but the news isn't all about debate, either. yes, the lead with blood. but there are human interest stories all the time. there is good news reported. i understand where you're coming from, though.
I think it needs to be pointed out here that is that this was a very short piece and was part of the Periscope section of Newsweek and not as a feature article. The amount of research that Newsweek did for essentially a filler piece shows that they do value journalistic integrity. What burned them was relying too much on an anonymous source and jumping the gun on the story but from the nature of the piece I don't think they were trying to get a headline grabbing scoop but was just sloppy with it. Its bad journalism but from what I've seen I don't think its not malicious. Far different than the Rather piece which was the central feature piece of that episode and was broadcast at the height of the election. Yes, I was saying the same thing earlier that to hold news services responsible for the implications of their stories would seriously be self-censoring the media because that would be saying they shouldn't report any controversial issue since that could causes one side to riot. Totally agree. I believe a free media is essential to the maintanence of a free society but at the same time we need to recognize as human institutions run by humans there will be mistakes and biases. That doesn't say that we should let mistakes slide but the way this debate is shaping up its getting to the point of saying that we should or the media should censor itself.
I think a distinction needs to be made between government and media. The difference between the Admin's defense of going to war on faulty intelligence is that the government has the capability of committing the country to war. While major media sources have a certain amount of power to affect public opinion they don't have the ability to send people to war or do much else. Media certainly has a large responsibility but I would hope that the government has a far greater responsibility.
A good read ... The resignation of Scott McClellan (Keith Olbermann) SECAUCUS -- I smell something - and it ain�t a copy of the Qu�ran sopping wet from being stuck in a toilet in Guantanamo Bay. It�s the ink drying on Scott McClellan�s resignation, and in an only partly imperfect world, it would be drifting out over Washington, and imminently. Last Thursday, General Richard Myers, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Donald Rumsfeld�s go-to guy whenever the situation calls for the kind of gravitas the Secretary himself can�t supply, told reporters at the Pentagon that rioting in Afghanistan was related more to the on-going political reconciliation process there, than it was to a controversial note buried in the pages of Newsweek claiming that the government was investigating whether or not some nitwit interrogator at Gitmo really had desecrated a Muslim holy book. But Monday afternoon, while offering himself up to the networks for a series of rare, almost unprecedented sit-down interviews on the White House lawn, Press Secretary McClellan said, in effect, that General Myers, and the head of the after-action report following the disturbances in Jalalabad, Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry, were dead wrong. The Newsweek story, McClellan said, �has done damage to our image abroad and it has done damage to the credibility of the media and Newsweek in particular. People have lost lives. This report has had serious consequences.� Whenever I hear Scott McClellan talking about �media credibility,� I strain to remember who it was who admitted Jeff Gannon to the White House press room and called on him all those times. Whenever I hear this White House talking about �doing to damage to our image abroad� and how �people have lost lives,� I strain to remember who it was who went traipsing into Iraq looking for WMD that will apparently turn up just after the Holy Grail will - and at what human cost. Newsweek�s version of this story has varied from the others over the last two years - ones in The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Washington Post, and British and Russian news organizations - only in that it quoted a government source who now says he didn�t have firsthand knowledge of whether or not the investigation took place (oops, sorry, shoulda mentioned that, buh-bye). All of its other government connections - the ones past which it ran the story - have gone from saying nothing like �don�t print this, it ain�t true� or �don�t print this, it may be true but it�ll start riots,� to looking slightly confused and symbolically saying �Newsweek? Newsweek who?� Whatever I smell comes from this odd sequence of events: Newsweek gets blasted by the White House, apologizes over the weekend but doesn't retract its story. Then McClellan offers his Journalism 101 outdoor seminar and blasts the magazine further. Finally, just before 5 PM Monday, the Dan Rather drama replaying itself in its collective corporate mind, Newsweek retracts. I�m always warning about the logical fallacy - the illusion that just because one event follows another, the latter must have necessarily caused the former. But when I wondered tonight on Countdown if it applied here, Craig Crawford reassured me. �The dots connect.� The real point, of course, is that you�d have to be pretty dumb to think that making a threat at Gitmo akin to �Spill the beans or we�ll kill this Qu�ran� would have any effect on the prisoners, other than to eventually leak out and inflame anti-American feelings somewhere. Of course, everybody in the prosecution of the so-called �war on terror� has done something dumb, dating back to the President�s worst-possible-word-selection (�crusade�) on September 16, 2001. So why wouldn�t some mid-level interrogator stuck in Cuba think it would be a good idea to desecrate a holy book? Jack Rice, the former CIA special agent and now radio host, said on Countdown that it would be a �knuckleheaded� thing to do, but �plausible.