dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 03:05 am
Polarstar wrote:
Newsweek has made an honest mistake.

I'm challenged to prove that Newsweek was not simply misled considering it relied on its source, "a senior government official." Knowing this, its defenders wonder aloud how any reasonable person can justifiably call Newsweek a liar. (The implication about me is not flattering).

There's more than a little slight of hand in this reasoning, whether unknowing or intentional. In explaining Newsweek's mistake, these people leap over an essential (some would say "troublesome") assumption: that Newsweek's source Exists.


They'll say: "But Newsweek shouldn't have to reveal its source and there are journalistic reasons for this."


Irrelevant.

It is not tenable to force others to prove a Negative. If a person claims that he has evidence, its existence must be revealed so that it can be cross-examined by others in toto. That person must prove an Affirmative - A Positive existence - evidentiary or otherwise.

If not...


Some have insinuated hypocrisy against Newsweek's critics by saying that Bush was also wrong about WMD's. It's also clear [and sometimes stated in the same breath] that they believe that Bush falsified evidence or lied about it.

IMHO [and aside from the obvious bait and switch], it's bad argumentation to draw analogies between Newsweek and Bush if you believe that Bush lied.


But there's a bigger psychological blind-spot here.

Bush relied on intelligence agencies, domestic and foreign, from countries that were supportive (Britain) to adversarial (Germany), from Republicans to Democrats, from Foxnews to CNN, from Bill Clinton to his own Father. All of them, including Newsweek, assumed the same thing long before he ever became President - that Saddam Hussein possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction. For my part, I assumed the same - and even in hindsight, I think it was a reasonable assumption to make. Truth be known, I think a lot of people here thought so too.

You've heard all this.

And it's not the point.

Newsweek says it was informed by a single Anonymous Source, which it refuses to reveal.

It cannot be ascertained whether this source said what Newsweek claims he said. It cannot be verified that he misled Newsweek with a SouthCom report he never corroborated and whose charges do not exist. It cannot be verified that Newsweek informed the Pentagon who denies ever being informed, and for which Isikoff in turn claims two additional "defense department officials." In short, Newsweek's assertions [conveniently] can never be cross-examined by anyone else.


"Not to worry", some say. "He exists. Newsweek says so."


I've already seen that from too many Muslims.

Bush was informed by so many people from such differing, and at times conflicting, backgrounds over a very long period of time. They were all very intelligent, some of the best the world had to offer, with the credibility to accompany it. Yet they all assumed the same thing, right through the run-up to the Second Iraq War when Everyone had to put their money where their mouth was if a Wmd DID go off. Those people EXIST. They can be found under oath before the 9/11 Commission on tape, television and in a report at your local bookstore. They can be found in countless other committees, official or otherwise (and that includes Able2know). They can be found in Presidential speeches under Clinton and Congressional speeches under Kennedy. They can be found in MSM editorials proclaiming the folly of invading Iraq because Saddam might use his Chemical weapons [again]. They can be found just about everywhere for more than a decade from the time he used them against the Iranians and the Kurds to the time his statue fell in Baghdad.

Yet despite everyone who informed him, Bush was not "mistaken" or "misled."

He lied.

And People died.

Newsweek ran with an article with so many unknown sources and heresy claims that you'd swear it was a Jayson Blair original on Steroids. Now, days after the retraction, I'm still not surprised that our country's detractors aren't interested in knowing who this phantom "Source" is.

He exists. And, perversely, nobody except Newsweek can say otherwise.

And because he/she/it exists, Newsweek was simply "misled."


The worst part of it all isn't the absurdity, although much of it is certainly obtuse. The worst part of it all is the implication that I'm dumb enough to blindly accept all this.

As Mark Steyn would say: MBITRW



Do you seriously believe that the same burden of proof is required in publishing a story about an alleged incident (naming it as alleged) however irresponsible that may or may not have been - and INVADING A COUNTRY ?

And are you uanware of the advice of many of the government's own experts - the ones in disfavour with Rumsfeld - of ther problems with the intelligence?


But anyhoo - of course one cannot prove a negative.

