The Museum of Hoaxes
Fake Newsweek Story causes Marine’s Death
Posted By:
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
May 16, 2005
 Newsweek published an article last week, that alleged U.S. soldiers in Gitmo were flushing the Koran down the toilet, as an interrogation technique. This caused some people in Iraq to get seriously pissed off...So they killed some Marines.

Have you have had to say, "Sorry, if anything I said offended you..." Well, looks like newsweek can now say, "Sorry if anything I printed ever got you killed..."


<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=761155" title="null">ABC covers newsweek blunder.</a>

<a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1398932/posts" title="null">Someone else carries info that Newsweek published.</a>
Category: News-Story; Replies: 61

Comments
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 | 09:37 AM
This is why I have issues with freedom of the press and all that. If they'd keep their traps shut about this stuff, nobody would have been killed.

Is flushing a Koran REALLY an issue in the grand scheme of things?
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 | 10:43 AM
It is if you consider it a holy object central to your faith and entire way of life and view the desecration of said object to be an insult directly aimed at your beliefs.
Owen
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 | 01:07 PM
Although I see the perceived insult here, surely any Muslim fanatical enough to kill somebody for flushing the Koran would probably deal similarly with a copy of the Bible?
Accipiter
Member
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 | 02:58 PM
I'm sure that there are reporters out there who have common sense, and judgment, and a feeling of responsibility. Unfortunately, I have yet to meet any of them. Too many of them are simply interested in getting their names in print as quickly and as often as possible, and they either don't bother to think about or else don't care about what their articles might mean. Many more reporters seem to be more interested in being in the news rather than reporting it. I've seen too many people I know get killed because some reporter told the world, ". . .and at eight o'clock tonight, our troops will be making surprise attacks here, here, and here!" Sure, reporters are supposed to report the news. But that doesn't mean they have to mindlessly regurgitate every last little thing they hear. There are things called "judgment", and "personal responsibility", and "confirming your information". Even assuming that the Newsweek story was accurate, a moment's thought would have told anyone that printing that particular bit of information would have had angered any Muslim. And yet they went ahead and printed it, right in the middle of a time when the Muslims of the world are already uneasy and half the countries of the world are walking a fine line trying to get everything settled down. Smooth move, Newsweek. Of course, they'll hide behind the First Amendment, and the worst that will happen to them will be that they'll have to apologize. And then they'll go ahead and print something else stupid later on.
Yes, the freedom of the press is a good thing to have; it helps to keep governments and businesses and suchlike from becoming too flagrantly dishonest. I've been in countries where so much as owning a tunable radio warrants the death penalty, and such countries were not very happy places. But in the Western World the situation tends to go to the opposite extreme, with the media having more influence over people than any other institution or group (with the possible exception of the church). And for the most part, the primary control over them seems to be nothing more than them exercising their own judgment, or lack thereof.
hcmomof4
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 | 03:03 PM
In this case, the problem with freedom of the press is that Newsweek felt free to report as fact, without research or substantiation, information provided to them by a "knowledgeable government source", who now is uncertain just where the information came from originally. That's not freedom of the press, that's irresponsible gossip.
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 | 11:48 PM
Journalists are stupid. But religious fanatics are murderers. Funny how they're more worried about one or two books, while they aren't nearly as incensed about the Iraqis we kill, directly and indirectly.
And seriously, we Americans are already hellbound by being non-muslim, so why does it matter if we destroy a few Korans? It's not like it hurts Allah. But it's all about principle, or I should say, excuses to kill people.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 02:06 AM
OK, am I truly reading posting from American citizens against freedom of the press??

Um, may I suggest to you that Freedom of the Press is included in the FIRST AMENDMENT to the Constitution because the Founding Fathers thought it was VERY IMPORTANT?

Maegan, I have to think that you must be young. If you were middle-aged like I am, you'd have memories of your grade school teachers telling you that the Soviet Union was evil because it didn't allow free speech and freedom of the press, like "we" do.

If freedom of the press is no big deal after all, I guess all those billions of dollars spent on the Cold War were wasted. I mean, what's the point in fighting people because they don't think freedom of speech and of the press are important if WE don't think they are, either?

As for Newsweek's story, take a gander at this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/politics/17koran.html?ei=5088&en=4e8173c92dc1f2af&ex=1273982400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

You'll notice that just the other day, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that the protests were caused by something other than the Newsweek story. Gee, it would be nice if the Bush administration could get their story straight.

May I suggest an alternate possibility? My theory is that the administration either set up Newsweek with the source OR it got to the source after the fact and told him/her that they had to suddenly "forget" where they got that information from.

As a point of interest, Newsweek is owned by the Washington Post, never a favorite with Republican administrations. This administration has made it more than amply clear that they consider any venue that prints anything critical of their policies as "liberal" and evil.

There are many sources for similar stories of American troops treating the Koran with disrespect; this did NOT originate with Newsweek.

Also for the record, I do not believe it is possible to "hide behind the First Amendment." Freedom of speech and of the press are GUARANTEED to all American citizens by the Constitution. You aren't "getting away with something" by saying or printing what you believe to be true. Ever.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 02:13 AM
It occurs to me that there is a simple way for Newsweek to deal with this. What they should do is simply break the usual guarantee of confidentiality and reveal their government source for this story.

I know that that goes against the usual journalistic practice, but I believe it is warranted in this case. After all, either the source lied to them about the original story (although it has been verified by stories in other publications) OR he/she is lying now about suddenly "not being able to remember" where the original information came from.

In my opinion, this whole "scandal" is a product of the Bush administration which is trying, yet again, to discredit any mainstream press venue which has the temerity to challenge their policies.

Wouldn't it be fascinating to find out that the Newsweek government source is the same person who gave CBS the Rathergate memo? I'm not saying that that is necessarily the case, but suppose it was. Wouldn't THAT be fascinating?

The only way to find out what the real story is is for Newsweek to reveal their source. After all, why should they protect someone who is responsible for ruining their reputation? Let that weasel squirm.
DFStuckey
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 03:24 AM
Well, Newsweek joins the grand tradition of The Dallas Post and the Boxer Rebellion, and W R Hearst and the Spanish/American war.

Gotta love the better media members....
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 07:14 AM
...Flushing a bible isn't that big of a deal. It's a BOOK. It's not something that I HAVE to have in order for me to have faith!

...I quite agree w/ Acci.

...CMG- I'm not against all freedom of the press. Fine, let the paper print another story about a religious face in someone's breakfast. BUT, I take serious issue with military "news" being reported and then our military being killed or endangered b/c of it. During the Shock & Awe campaign, reporters were being protected by OUR military. Now those same reporters are getting our military boys killed. Reporters wanted to go oversees to be in the thick of things and get the story of their lives. There is a prize for that isn't there? They're not doing it to 'update & enlighten' the public. They're doing it for a hunk of metal on their shelf and an extra line in their resume.
Accipiter
Member
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 07:19 AM
Cranky Media Guy,

Just because the Founding Fathers thought that something was so, that doesn't mean that they were entirely right. Notice, for example, how they decided not to ban slavery. Nor were they able to foresee everything; that's why there are now 26 amendments instead of the original 10.