� One of the most under-publicized analyses of 9/11 concludes that Osama Bin Laden assumed that the attacks on the U.S. would galvanize Islamic anger towards this country, and they'd overthrow their secular governments and woo-hoo we've got an international religious war. Obviously it didn't happen. It didn't even happen when the West went into Iraq. But if stuff like the Newsweek version of a now two-year old tale about toilets and Qu�rans is enough to set off rioting in the streets of countries whose nationals were not even the supposed recipients of the �abuse�, then weren�t those members of the military or the government with whom Newsweek vetted the plausibility of its item, honor-bound to say �you can�t print this�? Or would somebody rather play politics with this? The way Craig Crawford reconstructed it, this one went similarly to the way the Killian Memos story evolved at the White House. The news organization turns to the administration for a denial. The administration says nothing. The news organization runs the story. The administration jumps on the necks of the news organization with both feet - or has its proxies do it for them. That�s beyond shameful. It�s treasonous. It�s also not very smart. While places like the Fox News Channel (which, only today, I finally recognized - it�s the newscast perpetually running on the giant video screens in the movie �1984�) ask how many heads should roll at Newsweek, it forgets in its fervor that both the story and the phony controversy around it are not so cut-and-dried this time. Firstly, the principal reporter on the Gitmo story was Michael Isikoff - �Spikey� in a different lifetime; Linda Tripp�s favorite journalist, and one of the ten people most responsible (intentionally or otherwise) for the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Spikey isn�t just a hero to the Right - the Right owes him. And larger still, in terms of politics, this isn't well-defined, is it? I mean Conservatives might parrot McClellan and say �Newsweek put this country in a bad light.� But they could just as easily thump their chests and say �See, this is what we do to those prisoners at Gitmo! You guys better watch your asses!� Ultimately, though, the administration may have effected its biggest mistake over this saga, in making the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs look like a liar or na�f, just to draw a little blood out of Newsweek�s hide. Either way - and also for that tasteless, soul-less conclusion that deaths in Afghanistan should be lain at the magazine�s doorstep - Scott McClellan should resign. The expiration on his carton full of blank-eyed bully-collaborator act passed this afternoon as he sat reeling off those holier-than-thou remarks. Ah, that�s what I smelled. E-mail: KOlbermann@msnbc.com Watch Keith each weeknight at 8 p.m. ET as he Counts down the best, the worst, and the oddest news stories of the day.
of course it does...of course the government bears a greater burden there. but the burden on both is great. the government's burden doesn't minimize the importance of accuracy in reporting within the media. i would say this story is a pretty clear indication that things can get out of hand when more care is not taken.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050517/D8A51JAO0.html Afghanistan, Pakistan Angry at Newsweek May 17, 12:19 PM (ET) By STEPHEN GRAHAM (AP) KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - Afghanistan's government said Tuesday that Newsweek should be held responsible for damages caused by deadly anti-American demonstrations after the magazine alleged U.S. desecration of the Quran, and it suggested that foreign forces may have helped turn protests violent. Pakistan joined the international criticism of the magazine's article and said Newsweek's apology and retraction were "not enough." The article, published in Newsweek's May 9 edition, said U.S. investigators found evidence that interrogators at the military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, put copies of Islam's holy book in washrooms and flushed one book down the toilet to try to get inmates to talk. The article sparked protests in several other Muslim countries. Afghan presidential spokesman Jawed Ludin said Newsweek's retraction Monday was a "positive step" toward clearing up concern about the report. "But at the same time, we feel angered at the way this story has been handled," Ludin told a news conference Tuesday. "It's only fair to say at this stage that Newsweek can be held responsible for the damages caused by their story." Following the article, violent anti-American demonstrations erupted in several Afghan cities, and about 15 people were killed in clashes with security forces. A string of government and relief organization offices were ransacked before police and troops restored order. Ludin said the government suspected that "elements from within and outside Afghanistan" had helped turn peaceful protests violent. More than 500 inmates at Guantanamo were captured during the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan to oust the hardline Islamic Taliban regime and end al-Qaida's influence over the deeply religious country. Afghans' strong feelings about Guantanamo "also provided a reason for the enemies of Afghanistan and for those who are keen to cause destruction in Afghanistan to ... cause the riots," Ludin said. Col. Gary Cheek, commander of U.S. forces in eastern Afghanistan, said Monday he knew of no sign that Taliban-led militants had provoked trouble. But Ludin said the Afghan government found evidence of a "foreign hand" in the eastern city of Jalalabad, where the worst violence occurred. He claimed students in the city, close to the Pakistani border, had returned in disgust to their campus after their protest turned ugly. Ludin would not say whether Pakistan, which lost influence in Afghanistan with the fall of the Taliban and has sparred repeatedly with Kabul over the ability of militants to shelter on its territory, was suspected of fomenting the violence. "We're still investigating and trying to collect more information," he said. "Then we'll be ready to discuss the related people and organizations." He added, "The president believes this is a reaction to that." Pakistani officials also expressed anger that the magazine got its story wrong. "Just an apology is not enough. They should think 101 times before publishing news that hurts hearts," Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed said in Islamabad. In Saudi Arabia, the country's top religious authority Tuesday condemned the alleged desecration and urged an investigation into the report. Grand Mufti Adul-Aziz al-Sheik issued his statement a day after Newsweek retracted its report, saying a full inquiry still should be launched "to alleviate the sorrow that befell Muslims." "We condemn and denounce this criminal act against Muslims' most sacred item," al-Sheik said. Saudi Arabia is a close U.S. ally that considers itself the protector of Islam and its holiest sites.