However, Newsweek, as I have said elsewhere, were far from the only news outlet to publish this material. There have been a number of sources given for the allegations.

I honestly do not know if Newsweek would be judged wrong in publishing when it did based on journalism's code of ethics. Others decided to do so some time before. I assume that if a story is clearly labelled in terms of what is hearsay and what not - and some reasonable judgement of the reliability of sources, then publishing can be defended. I would be interested in a rational debate on this point. I suspect a lot of detractors would not be detractors if the situation were reversed, and it was a pro-US/Bush story that had proven to be based on information more tenuous than first thought. Many of them seem to see Fox as a reasonably ethical news outlet, for instance. I could be persuaded otherwise by someone with real knowledge of what is reasonable in journalism and good arguments, though.


I am puzzled by what you say about the single source. As I understand Newsweek's apology, it mentions a number of different sources - but says that they had considered the allegations too tenuous to publish, until the source I assumne you are talking about supported them.


So far, I think the current level of condemnation is largely an artifact of pent-up anger from the right and 20/20 hindsight.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 04:35 am
That 20-20 hindsight may come back to "bite 'em in the ass," as is said here, if no credible denials come forth. Note that the White House Ministry of Propaganda has loudly and continuously deplored the actions of Newsweek, but has not been nearly as vociferous in denying the allegations, and has offered nothing in rebuttal.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 05:39 am
Great Molly Ivans column:

Despite Sloppiness, Newsweek Didn't Fabricate Koran Story
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 05:45 am
Time for folks to get their heads out of the sand
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 06:28 am
This is quite an interesting little snippet from Media Matters:

Conservative media personalities go out of their way to praise Isikoff, lay blame on Newsweek editors

Following Newsweek's May 16 retraction of its May 9 article that cited an anonymous source to report that U.S. investigators found evidence that interrogators at Guantànamo Bay, Cuba, flushed a Quran down a toilet, conservative anchors and pundits on cable news and talk radio repeatedly praised the reputation of the story's primary reporter, Michael Isikoff, and blamed the lapse on the magazine's editors. This defense of Isikoff may be related to his investigation into President Bill Clinton's sex scandal, during which, as Media Matters noted, Isikoff relied extensively on unreliable sources.

Conservatives praised Isikoff and defended his work ...

Ed Rogers, Republican consultant:
ROGERS: Hey, I don't know what can be done, but a lot of damage has been inflicted, and so there's going to be a lot of hue and cry here in Washington. There's going to be calls for investigations. There's going to be calls for reform. But who knows what's going to happen? I mean, the next shoe to drop -- but it never will, because they won't reveal their source -- but was this just an opponent of the administration trying to make life difficult that made up this story and that gave it to Newsweek? Now, the reporter that wrote this is actually a big-time pro, who I don't think could be deceived. But nonetheless, it has real consequences, and it's done real harm, so there ought to be a real inquiry into this. [CNN's Crossfire, 5/16/05]

Brit Hume, Fox News Washington managing editor:
HUME: This is Michael Isikoff, the veteran investigative journalist, a guy we all know, who has been on this program, somebody who has compiled a pretty good record over the years. [Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, 5/16/05]

Fred Barnes, Weekly Standard executive editor:
BARNES: He's a very honorable reporter. [Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, 5/16/05]

... and then shifted the blame to Newsweek's editors and management:

L. Brent Bozell III, Media Research Center president, and Sean Hannity, ABC radio and Fox News host:
BOZELL: One would be hard-pressed to lay the blame directly at the feet of Michael Isikoff. Michael Isikoff is also the reporter who broke the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky story for Newsweek magazine.