But I never said that the First Amendment shouldn't exist. I said that it does serve a purpose. What I was complaining about were journalists who lack either judgment or ethics, or even both. These journalist do sometimes use the First Amendment as an excuse for their actions. They use it as an excuse for going into peoples' yards and taking pictures through their windows. They use it as an excuse for printing articles that can cause great harm. They use it as an excuse for all sorts of things. Certainly, the journalists should have freedom to do their work. But they can't work in completely unrestrained freedom, or else they'll start interfering with our freedoms.

After all, another part of the First Amendment is freedom to practice your own religion. But would you want to have some people who follow a religion involving frequent human sacrifices to move in next door to you? Probably not. You'd probably object to being dragged from your bed and thrown screaming into a bonfire. That would interfere with your own personal rights. And so there are safeguards to allow freedom of religion within certain limits. The point I was making was that the safeguards for another part of the First Amendment, freedom of the press, are either haphazardly applied or else not there at all.

Nor can blaming the Bush administration for the story answer the problem. Whether the story was a set-up, or "the government" got to the source, or none of the above scenarios, the paper chose to write and print the article. It was their own decision, and it was a stupid one.

Anyway, regardless of any political machinations going on behind this current story (I can tell you're very strongly anti-Bush, so I don't want this to devolve into that sort of political debate), unethical or plain stupid journalism has been going on for longer than the Republicans have been in control.
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 07:25 AM
Right, Acci. Just what I was thinking.

And CMG...I don't think age has anything to do with it. My being 22 doesn't mean that I don't understand, or don't know what the cold war was about. Even at my age, I can have an opinion.

You might just be cranky because you're middle aged. 😏
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 08:16 AM
I can understand not reporting the movements of the American army, but seriously, why doesn't a single news source have the guts to report the an estimate on the number Iraqi casualties? Our news agencies seem pretty tame to me.
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 08:37 AM
<a href="http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/">Casualties in Iraq.</a>

<a href="http://www.iraqbodycount.net/">Iraqi Body Count.</a>

<a href="http://icasualties.org/oif/">Iraq Coalition Casualties.</a>

<a href="http://icasualties.org/oif/">The War's Toll on Iraqi Civillians</a>

...I found those using Google. Didn't have a lot of time b/c I'm working. But I'm sure you could find more if you have time and the right keywords.
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 08:38 AM
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37968-2004Sep21.html">The CORRECT link for the War's Toll on Iraqi Civillians.</a>
Hairy Houdini
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 08:54 AM
I wonder if the Newsweek article would have caused as much outrage, had these last three years not been dominated by true stories of American imperialism, disrespect for Islam, and outright lies from the Bush Administration. Oh yes, let's not forget deaths of thousands of innocent civilians. The whole War On Terror has been incompetantly waged. I find it ironic that the Bush boys are now calling for Newsweek to make ammends, but refuse to acknowledge any mistruths or misprepresentations on their part. It's all sad, regretable, avoidable, and takes us away from forging a secure future of Peace. (end rant)
aw
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 09:00 AM
I am not excusing the actions of the rioters for a second, but there are other people coming forward to back up Newsweeks story; namely the former Guantanamo Bay detainee Moazzam Begg, who supports the story and claims that it was policy to deface / descrate the Koran as part of a policy of breaking down prisoners using their religion.

(NB: Begg - a British citizen - was a detainee from roughly 2002-2004; he was transferred to the UK with 3 others and released without charge after being interviewed by the police upon arrival).

I think it's worth noting 2 things about the story; firstly, the source only withdrew what they said *after* it had been published. Secondly, Newsweek claimed they contacted 2 DoD officials to try and verify the story; one refused to comment atall and the other didn't deny it (but did comment on other allegations).

Before being heavily critical of the story, it's probably best to be able to check out how well they researched/confirmed it; that's something noone here (unless they edit Newsweek...) can probably accurately judge.

This - http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=764702 - somewhat worries me; specifically

'McClellan said a retraction was only "a good first step" and said Newsweek should try to set the record straight by "clearly explaining what happened and how they got it wrong, particularly to the Muslim world, and pointing out the policies and practices of our military."'

To me it sounds almost like a request for a nice PR whitewash, particularly the latter part.
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 09:09 AM
The reason I was upset was b/c <i>A</i> news story (it could have been about anything) directly caused a riot in which Americans were killed.

I don't think that Americans are a superior people in any way. But I AM an American. So knowing that an AMERICAN newspaper carried a story that caused AMERICAN soldiers to die is just awful.

I wish none of this was going on, but we are occupying Iraq, and people are being killed. I'd rather it be people that are TRULY terrorists being killed rather than innocent civillians.
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 03:48 PM
Thank you Maegan, it's true I've been lazy in looking it up; however, I think with a truly objective news media, this information would be known by the average individual. The information is being collected and published, but there
padego
Member
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 09:34 PM
one person's terrorist, another's freedom fighter...
Fender Washburn
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 11:44 PM
The allegations of desecration of the Qu'ran have been made since the U.S. invaded/occupied Afganistan.
I have no doubt that the U.S. interrigators have used these tactic, in light of the other methods they have used.
It's understandably caused riots.

Some people think it's to torture and desecrate, but that telling about it is wrong.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 | 12:48 AM
Maegan said:

"The reason I was upset was b/c A news story (it could have been about anything) directly caused a riot in which Americans were killed.

"I don't think that Americans are a superior people in any way. But I AM an American. So knowing that an AMERICAN newspaper carried a story that caused AMERICAN soldiers to die is just awful."

Maegan, what actual EVIDENCE have you seen that supports the idea that the riots started as a direct result of the Newsweek story? (by the way, Newsweek is a magazine, NOT a newspaper)

Does it honestly make sense to you that people in Afghanistan rioted because Newsweek printed a story ABOUT disrespectful handling of the Koran, as opposed to having started because of the actual INCIDENTS reported? Why would they be mad at finding out about the incidents and NOT at the actual occurrences themselves?

Imagine this: A relative of yours is brutally murdered and a local newspaper prints a story about the crime. Would you be mad at the MURDER or the reporting ABOUT the murder?

Besides, do you honestly believe that Newsweek, a weekly American newsmagazine, published in New York City and owned by the Washington Post Company, has a significant readership in AFGHANISTAN, one of the poorest countries on Earth? Maybe the nomads are checking out newsweek.com? Seriously, this story doesn't smell rotten to you?

I'm worried about exceeding the word limit in this posting, so I'll continue it on my next one. I have some actual FACTS about this situation you may be unaware of.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 | 01:05 AM
OK, here are those facts I promised you.

