Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NEWSWEEK: FIRE ISIKOFF OR ACCEPT HIS RESIGNATION IMMEDIATELY

Posted on 05/17/2005 9:24:40 AM PDT by Spacewolfomega

You can call Newsweek to voice your complaints at (212)445-4000. Demand that the magazine be held accountable by requesting that Isikoff either be fired or his resignation accepted. If you or your business have a subscription to Newsweek, threaten cancellation if they do not comply within a week from today (5-17-05). This sort of irresponsible reporting must be accounted for. Only all of our efforts can help bring this about. Thank you.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: isikoff; koran; korandesecration; michael; newsweak; newsweek; quran; toilet
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 last
To: joonbug

He sat on it. Then Drudge started talking about it and Isikoff rushed it to his editor.


81 posted on 05/17/2005 3:33:18 PM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: joonbug

I was thinking that he wanted to break the Monica story, but Newsweek wouldn't let him. So after it broke, they ran the story and patted him on the back for almost breaking the story, acholades all around, etc. He spent weeks moaning about how he turned down a Pulitzer for the good of the magazine.


82 posted on 05/17/2005 3:34:13 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: joonbug

Correction. Isikoff was complicit in the spiking of that story. He said nothing.


83 posted on 05/17/2005 3:37:48 PM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: joonbug

Correction. Isikoff was complicit in the spiking of that story. He said nothing.


84 posted on 05/17/2005 3:38:00 PM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
"...for the good of the magazine."

And, coincidentally, for the good of Clinton and Bob Bennett who were in the midst of the Paula Jones trial.

85 posted on 05/17/2005 3:39:20 PM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: MarketR
" Find out who the major advertisers are and "pressure" them to pull their ads, unless changes are made."

EXACTLY.

Made the same suggestion yesterday and was hoping someone would take it and run with it as I am in the process (see tagline) of packing and moving.

If successful, then we should "move on" (no pun intended LOL) to the Times and Post?

86 posted on 05/17/2005 3:47:16 PM PDT by An American Patriot ("GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME"-- the opportunity to get the Hell out of here! Bye Bye VT- Hello, VA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: william clark
This is interesting, wc.

    2. The second element that the plaintiff must prove is that someone other than the plaintiff and defendant heard/read the defamatory statement and reasonably understood that it referred to the plaintiff.[See footnote 8] It does not matter whether the defendant intended the statement to refer to the plaintiff. The issue for you to decide is whether those persons hearing/reading the statement reasonably understood the statement to refer to the plaintiff.

    (Specific elements of defamation, B2)

Every gitmo interrogator's CO knew who that story referred to.
87 posted on 05/17/2005 3:54:32 PM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte

Interesting. I didn't know he tried spiking the Monica story. I heard the opposite on one of the talk shows this AM. Guess he wanted to have his cake and eat it too. Sort of a John Kerry - "I broke the story after I spiked it"


88 posted on 05/17/2005 4:01:49 PM PDT by joonbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: william clark
There are many in the following article:

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/newsweek_koran_report_516.htm

The allegation of 'Koran abuse' (oh how I hate that phrase) is nothing new.

89 posted on 05/17/2005 4:13:00 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul

Thanks. However, I notice that in the article, with one exception, the allegations come from former detainees; not what I would consider reliable and trustworthy sources. The exception is a conveniently-anonymous former interrogator. None of these accounts could be said to carry anything close to the weight of a report appearing in Newsweek, ostensibly from a high-level military source.

Muslim allies, to the extent that they actually exist, could easily question or dismiss prior allegations. Their appearance in Newsweek, and the alleged source, brings them to a new level.


90 posted on 05/17/2005 4:41:37 PM PDT by william clark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
That would be the one to fax.

...searching thread for fax number.

91 posted on 05/17/2005 4:44:04 PM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: joonbug
According to Isikoff, he brought the story to his boss and then went along with the spike. He remained silent, knowing that Clinton had perjured himself in the Jones trial. All sorts of excuses have been offered for why the story wasn't run, why Isikoff went along with the spike and remained silent, why others in media held the story back, ad nauseum.

But it was only when Drudge broke the silence that the story saw the light of day. After that, Newsweek and others followed. Personally, I doubt that any of them would have made a peep if Drudge had not exposed it all.

92 posted on 05/17/2005 5:02:40 PM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: william clark
I agree with your criticism of those sources.

However, I'm guessing that on the streets of Jalalabad, the former detainees have significantly greater credibility than sources inside the U.S. government. Not that they should, by any stretch - but in the minds of the rioters, the allegations coming from sources they considered credible were in no way new.

93 posted on 05/17/2005 5:45:11 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Spacewolfomega

It would be nice if the families of those killed could sue Newsweak for wrongful death in an international court.


94 posted on 05/17/2005 5:49:42 PM PDT by TonyM (E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul

You're absolutely right on that point. After all, these are people who have been conditioned to not question any accusation made by one of their own against an "infidel." It's when a story has the potential to turn against us those who would have at least some chance of calming things down that our ability to establish any sort of peace begins to collapse. And when the story is given credence by one of our own esteemed media outlets, as opposed to being just the latest hit piece by a hostile foreign journal, it exagerrates the reaction.


95 posted on 05/17/2005 5:54:35 PM PDT by william clark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson