Newsweek Reporter Says He Dropped the Ball - (Isikoff on Charlie Rose show; gets in a jab at Bush!)

SFGATE.COM ^ | MAY 23, 2005 | DESMOND BUTLER

[CHARLITE]

One of the two Newsweek journalists behind the retracted article alleging that interrogators at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay had desecrated the Quran said he had underestimated the impact of the report and dropped the ball by not properly corroborating his anonymous source.

Michael Isikoff, addressing the furor in an interview broadcast Monday night on "The Charlie Rose Show," said that he regretted the possibility that his article, which has been blamed for violent protests in Muslim countries, may have enflamed rioters.

"It was terrible what happened," he told Rose.

He said that the reporters had provided the article in full to a senior Defense Department official. The official asked for a change of wording on a separate issue, but said nothing about the details concerning the Quran.

Isikoff said that he believed that both he and his government sources had focused on other aspects of their article they considered more important than the alleged mistreatment of the Quran.

"I got to tell you, as somebody who has reported for a long time on the intelligence and law enforcement field, that's going to be tough," he told Rose. "Some of the best stories that I've gotten, that others have written about this administration, about the previous administration, you have to rely on anonymous sources."

Isikoff said that granting anonymity comes with a risk, but is a necessary tool.

"Everybody gets some things wrong at some time because you're dealing with a government, in this case a Pentagon, an institution at Guantanamo, that's not open, that's not transparent."

Asked whether he thought the Bush administration had exploited the controversy, Isikoff said he wanted to avoid the question but added:

"Once we retracted the story, we gave them a club in which to bash us."

[Max Flatow]

Get your dam facts straight and there won't be a club, dope!

[ozzymandus]

I would like to pour gasoline on charlie rose and toss lit matches at him. Really.

[GloriaJane]

"I think it has clearly done some temporary damage," he said. "It's thrown us off our game for a little bit," he said. "I think this will end up being a blip."

A blip?

Newsweek Lied - People Died!

And he calls it a blip?

[Southack]

"Isikoff said that granting anonymity comes with a risk, but is a necessary tool."

No, it's not necessary.

Consider this:

Would you buy a used car from an anonymous "seller?"

What about a house or a bridge, neither with any paperwork or evidence of ownership?!

Of course not. Same thing goes with "news" from anonymous sources (half the time just a way for the reporter to print his own opinion or slam, no real source even existing).

There is a reason that the left-wing newspapers all require anonymous sources every day, and that reason is that they need a method with which to pump lies into the American consciousness...because the Left can't win with the truth.

...And *anyone* who believes anything quoted from a so-called "anonymous" source is buying beachfront property in Arizona from an anonymous "Seller."

[Lijahsbubbe]

"Isikoff said that granting anonymity comes with a risk,

A risk of getting caught.

[technomage]

"I think this will end up being a blip."

A blip? 15 people died because of this article and that is considered a blip?

So, when does it count as something more than a blip, PIsikoff? 25 deaths? 100 deaths?

[wildcatf4f3]

with "which" to bash us, wordboy!

[Socratic]

Did this purveyor of facts document exactly how one goes about flushing a book down a toilet? Is a shredder used or merely a pair or scissors? How many flushes does it take and how much time, since the tank has to fill up before each flush? Can this idiot not even spot the simplest of lies before he prints them?

[CHARLITE]

"Did this purveyor of facts document exactly how one goes about flushing a book down a toilet?",br>

Not even a paperback version would go down. The Koran is a fat book. No book, even a small children's book, would be flushable! Isikoff could have run a quick experiment in any men's room at the Newsweek offices, for pete's sake. It would have been the first thing I would have done, after getting off the phone with my "anonymous source." I would also have told my source to conduct the same experiment, then call me back with his results!

After that, if I were still hell bent on going forward some some abuse story, I would have invented a more plausible one, like threatening to throw prisoners off of the roofs of buildings at Gitmo, because that's something they were familiar with............from the good old Saddam days; methods of acquiring information from detainees.

Char :)

[TheCrusader]

"Once we retracted the story, we gave them a club in which to bash us."

Talk about denial, these liberal rats simply CANNOT deal with reality; truth is apparently a foreign concept to them.

The chastising from the White House wasn't due to the retraction of his dishonest and fraudulent story, it was due to the deaths and civil unrest his big lie caused. But let's not look at that, let's just look at the evil President's "bashing".

Liberals can't seem to accept responsibility or consequences for their actions. This Newsweak bum tries to shift the focus of this debacle to the President, as though it's somehow unfair that Bush castigate him for lying about the behavior of the military he commands and is responsible for.

Oh the tangled web we weave

when we practice to deceive.

[NormsRevenge]

Hey IZZIcough.. BLIP U!!!

[Alia]

Not long back, in the courts -- Journalists won the "right" to protect their "anonymous sources". The matter was beefed up and brought to light based upon the two NY reporter/journos who wouldn't talk about the Plame drama.

In a large way I was disappointed by the ruling -- and because I've witnessed the bait'n'switch done via "news" sources too many times. Were the MSM less "activist" (read: liberal), I could understand the ruling. In an extreme case... a tyranist country: where protecting anonymous sources can be the last vestige of a "personal voice".

When the recent ruling came about -- journalists were celebrating en masse it seemed.

And then this Newsweek "Quran" flushing from an anon sources. I could only shake my head in absolute and utter disbelief: Protecting a "source" about flushing a book (granted a very important book, apparently, to some people) in a toilet. It smelled bad to me at the moment I heard it.. and then there were the riots.

Makes me think there's another shoe or sandal yet to drop. Whole thing stinks.

[Southack]

"Not long back, in the courts -- Journalists won the "right" to protect their "anonymous sources"."

No, they lost that case. They have no such right.

[Radix]

Buddy you're a boy, make a big noise
Playing in the street, gonna be a big man some day
You got mud on your face
You big disgrace
Kicking your can all over the place

[Radix]

"Did this purveyor of facts document exactly how one goes about flushing a book down a toilet?"

I have never been to Guantanamo, but I'd make a bet that these detainees do not have access to flush toilets. The issue is more the story, and not on the mechanics of flushing a book away.

Most of these detainees have likely never even seen a flush toilet. I could be wrong.

[Alia]

I'm glad you had me checking:

31 states currently have shield laws for journalists. 31 States Have Shield Laws for Journalists

Believing reporters are protected by the First Amendment, 31 states have enacted shield laws to protect journalists from being forced to divulge the identity of their sources. A federal law is moving through Congress. It may be too late for Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper, but it should be passed.

Bill to create federal shield law introduced in House

Pence noted that 31 states and the District of Columbia already have statutes that protect reporters from being compelled to testify or disclose sources, but there is no federal protection.

So far, a dozen House members have signed on to Pence's "Free Flow of Information Act," H.R. 581, which in general would prohibit federal entities from forcing reporters to disclose the identity of a confidential source. A similar measure, S.340, has four co-sponsors in the Senate.

[Carolinamom]

Instead of his wringing his hands and blaming everyone else but himself and Newsweek editors for this blatant lapse of judgment, CYA, 17 deaths, and damage to the nation, I'd like to hear Isikoff really and remorsefully cry out, "Will THESE hands ner be clean?"

[RAY]

Who made the mistake of giving the Koran to detainees. Were we stupid enough to think that the detainees would be grateful!

First rule, don't give them anything that can be turned against you.

It would be difficulty to be accused of flushing a Koran if there were none to flush!

The US Military should not listen to the sensitivity police in their midst and simply do what is practical in detaining idiotic Islamic terrorist.