FACT: The story about American troops treating the Koran with disrespect did NOT originate with Newsweek. It has been reported in numerous publications for the past TWO YEARS.

FACT: Newsweek's source was a government official, who said that he/she had read the information in an official report.

FACT: Newsweek's source now claims to "not remember" where he/she actually saw the information on which the story was based.

FACT: Before publishing the story, Newsweek took the unusual step of sending a copy of it to the Pentagon for comment.

FACT: The Pentagon neither took exception to the story nor asked Newsweek to change it or not run it.

FACT: During the period between when Newsweek gave the story to the Pentagon for comment and its publication of it, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff gave a speech during which he said that the riots were due to factors OTHER THAN THE NEWSWEEK STORY.

FACT: Newsweek has NOT retracted the gist of the story. It has said that it can no longer stand by what its source told it, since the source has now conveniently developed amnesia about the source of the information.

FACT: No one has yet produced any actual EVIDENCE that the riots were connected to the Newsweek story at all.

As far as I'm concerned, the only thing Newsweek did wrong was to cave in to pressure from the Bush administration.

Despite the apparant wishes of some people in this forum, America still theoretically has a free press. It is NOT appropriate for members of the administration to be putting pressure on the press to "toe the line."

I would ask those of you who have "doubts" about free press to name countries which have official government censorship (the only logical alternative to a free press) that they would feel comfortable living in. North Korea sound good to you? How about mainland China? There are others but you get the idea.

Putting aside the radical change in American Democracy official censorship of the press would cause, would you really be happy with the HUGE new bureaucracy an official Department of Censorship would create? How about the enormous tax burden we'd all be saddled with to pay for the employees it would take to "vet" the news on a 24/7 basis?

Maegan, I never said you were dumb or that you didn't have the right to your opinions. What I DID say is that I suspected you were too young to have been in school in the 60's, as I was, when teachers routinely told children that the Soviet Union was bad, in part, because it didn't have a free press.

I'll ask the question again: If censorship of the news made Russia bad, why would it be good for the U.S. to do the same thing?
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 | 07:50 AM
I'm not saying the news should be censored...BUT a lot of news articles are not actual NEWS, but opinions. If you are saying that you are reporting the news (in a newspaper or <i>magazine...excuse me!</i>) and instead of reporting the news, you take a few snippets of dialogue and fact, and then put them into an article full of suggestion & speculation...You have not reported the news, you have given your opinion on something you heard.

I'd rather read an article that plainly and easily states the facts, than an article full of some journalists opinions about the facts. Yes, journalists (and everyone else) can have opinions, but when you are reporting facts, keep your opinions to your self, or include them on the OPINION & editorial pages. TYVM!

And I'm not really sure that I under stand your illustration: "Imagine this: A relative of yours is brutally murdered and a local newspaper prints a story about the crime. Would you be mad at the MURDER or the reporting ABOUT the murder?"

If the newspaper printed the facts: At 11pm on Tuesday, Family Member was brutally beaten, and then stabbed 47 times in the nose. Suspect is still at large, no witnesses to date; then I would have no issues. If instead the article read: Sometime on Tuesday night Family Member was beaten & robbed b/c he's the ugliest sonofabitch ever. He also never passed his SATs and probably deserved to die. No witnesses; then I would have an issue. While some facts were input, the opinion is not needed. Of course, I would be hurt that someone close to me was dead. I have a heart. I have dealt with death before - even violent death, and I don't really seem to gnash my teeth, wail, or wear sack cloth while covering myself in ashes. I feel like it's a normal function, even undeserved at times (such as a violent murder), but once they're dead...there's nothing to be done.
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 | 04:44 PM
Haha, stabbed 47 times in the nose, indeed.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 | 05:51 PM
Maegan said:

"I'm not saying the news should be censored...BUT a lot of news articles are not actual NEWS, but opinions. If you are saying that you are reporting the news (in a newspaper or magazine...excuse me!) and instead of reporting the news, you take a few snippets of dialogue and fact, and then put them into an article full of suggestion & speculation...You have not reported the news, you have given your opinion on something you heard."

If you're not proposing censorship, what ARE you proposing? I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who WOULDN'T say that they think reporters should be as accurate as possible.

I suspect you're confusing news reporting with commentary. Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, everyone on Air America, et al are COMMENTATORS, not JOURNALISTS. It is their JOB to talk about news stories and give their opinion of them. That's very different from the role of news reporters whose job is to report on the news objectively. Even if YOU see the distinction, many people do not and get offended when commentators give opinion they don't agree with.

OK, back to the Newsweek story. You managed to avoid addressing the several questions I posed. I'll take one more stab at it.

In order to believe the Bush administration version of things, you have to believe that people halfway around the world in Afghanistan, one of the world's poorest countries, are even aware of Newsweek, an American magazine, let alone know what one small article in it said. Do you think that that is likely?

Second, you further have to believe that those same people rioted AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THAT ARTICLE and NOT because of the incidents which the story reported on. This would be despite the fact that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff publicly said that the riots were because of reasons other than the Newsweek story (I previously gave you a link to a story about his speech). Do you think that the Chairman was wrong and that the Afghanis did NOT riot because of the disrespect to the Koran (which has been reported in many venues other than Newsweek) but because Newsweek WROTE ABOUT IT??

The Bush version of events, to put it nicely, strains credibility. To put it less nicely, it's irrational, illogical bullshit, contradicted by a senior military official who doesn't have the same political axe to grind as George W. Bush.

You started this thread with the header "Fake Newsweek Story causes Marine's Death" That's a serious charge. On what FACTS do you base that statement?
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 | 07:44 AM
"you have to believe that people halfway around the world in Afghanistan, one of the world's poorest countries, are even aware of Newsweek, an American magazine, let alone know what one small article in it said. Do you think that that is likely?"

Yes. If one person saw the article and then said to his fellow American haters, "Let's kill the bastards!" and then continued to spread this same sentiment throughout his community, sure it could happen.

And ya know...some people could have been in the crowd b/c of the above described scenario...others could have seen the crowd and thought, "This is a great way for me to get the issues on my agenda out..." So were 100% of the people in the crowd there b/c of a tiny Newsweek article? No.

I mostly brought up this particular instance, b/c this is not the first case of a news article causing harm. That was my point.

News articles can CAUSE HARM, especially when coupled with partial facts, or even unverified information. The title I used was the title from another source...I put it up b/c I thought that would be the title most people would recognise, in relation to the incident.

I'm sorry if I'm not able to answer each of your questions individually, if you noticed, you typed a hell of a lot of words, and I work during the day...so I pick up on pieces that I can explain quickly, or think on w/o getting into a lot of details. I hope this can explain what I meant.