HANNITY: Yeah. I wouldn't mind putting Isikoff on and getting his take on this, and I don't want to rush on the Isikoff-bashing bandwagon here because if I had to bet dollars for donuts, he probably told them, "I have a story, I have a source, I'm not ready to go with it yet, but I'm writing it out and we gotta investigate it." And they probably just said, "Hey, great! Let's run with it!" [ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show, 5/16/05]

Hannity, on his Fox News show:
HANNITY: By the way, I don't think it's Isikoff. I think it's the people above him, just for the record, Bill [Press, guest]. They make the decision, not Isikoff. He doesn't decide what gets in that magazine. [Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, 5/16/05]

Robert D. Novak, CNN host:
NOVAK: sn't this the kind of a story that a responsible media executive would have said, I know what it's like in the world today. I know what it's like in Islam. We shouldn't run this story. [CNN's Crossfire, 5/16/05]

Finally, MSNBC host Chris Matthews (though not on Fox News nor a self-identified conservative) similarly praised Isikoff:

MATTHEWS: Well, Newsweek is going to have to catch up to the [Washington] Post. Anyway, thank you very much. Isikoff, by the way, is one hell of a reporter. I hate to see this happen to him. What a great reporter he is. He's been on the tail of a lot of people in this town. [MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, 5/16/05]


http://mediamatters.org/items/200505180002


Their bias is clear - but their research is often good, I find.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 06:30 am
Polarstar wrote:
Newsweek has made an honest mistake.

I'm challenged to prove that Newsweek was not simply misled considering it relied on its source, "a senior government official." Knowing this, its defenders wonder aloud how any reasonable person can justifiably call Newsweek a liar. (The implication about me is not flattering).

There's more than a little slight of hand in this reasoning, whether unknowing or intentional. In explaining Newsweek's mistake, these people leap over an essential (some would say "troublesome") assumption: that Newsweek's source Exists.


They'll say: "But Newsweek shouldn't have to reveal its source and there are journalistic reasons for this."


Irrelevant.

It is not tenable to force others to prove a Negative. If a person claims that he has evidence, its existence must be revealed so that it can be cross-examined by others in toto. That person must prove an Affirmative - A Positive existence - evidentiary or otherwise.

If not...


Some have insinuated hypocrisy against Newsweek's critics by saying that Bush was also wrong about WMD's. It's also clear [and sometimes stated in the same breath] that they believe that Bush falsified evidence or lied about it.

IMHO [and aside from the obvious bait and switch], it's bad argumentation to draw analogies between Newsweek and Bush if you believe that Bush lied.


But there's a bigger psychological blind-spot here.

Bush relied on intelligence agencies, domestic and foreign, from countries that were supportive (Britain) to adversarial (Germany), from Republicans to Democrats, from Foxnews to CNN, from Bill Clinton to his own Father. All of them, including Newsweek, assumed the same thing long before he ever became President - that Saddam Hussein possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction. For my part, I assumed the same - and even in hindsight, I think it was a reasonable assumption to make. Truth be known, I think a lot of people here thought so too.

You've heard all this.

And it's not the point.

Newsweek says it was informed by a single Anonymous Source, which it refuses to reveal.

It cannot be ascertained whether this source said what Newsweek claims he said. It cannot be verified that he misled Newsweek with a SouthCom report he never corroborated and whose charges do not exist. It cannot be verified that Newsweek informed the Pentagon who denies ever being informed, and for which Isikoff in turn claims two additional "defense department officials." In short, Newsweek's assertions [conveniently] can never be cross-examined by anyone else.


"Not to worry", some say. "He exists. Newsweek says so."


I've already seen that from too many Muslims.

Bush was informed by so many people from such differing, and at times conflicting, backgrounds over a very long period of time. They were all very intelligent, some of the best the world had to offer, with the credibility to accompany it. Yet they all assumed the same thing, right through the run-up to the Second Iraq War when Everyone had to put their money where their mouth was if a Wmd DID go off. Those people EXIST. They can be found under oath before the 9/11 Commission on tape, television and in a report at your local bookstore. They can be found in countless other committees, official or otherwise (and that includes Able2know). They can be found in Presidential speeches under Clinton and Congressional speeches under Kennedy. They can be found in MSM editorials proclaiming the folly of invading Iraq because Saddam might use his Chemical weapons [again]. They can be found just about everywhere for more than a decade from the time he used them against the Iranians and the Kurds to the time his statue fell in Baghdad.

Yet despite everyone who informed him, Bush was not "mistaken" or "misled."

He lied.

And People died.

Newsweek ran with an article with so many unknown sources and heresy claims that you'd swear it was a Jayson Blair original on Steroids. Now, days after the retraction, I'm still not surprised that our country's detractors aren't interested in knowing who this phantom "Source" is.

