125 Comments

1. David Thomson:

ìIf we lived in a just world this outrage would be the death knell of the unmonitored “anonymous source,” which can often be the instrument of a totalitarian, not a free, press.î

There are very legitimate reasons to support the use of anonymous sources. The baby must not be thrown out with the bath water. Many people would be fearful of telling the truth if their names might be disclosed to their enemies. The problem is that this should be the exception—and not the general rule. Editors must demand that the reporter provide them with as much backup evidence as possible. A cavalier attitude towards using anonymous sources inevitably leads to abuses. We must devise a check and balance system that enables us to reach a proper balance.

May 15, 2005 - 9:31 pm 2. Luther McLeod:

Well done Roger.

May 15, 2005 - 9:43 pm 3. IFOC:

Since there’s no comments on HP (What? Since when? Why didn’t anyone tell me?), I guess I could ask it here.

You mentioned Eason “Checkbook” Jordan and Jayson Blair. But not the biggest one of all: Gunga Dan.

Worried about upsetting Uncle Walter or something?

May 15, 2005 - 9:49 pm 4. lindenen:

Holy crap. You’ve gone over to the dark side.

May 15, 2005 - 9:57 pm 5. Roger:

How could I forget Gunga Dan? Well, I find him so boring it’s hard to finish a sentence with his name in it.

As for going over to the dark side, lindenen, I’m an optimist. You know, one of those people who’s crazy enough to think he can change people’s heads. I’ll go where the heads are.

May 15, 2005 - 10:29 pm 6. Rick Ballard:

Now I’m going to always think of the Huffington Post as a Navy ship. When did you take up plumbing?

May 15, 2005 - 10:37 pm 7. Gary Rosen:

It *is* more serious than Rathergate. People died because of this.

May 15, 2005 - 11:36 pm 8. thibaud:

Bigger than Rathergate, by far. Rather was stopped in his tracks before the damage occurred. Newsweek– the same folks btw who gave us the Hitler’s Diary hoax some years back– is directly responsible for the deaths of innocent people.

Funny also that the standard respectable-lib line against Bush is that he’s “inciting religious war” with his “lies” and “polarizing,” “inflammatory” words and deeds. So now the sophisticated classes have incited religious zealots to slaughter innocents by speading an inflammatory lie.

During the 2004 campaign, Evan Thomas smugly predicted that Newsweek and the MSM would provide enough votes to eject Bush from the White House. Who now will eject Evan Thomas and Michael Isikoff from the MSM? Will my vote be counted? Will the votes of our soldiers count? How about those of a billion muslims, or for that matter decent people of any background who despise lies and cant and hatemongering in the service of personal aggrandizement?

May 15, 2005 - 11:52 pm 9. Doug S.:

Roger, I’ve always been skeptical of The Huffington Post because, well, I’m just very skeptical of Arianna Huffington and anything she touches. But if your presence there allows you to reach a lot of people and at least get them to think about what they think (the precursor to changing one’s mind), well, you’ll be doing some good.

As for Michael Issikoff, whose prospects are distinctly less cheery right now, I think that what happens to him as a result of this catastrophe will serve as a bellweather. In the post you linked, Col. Bay writes about the Watergate mindset in the press, in which one is to presume the worst about the government or at least, the worst about the military. Issikoff has made a good living from digging dirt; I first became aware of him when showed up on cable news to discuss his reporting on l’affaire Lewinsky, and I think he also popped up during the Abu Ghraib fuss. So he is an heir to the post-Watergate, scandalmongering culture. Clearly, living by that mindset has backfired on him here. What will happen to his career as a result?

May 16, 2005 - 12:01 am 10. thibaud:

From FOX: “The scholars called for a resolution mandating anyone found to have abused the Quran (search) to be punished,” said Maulawi Abdul Wali Arshad, head of the religious affairs department in Badakhshan province

How about a fatwa against anyone found to have lied about abuses of the Quran?

May 16, 2005 - 12:16 am 11. someone:

Well, Newsweek et al. deserve a beating for this, but it’s not bigger than Rathergate. Bush losing the election would’ve been a far, far bigger problem than a few fatal riots.

Meanwhile, who’s going to tell the rioting Muslims to get the f*** over it? Christians didn’t go on a killing spree when Muslim terrorist scum used Bibles for toilet paper while defiling the Church of the Naitivity. (Hindus, of course, tend to be more sensitive.) Frankly, this whole episode — even the media beating — seems to be about reinforcing dhimmi reflexes, and it makes me ill.

May 16, 2005 - 1:04 am 12. LifeTrek:

Strange How It’s The Same Story

Isn’t it strange that we get the same excuse from the media that we got during the Rathergate story:

“Obviously we all feel horrible about what flowed from this, but it’s important to remember there was absolutely no lapse in journalistic standards here,” he said. “We relied on sources we had every reason to trust and gave the Pentagon ample opportunity to comment. . . .(WaPost via Roger Simon)

That is exactly the same story we heard from the media and the left about the Rathergate story and their unimpeachable source:

Half an hour later, Roberts called “60 Minutes” producer Mary Mapes with word that Bartlett was not challenging the authenticity of the documents. (HT:Wizbang)

May 16, 2005 - 1:56 am 13. Joseph (formerly Samuel):

I literally got sick to my stomach when it became obvious the crossing the line this story did and the resulting tragedies that occurred and will even continue to occur. The problem is that the mentality of the people in the Media (MSM and Hollywood) and the cynicism they share concerning politics and this President leads to a zealotry that inspires itchy trigger fingers to confirm their biases and influence others of the same. While this is at least as disastrous as Abu Gharib, it indeed was hatched and inspired from the same spirit that inspired Rathergate.

The tragic irony that is evidently lost (or worse not lost) on these people is the fact that they become even more guilty of the very things they claim their supposed political enemies are guilty of, creating division, alienation and ill will with other nations. They brand our President in the most cynical characterizations and the try to prejudice every story to show the United States and/or this War as some ill-conceived crusade with very questionable motives. Yes many talk about how President Bush and his “unilateral ways” has hurt us in our relationships in the world, yet they endeavor to feed and satisfy these prejudices and characterizations to the hilt by employing the very means used by CBS (Dan Rather) and now Newsweek(Michael Isikoff).

When I hear George Lucas declaring how Vietnam is being repeated in Iraq and then witness Lucas placing President Bush’s declaration of “If you are not with us you are against us…” in slightly altered form but with clear intended reference to his words into the mouth of DARTH VADER,…GIVE ME A BREAK! These people can’t even identify who the enemy is! Yes history is repeating itself with the left and the MSM but hopefully not with all. By this logic in the 1980’s Reagan almost destroyed the world and we were lucky to have survived him. Many of us who did not vote for Reagan have learned some lessons since then, but unfortunatly many have not yet it is quite simple… If 911 wasn’t enough to change you, then you probably never will.