I fully understand your ideas and why you have them. I don't doubt that growing up in the 60s, when the phrase of the day was "Duck and Cover" did some serious damage to people...so I understand your unwillingness to sterilize (for lack of a better word) news articles.
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 | 07:59 AM
"Sure, reporters are supposed to report the news. But that doesn't mean they have to mindlessly regurgitate every last little thing they hear." - Accipiter.

A lot of 'news' has become gossip. Oooh, did you hear what Condoleeza Rice is saying?? It's SCANDALOUS. Well, what DID she say? What was the context that it was in, what was the subtext? Who was she talking to? The tone of her voice? Simply reporting that THIS person said THIS statement is being taken and used in conjuction with totally unrelated reports. It's making people look like idiots, when really it's the reporters who should come out looking like asses.

When people get just the facts, they're better able to form their own opinions.

I keep thinking back to 9/11. When the president and vice president started getting flown all over the country. All day long, the news reports were saying, "The President JUST left such and such airport..." WHAT THE HELL?? For all we knew, the terrorists were trying to kill the president. (Please, no snide comments, this is just an example.) Let's not make it obvious where he just was. Granted, he's not there anymore, but If he left Newark at 6pm, by 7pm, there are only so many places he could BE.

SMART reporting. That's all I ask.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 | 06:17 PM
Maegan, again, despite your use of many words, you have managed to avoid answering the DIRECT QUESTIONS I asked you in relation to the Newsweek flap.

The most pertinent is: What actual FACTS are you aware of that prove that the riots in Afghanistan were directly caused by the Newsweek story, as opposed to other causes, as publicly stated by the Chariman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

The title of this thread, started by you, is "Fake Newsweek Story causes Marine's Death" As I've said before, this is a serious charge. On what FACTS do you base it?
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Fri May 20, 2005 | 03:29 AM
Maegan said:

"Yes. If one person saw the article and then said to his fellow American haters, "Let's kill the bastards!" and then continued to spread this same sentiment throughout his community, sure it could happen.

"And ya know...some people could have been in the crowd b/c of the above described scenario...others could have seen the crowd and thought, "This is a great way for me to get the issues on my agenda out..." So were 100% of the people in the crowd there b/c of a tiny Newsweek article? No."

So, your "argument" is that *maybe* A person in Afghanistan saw *or heard about* the Newsweek story and that, somehow, started the riots? Gee, that's sure a long way from the heading for this thread, which you started: "Fake Newsweek Story causes Marine's Death"

I've now asked this question at least three times, but since I'm a masochist, I'll ask it again. What about the FACT that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said publicly that the riots were NOT caused by the Newsweek story, but by internal Afghani political problems?

What about the FACT that several publications ran stories about the abuse of the Koran by American military personnel before the Newsweek thing ran?

The International Red Cross says it informed the American government about abuse of the Koran by American soldiers well before the Newsweek story ran. Somehow, though, according to your theory, the Afghanis were moved to anger, not by the incidents themselves, but when some theoretical person saw the Newsweek story ABOUT the incidents. This makes sense to you? Fascinating.

Funny, even though YOU are so willing to convict Newsweek in this matter, a general (who certainly knows more about the situation than you do) says they *aren't* guilty of starting the rioting at all.

Eh, who needs facts? It's SO much more fun to jump to conclusions.

As far as me allegedly writing so much that you just can't find the time to read it all, uh, you aren't exactly succinct yourself. I do YOU the courtesy of reading everything YOU write and responding to it. It would be nice if you would extend that same courtesy to me. I've even taken the time to back up the things I say with citations and FACTS.

"I don't doubt that growing up in the 60s, when the phrase of the day was "Duck and Cover" did some serious damage to people...so I understand your unwillingness to sterilize (for lack of a better word) news articles."

I have no idea what you mean by that. For the record, I think the whole "Duck and Cover" thing was the 60's equivalent of the current terror alert color code nonsense. For a supposedly "free" country, our government sure seems to like to scare us.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Fri May 20, 2005 | 03:35 AM
Maegan said:

"A lot of 'news' has become gossip. Oooh, did you hear what Condoleeza Rice is saying?? It's SCANDALOUS. Well, what DID she say? What was the context that it was in, what was the subtext? Who was she talking to? The tone of her voice? Simply reporting that THIS person said THIS statement is being taken and used in conjuction with totally unrelated reports. It's making people look like idiots, when really it's the reporters who should come out looking like asses."

Can you provide an actual EXAMPLE of what you're talking about?

"I keep thinking back to 9/11. When the president and vice president started getting flown all over the country. All day long, the news reports were saying, "The President JUST left such and such airport..." WHAT THE HELL?? For all we knew, the terrorists were trying to kill the president. (Please, no snide comments, this is just an example.) Let's not make it obvious where he just was. Granted, he's not there anymore, but If he left Newark at 6pm, by 7pm, there are only so many places he could BE."

I don't believe that any such thing actually happened. To the best of my recollection, information about the location of the President after he left the school he was at when the planes hit the WTC was very scant. I do not believe that any news source gave any such indication of where the President was for most or all of the rest of that day. Can you provide evidence from 9/11 that such a breach of Presidential security actually happened?
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 | 07:37 PM
Several times now, I have asked those on this thread who claim that Newsweek directly caused the death of ANYONE in Afghanistan to provide some FACTS to back up that assertion. I'm still waiting.

Conversely, I have presented much information which contradicts that idea.

Arguments are won on FACT, not baseless assertion. As I am the only one in this discussion who has provided ANY facts, I declare myself the winner of this debate.

Next topic!
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 | 08:18 AM
"I've now asked this question at least three times, but since I'm a masochist, I'll ask it again. What about the FACT that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said publicly that the riots were NOT caused by the Newsweek story, but by internal Afghani political problems?"

Oookay..getting a little testy? "Internal Afghani political problems"...that seems like a high falutin' way to say, "these guys are pissed at us, and they're going to keep rioting".

Fine, he said the riot was caused by reasons other than the Newsweek story. At the time that this thread was posted...I WASN'T AWARE of any further reasoning for the riots. I never said he was wrong, or that you were wrong. In fact, the only issue I have continued to push is the issue that news stories can have damaging effects (is that the right effects/affects...) if not properly executed.

"The International Red Cross says it informed the American government about abuse of the Koran by American soldiers well before the Newsweek story ran. Somehow, though, according to your theory, the Afghanis were moved to anger, not by the incidents themselves, but when some theoretical person saw the Newsweek story ABOUT the incidents. This makes sense to you? Fascinating."

Well, then it seems no one put the two incidents together until now! I'm sure the flushing of a Koran would anger them...but until it was printed, it might not even have occured to them that as terrible as Americans are, some might still try to desecrate a 'holy' book.

"As far as me allegedly writing so much that you just can't find the time to read it all, uh, you aren't exactly succinct yourself. I do YOU the courtesy of reading everything YOU write and responding to it. It would be nice if you would extend that same courtesy to me. I've even taken the time to back up the things I say with citations and FACTS."