He exists. And, perversely, nobody except Newsweek can say otherwise.

And because he/she/it exists, Newsweek was simply "misled."


The worst part of it all isn't the absurdity, although much of it is certainly obtuse. The worst part of it all is the implication that I'm dumb enough to blindly accept all this.

As Mark Steyn would say: MBITRW


This is a fine post Polarstar. Too bad it will fall on so many deaf ears.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 06:51 am
Muting The Conversation Of Democracy
Bill Moyers
May 17, 2005


Bill Moyers is a broadcast journalist and former host the PBS program NOW With Bill Moyers. Moyers also serves as president of the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, which gives financial support to TomPaine.com.

The following is an excerpt of the closing address Moyers delivered at the National Conference on Media Reform in St. Louis, Mo., on May 15, 2005. Click here for video and audio of the speech.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050517/muting_the_conversation_of_democracy.php

[You can read the transcript or listen to the speech. Access to the video is availbable at the URL above. It takes a while to load so be patient.]
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 06:59 am
McGentrix wrote:
Polarstar wrote:
Newsweek has made an honest mistake.

I'm challenged to prove that Newsweek was not simply misled considering it relied on its source, "a senior government official." Knowing this, its defenders wonder aloud how any reasonable person can justifiably call Newsweek a liar. (The implication about me is not flattering).

There's more than a little slight of hand in this reasoning, whether unknowing or intentional. In explaining Newsweek's mistake, these people leap over an essential (some would say "troublesome") assumption: that Newsweek's source Exists.


They'll say: "But Newsweek shouldn't have to reveal its source and there are journalistic reasons for this."


Irrelevant.

It is not tenable to force others to prove a Negative. If a person claims that he has evidence, its existence must be revealed so that it can be cross-examined by others in toto. That person must prove an Affirmative - A Positive existence - evidentiary or otherwise.

If not...


Some have insinuated hypocrisy against Newsweek's critics by saying that Bush was also wrong about WMD's. It's also clear [and sometimes stated in the same breath] that they believe that Bush falsified evidence or lied about it.

IMHO [and aside from the obvious bait and switch], it's bad argumentation to draw analogies between Newsweek and Bush if you believe that Bush lied.


But there's a bigger psychological blind-spot here.

Bush relied on intelligence agencies, domestic and foreign, from countries that were supportive (Britain) to adversarial (Germany), from Republicans to Democrats, from Foxnews to CNN, from Bill Clinton to his own Father. All of them, including Newsweek, assumed the same thing long before he ever became President - that Saddam Hussein possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction. For my part, I assumed the same - and even in hindsight, I think it was a reasonable assumption to make. Truth be known, I think a lot of people here thought so too.

You've heard all this.

And it's not the point.

Newsweek says it was informed by a single Anonymous Source, which it refuses to reveal.

It cannot be ascertained whether this source said what Newsweek claims he said. It cannot be verified that he misled Newsweek with a SouthCom report he never corroborated and whose charges do not exist. It cannot be verified that Newsweek informed the Pentagon who denies ever being informed, and for which Isikoff in turn claims two additional "defense department officials." In short, Newsweek's assertions [conveniently] can never be cross-examined by anyone else.


"Not to worry", some say. "He exists. Newsweek says so."


I've already seen that from too many Muslims.

Bush was informed by so many people from such differing, and at times conflicting, backgrounds over a very long period of time. They were all very intelligent, some of the best the world had to offer, with the credibility to accompany it. Yet they all assumed the same thing, right through the run-up to the Second Iraq War when Everyone had to put their money where their mouth was if a Wmd DID go off. Those people EXIST. They can be found under oath before the 9/11 Commission on tape, television and in a report at your local bookstore. They can be found in countless other committees, official or otherwise (and that includes Able2know). They can be found in Presidential speeches under Clinton and Congressional speeches under Kennedy. They can be found in MSM editorials proclaiming the folly of invading Iraq because Saddam might use his Chemical weapons [again]. They can be found just about everywhere for more than a decade from the time he used them against the Iranians and the Kurds to the time his statue fell in Baghdad.

