Newsweek Debacle

[Adrian II]

It was a Muslim who desicrated this 'holy book'.

Yeah yeah. I think you, Redleg, Don Corleone and some others have little idea how the press works, or should work. A real paper doesn't publish government communiques, it goes out and gets the news despite government interference. It's an area of conflicting interests, where the government will say that everything it does is smart and truthful and in the national interest and any criticism is invalid. And if it is seriously criticised in the press nonetheless, the gloves come off. That's what happened here.

There is ample proof that American interrogators intentionally desecrated the Quran. The innocent Brits who were released from Guantanamo last summer said that guards kicked the Quran and threw it in the toilet. An innocent Kuwaiti ex-detainee said routine desecration of the Quran once led to a hunger-strike among the inmates that was ended only after the camp commander apologised for it over the loud-speaker system. That story was later corroborated by a former American translator in Guantanamo. Need I go on?

Amid all of this, Newsweek gets word from a 'long-time reliable witness' that the desecration practice will be included in a forthcoming Pentagon report. The reporters show the story to a Pentagon official who doesn't deny it, and they go with the story. I would do the same if I had a long-time reliable witness who corroborates a story that's been out there already thanks to other sources.

The only reason the story was retracted is because said witness 'went back' on his statements. Retroactively. After the fact. Under pressure...

And to round off the case, General Myers last week said that according to the theatre commander in Afghanistan the riots weren't triggered by the Newsweek story so much as by the fall-out of the local reconciliation process. If anything, the story of Quran desecration lit a fuse that was there all along. But since this looks like an ideal occasion for right-wing bloggist America to kick the press for publishing all sorts of unwelcome truths like the Abu Ghraib pictures, such facts are conveniently passed over.

Sorry guys, you haven't convinced me.

[Proletariat]

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.

Uhm, I honestly doubt I would bother. Let alone go around marauding. Even if I was a fetishist.

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.

Right, that's what I've been saying. America is just peachey and no one else gets it.

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?

What common ground do these things have? I don't even understand what's relevant here. Were you just particularly angry with America when you wrote this?

In what way do 'confusion and superstition' reign supreme? We all go running around here screaming about ID and international treaties?

I would have published the same story based on the same sources if I were them.

All media outlets need to understand that just because the administration doesn't deny something doesn't mean they are tacitly approving it.

That used to be the way it worked - not any more. Ignore the change at your own risk.

[Proletariat]

Anyhow..

I don't buy Newsweek's admission of error. They may have just screwed up on this one and the admission may be genuine, but it's also very convenient.

The situation was getting out of hand in many places around the world, Americans were put to risk and I can't preclude that Newsweek's editors were pursuaded to renege on the most controversial part of the story.

Newsweek's spokesman who I saw on TV seemed too comfortable for a crisis of this magnitude for the magazine.

Although, I can't think that their non-denial was part of a secret plan to destroy Newsweek's credibility.

Let's be fair to both sides here. Stuff like this happens -and happens rarely- because successive avoidable or even silly mistakes pile up on each other. The end result looks improbably because it is improbable, and because the improbable happens every once in awhile.

Also, malice is a very difficult thing to exercise with restraint. If the military or the Bush Administration was plotting to undermine the credibilty of news organizations, or if news organizations were plotting to undermine the Bush Administration or the military, they wouldn't be so selective about it. It would be more of an all-out assault; these are all big organizations where stuff tends to happen by inertia rather than by design. And if it is an all-out assault that succeeds this rarely, then the folks on both sides are far more inept than average.

[Redleg]

Yeah yeah. I think you, Redleg, Don Corleone and some others have little idea how the press works, or should work. A real paper doesn't publish government communiques, it goes out and gets the news despite government interference. It's an area of conflicting interests, where the government will say that everything it does is smart and truthful and in the national interest and any criticism is invalid. And if it is seriously criticised in the press nonetheless, the gloves come off. That's what happened here.

There you go assuming once again - my grandmother was a journalist. A journalist has the ethical obligation to insure what they are reporting is accurate in detail and accurate in facts. A professional journalist has a code of ethics that they are suppose to follow which obligates them to confirm the story from multilple sources before going to print. Are you attempting to state that the newsweek journalists followed this ethical code in their report? You have alreadly publicaly claimed that you would of done the same thing - if the evidence is there and can be verified then great report the truth - but if its not then a journalist has the ethical obligation to not report it until they can verify the story as factual.

There is ample proof that American interrogators intentionally desecrated the Quran. The innocent Brits who were released from Guantanamo last summer said that guards kicked the Quran and threw it in the toilet. An innocent Kuwaiti ex-detainee said routine desecration of the Quran once led to a hunger-strike among the inmates that was ended only after the camp commander apologised for it over the loud-speaker system. That story was later corroborated by a former American translator in Guantanamo. Need I go on?