May 16, 2005 - 2:06 am 14. Joseph (formerly Samuel):

I will amend the following…

If 911 wasn’t enough to change you, then you probably never will.

with…

until something of disasterous proportions I would even hate to contemplate occurs.

May 16, 2005 - 2:27 am 15. Captain Hate:

The wagon-circling has begun: The Plain Dealer buried this on page 8. Funny, that’s not where Abu-Ghraib went, was it? Guess it’s time to Moveon, right??

May 16, 2005 - 3:38 am 16. David Thomson:

ìIf 911 wasn’t enough to change you, then you probably never will.î

The Democrat Party national leadership is devoted in continuing to support such an individualís childishly immature delusions. It tells them what they prefer to hear. As matter of fact, we all would like to believe that there isnít a real worldwide terrorist threat. I personally wish to God that this life and death struggle was actually a con game played on us by Bush-Hitler, Dick Cheney, and the Halliburton corporation. Our lives would be so much simpler. Alas, mature adults are not allowed to run away from their responsibilities.

It also finally dawned on me that Joseph Lieberman is no longer a leader in the national Democratic Party. He is merely a high profile US senator from Connecticut. The national Democrats refuse to give him the time of day. Lieberman has virtually no chance of ever winning that partyís presidential nomination. This man has been effectively marginalized. Lieberman should seriously consider joining the Republican Party.

May 16, 2005 - 3:44 am 17. HA:

Roger,

We relied on sources we had every reason to trust

That was then, this is now. And NOW, they have every reason NOT to trust these “sources” – as in plural. NOW, Newsweek has every reason to bust these sources.

As Atrios once said: “A source lies to you, and you find it out, you burn him. Period.”

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_06_20_atrios_archive.html#108816699016763698

It is incumbent upon Newseek to reveal ALL these sources and disclose ALL stories in the past that were based on information provided by these sources.

Newsweek has an moral, ethical and professional obligation to reveal to its readers whether their so-called “journalism” based on anonymous sources was in fact DISINFORMATION designed to advance an agenda.

May 16, 2005 - 4:37 am 18. Kyda Sylvester:

“Obviously we all feel horrible about what flowed from this, but it’s important to remember there was absolutely no lapse in journalistic standards here,”…

But, Mr. Isikoff, it’s your journalistic “standards” that are the problem. And, call me a cynic, but I think the only thing you “feel horrible” about is the giant shitstorm that’s raining down on you.

May 16, 2005 - 4:43 am 19. Peg C.:

Roger, you’re writing for HuffyPuffy? Please point us to your posts so those of us avoiding the site will know.

NEWSWEEK and Isikoff have 15 deaths on their heads and should suffer accordingly. As for anonymous sources, I’ve stopped reading anything that relies on them. The ratio of agenda to truth is way too high.

May 16, 2005 - 5:11 am 20. Richard of Boone:

My wife and I have decided to cancel our subscription to Newsweek because of this scandal–a weak word. (We justified our subscription by saying that it was our window on popular ” culture.”

Does anyone know how we can ensure that the reason for our cancellation is made known to the powers at the magazine?

May 16, 2005 - 5:17 am 21. APC:

Roger Roger Roger,

This Newsweek fiaco just reinforces the fact that these mainstream media types really aren’t very bright. They may be glib, fast writers. But, they are not well educated enough to have any perspective on what they are writing about or on what the consequences are of what they are writing about. They are products of the now entrenched post-Viet Nam educational system. You know, the one where major universities give full professorships to fellows with only masters degrees from correspondence trade schools. They are citizens of the world. No value judgements please. That wouldn’t be fair, now would it? I truly believe that these reporters are still perplexed that anything they could write would or could serve any purpose other than a political one here in the USA.

I bet the Newsweeks reporters reaction to the phone call from up high was. “Oh c’mon, get real! We were only trying to tweak a reaction against the military and the President. What’s the problem?!!”

Keep up the good work.

May 16, 2005 - 5:46 am 22. dougf:

Newsweek has not apologised for this egregious error.They have merely stated that perhaps they might not be able to substantiate their charges.At this time.

What if 1 lone doofus somewhere in some US holding facility is found to have,once,done something similar to this? Does that make it OK for Newsweek to act as a propaganda outlet for Fanatical Islamists?Let me be more blunt;if Afghansitan were to blow up completely causing a withdrawl of US forces and the return of Islamic Nutbars to power,would that be too high a price for Newsweek’s perfidy?At what point in a WAR,is self-regulation(by a tendentious,defeatist elite),no longer an acceptable solution to an ongoing problem?

May 16, 2005 - 6:08 am 23. handy:

Ijust can’t wait for ABC News to unleash it’s reporters on the Newsweek Lied People Died story.

Just as soon as they finish the very important and news worthy American idol investigation.

May 16, 2005 - 6:09 am 24. steve sturm:

Just as there were those who advised caution before indicting the entire Bush Administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib, we ought to wait and see before indicting the entire MSM over this incident. If not, if we insist on seeing every media scandal as being representative of liberal media bias, we’re not really any different from those on the left who see the evil hand of Karl Rove in everything. I’m not saying that the media is not liberal and biased, just that we need more information on this particular episode before including it in the archives. Full post here at Thoughtsonline

May 16, 2005 - 6:17 am 25. HA:

Steven Sturm,

we ought to wait and see before indicting the entire MSM over this incident

This is not about one incident. Unlike Abu Ghraib, this is about a systematic pattern of Gramsci inspired anti-Americanism on the part of the dominant media.

May 16, 2005 - 6:26 am 26. richard mcenroe:

Richard of Boone ó Little Green Footballs published a good list of Newsweek e-mail contact points yesterday.

May 16, 2005 - 6:50 am 27. Cousin Dave:

Roger: I think this is much, much bigger than Rathergate, and I haven’t yet seen anyone really address the reason why (although I haven’t had time to go read the Austin Bay article yet). In Rathergate, we had an example of powerful media people trying to manipulate an election. Reprehensible, certainly. But no one got physically injured because of it, as far as I know.

