Newsweek and the consequences

Remove all ads!

[Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff] Gen. Myers said an after-action report provided by U.S. Army Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry, commander of the Combined Forces in Afghanistan, indicated that the political violence was not, in fact, connected to the magazine report.

That is quite remarkable, I think.

All the while the Pentagon spokesman calls people S.O.B. in contradiction of his military's opinion.

Curioser and curioser ...

 

The reporter behind the story was hardly Dan Rather but a "hero of the right":

So much for the "liberal media."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7873141/#050516b

 

Oh, I see, it is ok to cut corners in some instances, but not in others, it depends on the circumstances. Of course then you have to determine who has justified the cut corners and why they decided it was ok. I guess that it will all fall back to the marketplace and the sheeple. If enough people believe the conspiracy theory and continue to support the circulation of Newsweek then it is ok to cut corners in this case, but if it offends too many people, then it was a bad choice, and Newsweek will pay a financial price. That isn’t the way it should be.

Once you rationalize the first step on the slippery slope, it gets easier to justify each successive step until you completely slide away. The fact is that there are many true stories don't get reported because of the fact that there is not sufficient evidence to back them up, this a necessary cost so that the press can maintain its credibility. Sure it might be difficult to find more evidence in a case like this, that is what they call investigative journalism, but the alternative is that we can't believe anything we read.

It is interesting that when someone like Newsmax or Townhall reports something based upon an unconfirmed source everyone screams foul, but when Newsweek does the same, it is just reporting a story that is difficult to confirm. Makes me wonder if it is the source or the subject that makes the difference.

The article you link is interesting, but is still doesn't erase the fact that this piece of negligent reporting does not help our stance in the world, erodes confidence in the media, and makes Newsweek look bad. This stuff is used to feed the insurgency and hatred of the US in the Middle East. It may be a drop in the bucket compared to some of the actions taken directly by the US, but it is highly irresponsible for Newsweek to even add a single drop to that bucket if they are not absolutely sure of their story. The fact that certain acts the US gov’t has committed has pissed off these people does not justify Newsweek adding fuel to the fire with a story they can’t or didn’t do their job to reasonably prove is true.

By the way, for the record, IMO justification of what Newsweek did or didn’t do in regards to this story based upon the actions or results of actions by the US government (i.e. this is no big deal because the US government lied) is intellectually dishonest and a red herring. If you believe that he US gov’t didn’t do enough fact checking before declaring war in Iraq, then it is hypocritical to state that Newsweek’s actions are acceptable based upon the standard the US gov’t allegedly set.

Chandos,

I am all for personal responsibility. Newsweek needs to take responsibility for their actions. The people who committed the crimes in Afghanistan need to be prosecuted under local law.

However, Afghanistan, and much of the Middle East is not really an enlightened area where people are raised in an environment of freedom. My belief in personal responsibility stems from my belief that freedom is a responsibility as well as a right. The majority of the people in the ME do not have freedom, and are manipulated through their religion by every real and perceived leader in their society. Any action with these people has to be viewed with respect to the indoctrinated position they hold in their society. Just as you can't expect people not to stampede to the exit if someone yells fire in a theater, you can't expect detached thought regarding an article like the one Newsweek published from a society where religious indoctrination is the norm.

[ May 18, 2005, 18:01: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

DW - Newsweek has taken the first few steps: They have made a public apology and they have made a retraction. Yet, many still feel, including the person who crafted this thread, that the story may be true. So, what is it that you see as the REAL hot button in this story?

TGS

Your message was pretty clear here. You were blaming Newsweek for printing a story that directly "killed 16 people." Then you go on to say: "Whether it's true or not" is not the issue. Almost everyone argees they did not follow correct "journalistic procedures" in crafting the story. I'm sorry, but those "16 people did not die because Newsweek failed to follow jounalistic standards." They died because they were rioting, for whatever reason. Now that reason seems to be in question. So what's the real deal here?

[ May 18, 2005, 22:09: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Despite its name Newsweek isnt much of a news magazine, it is a weekly magazine with longer articles and indepth analysis. This means to me at least that they can publish stuff in articles without DNA evidence cause the people reading it can be expected to look at things with a critical eye and decide for themselves what they find credible.

I am not overly interested in Newsweek or whatever mistake they have made. The important tihng with this entire episode is that it reeks of the White House enforcing and strengthening its control over the American media. The message is clear: Do not print or publish anything not approved by the White House. We saw it with CBS and we see it now and there are many many cases we dont get to see about cause reporters are just too afraid of, for now, their jobs and careers to dare displease the White House. I for one find this disconcerting.

 

Except for that - Desecration of Koran Had Been Reported Before

I find the last line of the article remarkable:

They probably did have a reason to issue this directive, and didn't just made it up because there was a Colonel being idle, thinking about what else would be nice to regulate.

That is, you can expect that there have in fact been cases of that sort, and that the directive was a reaction on that.

So what's the big deal about Newsweek's forgetful source?

IMO the whole 'affair' and the accusations by Pentagon and White House spokesmen have two purposes: (a) chill the press and make them over-cautious and (b) make some noise in order to discredit the press in the eyes of the public.