Yet despite everyone who informed him, Bush was not "mistaken" or "misled."

He lied.

And People died.

Newsweek ran with an article with so many unknown sources and heresy claims that you'd swear it was a Jayson Blair original on Steroids. Now, days after the retraction, I'm still not surprised that our country's detractors aren't interested in knowing who this phantom "Source" is.

He exists. And, perversely, nobody except Newsweek can say otherwise.

And because he/she/it exists, Newsweek was simply "misled."


The worst part of it all isn't the absurdity, although much of it is certainly obtuse. The worst part of it all is the implication that I'm dumb enough to blindly accept all this.

As Mark Steyn would say: MBITRW


This is a fine post Polarstar. Too bad it will fall on so many deaf ears.


Not deaf, dearie - much as you wish to think that any who differ from you are in some way deficient in sense - merely differing in interpretation.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 07:02 am
Quote:

Newsweek says it was informed by a single Anonymous Source, which it refuses to reveal.


And they still act arrogant about the whole thing. Cretins like that are too stupid to experience shame; the next best thing would be for them to learn to experience fear. Hanging a few of them might do that.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 07:05 am
squinney wrote:


Thanks, Sq. Most of the answers are there. It's true, and there were plenty precedents. It is a standard technique used in US jails of this type.

So what don't people understand? Oh yes, why is this being done "in our name".
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 07:38 am
Quote:

Newsweek says it was informed by a single Anonymous Source, which it refuses to reveal.


Gunga: And they still act arrogant about the whole thing.

With the facts [Despite Sloppiness, Newsweek Didn't Fabricate Koran Story] staring you full in the face. And you suggest that they're the cretins. Please Gunga. How do you expect anyone but a wingnut to take you seriously?
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 07:58 am
Good question put to McClellan in yesterdays White House Briefing

Quote:
While most of the attention has been focused on Newsweek and its reporter, Michael Isikoff, it also played out in heated way this afternoon at the White House press briefing conducted by Scott McClellan. As E&P has reported, tensions have been rising there for weeks, with reporters demanding that more of the single-source, anonymous background briefings be put on the record....

...
Q: In context of the Newsweek situation, I think we hear the caution you're giving us about reporting things based on a single anonymous source. What, then, are we supposed to do with information that this White House gives us under the conditions that it comes from a single anonymous source?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to.

Q: Frequent briefings by senior administration officials in which the ground rules are we can only identify them as a single anonymous source.

MR. McCLELLAN: Ken, I know that there is an issue when it comes to the media in terms of the use of anonymous sources, but the issue is not related to background briefings. But I do believe that we should work to move away from those kind of background briefings. ...

But there is a credibility problem in the media regarding the use of anonymous sources, but it's because of fabricated stories, and it's because of situations like this one over the weekend. It's not because of the background briefings that you may be referring to.

Q: What prevents this administration from just saying from this point forward, you will identify who it is that's talking to us?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, in terms of background briefings, if that's what you're asking about, which I assume it is, let me point out that what I'm talking about there are officials who are helping to provide context to on-the-record comments made by people like the President or the Secretary of State or others. ... And as I said, one of the concerns is that some media organizations have used anonymous sources that are hiding behind that anonymity in order to generate negative attacks.

Q: But to our readers, viewers and listeners, I think it's all the same.

MR. McCLELLAN: And then you have a situation -- you have a situation where we found out later that quotes were attributed to people that they didn't make. Or you have a situation where you now learn that a single source was used for verifying this allegation -- and that source, himself, said he could not personally verify the accuracy of the report. ...

Q: With all due respect, though, it sounds like you're saying your single anonymous sources are OK and everyone else's aren't.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm not saying that at all. In fact, I think you may have missed what I said. I think that we should move away from the use of -- the long-used practice of the background briefings, and we've taken steps to do that. ...

Q We also have incidents, like most recently with the energy speech, where it was before the president made his comments, it was all we had -- and we had to make the decision of whether to report this from anonymous sources who, frankly, in that case, we didn't even know who they were.

MR. McCLELLAN: In terms of that one, I mean, that was simply done because the president was making the announcement the next day. But, anyway, we've taken steps to address that matter.