This Newsweek article is another matter. Newsweek knew, or had to have known (after all, they are high-level professional journalists, and the principle of criminally gross negligence has to apply), that (a) their story was not substantiatable, and (b) it would lead to deaths of American servicemen. In publishing it, they crossed over the line from ordinary left-wing snobbishness, and into Lord Haw Haw / Tokyo Rose territory. They willfully and actively propogandized on behalf of the enemy, and their actions led directly to American deaths. I contend that this greatly exceeds the scope of the First Amendment, and that Michael Isikoff and others at Newsweek should be facing both criminal and civil charges. It’s also possible that Newsweek itself can and should face charges under the RICO act as an ongoing criminal enterprise.

Am I out of line here? If no action of this type is taken, I’m afraid that we are just going to see more frequent and bare-faced media actions of this type, as they realize that here is a way that they can take direct action to change the course of the war in the enemy’s favor. Otherwise, if this sort of thing is allowed to go on too long, I’m afraid some future President will be forced to take drastic action in terms of suspending First Amendment rights and imposing universal censorship. And then we’ll all be sorry.

May 16, 2005 - 7:10 am 28. richard mcenroe:

Letters@newsweek.com

Editors@newsweek.com

publisher Ed McCarrick

212 445 4000

May 16, 2005 - 7:10 am 29. IFOC:

Egad, now Lampley’s calling you out.

Three words: “standing eight count.”

May 16, 2005 - 7:29 am 30. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

Berkshire Hathaway owns about 20% of The Washington Post Company…I wonder how Waren Buffett feels about this?

I also notice that Melinda Gates makes an appearance under “Insider & Rule 144 Holders”.

May 16, 2005 - 7:44 am 31. ed:

Hmmm.

It’s not mentioned here but Howard Kurtz is supposedly titled a “media critic”. Funny how he never has any criticism for his friends, allies and employers.

Frankly Newsweek needs a serious slapping down on this. The MSM has played fast and loose with ethics for years but now people’s lives are on the line and it has got to end. If Newsweek escapes with minimal damage then this is going to happen again, or worse.

May 16, 2005 - 7:51 am 32. Kevin P:

Roger:

Lampley is the moron who tried to tell us that because the vegas bookies had kerry favored going into election day that was “Proof” that Kerry actually beat Bush. Issikoff borrowed Lampley’s standards for verifying this story. They have been trying to make Gitmo into Abu Ghraib for years and now they are using Abu Ghraib to defend this story. Howard Fineman, normally a decent guy, stated something along the lines of, ‘Well

May 16, 2005 - 7:53 am 33. Ripper:

Anyway notice that Newsweek is still pandering to Islam by referring to the Qu’ran instead of the Koran? Do we refer to Vienna as Wien?

May 16, 2005 - 7:55 am 34. Robert Heller:

Perhaps it is time that the American public, who are so ill served by their media through misinformation, misrepresentation and sometimes, as in this most recent case, defamed, started to hold them to account in the American tradition of a class action lawsuit.

The citizen should not care about the ‘protected sources’, only that the facts are as reported and that the reporter is willing to stand behind their reporting by being willing to place their assets on the line.

Heck, that’s cheaper than their lives.

And how many lives has the media really cost with their reporting ? Civilian and military alike ? Or is this a question we dare not ask ?

May 16, 2005 - 8:03 am 35. mojo:

There’s plenty of blame to go around here. Yeah, Newsweek jumped the gun and ran an unverified story. They’re a weekly, and worried about the story getting stale. Wrong, but understandable.

But let’s not forget that the rioters carry some blame too – for breing religous zealots who value a book more than human life.

May 16, 2005 - 8:05 am 36. The Scrutinator:

Newsweek sends you an article … You never heard anything about this but Newsweek claims to have a source who has. And you do not know who the source is and you don’t know what he’s seen. Do you deny or do you wait?

Reminds me of the whole Area 51/Alien Autopsy business. “Your silence means you have a spaceship! Your denials prove it!”

May 16, 2005 - 8:19 am 37. Lola:

We have a subscription to Newsweek but we won’t be renewing.

I wonder, what more can be done to crack down on such irresponsible reporting? This definitely wouldn’t have happened during World War II – remember “loose lips sink ships”?

May 16, 2005 - 8:23 am 38. Lola:

Just called the phone number for Ed McCarrick and apparently they’re getting a high volume of phone calls. Left my message that I won’t be resubscribing, yadda, we’re upset about the irresponsible reporting and would like to see real consequences. Whoever answered the phone said the message would be passed on to the editors.

May 16, 2005 - 8:31 am 39. thibaud:

Remember when Bush the Crude Christian Simpleton was castigated for using the word “crusade”?

Looks like Newsweek decided to see his crusade and raise him a Piss Koran.

May 16, 2005 - 8:41 am 40. Kevin P:

Roger:

In his defense of Newsweek Lampley ignores almost all of the specifics of the story and just defends sourcing in the abstract. If I have a story that Lamply prefers ketchup instead of mustard on his hot dogs the quality of my source is not that important. If I have a story that Jim is a child molester I better have the story locked dowwn hard before I run with it.

Lamply borrows the weak excuse of other papers had run the story. Well these papers do not have the same influence or the reputation, now tarnished, that Newsweek has. Newsweek and Lampley are contributing to the demise of the MSM by lowering their standards of proof and thus justifying the mistrust of the press that many Americans have. By jumping to the defense of News week with such a flacid defense Lamply shows that his desire to smear the American Milatary is greater then his desire for the integrity of journalism

Lamply swallows whole the concept that if the Pentagon didn’t say it was false then that makes it true. The contact at the Pentagon wasn’t going to deny the story until he had solid proof that it was false. He was going to do what journalists should do by not jumping to conclusions without knowing all the facts. Newsweek has turned I don’t know into a confirmation of the truth.Once again Lamply helps in the lowering of the journalistic standards.

This was a huge story. If Newsweek is trying to say that they did not know the outrage and violence that this was going to cause then they have not been reading their own magazine the last two years.This makes them culturaly retarded, the charge that they often smugly accuse the Bush administration of being. The fact that this story has helped the terrorists in their recruiting campaign and that their too late apologies will take many years and cause countless deaths to American soldiers until the truth slowly makes it way to the middle east. The fact that Lamply is more concerned with defending his colleague who botched this story royally and doesn’t give a rip about the deaths it has already caused and the deaths that are going to follow because of it says a lot about what Jimmy boy’s priorities are.

May 16, 2005 - 8:55 am 41. charlotte:

I wonder how Muslims square their paranoia over our so-called Jewish controlled media with the fact that most of our news organizations cater to Muslim sensibilities and serve up juicy anti-American tidbits and hearty red meat to our enemies?

