Newsweek’s mea culpa over its unconfirmed story regarding the desecration of the Koran by a guard at Guantanamo is falling on deaf ears in the Main Stream Media (“MSM.”)
While Newsweek has retracted the story, its publication ultimately resulted in the deaths of innocent people in Afghanistan. Is it fair to compare the publication of an unconfirmed inflammatory story as the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theatre?
Both the editorial boards for the Seattle Times and Seattle Post-Intelligencer poo-poo the false story as either merely a “journalistic error” not responsible for any deaths, or as an object lesson where President Bush might “consider admitting mistakes” in the Iraq war.
Columnists, like Robert Jamieson, are concerned about the integrity of the press. Jamieson’s message is that highly critical stories (of the Bush administration) can be published without making up facts. But what Jamieson doesn’t understand is that the integrity of the press is not being killed by false facts but by a liberal bias. It is this bias which reporters seek to confirm by making up facts and stories.
How else do you explain the use of a forged document by CBS as the basis for a story on Bush’s national guard service just prior to the presidential election? How do you explain Newsweek’s different treatment of President Bush and Clinton? When Newsweek had a verified story that President Clinton was having sex with an intern, Newsweek chose not to publish it. It was left up to alternative media sources (the internet) to break the story. Yet Newsweek chooses to run with an unconfirmed story criticizing the Bush administration’s alleged interrogation techniques of captured insurgents.
If Newsweek is not responsible for the deaths of innocent people in Afghanistan, it (and other MSM outlets like the Seattle Post-Intelligencer) is most definitely responsible for killing the integrity of the press with its liberal bias.
Cross-posted at www.litigarchy.com.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers, in a U.S. State Dept.-issued press release on May 12, said the Newsweek story isn't a chief cause of the riots: " [H]e has been told that the Jalalabad, Afghanistan, rioting was related more to the ongoing political reconciliation process in Afghanistan than anything else."
I've found four reports -- with more easily found -- to back up Newsweek's sources on the desecration of Korans belonging to Guantanamo detainees. The four instances I found...
Also see this comment from Juan Cole.
You can't accept everything this Administration says at face value. In fact, I accept nothing this administration says at face value. I look to see whether what they're saying has any bipartisan support before believing it's true. I'm sorry, it's just that I feel like I've been lied to by these people. Do you honestly think they are capable of telling the truth 100% of the time? If so, I feel sorry for you.
Posted by: Trilomax on May 18, 2005 10:32 AMLook, if I put a Bible in a pile of s***, it's considered art, and no Christians will riot and start killing their countrymen. So what gives? Clearly the problem is with the wacko's committing the violence - Newsweek's lies notwithstanding.
Posted by: JustSumGuy on May 18, 2005 10:42 AMExactly.
And the sooner we stop apologizing - and blaming ourselves - for the actions of these savages, the sooner we can get on with eliminating their threat, or welcoming them to the 21st Century - their choice.
Posted by: jimg on May 18, 2005 11:02 AMAs for the "enlightened few" like T-max, just where are we supposed to get ahold of these "independent" sources you are talking about?
I'm sorry, but my crystal ball is broken for the moment, so maybe someone who's is still working can shed light on this. Why shouldn't we believe what our government tells us? Are reports put out by the State Department and USAID considered "independent" or do you mean an independent "liberal-biased" source?!?
We've been following both stories very closely at Respectfully Republican and Head West, Turn Right.
Posted by: Patrick E. Bell on May 18, 2005 11:03 AMThis story, this allegation, doesn't have only a single source. I'm not talking about Newsweek's report, I am talking about the STORY itself.
Did you even read what I posted? Hence, the entire point. There are multiple sources for these allegations. There have been many reports before this. The Muslim world didn't hear about it until Newsweek reported it because Newsweek has a wide circulation.
JustSumGuy - you are right about the overreaction. They're way overzealous about what happens to a book. But the story isn't a lie.
Blaming a magazine story for deaths abroad is irresponsible. Scott McClellan should be ashamed. Actually, Scott McClellan should resign.
Posted by: Trilomax on May 18, 2005 11:04 AMRemember this when you choose to believe the jihadis over your fellow countrymen. The 'brother' would be one of those nice fellows from the Religion of Peace.
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/trainingmanual.htm
In part says:
"IF AN INDICTMENT IS ISSUED AND THE TRIAL, BEGINS, THE BROTHER HAS TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING:
1. At the beginning of the trial, once more the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by State Security [investigators] before the judge.
2. Complain [to the court] of mistreatment while in prison.
3. Make arrangements for the brother’s defense with the attorney, whether he was retained by the brother’s family or court-appointed.
