[Pikamax]

I like this new journalistic standard, print what you want and blame others.

[CasearianDaoist]

What is new about them?

[mo]

yeah, yeah...the Devil made me do it!!!

[OldFriend]

Dan Rather used the same excuse.

They sent the docs to the White House and since they were returned without comment we assumed they were not fraudulent.

[OldSmaj]

...we mistakenly took the official's silence for confirmation."

Dumb asses.

Obviously graduates of the "Print Anything that Somebody Does Not Deny" School of Journalism.

But, on the other hand, and we all know this, had the official denied anything in it, it would then have been the absolute gospel, according to the Newsweak Method of Shoddy Journalist Practices.

Nitwits, all.

[Zacs Mom]

Japanese edition
Cover reads:"The day America died."
see FR post: Newsweek: America is dead (U.S. Flag Shown in Trashcan on Cover!)

[stylin19a]

Veteran reporter Michael Isikoff relied on a well-placed and historically reliable government source

Direct from the Joe Wilson school of investigation.

[Congressman Billybob]

Newsweek writes that they "mistakenly took ... silence for confirmation." They are lying again, though very, very subtly. Every journalist knows that you DON'T RUN A STORY BASED ON JUST ONE SOURCE.

That is the fundamental failure of Newsweek, first by the reporters and then by the editors who either didn't ask Isikoff what he sources (plural) were, or did ask and repeated the one-source error themselves.

This fog of words is designed to hide the truth. Newsweek here is lying about journalism. Are they really so stupid not to see this? Or, do they think we are so stupid we won't notice? Either way, they should choose another line of work, one that includes the phrase, "Do you want fries with that?"

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "Las Vegas: The All-American City"

[happydogx2]

I wonder when the standard of having at least two independent reliable sources for your information when out the window?

[TChad]

"One of the frustrating aspects of our initial inquiry is that we seem to have taken so many appropriate steps in reporting the Guantanamo story."

We verified that the story would damage the U.S. military. We verified that the story would damage George Bush. After that, the lust to publish such delicious news just overwhelmed us, so we sort of forgot to verify anything else. Besides, it's the Pentagon's fault for not stopping us.

[Brilliant]

If the Pentagon is now responsible for the content of Newsweek Magazine, I trust that any profits earned by the magazine will be transferred to the US government.

[NPeery]

I like this new journalistic standard, print what you want and blame others.

And it shows remarkable imagination. We can blame others for not stopping us when we try or do something unacceptable.

Would this be a good defense for bank robbery?