I DO read everything you write, it's reading it all, then replying to each thing that I had a problem with. Usually, by the time I got to the end of the post, I just responded to the things that stuck out as "most pissed off paragraph". I'm sorry I haven't been able to go into more details about something that we apparently AGREE ABOUT. After googling more information...FINE, you're right. According to all the government official types (as reliable as they are), the riot wasn't caused by the Newsweek article in particular.
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 | 08:44 AM
"I do not believe that any news source gave any such indication of where the President was for most or all of the rest of that day. Can you provide evidence from 9/11 that such a breach of Presidential security actually happened?"

Well, I googled, and couldn't find anything from directly after the incident. My mother has got the 2nd plane hitting the tower on tape, but none of the following news stories with it. But I remember talking to my mother about it while we were eating dinner (in front of the T.V.), "Why do they keep saying where the President & Vice President were, if they're moving them to keep them safe??" Sorry, I don't know how else to document that for you. We were watching local television, no CNN or anything...I checked my local station's website, and they don't have anything in their archive.

"Can you provide an actual EXAMPLE of what you're talking about?"

No. I don't have the time to search news 'story' after news 'story' for the perfect example of what you mean. BUT if you would like to look at your own local newspaper, I'm sure you will see what I mean.

"Arguments are won on FACT, not baseless assertion. As I am the only one in this discussion who has provided ANY facts, I declare myself the winner of this debate."

You are driving me to insanity. I don't post topics b/c I want to spend 30 posts debating anything. Where do you get this energy? I post topics for pure discussion only. My comments in the first thread are purely for entertainment only. There was a short debate after about how much I want to supress the media and how awful I am b/c I'm not old enough to remember why the cold war started, and that I obviously want to to flush the Constitution down the toilet!

AND, Mr. "I'm-crying-because-you-don't-read-my-posts-all-through-and-now-I'm-going-to-ask-questions-that-have-already-been-answered"

AS for the TITLE of the thread, I quote myself:
"The title I used was the title from another source...I put it up b/c I thought that would be the title most people would recognise, in relation to the incident."
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 | 09:02 AM
So, in summation: AFTER the thread was posted, I had no problem that the news article did NOT actually cause the riot. Since the first part of this thread was how I obviously want to censor the news, I was simply trying to make my points about that, first. I SHOULD have let you know that I found information that led me to believe the riots were caused by something else. I probably could have saved myself a lot of trouble.
stork
Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 | 07:37 PM
Okay, Maegan and CMG. Sorry, I haven't read all 150,000 words you've bothered to argue about. What I know in my heart is this; *no-one* should have died over this incident. Not 15 Afghanis, and not one Marine. But errors occur in war, and they're not all about "friendly fire". I was on what initially passed for the "front lines" in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, which means, I was in the *rear*, picking up shrapnel on the roof of our building in Khober Towers, Dhahran, from the goddamn Patriot missles and scuds dueling overhead almost every night. I was grateful to get CNN, then, 'cause it would be another week before we learned anything thru official channels. There's a price we pay for our freedom of the press, and sometimes people die for it, unfortunately. Oh well, crucify me, now.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 | 02:30 AM
stork said:

"Okay, Maegan and CMG. Sorry, I haven't read all 150,000 words you've bothered to argue about. What I know in my heart is this; *no-one* should have died over this incident. Not 15 Afghanis, and not one Marine. But errors occur in war, and they're not all about "friendly fire". I was on what initially passed for the "front lines" in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, which means, I was in the *rear*, picking up shrapnel on the roof of our building in Khober Towers, Dhahran, from the goddamn Patriot missles and scuds dueling overhead almost every night. I was grateful to get CNN, then, 'cause it would be another week before we learned anything thru official channels. There's a price we pay for our freedom of the press, and sometimes people die for it, unfortunately. Oh well, crucify me, now."

I have no interest in "crucifying" you. I confess, however, that I don't know quite what your point is. Are you saying that you DO believe that Newsweek is guilty of causing the rioting that killed people or that they AREN'T guilty of it? That question is, of course, the subject of this thread.

By the way the answer, as I have pointed out, using FACTS, is NO, Newsweek is NOT guilty of causing the rioting. You're welcome.

I still win the debate!
Accipiter
Member
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 01:01 AM
Cranky Media Guy,

Okay, first off, why do you persist in misrepresenting what people such as Maegan and I have posted on here? You're repeatedly accusing us of wanting to abolish Freedom of the Press and to start a program of government censorship. This is despite the fact that Maegan and I have both repeatedly said that this was not the case. So I shall repeat it one final time, and if you still persist in your claim, then I'll have to conclude that you're either being deliberately obtuse or else are simply incapable of understanding written English. Now, to once again re-state my position on Freedom of the press: Freedom of the Press is good as a useful tool for keeping other powerful institutions (e.g.: the national government) in check. For this reason, it is important that the news is allowed to be printed. However, there have been numerous times when reporters have either been careless or else deliberately untruthful, and some of these instances have resulted in problems. For examples of such instances, there are these links:

<a href="http://www.afsp.org/education/recommendations/5/1.htm">http://www.afsp.org/education/recommendations/5/1.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.analog-rf.com/journalism.shtml">http://www.analog-rf.com/journalism.shtml</a>
<a href="http://www.journalism.ubc.ca/thunderbird/2005.03/opinion/ethics.html">http://www.journalism.ubc.ca/thunderbird/2005.03/opinion/ethics.html</a>
<a href="http://www.friends.ca/Resource/Publications/publications03310304.asp">http://www.friends.ca/Resource/Publications/publications03310304.asp</a>

Those are some examples that I found in just two minutes of looking online. There are many, many more. Plus, I have seen firsthand how reporters printing information that they had no business reporting has resulted in a lot people killed. Thus, it would be beneficial to everybody if journalists and editors would take personal responsibility for their work and use their judgment on what should and should not be reported, considering the possible outcomes of their reports.

See? I have said nothing about repealing the 1st Amendment. I have said nothing about setting up a Federal Bureau of Proofreading that will okay or veto any potential newspaper column or magazine article. I have made no claims that a new USSR should be formed where the USA currently is. The only changes I'm hoping for are within the media's own work ethics.

*continued below*
Accipiter
Member
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 01:25 AM
*continued from above*

Secondly, regarding your statements that the Newsweek story is not responsible for the protests and riots in Afghanistan that led to people being killed. You wrote, "just the other day, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that the protests were caused by something other than the Newsweek story." That is not correct. General Myers' report said that "the situation in Jalalabad began on May 10 with peaceful student protests reacting to a report in Newsweek magazine". Then, "the following day the protests in the city had turned violent". True, Myers did say that there were other factors involved: "rioting was related more to the ongoing political reconciliation process". Note that one word, "more". Not "only", not "to nothing other than", but "more". That means that the rioting was at least partially about the Newsweek article.