Then again, Isikoff’s report could have been a Zionist plot to discredit and kill Muslims by triggering them into frenzied, bloodlusty rampages. (I’m surprised chagrinned clerics and the Arab press haven’t come up with that one, yet. But I suppose the surprise would be their ever becoming chagrinned over any outrageous Muslim behavior, including their own.)

May 16, 2005 - 9:05 am 42. Peg C.:

First Olbermann and now Lampley. Is every sports reporter/caster braindead?

Isikoff is guilty of treason, in my opinion.

May 16, 2005 - 9:12 am 43. yama-arashi:

This story strikes me as very similar to the Rather debacle. In both cases the reporters/producers/editors were fishing for “evidence” to support long circulating rumors from the Left. They believed and all that was stopping them was evidence. Mapes spent five years searching. Newsweek has also probably been at this for a long time too. When a reporter/MSM lets it be known that they need something to make a story go, surprise, surprise that someone, somewhere cranks out that certain something on a computer or as an anonymous source provides some vague kind of confirmation of said rumor. I think this is standard fare these days. The MSM: believe anything anti-Bush or anti-troops first, let it be known the need for evidence to confirm the rumor, and then let yourself be duped. And finally, find yourself being defended by Kos and Lampley. Sad, but also hilarious.

May 16, 2005 - 9:18 am 44. Phantom Stranger:

O

I googled Michael Isikoff and Isikoff. Here’s what I got (although this will certainly change very soon).

The lead story is

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek/

‘More Distortions From Michael Moore’

criticizing Moore for F911.

I also got a few bios.

Then I got a story from Moore firing back at Isikoff.

I also got a review from Isikoff of Blumenthal’s book in Slate. Isikoff lambast’s Blumenthal

‘Sid Blumenthal rearranges facts and besmirches the character of his fellow journalists.’

The book, of course, sought to defend Clinton.

I also got an article describing how he took his story on the Lewinsky scandal from the Wash. Post (which refused to print it) to Newsweek, which broke it.

I also got several articles by left wingers viciously attacking him for his role in breaking the Lewinsky scandal, even referring to him as Starr’s stooge.

Now I did get one article from a left-winger

http://www.kafka.com/politics/2005/01/michael-isikoff-on-death-squads.php

which itself linked to a Newsweek article about Special forces squads in Iraq. However, Isikoff did not write the original story and is not credited anywhere in the story so the link attributing this to him is incorrect.

So we have here someone who uncovered very damaging stories about the Clinton administration. It would indeed be hard to classify someone like this as a left-winger, but then right-wingers never let little things like reason and logic get in their way.

I think Isikoff screwed up. Yet, that was a 10 line story in which the Koran reference is 1 line. The real blame should go to the demagogues in Pakistan and Afghanistan who exploited this story.

May 16, 2005 - 9:21 am 45. Buddy Larsen:

I quit NewsWeek/NewSpeak two or three years ago. Like an earlier commenter, I found value in the culture-window. But the last few years have seen the magazine become so talking-pointededly predictable, so buffed-and-honed into a mass-consumerized stylized standard agitprop-lite, that there’s been no reason–other than keeping current on the week’s truth-masking phrases–for anyone to any longer in any way bother with the damn thing.

This latest propaganda backfire is no surprise to anyone who catches their Eleanor Clift on TV. She’s nothing more than a deliberate propagandist for the Dean/Kerry/Kennedy faction of American politics–the faction that regards the citizenry as nothing more than wards of The Government, and The Government as nothing more than something they want to control.

Terrorism/shmerrorism. This is just “Bush’s War” (which he somehow started in 1979). 911? An attempted decapitation of the American governmental, military, and financial systems? A war that lost is the end of western culture?

Ahh, get over it, shut up; all that matters is control of DC patronage.

May 16, 2005 - 9:23 am 46. Phantom Stranger:

‘This was a huge story. If Newsweek is trying to say that they did not know the outrage and violence that this was going to cause then they have not been reading their own magazine the last two years.’

That was probably why they put the item down as a 1-liner in a 10-line item. Exactly the way a huge story would be treated.

It is a little amusing to see the wingnuts here being unable to decide whether to blame Newsweek or to blame the Muslicm radicals since they can’t decide whom they hate more.

May 16, 2005 - 9:23 am 47. erp:

Let’s not allow the left to play the Moral Equivalency Card yet another time. There is no comparison between events at Abu Gharib and the Newsweek article.

At Abu Gharib, only the feelings of prisoners, most of whom are despicable murderers of innocents, were hurt, while the false accusations in Newsweek magazine caused 17 innocent people to lose their lives. Where does the responsibility for these deaths lie? What happened to the vaunted team of editors and fact-checkers that make sure every article meets journalistic standards for ethics and accuracy? Lucky for us, these same high standards aren’t imposed on the blogosphere or we’d never learn the truth.

Newsweek editors are really out of touch if they think there would be indignation across the land because pages of a book were flushed down the toilet in effort to get prisoners to tell us what we need to know to fight terrorism. I don’t think most Americans, other than the lunatic left, of course, would have a problem with it.

Caution: The spin has begun. Just heard on the radio news that the rioting was probably caused by increasing anti-American feeling rather than the Newsweek article. Also on the newscast, the Oil for Food scandal was referred to as an international Watergate.

More moral equivalency. The U.N. may be literally taking food out of the mouths of babes, taking bribes, raping and pillaging, but no matter how evil are their deeds, leftoids can always pull Nixon or McCarthy out of their hats to remind us who the really, really bad guys are.

May 16, 2005 - 9:31 am 48. Buddy Larsen:

Maybe you’re right, Phantom Stranger…maybe it IS an even-handed magazine. I guess I ought to do more research before I unload.

May 16, 2005 - 9:35 am 49. Buddy Larsen:

You’re right about the spin, erp. And further, even giving them the point that the Koran story only lit the fuse of a latent bomb, NewsWeek-type political anti-Bush partisanship is and has been busily building such latent bombs all over the propaganda WAR ZONE, ever since November 2000.

May 16, 2005 - 9:49 am 50. Katherine:

I do not recall her name, but recently there was a televised interview with a lady who worked on national security issues for Clinton administration. In this interview she expressed her horror over the possibility that Bushís foreign policy (i.e. democratization of Afghanistan and Iraq) might be successful because it could prove that Bush was right and force the reevaluation of his current characterization as the Evil McChimp Bushitler. At one point in the interview the lady expressed hope that things may still blow up in these two freshly liberated countries.

I think that she was not the only one hoping that something horrific would happen so that she can preserve her precious worldview.

We should not be surprised at the actions of Newsweek. Our media ìelitesî are on a real crusade – to get their guiding principles validated, minor details, such as death, suffering, enslavement of other people, be damned.