I agree with you about how Newsweek was irresponsible (assuming that the story is not true). I also agree that this supposed irresponsibility leads to people being killed, both American and otherwise. As a matter of fact, I agree with most of what you have to say. That being said, please do not compare Jane Fonda with John Kerry and please do not compare Jane Fonda with Newsweek. People like me that fought in Vietnam take great offense to these whimsical comparisons to Fonda that people love to make. Jane Fonda was a TRAITOR!! End of story. I protested Vietnam like none other. It was an immoral war and it was a war in which our government lied to us to get us involved in. However, when I was called to go, I went. As much as I despised our government for being involved in something so immoral, I was going to go because my country called on me, even though this country treated me like sh*t everyday. I believed that maybe the government knew something that I did not. I didn't have the courage that Muhammad Ali had in not going to war. That being said, Fonda blatantly turned her back on America. Not accidentally, but blatantly!! What she did was not based on principle like Ali, but rather she joined the enemy!!! I give Newsweek the benefit of the doubt in belieiving that their story was true (and we don't know yet whehter it is true or not). I do not give the same to Fonda. Protesting is an American right and we all have a moral obligation to ourselves to do what is right. Vietnam was not right. It is moral burden that weighs on me everyday. I went out of obligation to my country and I know that the guy firing his gun at me went out of obligation as well. I had nothing against him and he had nothing against me. As a matter of fact, if we weren't forced to fight, I'm sure the Vietnamese guy that fired at me would have treated me with more respect than the people of Alabama did back at home. The average Vietnamese didn't care who ruled him. He could care less whether Ho Chi Minh was a Communist or not. Bottom line was that he was Vietnam's hero. I dread the day that I might have to face the son or daughter of someone who died from a bullet fired by me. I am an intelligent man, but I have no answer for that son or daughter. The same goes for the children of people who died fighting alongside me in Vietnam. I can say that your father died serving his country, but that is a hollow statement with respect to Vietnam. I say all of this because Kerry spoke up for the wrongdoings that our soldiers were involved in during the War. He did what was morally right by speaking against it. When your country's policies support oppression, you have an obligation to speak up. Our soldiers were following orders, but what we were doing and what we were involved was WRONG. It was immoral. Kerry was right in undermining our military at the time because what we did was worth undermining. If I was a soldier at Abu Ghraib, I would speak up against what happened. I wouldn't continue torture and abuse because it might make our military look bad. Supporting the military does not mean holding the military unaccountable. Subsequently, trying to bring accountability to the military is not undermining the military, but rather it is trying to return our military to what it should be. Just my 2 cents
I actually read the Newsweek article tonight, unfortunately can't find a link to it, and the part about flushing Qu'rans was one sentence out of a whole half page article and not even one that went very far into detail. Most of the article dealt with issues like the use of fake menstrual blood and other psuedo sexual interrogation methods. The general gist of the article seemed to be that Gen. Miller might be in the hot seat because it seemed like he wasn't exercising enough control over interrogations at Gitmo. The whole situation seems to be that this was almost a throw away line that the writer put into give some more color to the article and not a central focus. It seems that Newsweek themselves were sloppy with it but also were unaware or presumed that such a small thing wouldn't cause the firestorm that it has. Again sloppy journalism but difficult to see how this was a deliberate malicious act or calculated lie designed to inflame Muslims or undermine the US.
Why do we as americans cry, yell, scream, pull out shotguns, etc etc when someone burns the american flag? Its just a damn piece of cloth right? some people have priorities, and just because they are different than your own, does not give you any right to mock their beleifs. Thank you, have a nice day.