Those are not the incidents that were reported in the Newsweek article - and you probably know it. Once again justifing bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior is a weak arguement. That there is ample "proof" of the intentional desecrated in other instances was not the point of this story - this story mentioned a spefic instance that now has been shown to not be true in its initial blowback from this report.

Edit: doing what you advocate in this paragraph would actually be an editorial and would be perfectly acceptable - but its not reporting the news is it?

Amid all of this, Newsweek gets word from a 'long-time reliable witness' that the desecration practice will be included in a forthcoming Pentagon report. The reporters show the story to a Pentagon official who doesn't deny it, and they go with the story. I would do the same if I had a long-time reliable witness who corroborates a story that's been out there already thanks to other sources.

Try reading what is being reported now - there seems to be some confusion over this little tibit of information. Once again where is the ethical professionalism of the two journalists - and may I say it seems yours also given your statements.

The only reason the story was retracted is because said witness 'went back' on his statements. Retroactively. After the fact. Under pressure...

Seems to be more then just that - given the recent statements from Newsweek itself.

And to round off the case, General Myers last week said that according to the theatre commander in Afghanistan the riots weren't triggered by the Newsweek story so much as by the fall-out of the local reconciliation process. If anything, the story of Quran desecration lit a fuse that was there all along. But since this looks like an ideal occasion for right-wing bloggist America to kick the press for publishing all sorts of unwelcome truths like the Abu Ghraib pictures, such facts are conveniently passed over.

And the story that lit the fuze is responsible for the act. That the trouble was already developing does not excuse the effects the story had in lighting the fuze and setting off the explosion.

Sorry guys, you haven't convinced me.

Don't really care if your convinced - the story and your responses to it - show how far down ethical journalism has fallen in reporting the facts.

[Adrian II]

Are you attempting to state that the newsweek journalists followed this ethical code in their report?

Try reading what I wrote above. You're on the mark, Redleg. Only with hindsight, knowing that their key source would cave in under pressure, they should have held that story and worked it again. And I'll bet this story is going to come back to haunt some people.

[Redleg]

Try reading what I wrote above. You're on the mark, Redleg. Only with hindsight, knowing that their key source would cave in under pressure, they should have held that story and worked it again. And I'll bet this story is going to come back to haunt some people.

You might want to try reading what Newsweek has had to say about their little article. Its not only a hindsight issue - but one of a lapse in professional ethics and proper verification of facts before publishing a story.

For instance where did they verify the one source's information.

Mark Whitaker, editor of Newsweek, said in an interview that the magazine was retracting the part of the article saying sources told Newsweek that a coming military report would say interrogators had flushed a holy book down the toilet to unnerve detainees. As it turned out, Newsweek now says, there was one source. And Mr. Whitaker said that because that source had "backed away" from his original account, the magazine could "no longer stand by" it.

one source does not equate to sources now does it?

[Proletariat]

This is usually the case - but this time it seems that the whole thing is getting quite some airtime - it even was mentioned in the major TV news here in Germany which surprised me a bit.

And now they don't even believe it. Sheesh.

[Goofball]

Now who is being hysterical - just pointing out a fault I see in the way Goofball attempted to justify the shoddy journalism by pointing out the past behavior of the United States Military.

Here we go again.

From my first post:

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

Please tell me how that is trying to justify Newsweek's shoddy journalism?

Also from my first post:

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.

Neither is that an attempt to justify what Newsweek printed.

But since you have had such a hard time understanding it, simple and short though it is, I have written the following précis that should be a little easier for you to get your head around:

U.S. military abusing muslim prisoners before = anger erupting quickly whenever any abuse stories emerge, whether they are true or not

You have used the straw man argument (Goofball is defending Newsweek) this entire thread, because you can't face up to the simple truth: because of past shameful, systemic abuse of muslim prisoners, average people the world over are now ready to believe the worst about them rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt.

[Proletariat]

You have used the straw man argument (Goofball is defending Newsweek) this entire thread...

No, he didn't.

because you can't face up to the simple truth: because of past shameful, systemic abuse of muslim prisoners...

sys·tem·ic

1. Of or relating to systems or a system.

Prove it.

[Ser Clegane]

And now they don't even believe it. Sheesh.

I believe that I do not quite understand what you are trying to tell me (seriously ... not trying to mock you...).

[Proletariat]

Well, they're saying the retraction is a White House cover-up.

[Goofball]

sys·tem·ic

1. Of or relating to systems or a system.

Prove it.

Abu Gareib speaks for itself.

No, he didn't.

straw man
n.

1. A person who is set up as cover or a front for a questionable enterprise.
2. An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.
3. A bundle of straw made into the likeness of a man and often used as a scarecrow.

Prove it.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Abu Gareib speaks for itself.

Not to prove your point it doesnt.

[Proletariat]

Bad journalism is bad journalism.