May 16, 2005 - 9:54 am 51. Phantom Stranger:

The U.N. may be literally taking food out of the mouths of babes, taking bribes, raping and pillaging,

I don’t think you literally mean literally

But yup, the UN is definitely corrupt. So unlike the Allawi Iraqi transitional government which somehow managed to lose 100s of millions of dollars of reconstruction and oil money.

I fully criticize the UN for OFF, but the way in which the wingnuts never manage to criticize some of the money lost and mis-managed (running into billions) in the post-iraq war reconsutrction. Oil for Food is a scandal, and it should be pursued. But somehow the corruption scandals in Iraq in the last year or so (Iraqi people count corruption as their number 1 or 2 problem) never seems to get to them. This despite the fact that a lot of American money was involved (unlike OFF, which involved Iraqi money).

And despite the bribery, the UN did manage to feed over 50-80% of the population in Iraq in OFF.

May 16, 2005 - 10:02 am 52. Buddy Larsen:

Very reasonable post, PStranger. But, where do you get this information? Hope it’s not from NewsWeek!

May 16, 2005 - 10:12 am 53. Sandy P:

–(Iraqi people count corruption as their number 1 or 2 problem) –

Yes, until the Americans came there was no corruption.

Isn’t that just business over there? Actually most places?

May 16, 2005 - 10:13 am 54. Susan:

Oh I don’t know Buddy,

Maybe Phantom Stranger needs to do some more research before he unoads. Calling other posters wingnuts and rightwingers before he really knows the politics of those who post here only shows that he hasn’t been here much. Like a lot of you I happened to be a registered Democrat who’s voted that way for 20+ years.

As far as Newsweek goes, I don’t remember Isikoff’s history there as a writer, but the magazine itself has been sliding more and more left for a while. Once I realized that they were flat out ignoring important stories I could take no more and cancelled my subscription.

Now, tell me more about the kind of logic and reasoning that would equate Clinton’s shenanigans with trashing the military during a time of war since everyone here is so devoid of it.

May 16, 2005 - 10:16 am 55. Kevin P:

Phantom:

Very clever rationalazation PS. The story was small because it was only one line. When I said the story was huge it was because any moron who has been watching the reaction of the ME to this type of story would know what the resulting reaction would be. When the rumour was spread in Russian media and british media it did not carry the same wieght that it did in Newsweek. Look at what happened when that “one line’ was printed.It wasn’t just the arab street. It was virtually every ME government and all Arab organizations that are calling for investigations, apologies, and some for revenge.I can write a poorly sourced rumour on rogers blog and nothing will happen because I do not carry any weight in the world.What Newsweek prints has reprecussions.Look at what happened. Did certain ME leaders take advantage of the “one line” to whip up the riot , of course. But Newsweek had to know that this “one line” was going to cause an explosion and it did. Count the Bodies PS. Newsweek was more concerned about a potential scoop then they were about any reprecussions that might have followed. Unless Newsweek it going to use ignorance and stupidity as a defense they have no leg to stand on. The MSM has decided that they never have to take into consideration the results that may follow what they print.They didn’t pin down the lone source and make him provide anything other then a vague “I think the report is going to say this” without getting the source to provide anything other then his recollections as evidence. People have died already from their mistake and our soldiers have been put in a even more dangerous position then they already were in to begin with. This “one line” is going to become gospel in the middle east and no amount of Oops, sorry about that is going to repair the damage. If you do not think this story is big just read the reactions that are happening all over the middle east and count the bodies PS.

May 16, 2005 - 10:20 am 56. Buddy Larsen:

Well, Susan, you couldn’t be more right…er, ‘correct’…insofar as Monica, there’s really no way a news weekly could ignore THAT one. Sometimes ya get trapped and the only way out is the bandwagon, eh?

May 16, 2005 - 10:28 am 57. Susan:

Oops, sorry Buddy,

I hope you realized that my last snarky comment was meant for the Phantom. I’m normally a devoted lurker around here, but this story just hit a nerve. I’m only amazed it hasn’t happened before.

I’m with Jeff Jarvis on this one concerning the newsworthiness of the story in general. What was the point even if it were true? What is the media’s role here?

OT: Austin Bay was just on MSNBC and he did mention Roger as a good source for the story.

May 16, 2005 - 11:01 am 58. markus:

The goal of many screaming about this is to “further intimidate the press from seeking the truth about what the government is doing in the war on terror”, as Sullivan puts it.

I’d put you in the catagory of intimidators, Roger.

From what I’ve seen so far, the real outrage is that Newsweek has been cowed into apologizing. The key fact is that they ran the story by the Pentagon before publishing it, and didn’t give a shit until the blood started spilling in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Or so it would appear from reading the following paragraph in today’s Washington Post article:

“[Editor Mark Whitaker] said that a senior Pentagon official, for reasons that “are still a little mysterious to us,” had declined to comment after Newsweek correspondent John Barry showed him a draft before the item was published and asked, “Is this accurate or not?” Whitaker added that the magazine would have held off had military spokesmen made such a request. That official “lacked detailed knowledge” of the investigative report, Newsweek now says. Whitaker said Pentagon officials raised no objection to the story for 11 days after it was published, until it was translated by some Arab media outlets and led to the rioting.”

WHY DIDN’T THE SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIAL DO HIS JOB AND VERIFY THE ACCURACY OR INACCURACY OF THE ALLEGATIONS? That dog SHOULD hunt.

May 16, 2005 - 11:02 am 59. Sandy P:

– also got several articles by left wingers viciously attacking him for his role in breaking the Lewinsky scandal, even referring to him as Starr’s stooge.–

So Isikoff broke the blue dress not Drudge? Learn something new every day.

May 16, 2005 - 11:05 am 60. Freelance Guy:

Since bloggers love the idea that their readers provide corrections, let me offer one. On the Huffington post, R.S. mentioned that bloggers brought down Jayson Blair. What? Is that a joke? Bloggers had absolutely NOTHING to do with Jayson Blair’s resignation. The San Antonio newspaper alerted Times editors to possible problems with a Blair story on a P.O.W. From there, the Times (not bloggers) assigned a team of reporters to investigate Blair’s stories. That team produced the famous Sunday piece that eviscerated Blair and the editing that allowed him to operate like he did. From there, he resigned. Again, bloggers had NOTHING to do with his resignation. It was the team of hated “msm” reporters at the Times who exposed him for what he was. Howell Raines? You could make more of an argument there, but not much more. It was mostly the national outrage, and people on sites such as Romenesko (which is populated by msm reporters), coupled with people inside the Times, that led to his resignation.