 

Exactly! Excellent call, Ragusa.

 

Recent article by Michale Scheuer. He rightly stresses that the semi-official US line that 'people are dead because of one S.O.B.' completely misses the point and is result of D.C. myopia that forgets what the issue with the Koran is about: Muslims, and their faith, and their anger at the U.S.

Scheuer, to my delight, comes to a similar conclusion like me, while putting his emphasis on the issue of faith and the role of the 'ummah'.

I won't go so far the West will defeat istself, but I think the US is on the way in the Arab world.

The U.S. administration under Bush is on a rampage in the Arab world, and tries to impose on it policies that have no anchor in the people actually living there, and is thus doomed to fail - you can't blame them for lack of ambition though. After all, you can't reform an entire region without the people. They still seem utterly unaware what the hell they've gotten themselves into (as beautyfully depicted in this unforgettable cartoon).

[ May 19, 2005, 09:27: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Heh, funny this, I just saw on the news that Human Rights Watch had several more witnesses that collaborated Newsweek's story. I reckon those are gosh darn Bush hating hippies though so we should just ignore them.

The sad thing is that the truth dont matter, the White House has achieve its goal of discrediting yet another media outlet that dared publish anything displeasing to them and even to shift the blame for reactions on the deeds on Gitmo to the magazine instead of the perpetrators.

I have said it before and I will say it again, I am sincerely afraid of where the US are going. For how long is it the land of the free?

 

If you are afraid think of how I feel. I don't have a high opinion of our news right now but maybe part of the poor reporting is pressure. Which means we have already lost a very important part of our freedom.

 

Well not all the US news is bad, after all wasn't it a US newsstation that first brought the prison abuses to light? I am not sure which station this was, but I really admire what they did, and it was very brave of them to do so. Its what being a news reporter is all about.

 

True, but it seems to me that since then we have heard less and less of anything controversial. Thus I am lead to think that pressure is being put on news carriers.

 

Interesting that people are worried that the White House may have an impact on what gets published in the press.

Here is Ann Coulters take:
Ann Coulter on the Newsweek situation

Admittedly, she is a hardcore right winger. But underneath the rhetoric, she raises excellent points about stories that Newsweek chose to sit on, like Clinton/Lewinsky.

To those concerned with the White House stifling the press, my question is, were you concerned then?

I think the whole thing stinks. Newsweek screwed up. They should have performed due diligence. Now it is unlikely that we will ever no for certain whether these allegations are true or not. If they are true, they will certainly be covered up. If not true, people will insist there is a coverup.
Either way, we don't know for sure.

 

I don't think it would matter a thing even if some evidence would be presented about the issue. There is quite little that would be done about it any case. I'm quite confident that the coran has been "desecrated" in Guantanamo and even if I was wrong the things they do there most certainly do not fit my moral views. Point being, nothing has been done so far and nothing will be done now. What I find surprising is that "horror stories" about the methods they use in Guantanamo have been pouring out for years and they decide this to be a big enough issue to start a riot for? Just stupid and silly.

I don't think Newsweek has any responsibility of the deaths even if their journalistic methods were not exactly correct. I have not read their report but unless it directly yelled out "We want the entire muslim world to riot against US scum" they are in my opinion innocent. They have taken a significant damage in reputation and I think that's about enough.

 

@Jack,

My favorite part of the article was the title "'NEWSWEEK DISSEMBLED, MUSLIMS DISMEMBERED!"

I've been reading a lot of posts that people are concerned about the government controlling the media. I couldn't disagree more. The problem is the media jumping to conclusions to get to press first. CBS screwed up in the election and now Newsweek screwed up this issue.

As I posted previously, I personally believe that it probably did happen. Newsweek should have sat on the story until they were able to corraborate it. I'm sure they would have been able to then, now it will be impossible.

 

Well, they claim they
A: had a "senior government official" as source
B: Sent the story to two different folks at the Pentagon, neither of whom challenged the parts of the story that made press (other parts were challenged).

If they're being truthful then, frankly, that seems reasonable to me.

 

I so wish Ann Coutler's articles were widely circulated in the Middle East

Great job! So all muslims kill their women and fly planes into buildings? I thought it was only the Taliban and Al Queida who did things like that. People like this constitute the present US government and its supporters. And then they wonder why there is a backlash

 

@Shrikant - Where does it say that that applies to "all muslims"? You assume that she is indicting all muslims, then you use this assumption to turn around and indict the "present US government and its supporters". The irony is amazing. Brilliant, really.

Open your mind and look past the rhetoric. The point is that Newsweek sits on a confirmed story while running and then running an unconfirmed story. I'm not even interested in the implications that Coulter draws from this. I just find it fascinating that people (in this forum) are NOW concerned about the White House stifling the press.

 

First off, I knew nothing about what Newsweek did during the Clinton/Lewinsky affair, secondly, in my opinion sleazy political sex affairs are not was serious journalism should be about and thirdly, the democrats are not overly better for the American Democracy than the Republicans. In my view the Republicans are just more forceful and open with their dismantling of it.

 

Yes! Yes! Yes! Even conservatives, the honest ones, admit to that. Here:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm

This is what the Ann Coulters of the world don't want you to know: