn't have such a poor track record when it came to the treatment of (prisoners (particularly muslim prisoners), then its metaphorical house wouldn't burn down every time some careless writer flicked the equivilant of a journalistic cigarette butt.

And nor should it be blamed when the journalist does such a thing either. However it seems you are still attempting to point the finger at the United States Military for this journalists bad reporting. Its sloppy reporting on his/their part and they should be held accountable for it.

[Proletariat]

I love the game 'Let's try and explain to Goofball what he himself posted' but it looks like you guys already won.

This has been a particulary bad week for the press. With this and a bunch of headlines on Saturday claiming "American Ally fires on own people" which is about the unrest in Uzbekistan. Which of course has nothing to do with us. If the French had some civil unrest and people ended up getting hurt. Would the headlines read "American ally fires on own people"? I think not.

Embarassing doesn't begin to describe it. I think that anyone associated with this "story" should be fired and if possible sent to jail for negligent homicide.

With every one of these scandals, I hold a sliver of hope that we are one step closer to the media kicking themselves into performance of an accountable public service again.

You know, the anecdote in question is obviously patently ridiculous in a number of ways.

How do you flush a book down the toilet?

If you, say, go page by page, what kind of response is that supposed to induce?

"Talk!"
"No!"
*rip*
*flush*

"Talk!"
"No!"
*rip*
*flush*

"Talk!"
"No!"
*rip*
*flush*

I mean, would Gawain or Don or Redleg or Panzer crumble if pages of the Oxford New World Bible were in question here?

And here is the other sneaky question: Would they take to the streets shooting if they heard about it? I am sure that Newsweek looks very very stupid here mainly because larger forces just played them for a patsy. Nice.

[Don Corleone]

I probably would be offended, but I know I wouldn't riot over it. More to the point, I certainly wouldn't burn my church down....

From "The Arab News", a Saudi Arabian English language newspaper:
Insult my religion?!?! Fine, I'll burn down my church!

The US weekly "Newsweek" is a highly reputable and responsible publication, rarely prone to making mistakes. So when it reports, as it has done, that copies of the Qur'an were desecrated at the US detention center at Guantanamo Bay, people will believe the story. People in the Muslim world certainly do. The anger it has stirred up in Afghanistan has left a trail of death and destruction. Incensed at the blasphemy, Afghans have lashed out in fury in all directions. The fact that not only government and UN buildings were burned but even mosques shows the depths of their rage. The same level public anger has been reported from Pakistan, Indonesia, Egypt and many other Muslim countries.

[Proletariat]

The US weekly “Newsweek” is a highly reputable and responsible publication, rarely prone to making mistakes.

What a bunch of idiots. I mean, really!

Newsweek has been reeling ever since their attempts to get Kerry elected failed. Hopefully, they'll be irrelevant by the time the 2008 race starts in earnest.

They're still thinking back to their glory days when they plastered the word "Wimp" on their Bush 41 cover.

I've seen no evidence that this is still a news magazine. Just a political version of the National Enquirer.

...

[Goofball]

Actually I read and quoted exactly what you stated there Goofball maybe its you who needs to be more clear and concise with what you are saying and what your statement means.

That's once...

I could even get more defensive like you just did

That's twice...

Then you should of said that instead of what you did stated if that was your point. The initial paragraph says something totally different when its read.

That's three times...

However it seems you are still attempting to point the finger at the United States Military for this journalists bad reporting.

And ladies and germs, we have a winner! Redleg has just "informed" me four times in one post that, notwithstanding what I actually said, I was really saying something different.

Well, I guess I can't argue with such a cunning tactic. You're right Red. I was saying it is the U.S. military's fault that Newsweek printed the story. Please accept my apologies on behalf of all of your brave men and women in uniform.

Oh, and please check your PM box Red. I have decided to save myself a lot of time in the future by sending you my login password. That way you can just post for me from here on in. After all, you know what I really mean to say better than I do.

[Redleg]

That's once...



That's twice...



That's three times...



And ladies and germs, we have a winner! Redleg has just "informed" me four times in one post that, notwithstanding what I actually said, I was really saying something different.

Well, I guess I can't argue with such a cunning tactic. You're right Red. I was saying it is the U.S. military's fault that Newsweek printed the story. Please accept my apologies on behalf of all of your brave men and women in uniform.

Oh, and please check your PM box Red. I have decided to save myself a lot of time in the future by sending you my login password. That way you can just post for me from here on in. After all, you know what I really mean to say better than I do.

Once again you get pissed when someone reads your words exactly the way they are written - and calls you on them. So instead of attempting to be flippant and snide with your comments - maybe you should of practice on being more direct in your comments.