Publisher & Editor


At least the press picked up on the hypocrisy.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 07:59 am
It has long been established in the lore of this site that no one but a wingnut takes Gunga Din seriously.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 08:34 am
When the press got into Scott McClellan yesterday it was nice to see that suddenly they snapped out of the fog and remembered they were an independent entity with balls. It was nice. I'm sure however, it won't last. One hopes that an event like this would be a wake up call and a watershed occurence, but I have little faith left.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 08:57 am
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
An apologist for Saddam Hussein. Typical right wing hysterical rhetoric. Overused to boot.


Well, when the shoe fits ....
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 09:05 am
Ticomaya wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
An apologist for Saddam Hussein. Typical right wing hysterical rhetoric. Overused to boot.


Well, when the shoe fits ....


You use the term Saddam apologist to describe anyone whose opinion differs from yours and imply that they are "on Saddams side", or defending him.

Here's a little English language 101 for you. If a person is supporting or defending Saddam Hussein or anyone else, they are not apologizing for them, they are rather denying that they did anything wrong. In that context, Bush apologist is much more accurate a statement.
0 Replies
 
JustanObserver
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 09:44 am
http://img280.echo.cx/img280/3456/nw1ac.jpg
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 09:48 am
JTT wrote:
Quote:

Newsweek says it was informed by a single Anonymous Source, which it refuses to reveal.


Gunga: And they still act arrogant about the whole thing.

With the facts [Despite Sloppiness, Newsweek Didn't Fabricate Koran Story] staring you full in the face. And you suggest that they're the cretins. Please Gunga. How do you expect anyone but a wingnut to take you seriously?


Reporters Come to Newsweek's Defense, Suggest Story Really True

Following the "fake but accurate" theme espoused by some to defend CBS's use of forged memos to get President Bush, in the wake of Newsweek's retraction late Monday of its claim that a military report would include the charge that a guard at Guantanamo flushed a Koran down a toilet, journalistic colleagues came to Newsweek's defense and contended that the magazine's larger portrait of how the U.S. regards the Muslim region remains accurate. CNN's Anderson Cooper proposed: "Is it beyond the realm of possibility that a tactic like this was used?" CBS and ABC passed along allegations from prisoners. Richard Roth of CBS recalled: "Detainees released in 2003 came home claiming American guards had routinely provoked them by sitting on the Koran, or putting pages in a toilet." ABC's Martha Raddatz argued: "The Newsweek article was not the first time U.S. personnel have been accused of desecrating the Koran. Last year, this British detainee released from Guantanamo said guards 'would kick the Koran, throw it into the toilet and generally disrespect it.'"

Later, on Monday's Nightline, John Donvan reacted to a Defense Department officials denial of the Newsweek story: "'Demonstrably false?" At Guantanamo Bay, almost nothing is demonstrable, especially to the Muslim world. It's a secret prison, for good reason, perhaps. But secret. What really goes on at Guantanamo Bay, no one really knows." Interviewing an expert on the Muslim world, anchor Chris Bury speculated: "Do you think the volume of the protests [from Bush administration officials] is, perhaps, a bit calculated to deflect some attention away from the policies at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo?" Bury followed up: "But given the other abuses, I guess what I'm getting at here is, does Newsweek deserve all the blame," for the violent reaction, "assuming that its story was incorrect?"

On the CBS Evening News, John Roberts asserted that "the report does mirror claims made by former Guantanamo detainees that they were subject to religious harassment," but he at least pointed how that "the White House today suggested those claims were mere propaganda."

Now, a fuller rundown of those stories which aired on Monday night, May 16:

-- CBS Evening News. Following the lead story on Newsweek's retraction (see item #3 below), anchor Bob Schieffer set up a second piece: "In any case, Newsweek's decision to retract the report is not likely to make much difference to outraged Muslims. For them, the damage has been done, and it can't easily be undone. Correspondent Richard Roth now with that part of the story."

