Newsweek and the consequences

Remove all ads!

I've been amazed that this topic hasn't been posted here yet.

The quick version is that the magazine Newsweek published a story about "atrocities" at Guantanomo bay. One of them was that interrogators allegedly flushed detainees' Korans down the toilet (must have been one hell of good toilet). This then set off a firestorm in the Muslim world which has led to at least a dozen dead and many wounded in riots to protest America.

Since then it appears that like CBS during the presidential election Newsweek may now be guilty of going to press with a story that wasn't properly fact checked and confirmed. Newsweek is now saying that it came from the famous "unnamed government source".

The White House is looking awfully smug at the moment criticizing Newsweek for the "terrible harm" they have done to U.S. reputations worldwide and to individual people who died and were hurt in the riots.

Recently Newseek retracted the story and is investigating their procedures, but they don't anticipate anyone being fired over this little mistake.

The conservatives are claiming this is yet further proof that the media are not reporters but are actually fifth columnists. I figure we are only a few days away from the liberals claiming that Bush leaked the story to make them look bad.

Myself I'm curious what the lawsuits are going to look like.

Yahoo

 

How does this story, or Newsweek's mistake, make liberals "look bad?" It makes Newsweek look bad, but it hardly reflects on "liberals." But that the Bush people may leak a phony story is an interesting idea. Of course, I'm sure you believe the Bush people would never do anything like that. But at the same time you seem willing to believe there is some big "liberal" conspiracy to mislead everyone. Interesting.

 

Gone are the days of responsible journalism. The story is more important than the people. Spreading the word is more important than preventing harm to others.

A few days before the invasion of Normandy General Eisenhower told scores of reporters at a press conference of the upcoming invasion. He then said, basically, if the Germans knew about the invasion thousands of soldiers would die. One report summed up the conference with: we can't report this until after the invasion started, you just put the weight of thousands of lives on our shoulders. The General replied, now you know the burden I live with every day. It was interesting that he brought the reporters into the process -- had he not done that, some reporters may have discovered the preparations for the invasion and unwittingly informed the Germans. This kind of press conference could never happen today.

On another note: I find it interesting that a bible can be flushed or burned and nothing happens. A copy of the koran sparks riots -- it really sounds like a few violent people just using the report of the flushing as an excuse.

Edit @Chandos: Actually, leaking that kind of information would be political suicide -- the news of desecration of a copy of the koran would spark riots and cost American lives abroad. No political group would risk the backlash.

 

I'm not well enough informed to really state my opinion. On one hand, the account of flushing the Korans down the toilet was only reported by one person, so it was impossible to fact-check it. Publishing something as fact without doing the due dilligence of finding corroborating evidence does make Newsweek look bad. On the other hand, supposedly the article was sent to some government official before publication, and they didn't have any problems with the content of the article, which leads me to believe it could be true.

On the base level, I do not understand how one would flush a book the size of a Koran down a toilet. Furthermore, it's a freaking book. I don't understand why the Afganis are reacting the way they are. I do not think the most devout Christian would react in such a way to a Bible being flushed down a toilet.

 

It could be done page by page. Or it could have been a pocket version.

T2 - In the instance of "political suicide," consider Social Security. It too was considered political suicide. But George went there anyway, and it's costing him politically. These are arrogant men, T2. They beleive they can get away with anything as long as they hold the levers of power. At least that's how many of us read these guys.

 

What I really think is interesting is that they watch US attack Iraq, they watch the news about the Abu Gharid and similar cases and then something like flushing down a damn book makes them start serious riots.

The public opinion around here seems to be that the White House just put enough preassure on Newsweek to make them cancel the article. Not sure I believe it though and I don't believe that Newsweek should face any too serious consequences. If a newspaper was sued every time they made a incorrect statement or assumption based on inreliable sources there would only remain riskless media which does everything they can to please the government. Not exactly a free media I'd want.

 

I agree. When Ben Franklin defended his paper's (the Gazette) habit of "printing gossip." He made the defense that such practices "prevented men from becoming overly ambitious." His notion was that men were governed by personal ambition and that public opinion was a way of "clipping the wings" of those who were power hungry. Printing gossip or scandal was one way in which the powerful were constantly held before public opinion. Journalism has always reflected this view to some extent, depending on the times.

Note that there was constant gossip and scandal printed and reported by the media (which supposedly is "liberal") about Bill Clinton. A large portion of which was never proven. But that does not trouble those who have been complaining about Dan Rather and CBS. Bill Clinton was popular because of his performance as president; George II has to depend on the "appearance" of accomplishment rather than the real thing, IMO. It's no surprise that he goes through great lengths to control and manipulate his "appearance" in the media.

 

@Chandos

Don't get me wrong, I do not think this is a vast left wing conspiracy at all. I think it is runaway journalism. I also think that it probably did happen. It sounds like a pretty good interrogation technique to me. However, for anyone to go to print nowadays without being able to back up the story is foolish, especially when they knew or should have known how the Muslim world would react.

 

I agree, TGS.

 

There are good reasons to believe the Koran flushing stuff in fact is true, it is only unprovable because it happens without whitnesses or any documentation.

The point that it is believed so eagerly only illustrates the degree to which US reputation worldwide is in tatters.

And not without reason.

The step from violating muslim religious feelings through female interrogators in Gitmo smearing them with red ink, claiming it's their menstrual blood - is inpure after Islam - and to then deny them the possibility to wash, only to cause them distress and to actually flushing a Koran ain't all that great.

The account by one researcher in the national security field for 20 years, writing under the pseudonym Calgacus suggests it might very well be true in other cases, Newsweek notwithstanding.