However I don't need your password Goofball this way is actually more fun for me.

[The Black Ship]

How much blame should Newsweek be given for the deaths in Afghanistan directly related to it's story? Shouldn't they be held accountable for the deaths IF they were the result of bad journalism?

People died because of this.

[Proletariat]

Quite frankly, the U.S. military's overblown indignation about how they have been so hard done by by this Newsweek article is a joke. If they had had their house in better order, then the world would not be so inclined to accept articles like this at face value. Unfortunately, they have made their own public relations bed, and are now being forced to lie in it.

Goofball, what did you mean by this that no one in this thread has understood yet?

[Big_John]

that no one in this thread has understood yet?

don seemed capable of understanding it.

[Don Corleone]

That's "The Don", to you pal. Don't make me call Rocco and Sal over.

[Steppe Merc]

Well this is sad... damn bad journalists. Wonder if it was on purpose, was a mistake, or some journalist just made up a story... Did they give an official reason? Because sometimes journalists just make up shit... or it could be a conspiracy, which is certaintly possible.

[LittleGrizzly]

Goofball, what did you mean by this that no one in this thread has understood yet?

basically without abu gahrib and other reports from gauntanamo this report would have had a lot less credibility

[Big_John]

That's "The Don", to you pal. Don't make me call Rocco and Sal over.

you mean roxanne and little sally?

hmm.. this wouldn't happen to be an offer which i am incapable of refusing, would it?

[Goofball]

Goofball, what did you mean by this that no one in this thread has understood yet?

Okay. I am not being intentionally sarcastic or insulting by asking this Prole, but what is so hard to understand about what I said?

Don seemed to understand exactly what I was talking about even though he disagreed, and his post responded to and rebutted what I was saying instead of trying to set up a ridiculous straw man argument that could easily be defeated. He was able to to that because (unlike some others) he doesn't just start seeing red and stop processing information as soon as there is even a hint that somebody might be finding fault with the U.S. military.

If you really still don't know what I was talking about, then re-read my post right before Don's first post in this thread, then read Don's post, then read my response to him.

[Don Corleone]

Woah woah woah. No shortchanging me, I can see red and stop being rational just as well as anybody... All kidding aside, I think it was an honest misinterpretation. How about if we all agree

1) Goofball was NOT indicting the US military for this incident

2) Panzer & Redleg were NOT intentionally misunderstanding Goofball's post

AND MOVE ON. Or all of you are going to find out that 'Roxanne' and 'Sally' carry around a blowtorch and a monkey wrench for problems like this. Oh, and John, they want to have a word with you about their new nicknames.

[PanzerJaeger]

Well this afternoon they retracted the story.

Screwing up a story isnt what bothers me about this, its the conscious or subconscious thought process behind it.

How are we as a country supposed to be successful in the middle east with a media that, time and time again, chooses to print stories that are so anti-american?

Since when did it become our media's job to give our enemies fodder to use against us?

They need to understand that making up stories about Bush is one thing, but American and Middle Eastern lives are at stake now. They need to put aside their petty hatred of Bush and act in a more responsible manner.


In any event, these shenanigans go a long way to explain why FOXNews is wiping the floor with the other networks in the ratings..

[Big_John]

'Roxanne' and 'Sally' ... Oh, and John, they want to have a word with you about their new nicknames.

don't you mean "little sally"? or how about "lil' sally-wally, stawberry sweetie-cake"? well, send them my way.

[Adrian II]

And here is the other sneaky question: Would they take to the streets shooting if they heard about it?

Wanna play sneakier than thou? Let's give it a try, let's take the American flag fetishism as an example. Suppose some country a hundred times more powerful than the U.S. would occupy your country, hold American citizens in camps, and rip up, burn or flush American flags to make them defecate on it - wouldn't you guys protest? Bet you would.

I'm surprised at the hysterical reactions here, in this forum, not those in Afghanistan. It takes only very little imagination to understand that the abuse of their 'holy' book coming on top of a lot of other real or imagined humiliation sets off such protests. You guys know your country is making serious mistakes and supporting dictators in its war on terrorism, but you haven't the guts to face up to it. Instead, you complain that the entire world seems deaf and blind to your noble intentions, and when those noble intentions hit the fan in countries you occupy you whine that it's all to blame on one tiny newspaper clipping.

Eleswhere in this board Americans try to make the case that their country isn't bound to the treaties it signs, that they have every right to teach Intelligent Decline in biology class and that the world is flat as long Americans chose to believe that. Confusion and superstition reign supreme, Madam. Hm, haven't we seen it all before?