Posted on 05/16/2005 10:19:56 AM PDT by West Coast Conservative
In an apology to readers this week, Newsweek acknowledged errors in a story alleging U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo Bay desecrated the Quran. The accusations, which the magazine vowed to re-examine, spawned protests in Afghanistan that left 15 dead and scores injured.
Responding to harsh criticism from Muslim leaders worldwide, the Pentagon promised to investigate the charges and pinned the deadly clashes on Newsweek for what it described as "irresponsible" reporting.
"We regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst," Editor Mark Whitaker wrote in the apology.
The White House said Monday that Newsweek's response was insufficient.
"It's puzzling. While Newsweek now acknowledges that they got the facts wrong, they refuse to retract the story," said presidential spokesman Scott McClellan. "I think there's a certain journalistic standard that should be met. In this instance it was not.
"This was a report based on a single anonymous source that could not substantiate the allegation that was made," McClellan added. "The report has had serious consequences. People have lost their lives. The image of the United States abroad has been damaged. I just find it puzzling."
In its issue dated May 9, Newsweek had reported that U.S. military investigators had found evidence that interrogators placed copies of Islam's holy book in washrooms and had flushed one down the toilet to get inmates to talk.
Whitaker wrote that the magazine's information came from "a knowledgeable U.S. government source," and writers Michael Isikoff and John Barry had sought comment from two Defense Department officials. One declined to respond, and the other challenged another part of the story but did not dispute the Quran charge, Whitaker said.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.myway.com ...
News Weak
Make their reporters trek across Afganistan to visit the families who bought into that bunch of phooey.
Sounds like Newsweek has an agenda to undermine our peace efforts in Iraq. This is the same type of 'yellow-dog journalism,' with one notable difference, that fueled the Spanish-American War. American's fighting men became 'cannon-fodder' to make a profit ...selling news.
The difference being that in that war the 'yellow-dog journalist' was on the front line making up the news. In todays war the 'yellow-dog journalist' can sit in the safety of Newsweeks Corporate Offices and make up news.
There has to be a special place in hell for those that profit from the death of another just to sell news.
I understand the outrage...but remember why we're a better lot of people. We just dont do those things.
However, we will send in the 82, 101, as well as the fourth and third ID, and the whole combined might of sea and air military assets...to remove a problem, which is the right way to fix something IMO.
"Who owns Newsweek?
The Washington Post."
Now there is a suprise!!! /sarcasm off
I'm not as outraged at the story as I am that the MSM won't give up in trying to make this administration and our troops look bad. This is going way over the line. Is all of our MSM supporters of terrorism? I'm starting to think they are, including FOX, because none of them can be trusted.
"Does that mean that the interrogator would be responsible for the deaths if the story was true? I don't buy that."
I would back up and wonder if the stories about Abu Gharib and all these interrogation stories also aren't made up.
The MSM has done everything to make this administration look bad. Between Rathergate and now this, it is impossible to now believe that the MSM is telling the truth about anything.
clinton judge, see the rosen case.
Unfortunately, in this case having the government threaten NewsWeek with loss of press credentials (no matter how emotionally satisfying that might be) will only "confirm" the belief already fostered on the Arab/Islamic "street" that the US Government put pressure on NewsWeek to retract their "true" (in Islamist eyes) Koran story.
>>I would back up and wonder if the stories about Abu Gharib and all these interrogation stories also aren't made up.
The MSM has done everything to make this administration look bad. Between Rathergate and now this, it is impossible to now believe that the MSM is telling the truth about anything. <<
The army convicted some of those people in each of the three areas and demoted a General.. I do find it odd that such similar improper interrogation methods were improvised on three continents with no one higher than a sergeant being aware of it.
"The army convicted some of those people in each of the three areas and demoted a General.. I do find it odd that such similar improper interrogation methods were improvised on three continents with no one higher than a sergeant being aware of it."
Actually, the only imprpoer interrogation methods was what Al Jazeera said and the NY Times and WAPO echoed. In reality, terrorists rounded up have no protection from the Geneva Convention. They could have attached wires, ran 1000000 volts through them, soaked them in urine and then ripped off their heads and filled their severed necks with pig entrails.
This whole thing appeased a couple of Senators having hissy fits and made us out to be barbaric. Even more barbaric than the terrorists who hung those people from the bridge after burning them to a crisp.
That might be worth a try, but there's no way of knowing if it'll have any effect on them. I say we take off and nuke the whole Newsweek building from orbit.
Game over man.
Now pass the Soylent Green. Mmmm...satisfying Soylent Green...now with 25% more girls!
Newsweek gave Dan Rather a pass...
September 27, 2004, Newsweek, U.S. Edition
"A Source of Contention"
By Mark Hosenball, Michael Isikoff and Anne Belli Gesalman
Note Isikoff's hand...he's a leading prof at the "Fake but Accurate" School of Leftist Journalism.
dung.
Thank you...I have been duly drubbed and corrected. :)
>No retraction, no White House press credentials.<
Counter productive. The 3rd world sees no differance in our news media and their's.Official sanctions would discredit any retraction Newsweek made in their eyes.Newsweek must do what is right with no pressure from White House or DOD.
>>Actually, the only imprpoer interrogation methods was what Al Jazeera said and the NY Times and WAPO echoed. In reality, terrorists rounded up have no protection from the Geneva Convention. They could have attached wires, ran 1000000 volts through them, soaked them in urine and then ripped off their heads and filled their severed necks with pig entrails. <<
The Bush administration that they have the right to treat people inhumanely as echoed in your post because they have decided to classify them in such a way that they can claim they fall into no category and therefore have no rights, will, in my opinion, be remembered a low point in American ethics.
Any method that you use get to justify systematic torture is wrong. It can be spun any way you like. You can use international law or American law - but it is still wrong. And the world knows it and that hurts us far more than any one one incorrect article.
In addition to being wrong it undermines our justification for being the world's policeman so it has great negqtive practical consequences too.
So Newsweek does ascribe to the "Fake but Accurate is OK as long as it supports our political viewpoint" model of reporting.
That said, I do think someone will have to take the hit for the story.
>>So Newsweek does ascribe to the "Fake but Accurate is OK as long as it supports our political viewpoint" model of reporting.
That said, I do think someone will have to take the hit for the story.<<
One thing we don't know is who is this annonymous source... is it a PFC that got drummed out for good cause or is it an under secretary of defense?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.