4. The brother has to do his best to know the names of the state security officers, who participated in his torture and mention their names to the judge. [These names may be obtained from brothers who had to deal with those officers in previous cases.]
5. Some brothers may tell and may be lured by the state security investigators to testify against the brothers [i.e. affirmation witness], either by not keeping them together in the same prison during the trials, or by letting them talk to the media. In this case,they have to be treated gently, and should be offered good advice, good treatment, and pray that God may guide them.
6. During the trial, the court has to be notified of any mistreatment of the brothers inside the prison."
Posted by: jimg on May 18, 2005 11:11 AMPolitical Bias at its finest!
Thanks Trilo...you've shown your stripes. Guess I've now shown mine.
Posted by: Matt on May 18, 2005 11:14 AMHeck, flushing the Koran down the toilet in THIS country would win an NEA grant!
Posted by: M on May 18, 2005 11:16 AM"He thought it was not at all tied to the article in the magazine," General Myers said.
Have you even seen the article? This news has been reported multiple times by others in the past few months. If anyone is to blame for the response to the revelations it is those responsible for authorizing such practices and or any similar practices. Don't shoot the messenger.
Posted by: Daniel K on May 18, 2005 11:36 AMThis is why when people are polled, the say the media is untrustworthy. That is why viewership and readership is plunging.
Posted by: pbj on May 18, 2005 11:48 AM" Don't shoot the messenger."
But what about the lying reporter?
Posted by: pbj on May 18, 2005 11:49 AMTrue, the hatred of America may already exist aborad, but why incite more? Further, our media is largely responsible for the negative images surrounding America, that is to say they are the propagaters and exporters of mainly "negative" information to the world.
We may never know if Qurans have been desecrated, but for those of you who think such desecration is "non-sense" anyways, I'll pray that you wake up from your own stupidity.
Posted by: Patrick E. Bell on May 18, 2005 11:50 AMTmax & Danile K have stated that they believe the "story" cuz its been reported before and if the Bush Administration says the "story" is untrue...well then the "story" MUST be true cuz the Bush Administration only tells lies!!
Geeze...haven't you people learned that yet??
"Bush lied and people died"...REMEMBER??
BS...Newsweak only reported (read made up) this cuz they thought they could create another scandal ala Abu Ghraib. This was like pouring gas on an open fire...what did they expect?....Idiots.
Posted by: BlueKnight on May 18, 2005 12:27 PM..if we wanna get legal about it, the Korans did not belong to the detainees. The were provided by the US Goverment. Being US property they could be taken away or even "flushed" for that matter. And just how the heck do ya do that anyway? Must be some gawd-awful powerful terlits down thar in Coooba.
Just wondering...
Posted by: JustSumGuy on May 18, 2005 12:46 PMIf there was a legitimate Islamic issue with "infidels" touching the Q'uran, I would think the Saudis (arguably the most extreme of today's Muslim societies) would restrict non-Muslims' access to it, rather than allowing it to be bought openly in a retail establishment.
While I do not regard the Q'uran as sacred in the way a Muslim does, I do make it a point to treat my copies of it with respect and care. I felt it was important to read it in order to better understand the beliefs of my Muslim friends and associates.
Bottom line, it seems this is really a "tempest in a teapot" that has been exploited by extremist elements. Newsweek simply played into their hands by handling them an issue on a platter that they could blow out of proportion.
Posted by: Patrick on May 18, 2005 12:58 PMI have to say it... As a whole we (modern western culture) are a weak-minded people. We don't digest information critically. We swallow information that tastes good (politically, socially, morally, etc.)and we don't question the source nor the flavors (Bias) that it comes with. We accept it without question and persecute those who don't.
Hitler was right:
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it"
In that quote, nowhere did Hitler reference giving sources, verifying sources or diversity of sources (multiple eyewitness accounts).
These were some of the priciples that made Western Culture great.
Posted by: MCL on May 18, 2005 01:08 PMCouldn't agree more. MSM is simply selling their product and it doesn't matter if it is right, wrong or biased. MSM delivers a negative, sensationilized, liberal product and much of it should be recalled. Where's Ralph Nader?
Posted by: Mike J on May 18, 2005 01:13 PMHe pays off people who represent themselves as independent experts.
Be wary of everything anyone in the Bush administration has ever said -- or that the media writes. It's likely to be bought and paid for by Bush and Delay and Cheney and their right-wing, we're right;you're wrong cronies.
Posted by: Jim Rogers on May 18, 2005 01:14 PMYou left out Halliburton, Karl Rove and Darth Vader.