Richard Roth began, as taken down by the MRC's Brad Wilmouth: "The rage that swept through Afghanistan and much of the Muslim world lasted almost a week. The fires are out now, but the anger's still burning."
Abdel Bari Atwan, Al-Quds Newspaper: "The denial of Koran not being desecrated by the administration wouldn't actually go very well among the Muslim people simply because Muslims worlds lost trust in the American administration."
Roth asserted: "There have been accusations of abuse from the time American troops began capturing prisoners at Afghanistan more than three years ago, and sending hundreds to Guantanamo Bay. Detainees released in 2003 came home claiming American guards had routinely provoked them by sitting on the Koran, or putting pages in a toilet, an insult not just to an individual, but to a whole faith."
Atwan: "You have actually to respect and preserve this holy book, so to actually flush it in a toilet, this is the maximum insult which can be inflicted on a Muslim."
Roth: "Three Britons released from Guantanamo last year made similar charges. In the past, U.S. officials have dismissed as propaganda the claim the Koran's been desecrated. Today in Afghanistan a spokesman said it would also be wrong."
Colonel James Yonts, U.S. military spokesman: "Any disrespect to the Koran and any other religion is not tolerated by our culture and our values. That goes against our beliefs, and we do not tolerate that."
Roth concluded: "But the issue's touched a nerve, and clerics in Afghanistan are calling for the protest to continue. Richard Roth, CBS News, London."


-- ABC's World News Tonight. Martha Raddatz checked in from the Pentagon: "In the many places where the article caused so much anger, people today were skeptical about the Newsweek admission, feeling the magazine had simply buckled under U.S. government pressure. This man, in Pakistan: 'They are just making an excuse about this news and are trying to hide the truth.' And in Palestinian Gaza, where the articles sparked riots...."
"The Newsweek article was not the first time U.S. personnel have been accused of desecrating the Koran. Last year, this British detainee released from Guantanamo said guards [text on screen] 'would kick the Koran, throw it into the toilet and generally disrespect it.' Others have made similar claims. But none has gotten anything close to the reaction the Newsweek article did."

As Raddatz recited the quote from the former detainee, the on-screen graphic identified him as "Iqbal" and the source as the Center for Constitutional Rights, which is a left wing group.

(Showing the confusion over how to spell, in English, the name of Islam's holy book, the quote from the detainee spelled it "Koran" while the title at the top of ABC's screen declared: "DESECRATING THE QUR'AN.")


-- CNN's Anderson Cooper 360. During a 7pm EDT hour segment with Howard Kurtz from the Washington Post newsroom and CNN terrorism expert Peter Bergen from DC, Cooper proposed: "Is it beyond the realm of possibility that a tactic like this was used? I mean, 60 Minutes reported just recently, one interrogator coming forward saying that, you know, they routinely seem to sort of use religion against some of these prisoners, in one case a woman using fake menstrual blood on a man to sort of defile him. Is it, I mean, is it beyond the realm of possibility?"
Bergen affirmed: "I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility to be honest. It's not just the British detainees who've reported this. Other detainees have reported this. So, you know, I think it's still an open question. I think that there is a great misunderstanding amongst a lot of non-Muslims about how important the Koran is. The Koran is the living word of God. So the Arabic language Koran is such a sacred part of the Muslim culture. And I think a misunderstanding of that has occurred not only at Newsweek but perhaps elsewhere. And that is why we're seeing the reaction we're seeing."