Any journalistic enterprise that can get played by two different antagonists over the same issue (first by Islamist radicals who seek destabilization, second by the White House) is not really serious. (Still shocked Adrian fully backs them on this.)

From where I stand, I don't know whether the formula for anonymous sources need to be tweaked or not. But I do believe that editorship in journalism today is embarassingly sloppy.

From CBS News to the NYT to Newsweek, the energy that has driven journalism has been a bottom line that promoted controversy toward more notoriety and sales. That energy has ridden on the coattails of public trust, and after a while the free ride must end.

It does not end with bias, which is where the debators usually think it does. Bias is okay, except in the absence of integrity and accountability. I find very little cross checking on the part of writers. I find that much of the press amounts to gossip and salacious 'inside sources.' It is so obvious that the mainstream wants what Drudge has had -- if Drudge had the item about the Koran, would anyone have really noticed?

No, because Drudge hasn't ever really sold itself as a source edited for content. That is part of its shtick. But the mainstream guys? People are supposed to believe what is in these newscasts and publications.

The editors are in effect serving two masters. The more the mainstream tries to add edge to attract a dwindling audience, the more they get away from the people who tuned out to begin with, and the more open it leaves itself to attacks on its pretense of integrity. It is a sad stupid joke, and Newsweek is sitting atop the pinnacle right now because they couldn't even figure out how they wanted to tell the story of the Koran being flushed down the toilet. Nobody paid attention to ascribing any meaning to this story, and left it to politically motivated other entities to do it for them. Journalism in general has been trying to foist off responsibility for its content, and I am glad to see people and organizations screwed for it.


As for the ensuing murders, well. What can I say? It's infreakingsane.

There's more outrage in the Muslim world over these (which turned out to be false) allegations regarding the Koran then there was over Arabs butchering and oppressing Arabs for the decades.

I respect people of Faith, Muslims included. I have a hard time working up much concern for morons.

[Proletariat]

Abu Gareib speaks for itself.

Systemic? Please see above definition.

[Goofball]

Not to prove your point it doesnt.

You're right. Lynndie England (clearly an evil genius cleverly hiding her mental prowess) was the mastermind who engineered all of the prisoner abuse behind the backs of all of the military authorities.

[Ser Clegane]

Well, they're saying the retraction is a White House cover-up.

That's certainly not what they were saying in the news I was watching here this morning (and it would be quite inappropriate to offer such an interpretation on the news)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

No shes just an idiot.

[Proletariat]

That's certainly not what they were saying in the news I was watching here this morning (and it would be quite inappropriate to offer such an interpretation on the news)

Really? I don't have a link, but I was certain this is what the NPR/BBC news was saying. That there was a feeling amongst the protestors that the retraction was brought about by White House pressure. Odd that we both understood/were presented with such differing reports.

(Not trying to be rude whatsoever, this is exactly how I remember the news on the drive to work today.)

[Redleg]

Here we go again.

From my first post:



Please tell me how that is trying to justify Newsweek's shoddy journalism?

Also from my first post:

Go to this sentence 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.

Notice what I highlighted in bold just for your simple mind to understand.

That statement states that its the military's fault that newsweek chose to publish such an article and for it to be believed. Where is holding the journalist resposible for reporting the truth in your statement here. Here you are justifing their shoddy reporting by blaming the subject past behavior for the reason the story was published.

Neither is that an attempt to justify what Newsweek printed.

No but your are excusing and accepting it based upon bad behavior of the past. ANd in your statements instead of focusing on the bad behavior of the journalist - you are using a straw man arguement yourself in defending the journalists and those who believed the article on its face value.

But since you have had such a hard time understanding it, simple and short though it is, I have written the following précis that should be a little easier for you to get your head around:

Want to go the condesending approach now do we? I to can play that game with you if you wish.

U.S. military abusing muslim prisoners before = anger erupting quickly whenever any abuse stories emerge, whether they are true or not

again with the justifing bad behavior by point out previous bad behavior of a group that happen to be the subject of the story - talk about strawman arguements.

You have used the straw man argument (Goofball is defending Newsweek) this entire thread, because you can't face up to the simple truth: because of past shameful, systemic abuse of muslim prisoners, average people the world over are now ready to believe the worst about them rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt.

And it seems you have not understood my point at all - so should I take the same condesending approach that you have?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Really? I don't have a link, but I was certain this is what the NPR/BBC news was saying. That there was a feeling amongst the protestors that the retraction was brought about by White House pressure. Odd that we both understood/were presented with such differing reports.

Did you ever expect them to believe it? This is just another reason this is such a fiasco. I believe in journalism you used to be required to have at least 2 other sources back up your original and that one should be prepared to go on the record. It seems you can print anything you hear nowdays from anyone.

S I was saying before but everyone seemed to ignore here is what the report was really based on.