Posted by: jimg on May 18, 2005 01:22 PM"He pays off people who represent themselves as independent experts.
"Be wary of everything anyone in the Bush administration has ever said -- or that the media writes. It's likely to be bought and paid for by Bush and Delay and Cheney and their right-wing, we're right;you're wrong cronies."
Scurrilous allegations. Let's see your evidence!
Posted by: KB on May 18, 2005 01:36 PMBut what about the lying reporter?
Lying reporter? Newsweek showed the story to Pentagon officials before printing it, asking if it was accurate. The Pentagon raised one objection, which Newsweek corrected, but said nothing about the central point of the piece.
So was the Pentagon's plan then to allow the story to be released so that they could condemn it after the fact? Certainly seems that way.
The way the game is played in Washington D.C. is to "assume" the story is true if it is not explicitly denied. Elsewhere in the U.S.A. reporters confirm their sources before publishing stories.
However, D.C. news is driven more by rumors, innuendo's, and unconfirmed leaks, largely because no federal employee would publicly leak information and risk losing their job. Newsweek's got burned for these reporting practices because in this particular instance the unsubstantiated story resulted in killing people and making national news.
But if your point is that a non-denial is adequate confirmation, then you are ethically challenged. And if you think the Bush administration planned this in hopes that people would die so that it could blame Newsweek, then you are a kook.
Posted by: Tim Ford on May 18, 2005 02:51 PMNewsweek can be fairly taken to task regarding the credibility of their source, and they have since revisited the veracity of the information (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7857154/site/newsweek/).
However, the Pentagon was given the opportunity to refute the report, and while they pointed out problems with one part of the report, they did not refute the Koran down the toilet allegation part of the report. So someone there screwed up too, or didn't believe the report was in fact erroneous at that time.
Meanwhile, similar accusations have been made (see here for a list: http://blackandblueheart.blogspot.com/2005/05/freedom-of-press.html) by other newspapers dating back to March. This is not a story that only one shady source has produced, and one MSM publication has written about. This is a story that anyone paying any attention has been reading about for months.
Posted by: Daniel K on May 18, 2005 03:20 PMThose who want this to be a Bush Admin. story will make up reasons why the Newsweek story was really accurate, even though no one at Newsweek has argued that. This makes even more clear than ever that agendas are in play, not facts, not news, not reality.
I read the links and sources you provided and am not convinced that the Newsweek story is real. The difference is that Newsweek states a government report exists which accounts for this type of abuse, while the 2003 article cited on the link you provide quotes a handful of released prisoners. Some of these prisoners also claim they were innocent while admitting they were "forced" to fight in the Taliban.
Ultimately Newsweek did not stand by their story, which should be enough for the unbiased reader. I know there are brainwashed readers who want to believe anybody but Bush, but if the story was true, would Newsweek really retract the story at Bush's request? Newsweek is not owned by Rupert Murdoch and would never willingly do a favor for Bush.
Guess we will just have to disagree on this one.
Tim
Posted by: Tim Ford on May 18, 2005 04:06 PMLast week Thursday, the 12th, General Myers said, "It's a judgment of our commander in Afghanistan, General Eichenberry, that in fact the violence that we saw in Jalalabad was not necessarily the result of the allegations about disrespect for the Koran." He said it was "more tied up in the political process and reconciliation that President Karzai and his cabinet were conducting." And he said that that was from an after-action report he got that day.
The White House yesterday said, through spokesperson Scott McClellan said: "Well, clearly, the report was used to incite violence by people who oppose the United States and want to mischaracterize the values and the views of the United States of America."
So who is right? The generals on the ground or the politicians in D.C.?
I don't believe that what the general said and what Scott McClellan said are all that inconsistent. If you read the following article, it seems to me that maybe they're saying the same thing in different ways...
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20050517-1512-afghan-newsweek-quran.html
Posted by: KB on May 18, 2005 05:05 PMIf I incited a riot in my neighborhood, arrest would follow. I'd be sued by hundreds.
MSM gets a break. "Check my work?" Heck, we learned that in 2nd grade. Trouble is, the price is higher now for a FUBAR.
Newsweek overheard in the missle silo: "Ooops, hit the wrong button...Sorry..." (insert "foom" and mushroom cloud clip art here)
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on May 18, 2005 06:47 PMDo you suppose that you'll be able to get any sleep tonight? I mean, holy crunkas!
I feel so used! Like, such a sense of betrayal from people that I once trusted!
Oh, the outrage! Oh, the horror!
(Whatta pantload ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 18, 2005 07:35 PM