Posted on 05/17/2005 3:10:03 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
Investigative reporters come in a couple of varieties. There are the quiet, scholarly types who troll the archives and pore over documents. And there are the gumshoes, obsessive and indefatigable, who tend to dress like Columbo, never let go of a story and seldom see eye to eye with their editors.
Michael Isikoff, the Newsweek reporter who together with John Barry, a national security correspondent for the magazine, wrote a brief article referring to desecration of the Koran by American guards at Guantánamo Bay, is a charter member of this second club. He is rumpled, relentless and even abrasive at times.
His article, which was blamed for rioting in Pakistan and Afghanistan in which at least 17 people were killed, has been denounced by the Pentagon for relying on what it says is incorrect information supplied by an anonymous source.
In discussing the article yesterday, Mr. Isikoff, who supplied the source for the article, said: "Whenever something like this happens, you've got to take stock and review what you did - how the story was handled. The big point that leaps out is the cultural one. Neither Newsweek nor the Pentagon foresaw that a reference to the desecration of the Koran was going to create the kind of response that it did. The Pentagon saw the item before it ran, and then they didn't move us off it for 11 days afterward. They were as caught off guard by the furor as we were. We obviously blame ourselves for not understanding the potential ramifications."
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Lucianne Goldberg nicknamed Isikoff "Spikey"...because he held the story..until Drudge broke it..
And now he has blood on his hands and the status of traitor.
Did he discover it? Wasn't this all common knowledge in D.C.?
A nice effort by the MSM to protect one of its' own.
Mr. Islamikoff
Can you imagine the firestorm if the Pentagon demanded that some stories not be run because it might inflame the arab street.
And to thing that Mr. Barry is a 'national security' correspondent.
Guess his mission is to harm national security at every turn.
I couldnt read the whole thing I am not registered with the Times and have no intention of doing so. However: Isikoff mentions the Pentagon saw the article before it ran.
This implies that it was approved of by the Pentagon.
I suggest this is the farthest thing from the truth. Isikoff might have sent it to the Pentagon to see their reaction, Figuring the greater their response the bigger his story, or trying to rub salt in their wounds. To imply he sent it there for their approval or to give them a fair time for response is a lie. I believe Isikoff knew what the Islamic response would be , thats the whole reason for the story. He didnt care--it was a chance to get his name on a big story, The hell with peoples lies and the reputation of the United States.He knew it was going to be a big story when he made it up.He isnt stupid just infected with the same disease every Journalist is infected with, there isnt one alive who wouldnt sell his sister for a story.
So is Isikoff saying it's alright to print lies if doing so does not generate a violent response?
I want to know who this *source* is that Isikoff and Newsweek was so eager to believe. It's a shame that the MSM wants to believe anything negative about our military and can't wait to report it...
And it seems to me, if I remember correctly, that the Lewinsky story wasn't the only time Isikoff allowed his story to be spiked.
Isikoff erred. But people died because Islamic fundamentalists are wack jobs. Christians wouldn't react that way had a Bible been flushed down a toilet.
They knew it would cause an uproar, just not so fast and so furious. Its not up to the pentqagon to do investigative work for Newsweak. And just because they don't jump right upa dnscream stop does not make the fact in the report more true!
Who is the unnamed source that supplied the false information? Is there actually one?
That I don't recall..but maybe that's why he got the nickname "Spikey?"
amenable
"Oh, please, Mr. Big Bad Bush Administration, stop me before I lie again."
But Isikoff did NOT spike the article. I remember clearly reading about near brawls where Isikoff argued with the main editors about publishing this. I think the whole WAPO/Newsweek cabal sucks, and is ideologically driven by a far-left agenda. That said, it is unfair to Isikoff, who is probably the closest thing to the old ideal of the gruff, abrasive "objective" reporter you will see in the MSM. He probably IS leftist (most of em are) but he can be fair, and seems to try to be.
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.