UPDATE at 5/13/05 10:23:53 am:

No evidence to back reports of Quran’s desecration: US military. (Hat tip: Red Hot Cuppa Politics.)

Washington: The top US military officer, General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said that no evidence has been found yet to back allegations that a Quran was put down a toilet at the Guantanamo Bay camp in Cuba to intimidate Muslim prisoners.

Myers told reporters yesterday that in an unconfirmed incident, a Guantanamo prisoner flushed pages from a Quran down a toilet in an effort to clog it. He said Army General Bantz J Craddock, head of US Southern Command, “has been in Guantanamo for the last couple of days digging into this issue to see if there was a time when the Koran was not respected.

”They have looked through the logs, the interrogation logs, and they cannot confirm yet that there was ever the case of the toilet incident,“ the General said. ”He did note a log entry, which they still have to confirm, where a detainee was reported by a guard to be ripping pages out of a Quran and putting them in a toilet to stop it up as a protest. But not where the US did it."

[Ser Clegane]

Really? I don't have a link, but I was certain this is what the NPR/BBC news was saying. That there was a feeling amongst the protestors that the retraction was brought about by White House pressure. Odd that we both understood/were presented with such differing reports.

(Not trying to be rude whatsoever, this is exactly how I remember the news on the drive to work today.)

OK, I see - with "they" you are referring to the protestors in Afghanistan (that would be in line with what I read today).

I thought you were saying that people here do not believe it.

My point just was that the news here reported the retraction without implying that it was under the pressure of the White House.

[Goofball]

Go to this sentence 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.

Notice what I highlighted in bold just for your simple mind to understand.

That statement states that its the military's fault that newsweek chose to publish such an article and for it to be believed.

No it doesn't. Please allow me to suggest that you engage in a course of study through either "Hooked on Phonics" or "The Sylvan Learning Program." Both of those study programs greatly enhance reading comprehension, I am told. I have provided links for your convenience:

http://www.hop.com/

http://www.educate.com/creativeAds/2...TOKEN=50835026

[Ser Clegane]

Not wanting to spoil a good party here - but I think the discussion about what Goofball wrote and what he didn't is getting a bit into nit-picking right now ... and as it is also slowly turning a bit snappish I would appreciate if this side-discussion ended before we have a bar brawl at hands.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yeah it looks as though were about to have a debacle of our own here. My post has been totaly swallowed up and ignored by this little brawl.

[Redleg]

No it doesn't. Please allow me to suggest that you engage in a course of study through either "Hooked on Phonics" or "The Sylvan Learning Program." Both of those study programs greatly enhance reading comprehension, I am told. I have provided links for your convenience:

http://www.hop.com/

http://www.educate.com/creativeAds/2...TOKEN=50835026

Ah look where you have gone with this - should I refer you to some professional mental help for your inablity to discuss an issue or a difference of opinion. Looks like someone needs to grow up a little.

Whats wrong Goofball you like to dish it out - but not recieve criticism in return. Typical logic of the far left and anti-American crowd that you seem to worship.

By the way Ser Clegane- its to late especially with the last little bit of insult that Goofball decide to level toward me. Edit: by the way I will edit this comment out when I see Goofball do the same.

[Adrian II]

one source does not equate to sources now does it?

Two sources do. You forgot the Pentagon official to whom they showed the story, and who didn't deny the part about the forthcoming report.

[Redleg]

Two sources do. You forgot the Pentagon official to whom they showed the story, and who didn't deny the part about the forthcoming report.

Edit to add: Oh yes the unnamed pentagon official - when they name him so that the story can be verified then I will concide your point - however given how the rest of the article has been protrayed by Newsweek itself - I can only conclude the following:

From what the news report states is that this Pentagon Offical did not deny or ackownledge that he was given any part of several stories that were supposely given to him. Sometimes silence is consent - sometimes silence means that the individual did not read the article prior to it going to print. The reporter still has the obligation to insure is story is factual before going to print. If the reporter does not have solid confirmation of his facts from at least two sources - he must delay printing the story. You claim this is all Hindsight because the main source latter denied his own allegation. What is being reported by Newsweek - is frankly slopply journalism on the part of the author and editor of the article.

[Adrian II]

From what the news report states is that this Pentagon Offical did not deny or ackownledge (..)

Yeah right, a Pentagon official who denies any knowledge after his superiors make a huge stink about his involvement is really convincing.

[Redleg]

Yeah right, a Pentagon official who denies any knowledge after his superiors make a huge stink about his involvement is really convincing.

Just as convincing as the Newsweek article and retraction of the same article. And every statement coming out of Newsweek about their slopply journalism in this matter.

Lets see when a news agency admitts that they did not follow the procedures that they themselves set-up, its the American government's pressure that made them issue this retraction and apology. And the story is still legite and correct in your opinion? Is that what you are trying to state?