So, you have the Newsweek article leading to a large number of people gathering in protest, leading to a riot (that itself was at least partially regarding the information carried in the article), leading to a number of deaths and a sharp deterioration in international relations. Newsweek chose to print that article, therefore they are responsible for the aftermath of the riot. If you throw a lit match into a car's gas tank, you're responsible for that car's destruction even though it was the gasoline, not you, that caught fire and exploded. As Mark Whitaker, the story's editor, himself wrote, "After several days, newspapers in Pakistan and Afghanistan began running accounts of our story. At that point, as Evans Thomas, Ron Moreau and Sami Yousafzai report this week, the riots started and spread across the country." Even he admits that the Afghans were upset by the article.

Oh, and regarding your comment that people in Afghanistan couldn't have known about what an article in Newsweek says: there's this process that magazine companies tend to favour doing, and it's called distribution. They send copies of their magazine to all sorts of places all over the country (or, in the case of large magazines like Newsweek, all over the world). Thus, people in Utah can read Der Welt while people in South Africa can read The New York Times. And, believe it or not, there are actually people in Afghanistan who are not only literate, but who can also speak to those people who are not. In General Myers' report that you're so fond of misquoting, it specifically says that the people had gathered "reacting to a report in Newsweek magazine". It is obvious that the Afghans were aware of the article. And again, as Mark Whitaker, the story's editor, himself wrote, "After several days, newspapers in Pakistan and Afghanistan began running accounts of our story. At that point, as Evans Thomas, Ron Moreau and Sami Yousafzai report this week, the riots started and spread across the country."

*continued below*
Accipiter
Member
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 01:29 AM
*continued from above*

Furthermore, you wrote: "Does it honestly make sense to you that people in Afghanistan rioted because Newsweek printed a story ABOUT disrespectful handling of the Koran, as opposed to having started because of the actual INCIDENTS reported? Why would they be mad at finding out about the incidents and NOT at the actual occurrences themselves?" You seem to be implying that we're arguing that the Afghans already knew about the specific instances mentioned in the article, and that it was merely the fact that those instances were published in a magazine that caused them to riot. Nobody on here has suggested that. What we've said is that the Newsweek article is the source that the Afghans got their information from, and the information that they gained from the article is what led them to gather in protest. This is the view that is further substantiated by that report of General Myers'.

You have further argued that there have been previous reports of the Koran being desecrated. To quote you, "What about the FACT that several publications ran stories about the abuse of the Koran by American military personnel before the Newsweek thing ran?" Well, like you said, what about it? Are you saying that those previous publications didn't start the May 11th riots, and therefore the Newsweek article couldn't have? A few months ago in Delaware I saw a green SUV slide on some ice and crash into a red van. I have also seen cars slip on ice in Bavaria around 1995 and in Tennessee in 2003. Neither the car in Bavaria nor the one in Tennessee ran into the red van in Delaware. Does that mean that the green SUV didn't run into it, either? In order for an event to cause another event, there has to be some sort of connection between them. The car in Bavaria and the car in Tennessee slid on ice that was too far away in both space and time to have any influence on the red van in Delaware. The green SUV was in the right place at the right time (or wrong place at the wrong time, if you want to take the drivers' perspectives). It's already been established that the Newsweek article was the trigger behind the May 11th riots. That of course means that it was in the right time and place to cause that event. Obviously, the other publications weren't.

Incidentally, can you give me any evidence of these previous articles you've mentioned?

*continued below*
Accipiter
Member
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 01:34 AM
*continued from above*

Finally, it is irrelevant whether the story is true or not; by reporting it, the magazine made a mistake. But regarding the veracity of the story:

First, you claim that the story that Newsweek ran is one "which has been reported in many venues other than Newsweek". Just what sources are these? You're constantly asking for evidence, but not supplying much yourself. What other published sources mentioned the Koran being flushed down a toilet at Guant
Accipiter
Member
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 01:37 AM
By the way, I apologize for my rather excessive verbosity in writing four rather long posts in succession. I've been away for a week, and so I had to reply to a week's worth of other people's comments all at once!
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 01:46 AM
Accipiter said:

"You wrote, "just the other day, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that the protests were caused by something other than the Newsweek story." That is not correct. General Myers' report said that "the situation in Jalalabad began on May 10 with peaceful student protests reacting to a report in Newsweek magazine". Then, "the following day the protests in the city had turned violent". True, Myers did say that there were other factors involved: "rioting was related more to the ongoing political reconciliation process". Note that one word, "more". Not "only", not "to nothing other than", but "more". That means that the rioting was at least partially about the Newsweek article."

OK, so according to you, the riots had NOTHING to do with the actual incidents of Koran abuse and EVERYTHING to do with Newsweek's reporting of them? The Afghanis weren't mad that it happened but WERE mad that it was reported. That sounds reasonable to you? They may have rioted in reaction to a report in Newsweek, as you quote, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they were mad AT the report itself.

As for your statement about magazines being distributed in other countries, uh, no duh. What I asked was for PROOF that the people who rioted had access to Newsweek. I have no doubt that at least a few copies of the magazine could be found somewhere in Afghanistan, but I have seen NO proof at all that the rioters have ever seen the magazine, let alone "responded" to anything in it.

The fact is that Koran abuse by American troops has been well-documented for the past two years. According to the "Newsweek is solely guilty" theory, NONE of the actual incidents nor any of the earlier reports were reacted to by Afghanis.

As for calling for censorship, well, YOU may not be, but it sure looks to me like Maegan is:

"This is why I have issues with freedom of the press and all that."

What would the alternative to Freedom of the Press be if it isn't censorship?

As for you, Accipiter, what does this mean?:

"Smooth move, Newsweek. Of course, they'll hide behind the First Amendment, and the worst that will happen to them will be that they'll have to apologize."

How does an American citizen "hide" behind the First Amendment? They didn't yell "fire" in a crowded theater; they reported (accurately, as it turns out) on actions taken by the American military.

Would you prefer a press that NEVER reported on things--done in YOUR and MY name, by the way--that are wrong? If there's a problem with the press in this country (and God knows there is), it's that they tend to be too deferential to those in power.

If you think I'm not a critic of the press, you're WAY wrong. Currently, I am running a blog which comments on a daily basis on one of the TV news shows in my market, specifically designed to point out what a piece of tabloid shit it is. I was pissed off for ages by this "news" show and I finally decided to do something about it. I WANT a press that reports on the bad things done by the military and the government, so long as the reporting is accurate.

Newsweek's story was accurate. Even if it WAS the "cause" of the rioting (which I do not believe), they still had the right and the obligation to report the story.
Accipiter
Member
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 03:26 AM
Cranky Media Guy,

You wrote, "OK, so according to you, the riots had NOTHING to do with the actual incidents of Koran abuse and EVERYTHING to do with Newsweek's reporting of them?" I thought that I'd already addressed that, but this particular part of the debate seems to be going in circles. It's clear that I'm not understanding you and you're not understanding me in regards to this point. Could you try explaining it again, so I can answer you properly and we can actually tell what we're each talking about?