It’s all detailed in the book “Hard News.” I know bloggers like taking credit for everything – they did invent the internet, right? – but please correct this.

As for the newsweek story, the allegations that were in that one line appeared in several other news organizations in the past year. Why was there no rioting then? And if those words led to the deaths of 15 people, where is your outrage over words such as “Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” “links between Saddam and Osama” that have led to the deaths of 1,600 americans and how many Iraqis?

By the way, people did die at Abu Grahib. So is it that hard to believe that they might throw some pieces of paper down a toilet? If they’re killing people, why wouldn’t they throw something down the toilet?

May 16, 2005 - 11:07 am 61. common_cents:

Kevin P

Although the “story” was one line it was extensivly hyped by Newsweak.

Periodically (daily?), Newsweak hypes its own stories by sending blast e mails to all other major media outlets.

This “story” was boldly featured and extensively hyped as an exclusive in Newsweak’s blast e mail to the other media outlets.

It is by no random chance that it was picked up world wide and featured. Newsweak wanted it to be picked up and featured. It was, with predictable results.

May 16, 2005 - 11:07 am 62. Rick Ballard:

“WHY DIDN’T THE SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIAL DO HIS JOB AND VERIFY THE ACCURACY OR INACCURACY OF THE ALLEGATIONS? That dog SHOULD hunt.”

Nope. Head on over to the nearest prison and take down a list of allegations concerning wrongdoings that led to an “unjust imprisonment”. Should every judge be required to confirm or deny every allegation?

Show me a Pentagon job description or procedure manual that states that it is a duty to respond forthwith to any allegation raised by Jimbo the journo. Journos create stories every day of the week based upon denials – why should any official respond to a journalist with other than “no comment” unless he is absolutely sure of the facts? The dope at the Pentagon made an error in his response but not the same error at all as Newsweek made in publishing unsubstantiated allegations made by terrorists whose training manual actually contains directions on how to scam the dimwits in the press.

I’ll grant that – based upon Isikoff’s version – the Pentagon fellow is stupid at a level that requires dismissal but the responsibility ball stays in Newsweek’s court. The Pentagon didn’t publish this trash.

May 16, 2005 - 11:15 am 63. PeterUK:

Time to invoke Dennis the Peasants Law,”If it brings them out from under the bridge it is true and damaging to their side”

May 16, 2005 - 11:15 am 64. Lola:

Well . . . now the White House wants a retraction . . .

http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050516/ap_on_re_us/newsweek_quran/nc:716;_ylt=ApVbaMfRuv4dlshXv0e6YKt34T0D;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

And what if Newsweek refuses to do so? I guess the reporters can be barred from future press conferences and whatnot.

May 16, 2005 - 11:24 am 65. Steve J.:

Pentagon: No Abuse of Koran, Afghan Protests Unrelated

By Al Pessin

Pentagon

Voice of America

12 May 2005

Link

General Myers also told reporters at the Pentagon Thursday that the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General Carl Eichenberry, disagrees with the reports that protests in the city of Jalalabad were caused by anger over the alleged Koran incident.

“It is the judgment of our commander in Afghanistan, General Eichenberry, that in fact the violence that we saw in Jalalabad was not necessarily the result of the allegations about disrespect for the Koran, but more tied up in the political process and the reconciliation process that President Karzai and his cabinet are conducting in Afghanistan. He thought it was not at all tied to the article in the magazine,” he explained.

May 16, 2005 - 11:25 am 66. Les Nessman:

“WHY DIDN’T THE SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIAL DO HIS JOB AND VERIFY THE ACCURACY OR INACCURACY OF THE ALLEGATIONS?”

It isn’t his job to verify anything for the press. Period.

It is the job of the Press to verify their story. They’re the ones making the accusations; it’s up to them to prove it.

May 16, 2005 - 11:27 am 67. markus:

Rick and Les — seems to me that a major part, perhaps THE major part, of verifying the allegations would be contacting the Pentagon and getting their feedback.

And keep in mind, we are talking a SENIOR Pentagon official.

I’d like to get to the bottom of this story. And that means everybody not concerned with the truth of the matter — mostly, those who feel that any news that paints the U.S. in a bad light is treasonous, on one side, and those more concerned with pr crisis management on the other — should be quiet in the meantime.

Too many people here don’t give a DAMN about objectivity. They were pro-US and anti-US bias as badges of honor.

May 16, 2005 - 11:37 am 68. Cousin Dave:

Markus: Given the timing involved in Newsweek’s publication, the story had to have already gone to press before the Pentagon was contacted. That part was either an ass-covering attempt on someone’s part (”Sure, we gave the Pentagon a response to comment, and they didn’t”), or a gotcha attempt (”If you don’t immediately deny it, that proves it’s true, and if you do deny it, that proves you’re lying”). Given that, there is nothing anyone in the Pentagon, up to an including Rumsfeld himself, that would have changed the story that Newsweek ran one iota.

Furthermore, even if it is true: so what?

May 16, 2005 - 11:42 am 69. flenser:

markus

“And keep in mind, we are talking a SENIOR Pentagon official.”

How do you know this? Are you simply accepting Newsweeks word?

Bear in mind that in the CBS memomess, Burkett was desrcibed as an “unimpeachable” source. The presumption has to be that these anonymous sources are unreliable or non-existent.

May 16, 2005 - 11:44 am 70. Cousin Dave:

I most humbly suggest a very simple future standard for the MSM for all stories involving the Mideast. Before you publish, ask yourself: what will Al-Jazzera do with this? If they will pick it up, you better make damn sure it’s true.

May 16, 2005 - 11:45 am 71. Kevin P:

Freelance:

‘So is it hard to believe that they might throw some pieces of paper down a toilet?”

So this is your new standard for journalism. Imagination and exploring the possibilities as oppossed to actually verifying the truth and making sure when the charge is explosive that you go beyond the normal standards, not sink below them. News reporters as novelists. Great idea! Instead of “All the News thats Fit to Print” we will have “News that We Think is in the Realm of Possibility” Or “What do you think of this, Sound Plausable?”

May 16, 2005 - 12:00 pm 72. Rick Ballard:

Markus,

You have no way of knowing what Isikoff regards as a “senior” level. It could be a GS-12 Clinton hire with a teeny grudge because he knows there will be no advancement. The byliners Roldexes are chock full of twits impressed by the byline. Unless Isikoff identifies the source “senior” is meaningless.