-- ABC's Nightline began with a review of the situation from John Donvan who contended that it is the U.S., not Newsweek, which deserves the wrath the magazine has earned:
"So, what is for sure? Only that credibility can be a hard thing to hold on to. And two parties to this mess are now learning the consequences of lost credibility. One of them is Newsweek. The other is America, in the Muslim world. Newsweek's executives have been out there saying things like this:"
Dan Klaidman on World News Tonight: "Once we've established that we've made a mistake, we decided that the most important thing to do was to get it out there, acknowledge the mistake as quickly as possible."
Donavn: "And all those Americans who believe Newsweek is part of that mainstream media they'll never trust, are just loving this."
Unidentified man on FNC: "You have to look at the editorial chain at Newsweek. Everybody over there practically is a liberal."
Donvan: "But a lot of Newsweek's critics don't really hear or want to hear what these executives are apologizing for. They're not saying that they now know for certain that an incident involving a Koran and a flushed Koran never happened, they're saying they were wrong to report that such an incident will soon be mentioned by army investigators and for basing the claim on just one source who backed off his story. That's a big difference."
Richard Boucher, State Department: "It's appalling, really, that a, an article that's unfounded to begin with, has caused so much harm, including the loss of life."
Donvan, over video of rioting: "It would certainly be convenient to say that all this is Newsweek's fault. The problem is, America also has a credibility problem in the Muslim world. Although the U.S. military on the ground has made serious efforts to show it has learned to respect Islam, deferring to its clerics, avoiding damage to its holy places, except when enemy fighters use them. The humiliations of Abu Ghraib, and the stories detainees bring out of Guantanamo Bay, resonate loudly. Especially when an American who served at Guantanamo, comes out now with a book, saying that he saw insults to Islam."
Eric Saar, co-author, Inside the Wire: "I don't believe there was the proper amount of respect given to Islam, in the camp, especially in the interrogation booth."
Shibley Telhami, University of Maryland: "Every, little incident, that is going to reconfirm people's conceptions, is going to energize opposition and energize resentment of the U.S. That is the problem. It's much bigger than this one incident reported by Newsweek."
Donvan: "Indeed, Newsweek's backing away, has not impressed the Muslin world."
Man, via translator: "It is only pressure on a magazine. Of course, America pressured them."
Donvan: "Where the riots happened in Afghanistan, observes say there were fundamentalist leaders, foreigners, egging them on to the violence. But at bottom people rioted because they find it easy to believe that Americans would insult their faith. Troops who are out there understand that. The BBC radio correspondent in Afghanistan says the U.S. military there is treating this as much more than just a Newsweek problem."
Audio of BBC's Andrew North: "In Afghanistan, at least, it has had, the fact of Abu Ghraib -- it has caused a lot of concern among the U.S. military here about their reputation."
Donvan concluded: "Contrast that with the conclusive-sounding statement made today by Pentagon spokesman, Brian Whitman, to one of the wire services: 'What we know,' he said, 'is that the Newsweek story about a Koran destruction is demonstrably false.' 'Demonstrably false?' At Guantanamo Bay, almost nothing is demonstrable, especially to the Muslim world. It's a secret prison, for good reason, perhaps. But secret. What really goes on at Guantanamo Bay, no one really knows."

Later, anchor Chris Bury brought aboard, via satellite from California, Akbar Ahmed, Chairman of Islamic studies and professor of international relations at the American University.

A Bury/Ahmed exchange:

Bury: "You said that Condoleezza Rice and others in the administration have protested. Do you think the volume of the protests is, perhaps, a bit calculated to deflect some attention away from the policies at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo?"
Ahmed: "I think so. I think there's an element of compensating, if you like....I'm sure christians and jews and people who don't believe in a god, would be outraged that such feelings have been heard across the Muslim world."
Bury: "But given the other abuses, I guess what I'm getting at here is, does Newsweek deserve all the blame assuming that its story was incorrect?"
Ahmed: "No it doesn't because Newsweek deserves all the blame for publishing what is obviously a highly-irresponsible piece of writing...."

source
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 11:13 am
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
An apologist for Saddam Hussein. Typical right wing hysterical rhetoric. Overused to boot.


Well, when the shoe fits ....


You use the term Saddam apologist to describe anyone whose opinion differs from yours and imply that they are "on Saddams side", or defending him.

Wrong. I don't use the term "Saddam apologist" to describe anyone whose opinion differs from mine ... I use it to describe those who defend Saddam or his policies, or who I believe are "on Saddam's side."



BVT wrote:
Here's a little English language 101 for you. If a person is supporting or defending Saddam Hussein or anyone else, they are not apologizing for them, they are rather denying that they did anything wrong. In that context, Bush apologist is much more accurate a statement.

Thanks for the lesson. Here's one for you:

Quote:
a·pol·o·gist Audio pronunciation of "apologist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pl-jst)
n.

A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.[/size]



LINK
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 11:14 am
So again I ask, who here has argued in defense of Saddam. Please be specific.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.16 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 01:45:21