You also mentioned that you've seen no proof that the rioters had seen the magazine or responded to it. Well, quite likely the majority of them hadn't actually held a copy of the magazine in their hands and read it. They wouldn't have needed to. What would have happened is that a few people did read the article, and then they spread the information it contained either by word of mouth or by printing it in their own newspapers (as happened in Yemen). There are plenty of people out there who look for every opportunity to start protests and unrest, and they would have gone to great pains to make certain that the news was spread. By publishing that story, Newsweek gave those people fuel to ignite the protests and riots.

Consider this scenario: I visit a prison where I know there are dangerous, unrepentant murderers, even if most of the other prisoners are non-violent types. I go into the bathroom and intentionally leave a box of loaded guns in it, knowing that anybody could have access to it. An inmate takes the box and distributes the guns. The prisoners decide that since they have the guns, they ought to use them. Therefore they start a prison riot, and several guards are shot. Am I or am I not therefore at least partly responsible for the guards being shot, even though the majority of the prisoners never saw the actual box that the guns came in?

As for evidence of the people responding to the magazine, there is plenty. I already mentioned Myers' report where it was said that the protests were regarding the magazine article. Many of the news articles have also mentioned it, as well as showing pictures of Afghans carrying banners about the information carried in the article. Then there have been all the press releases by Afghan officials referring to the story and the information it contained.

Why do you say that in order for the Newsweek article to have led to the protest, no other reports of other incidents could have previously caused disturbances? There have been previous protests about other incidents and issues. This particular protest was about the information that the Afghans had gained from the Newsweek article. True, there might have been a protest on May 11 about some other issue if Newsweek hadn't printed the article. Or there might not have, in which case the people who are dead now wouldn't have been killed. For that one particular protest, though, it was the information that Newsweek had published that provided the reason for gathering.

*continued below*
Accipiter
Member
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 03:33 AM
*continued from above*

In defense of Maegan: obviously I can't really know what's going on in her mind. But she has said that she's not supporting general censorship, and I haven't seen anything in her posts that leads me to doubt her. Her having "issues" with Freedom of the Press does not mean that she's automatically leaping to the extreme of censorship. You yourself mentioned that you have issues with a so-called "news show", and with the press being too deferential to those in power. That doesn't mean that you want to censor them. It only means you want them to change the way they do things. You can support something while at the same time not being satisfied with the way it is currently being done.

And about my own comment about people hiding behind the 1st Amendment, I meant exactly what I said. People do stupid things, and then claim that it was their right and obligation as journalists rather than admitting that they made a mistake. You seem to agree that shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is a violation of the 1st Amendment. Why is it a violation? Because it is irresponsible and likely to cause injury and chaos, even if the person yelling it only intended it for entertainment purposes and not intending to cause injuries. By the same reasoning, if somebody were to write a note saying "there's a bomb in the theatre" and people got injured, that would also be a violation. Even if it was only meant as a joke, or as entertainment. Whoever chose to write the note was irresponsible and didn't fully consider the possible results of their actions. Well, Newsweek chose to write the article in question, even though it had at best very scarce and shaky evidence backing it up, and at a time when relations with Muslims was already tense and when Muslims were protesting and killing people due to all sorts of other issues As a result, people were injured and killed.

Again, with what proof are you saying that the Newsweek story is accurate? The military says it isn't, the people criticizing Newsweek say it isn't, the people defending Newsweek say it isn't, and the editor himself says it isn't.

As for Newsweek having the "right and obligation" to publish the story: how do you come to that conclusion? Are they supposed to publish every single piece of information they come across, no matter what the results are? If they happen to find out that the army is planning a surprise attack on enemy positions two weeks from now, do they have the "right and obligation" to rush to the printing press and publish that information?
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 05:00 AM
Hm. Well said.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 | 01:55 AM
OK, let's see...

Copies of the Koran were abused by American troops as early as 2002.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/25/AR2005052501395.html

But that's the "liberal media." No one backs that up, right?

Well, the FBI has documented the incidents; the ACLU filed to get a copy of the FBI reports:

http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/052505/

Here's some background on the ACLU's discovery:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=790814

Some people have distorted the facts about Newsweek's reporting on the subject and
General Myers' assertions that Newsweek wasn't the cause of the rioting:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200505170003

The White House's *new* official position is that Newsweek WASN'T the cause (amusingly,
the President's spokesman is now pretending that he never claimed that Newsweek caused
the rioting):

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000930917

The president of Afghanistan also says Newsweek didn't cause the rioting:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/22/123747/999 (I've also seen video of Karzai saying this
in an interview with Wolf Blitzer)

OK, so what's the case for the argument that Newsweek was guilty of causing the riots now?
Accipiter
Member
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 | 11:57 AM
Cranky Media Guy,

Only one of those links contradicts anything that I said earlier. The rest tend to support my views instead.

Have you read those FBI reports? Many of the claims of abuse, including most of the ones involving the Koran, are hearsay or nonsense. The claims of Koran abuse that may have been actually witnessed by a prisoner occur in sections 3836-3838, 3878-3881, 3959-3960, 3962, 3966, 3982-3984, and 4084-4085. That's seven whole inmates; not an overwhelming number. 4084-4085 is a complaint that guards had simply looked in his Koran, an action by the guards that another prisoner in section 3982-3984 admits was justified. 3959-3960, 3962, and 3982-3984 are complaints that prisoners' Korans are removed when they misbehave. Only 3836-3838, 3878-3881, and 3966 mention actual abuse to the Koran, and with them it is vague whether they saw it or are merely reporting hearsay. 3836-3838 says a Koran was kicked. 3966 says a Koran was dropped on the floor. It's only one inmate out of all the others, in section 3878-3881, who mentions the flushing. This is in a prison (prisoners often naturally have a grudge against their detainers) full of Afghans (many of who have been taught since an early age to hate and hurt the US), many of whom are potentially terrorists (who will naturally do anything they can do to damage the image of the US). On the other hand, we have inmates in sections 3973-3976 and 3982-3984 who state that they have not seen any cases of the Koran being abused. We also have cases in sections 3873-3875, 3998, and 4086-4088 where prisoners were shown to be lying about abuse. There are many instances of inmates contradicting each other. You consider this to be conclusive proof that the Koran was flushed in the toilet? Newsweek took what was said to them by a single source who had read from a single source an unconfirmed report based on a single source (who quite possibly is intending to damage America's image) who claims that he is aware of a case of the Koran being flushed, and then the magazine printed that as though it was a confirmed fact.