Where does objectivity come into play when the initial source is peddling a book that is just allegations that he translated – not events that he actually saw? Truth generally means verifiable facts. Where are the names and dates concerning the incident?

Journos peddle advertising – that’s what they are paid to do. Don’t dress them up as valiant searchers for truth. It just makes people laugh.

May 16, 2005 - 12:00 pm 73. Bruce W.:

“We’re not saying it absolutely happened but we can’t say that it absolutely didn’t happen either.”

— Dan Rather or a NewsWeek editor in a recent interview?

Answer: Yes.

May 16, 2005 - 12:05 pm 74. markus:

Rick Ballard — It is true, Iskoff could be lying about the “senior official.” But I’m assuming that since Newsweek has now dropped its drawers and fully assumed the bend-over position, it would not further dig itself into a hole by lying about contacting an actual senior official when in fact it really didn’t.

Cousin Dave –

“Given the timing involved in Newsweek’s publication, the story had to have already gone to press before the Pentagon was contacted.”

If so, I’ll share your outrage against Newsweek.

But after Abu Ghraib, and after the documented killings while in custody elsewhere — we are no longer in “did you beat your wife” territory with these allegations. And given the Administration’s contentious relationship with press people that don’t grovel, NOT hearing back from a senior official — both before and after the story was published — would seem to legitimately suggest that the Pentagon didn’t care about or didn’t have a problem with the story.

“I most humbly suggest a very simple future standard for the MSM for all stories involving the Mideast. Before you publish, ask yourself: what will Al-Jazzera do with this? If they will pick it up, you better make damn sure it’s true.”

Who care what Al-Jazzera does? Print it if it’s true. Ax it if its false. Consider the question of who benefits short or long-tem to be irrelevant. Act like the Israeli media, who know a thing or two about respecting press freedoms in a nation under attack by terrorists. This isn’t Russia or Syria for god sake.

May 16, 2005 - 12:07 pm 75. thibaud:

I’m assuming that since Newsweek has now dropped its drawers and fully assumed the bend-over position

Lots of assumptions there. But my, such a way with words!

May 16, 2005 - 12:17 pm 76. thibaud:

Jeff Jarvis has the best riposte to the above. In Jeff’s words http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2005_05_15.html#009685

“An incident such as this should force us to ask what the end result of journalism should be. Is it to expose anything we can expose? Is it to beat the other guy to tell you something you didn’t know? Or is it to tell the truth?

And if you don’t know it to be true, is it reporting? If you rely on unnamed sources and unconfirmed reports, is it journalism?

To sum up journalism as “tell the truth” sounds so damned simplistic. But that is what journalism is about, isn’t it? Or shouldn’t it be? I’m not saying that Newsweek lied. But they didn’t know the truth before they said what they said. They put the gotcha scoop ahead of the truth and ahead of nothing less than the good of mankind.

May 16, 2005 - 12:20 pm 77. Rick Ballard:

Thibaud,

I’d settle for “report the pertinent facts”. If they want to print accusations and allegations, fine. Certain allegations require investigation. It is fair to ask that the source of allegations or accusations be named and that those providing corroboration or denial be named.

The Bill of Rights that the journos love to wrap themselves in enumerates the right to know and face your accuser at law. They must skip that part in jschool.

May 16, 2005 - 12:39 pm 78. PeterUK:

“But after Abu Ghraib, and after the documented killings while in custody elsewhere — we are no longer in “did you beat your wife” territory with these allegations.”

Rather an interesting syllogism.

May 16, 2005 - 12:44 pm 79. thibaud:

Rick,

Damn the Bill of Rights; this is basically a marketing issue.

Deny the MSM their unnamed sources and you start to level the playing field between the likes of Issikoff and his grubbier peers at the wire services. And demanding still higher levels of fact-checking and scrutiny is like slapping lead in the shoes of the MSM’s players.

Especially so in the GW Bush era. Good public sources have become a lot scarcer under Bush and Rumsfeld, who keep their people under tight wraps. Bush especially has gone out of his way to avoid the Kissinger game of providing the kind of privileged access for MSM princes and princesses that they’ve come to expect as their post-Watergate due.

May 16, 2005 - 12:51 pm 80. thibaud:

just to be clear for the irony-challenged: Damn the Bill of Rights; this is basically a marketing issue. This is the MSM POV.

May 16, 2005 - 12:53 pm 81. Buddy Larsen:

Susan, no m’am, I didn’t take you wrong, but as they say, “thanks for caring!”…and wrt to your mention of name-calling, here’s two organizations that try to ameliorate the effects of such as the likes of NewsWeek, neither of which I’ve ever heard or read mentioned in the left media withOUT being festooned fore and aft with such derogatory appellations.

May 16, 2005 - 1:01 pm 82. Buddy Larsen:

Fooey, the two links are:

http://www.aim.org/

http://www.mediaresearch.org/

May 16, 2005 - 1:07 pm 83. Les Nessman:

“Rick and Les — seems to me that a major part, perhaps THE major part, of verifying the allegations would be contacting the Pentagon and getting their feedback.”

Then Newsweek screwed up yet again.

If the Pentagon feedback was to give no response, then Newsweek should have waited until the Pentagon gave an absolute yes or an absolute no.(according to your standards, for the sake of your trollish argument)

If they had to wait and miss their precious ’scoop’ or ‘deadline’, so be it. It’s not the Pentagon’s job to verify stories for a private company with a deadline.

May 16, 2005 - 1:23 pm 84. Buddy Larsen:

Anybody shopping for a weekly newsmagazine that (1) has credibility and (2) is in the actual ‘news’ business, need look no further than this class-act. It plays no agenda, and thus a reader may have confidence in its professionalism.

May 16, 2005 - 1:48 pm 85. Rick Ballard:

Les,

Markus isn’t (IMO) ever a troll. He puts up some rather spirited arguments on weak logical foundations at times but he’s honest about his beliefs.

I do worry about his vision though. He reads Ko$ quite often and I’ve heard that type of abuse can lead to blindness.

May 16, 2005 - 1:51 pm 86. Buddy Larsen:

Rick, that ‘ko$’, isn’t that the one that got outed as a paid flack for the DNC–and then tried to turn it into a virtue that they’d previously somehow just forgotten to mention?

May 16, 2005 - 1:55 pm 87. Roberts:

As outraged as I am with Newsweek’s reckless incompetence, the attempts by Newsweek echoed here by Markus to blame the Pentagon for their own recklessness is just astonishing.

I would think that such attempts to blame others for ones own transgressions in such an illogical manner would end about age 8. Certainly, the last person I heard use that kind of excuse was aged 8 years.