 

Funny how two regime critical scoops have been hounded and persecuted for the possibility of them not being 100% true. I honestly believe it is a dangerous path when media gets attacked from all sides, not the least from the centre of power itself, for publishing things that sit less well with those in power. Will there be a free press in the future or will it all be Pravda?

 

I guess the difference is what is the definition of news? To me (and many others) the news represents facts. Reporting on theories or rumors is not actually reporting. While I am more than wlling to believe that some of these tactics have been used on Muslims (heck, I agree with using some of them) how the press can't find any credible witnesses or evidence to parade around in public is really troubling.

Joacqin raises an interesting point, however it is two sided. Is the administration just that efficient at keeping all of its dirty laundry unprovable or are the administration's enemies that despicable and desperate that they will do anything to smear it? Probably a little bit of both.

 

You have got to be kidding. 16 people died as a result of Newsweek printing a story that they didn't have a single shred of physical evidence, and that was based upon unconfirmed hearsay. There are standards for journalistic reporting, and Newsweek didn't follow them. Regardless of whether the story turns out to be true or not, Newsweek has followed in the footsteps of CBS and not done their duty.

This is the moral equivalent of yelling fire in a theater because you thought you saw a spark, then justifying your actions by saying that there was a fire in a theater in the next county.

The difference between journalism and tabloid reporting is the diligence with which stories are confirmed. From now on I think that Newsweek belongs on the same shelf with the National Enquirer, Star, and the Globe.

Newsweek is guilty of negligent reporting, and if they had a bit of integrity they would stop running around trying to rationalize their mistake and start setting funds aside for reparations to those who were injured and the families of those who were killed as a result of Newsweek's negligence.

 

I never kid about Ben Franklin.

Spare me. Thousands of people died in Iraq, and many of them Americans, also because of the "hearsay" and "lack of physical evidence" regarding WMD, and other "horrors" of the Saddam regime. Sorry that you don't hold your own government officials to the same standards that you are holding Newsweek.

Also, the "source" was a "government" source that Newsweek had used - with success - in the past. They then submitted the story to the Pentagon for confirmation. When the Pentagon refused to comment on the story, Newsweek went ahead with the story. They should not have - CYA - the first rule of the Bush people.

 

DW, what you are saying is that media should never publish anything without physicial and factual evidence? Never report anything someone claims? No anonomys whistleblowers, no snitches no nothing? According to you nothing should ever be published then, we wouldnt know about the horrors of Saddam's Iraq as it was based on hearsay and the words of individual, we had no evidence then. Same with North Korea, and any other dictatorship, our knowledge about the conditions there are mostly based on what you call hearsay and is thus according to you not something that should be published cause it cant be absolutely verified as being true.

I can hear the sounds of boots marching.

 

:::::::::::IMPORTANT NEWS BULLETIN:::::::::::::

This just in; an anonomous source has reported that the owner and administrator of the highly regarded Sorcerers.net website was recently spotted participating in Satanic rituals with an outlaw group near the shores of Lethe. One of the leading members of sorcerers.net Chevalier in outrage split from the group and founded his own group named sorcerer'swithoutsatan.net. The online community is in a state of panic and doesn't know what to do.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

Chandos,

As BTA pointed out in another thread, it is very popular to point to one issue for the rational behind the war. Again, the facts are that Iraq did not comply with the terms of the ceasefire, multiple UN resolutions, and multiple intelligence agencies reported that Saddam had and or was continuing to develop WMDs. Newsweek had one verbal source that they could not confirm, and no physical evidence. Going to press with this puts them on the same standing as the National Enquirer.

As far as the Pentagon refusing to comment, it is my understanding that unless it is something they have specifically investigated, the policy is not to comment.

Finally, whether the US government is guilty of anything has no relevance to this issue. Either Newsweek was negligent or they weren't. Your argument is equivalent a murderer arguing that his crime really isn't that bad when compared to Ted Bundy.

Joacqin,

Good journalistic standards require that you either have physical evidence, or a second independent verification if your only evidence is eyewitness accounts. This prevents embarrassment in the case the eye witness is mistaken or was driven by an agenda, and it this case would have saved the lives of 16 people who died as a direct result of Newsweek not following generally accepted journalistic standards. It appears here that Newsweek figured that because of all the other detainee scandals this one must be true and/or they didn't care if they were accurate or not, but didn't want to lose their scoop, so they went to press without any verification or evidence, probably figuring that they could spin their way out of the fact that they were negligent by using the exact arguments cited in the posts above.

 

Darkwolf,
when talking about stuff happening beyond the public view in cells behind closed door, and under strict secrecy, testimony is sometimes the only thing you have - after all, for Wolfowitz 'gut feeling' was good enough to point to Saddam for 911. So let's not be so squeamish all of a sudden. EDIT: [-> SARCASTIC tone <-]

Newsweek had a witness who suddenly, and that may well be because of some internal armtwisting, got memory loss. They probably should have checked him more thoroughly, but then, how to do then when all the stuff his testimony is about is classified? Persuade him to bring up some top secret documents, too?

Demanding journalistic ethics is one thing, living up to the demanded standards is something else it seems.

So, if they are not, they become sons of bitches and lose all their credibility, according to Rumsfeld's spokesman DiRita ...

Besides, the Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff suggests that rioting in Afghanistan was not necessarily connected to Newsweek reports.

So someone making accusations before fact-checking them first, before being 100% sure, is a S.O.B. Mr. DiRita?

Interesting

[ May 18, 2005, 20:41: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Yes, that was his opinion. You can choose to believe that if you wish.

But more to the point, the premise of your argument, that Newsweek is to blame for a bunch of idiots killing each other in the streets is not something I would have expected to hear from you. I had thought that you advocated "personal responsibility." Nesweek may have published a questionable story, but they never suggested that people roit in the streets in protest. That was a decision made by individuals, for whatever reason.