Ah ha, thanks for the copy of General Myers' press conference. I couldn't find a copy of exactly what he'd said, and had to go by what news articles said he'd said and by what the report he'd been referring to said. So it was actually mentioned by him in the briefing that the violence was not connected to the magazine article, although he's actually paraphrasing General Eikenberry's report from Afghanistan. So he's saying that somebody else said it. Unfortunately, he mis-stated what Eikenberry's report said. Since I hadn't been able to see just what Myers' had said to the reporters, I was having to base my earlier argument regarding his briefing on what Eikenberry's report said. When I'd written on May 24th, "General Myers' report said that "the situation in Jalalabad began on May 10 with peaceful student protests reacting to a report in Newsweek magazine". Then, "the following day the protests in the city had turned violent"", I was quoting from Eikenberry's report. It seems that Myers misrepresented Eikenberry's findings, so you were right about Myers.

*continued below*
Accipiter
Member
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 | 11:58 AM
*continued from above*

Furthermore, White House Press Secretary McClellan is not saying that Newsweek is not responsible for the riots. He says that the reporters were not clearly representing what he's saying. That's completely different from recanting his previous statements. And in that exact same article you've linked to above, he says, "The discredited report was damaging. It was used to incite violence" and, "There are some that want to continue to defend what is a discredited report that has been disavowed by Newsweek" That's hardly supporting the view that the article was correct or that it wasn't at least partly responsible for the riots.

The same goes for your link to Afghan President Karzai. Where exactly is Karzai saying that Newsweek isn't responsible? He says that the riots were directed at the peace process. I agree that that's likely. As I've said before, agitators used the information in the Newsweek article to upset the Afghans and get them to protest, and then the protest was turned into a riot that was intended to damage the peace process and the new Afghan government. Flawed Newsweek article leads to propaganda leads to protest leads to rioting leads to deaths and political turmoil.

Incidentally, even Karzai is saying there that the article was only gossip and a rumour, and that it was a serious problem that effected "people's beliefs and feelings". That doesn't support your arguments.

The Newsweek article has done even more damage than the riots in Afghanistan, too. Al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya have broadcast what the article said, and many foreign newspapers and magazines have quoted the article. So now many Muslims around the world are protesting about the alleged incident that Newsweek published. It has become something of a cause c
Hairy Houdini
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 | 12:02 PM
Koff-bullshit-Koff
Accipiter
Member
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 | 02:32 PM
Quite possibly, Hairy!
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 | 05:36 PM
Hey, Accipiter, the video of Karzai saying that the riots were caused by something other than the SINGLE SENTENCE in a ten-paragraph article in Newsweek can be found at crooksandliars.com .

Eh, what does HE know, though? He's just the president of Afghanistan.
Accipiter
Member
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 09:32 PM
Hmm, I'll try watching that video clip at some point. The joys of trying to open large files when you're using dial-up. Rather anaemic dial-up, for that matter.
crankymediaguy
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 01:01 AM
I'm in the same boat, Accipiter. Although I grew up in NYC, I now live on the coast in Oregon. No version of broadband, other than very expensive satellite, is available to us here.

In fact, I only saw the clip by semi-accident. I clicked on the link, realized how long it would take to download it and unclicked it. Well, I *thought* I unclicked it. Over a half-hour later, while I was looking at other stuff on the 'Net, the clip suddenly started running. I had been downloading it all that time.

Anyway, in case you don't get the chance to see it, Karzai really does say that the rioting wasn't caused by Newsweek to Wolf Blitzer on it.

We're probably never going to resolve this. I even have the quotes from Bush's press spokesman from the 16th and 17th of this month where he says that Newsweek DID cause the death (which he later lied about ever having said) but do we care that much anymore?
Accipiter
Member
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 02:20 AM
The problems with this debate are the lack of primary sources, as well as the contradictory nature of what sources are available. Maybe time will sort things out.
Fender Washburn
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 10:25 PM
After reading and seeing pictures about what has gone on in U.S. run prisons in Iraq/Afganistan/Gitmo--like the beating to death of detainee's, sic-ing attact dogs on naked handcuffed people, and the rape of a boy while his father was made to watch--I don't doubt for a second that the Qu'ran was disrespected by U.S. personel.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 12:52 AM
Accipiter said:

"The problems with this debate are the lack of primary sources, as well as the contradictory nature of what sources are available. Maybe time will sort things out."

I like, you, Accipiter. I think you're a little stubborn on the Newsweek issue, but you're obviously bright and you're a decent guy.
Accipiter
Member
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 04:14 AM
Me? Stubborn? How can anybody ever think such a thing?

Actually, I am willing to admit that there might be just the tiniest chance of me being slightly wrong on the whole Newsweek problem. There's no real way anybody who I've seen on here can know exactly what went on in Guantanamo and Afghanistan, since we were all probably wasting time in front of our computers while it was going on. But I am still firmly convinced that at times reporters do get carried away and report things that they really shouldn't have.
Razela
in Chicago, IL
 Member
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 01:14 PM
Ok, so I haven't actually posted in this thread, though I have been keeping up on reading it, and have found much of what you all have had to say interesting, here's my two cents:

Without getting into whether or not the Newsweek story directly caused any riots (which I have many doubts about anyway), I don't feel that there was anything irresponsible in Newsweek writing about possible misrespects of the Koran if they got the information from an inside source and had no reason to doubt it. Even if it was certain the riots were caused by the Newsweek article, how would Newsweek of ever been able to acertain the future of their article?

I agree that the press shouldn't be posting things that would obviously be stupid, like telling everyone where the president is hiding when he is a possible target, however, I see nothing of this nature in the Newsweek article.

Should the press not report anything that may upset someone? On the contrary, I feel that it is the responsibility of the press to use their connections to bring to light anything that could possibly be being kept secret by the government for no other reason than that they know they would get alot of shit for it if the American public every knew of their behavior.

Is that not why the freedom of press is so sacred? Although as a society we have come to view the press as greedy and irresponsible, and perhaps they are, we need to look past that sometimes and see how essential they really are to protecting the American people from corruption in our government.
crankymediaguy
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 02:16 PM
Accipiter said:

"Actually, I am willing to admit that there might be just the tiniest chance of me being slightly wrong on the whole Newsweek problem. There's no real way anybody who I've seen on here can know exactly what went on in Guantanamo and Afghanistan, since we were all probably wasting time in front of our computers while it was going on. But I am still firmly convinced that at times reporters do get carried away and report things that they really shouldn't have."

Oh, we're in complete agreement on that last part. I don't think it happens all that much, though, assuming you're talking about stuff like Geraldo Rivera showing the approximate location of troops in a battle zone on live TV.

If anything, in this era of corporate news departments, I think the press tends to be too obsequious to people in power. The New York Times, for example, was just lead around by the nose by Ahmed Chalabi, a Bush weasel, during the run-up for the war and printed total propaganda, which they have since admitted. I'd like to see a lot more challenging of authority by the press. I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen, though.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

 Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.