Update on Newsweek story

[Proletariat]

LOL! Who said they did?

Your article.

...alarmist coverage like Newsweek's about Saddam Hussein's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction paved the way for an invasion that has caused, according to the best epidemiological research available (Lancet, 11/20/04), an estimated 100,000 excess deaths.

How does this make the outcry over the more recent mistake 'hysterical'?

[Proletariat]

If you are saying that F Up One is > than F Up Two, because more lives were lost due to FU1, then you have to think there was an equal causality between the FUs and the lives they're responsible for.

There isn't an equal causality. Without FU1, Iraq would've been invaded. Without FU2, this instance of rioting would not have occured.

Can you help me understand what one has to do with the other or why they're being compared here?

[Adrian II]

FAIR doesn't say that Newsweek paved the way for war, but that alarmist coverage like Newsweek's did.

How does this make the outcry over the more recent mistake 'hysterical'?

Because a paper that has done a good propaganda job for the government is now accused of left-wing bias. I'm always amused by right-wing Chomsky's who allege that the media is (sic) a left-wing conspiracy.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Because a paper that has done a good propaganda job for the government is now accused of left-wing bias.

Fir then to be doing propoganda for the administration they would have had to know the information was faulty and they willing went along with it. Im sure they were only too glad to admit they were wrong. I know the Times must have enjoyed taking back their support emensely.

I'm always amused by right-wing Chomsky's who allege that the media is (sic) a left-wing conspiracy.

Your article is a good example of left wing bias.

[Adrian II]

Im sure they were only too glad to admit they were wrong.

As far as I can tell they never did. And no one in Washington ever raised a stink about that article, even though it might well have been, so to speak, the straw that broke the camel's back...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

As far as I can tell they never did. And no one in Washington ever raised a stink about that article, even though it might well have been, so to speak, the straw that broke the camel's back...

What are you talking about. You just posted an article where they admit they were mistaken. The Times had big headlines apologising for being mistaken on the run up to the war. Ive never seen them so proud to be wrong.

[Adrian II]

What are you talking about. You just posted an article where they admit they were mistaken. The Times had big headlines apologising for being mistaken on the run up to the war. Ive never seen them so proud to be wrong.

It wasn't quite clear from your post what you meant. I thought you meant Newsweek retracted the 2003 article, which they didn't as far as I know. And yes, the Times is doing a decent job, as is the Post. They're big papers with a lot of clout and they often use it in impressive ways. Besides, I've come to know some of the Times' staff. I've worked with them on the Khan case, so I was in a position to compare the things they wrote in their paper to the things we discussed and the sources we used on the ground, and they were certainly professionals.

[Proletariat]

When you have time, could you address my earlier post (#18) before it gets lost? I've had a bad streak recently of posts that I really would like answered getting buried.

[Adrian II]

When you have time, could you address my earlier post (#18) before it gets lost? I've had a bad streak recently of posts that I really would like answered getting buried.

Both FU's were based on an anonymous source. In the first case, the info wasn't checked with a second source. In the second case, it was. In the first case, Newsweek went with the goverment view that Saddam was a clear and present danger to mankind. In the second case, it went against the government's policy to cover up or polish up prisoner abuse. In the first case Newsweek knew it was supporting the drive to war which would cost many lives, because that is what wars do. In the second case, Newsweek could have had no idea that an article about a holy book down the john would trigger such bloody protests and a bigger outcry than was caused by the treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

They made a real professional mistake in the second case though, which I've noticed only after reading the thing closely once more. They wrote that the book/john incident was going to be mentioned in a forthcoming U.S. Army report. Such announcements of forthcoming acts by authorities can be self-defeating in that they give rise to developments that cause the authorities to refrain from the act.

[Proletariat]

They made a real professional mistake in the second case though, which I've noticed only after reading the thing closely once more. They wrote that the book/john incident was going to be mentioned in a forthcoming U.S. Army report. Such announcements of forthcoming acts by authorities can be self-defeating in that they give rise to developments that cause the authorities to refrain from the act.

Interesting.

I see what you're saying, but I still do not agree about the causality of the two pieces.

The Debussy is very nice.

[Proletariat]

I'm always amused by right-wing Chomsky's who allege that the media is (sic) a left-wing conspiracy.

Me too. I prefer leaving the foil hats to the more creative minds of the left.

So you think it's the US mainstream media that caused Operation Iraqi Freedom?
(Yeah, yeah. Amongst other things.)

Even if that's true (which I do not believe), how does this negate FU2?

[Adrian II]

Even if that's true (which I do not believe), how does this negate FU2?

Such answers negate themselves, thank you.