May 16, 2005 - 2:00 pm 88. Kevin P:

Peter:

Welcome to new world of journalism.past actions are all that is needed to print a rumour.The fact that the army announced they were investigating Abu Ghraib and the press exposed the pictures, not the story, and that the Army was in the middle of the investigation makes no difference. The “because of Abu Ghraib” rationalization allows the press to print any rumour and the “because of Abu Ghraib” crowd doesn’t care whether it’s true or not, as long as it is within the realm of possibilities they say print it. “President Bush forces Gitmo detainees to accept Communion”. Now most people would want that backed up by cold hard facts. But the Newsweek crowd always have “After Abu Ghraib” to lean on and justify anything. The headlines are only limited by your imagination.

May 16, 2005 - 2:07 pm 89. AlphaBettor:

The White House got the facts wrong about weapons of mass destruction. Are they going to retract the war. A lot more people died because of their bad info, but I haven’t heard any apologies.

May 16, 2005 - 2:10 pm 90. Rick Ballard:

Buddy,

There are many tales concerning ko$. The one that I fund most appealing is that just before Sauron’s tower fell, Sarumon, as a last service to the forces of darkness, duplicated Golem and cast a spell of inanimation that could only be lifted by George Soros when his time of need was upon him. The other possibilty is that Wormtongue has survived to this day and reappeared among us. I find both tales as credible as anything produced by ko$.

May 16, 2005 - 2:16 pm 91. markus:

Les, Rick, others: Obviously Newsweek should have checked their source better…go ahead, focus on that if you wish.

i’m simply noting that it is very strange that the Newsweek asked for a Pentagon response, got none, published the article, and according to the WashPost, STILL DID NOT RESPOND…until the Arab press started to pick it up.

That suggests no one gave a damn, until the Arab street started to riot.

Oh, and I never read Daily Kos. I find a left-wing echo chamber stultifying. Rather argue with the righties.

May 16, 2005 - 2:18 pm 92. Syl:

AlphaBettor: “The White House got the facts wrong about weapons of mass destruction. Are they going to retract the war. A lot more people died because of their bad info, but I haven’t heard any apologies.”

I knew this was coming, I saw some weak comments echo this sentiment over at Reason. I’d just like to know one thing: If a warehouse of chemical weapons had been found in Iraq, would the war be okay with you?

If not, then sod off, swampy.

May 16, 2005 - 2:18 pm 93. Buddy Larsen:

Rick,’fund’ (above): great pun or Frodoian slip?

May 16, 2005 - 2:19 pm 94. markus:

Rick Ballard –

“Where does objectivity come into play when the initial source is peddling a book that is just allegations that he translated – not events that he actually saw? Truth generally means verifiable facts. Where are the names and dates concerning the incident?”

You are right, however, in an environment like Guantanamo, an allegation may be true, nevertheless not completely verifiable. Lots of room to cover one’s tracks.

If an Al-Qaeda member insists that his interragotor defamed the Koran in front of him, and the interrogator says he did not, who are you going to believe? What if ten Al-Qaeda members make that allegation? IT’s COMPLICATED.

May 16, 2005 - 2:24 pm 95. Rick Ballard:

“Rather argue with the righties.”

But we’re all centrists here.

Glad to hear that you’re not imperiling your vision.

Buddy – Frodoian slip.

May 16, 2005 - 2:25 pm 96. Buddy Larsen:

Markus, it’s only complicated if one cannot find any reason to believe our soldiers over the terrorists.

May 16, 2005 - 2:31 pm 97. AlphaBettor:

Syl,

We didn’t find a warehouse full of chemical weapons. So by your logic, that must mean you’re now against the war.

Am I right?

May 16, 2005 - 2:34 pm 98. Morgan:

“Rather argue with the righties.” But we’re all centrists here.

Warning: The apparent position of others depends on where you stand yourself.

May 16, 2005 - 2:35 pm 99. Buddy Larsen:

Alphabettor, everyone, everyone is against war. What, you think some people LIKE it? Support for OIF comes from people who LIKE war?

May 16, 2005 - 2:38 pm 100. Terrye:

Before we start equating Gitmo with Abu Ghraib it might be a good idea to remember that more died because of this stupid story than have died in Gitmo or were said to have died because of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib.

I am so sick of self rigtheous reporters and their defenders ignoring genocide all over the frigging planet and then when Abu Ghraib comes along they just gotta show the pictures over and over and drool with moral superiority.

And I don’t remember Bush jumping all over Dan Rather right off the bat either but we know that was a hoax so the fact that the administration did not immediately respond does not mean that they were doing anything other than trying to find out the truth.

Karzai has been trying to put together a reconcilitation program as well as trying to put a dent in poppy growing. Neither are popular and this stupid story has made that all the more difficult.

For all the folks that want to defend Newsweek and somehow find a way to use this to jump on Bush it should be remembered that Eason Jordan lied about Saddam’s regime to protect his people and keep access. And that was ok it seems.

Now we have somebody putting out a story that can do harm kto our soldiers and innocent civilians and people are trying to defend it even if it is a lie.

And btw if people are so interested in the truth then why don’t the lefties and the press make an issue of Theo Van Gogh dying for making a movie insulting to Islam? They don’t mind going after fundamentalist Christians and screaching about the US turning into a theocracy but when confronted with the real thing, they shut up.

May 16, 2005 - 2:39 pm 101. Terrye:

alpha:

You are right. Bush should have said “Clinton swears Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and we all know what a liar he is”.

Saddam could have done the same thing ten years that Kaddafi did last year and the situation would have been resolved before Bush ever got to the White House. Saddam and his psycho sons would probably be happily murdering and raping as we speak. But Saddam chose to be in violation of the resolution 1441 as well as the sanctions regime and the cease fire. His call.

Blaming everything on Bush just makes the opposition look uninformed and biased.

May 16, 2005 - 2:49 pm 102. Buddy Larsen:

You said it Terrye! Here, Alphabettor, learn something new, take a look at how far back this war goes. Tell me how OIF is anything other than a mere battle, a battle within a war. It’s the free world fighting back in a war that has been made upon us WITHOUT our permission. whether we like it or not. Pick your start point. Most people who make any effort to know the facts place this phase as having begun with our sovereign territory being invaded at the US Embassy in Teheran in 1979 (remember the ‘hostages’?). But, puhleeeze, don’t waste our time with “Bush started a war when he invaded Ieaq”.

May 16, 2005 - 2:54 pm 103. PeterUK:

Reporter rings the Pentagon,or any other organisation for that matter,and speaks to some press officer,the possibilities are,the press officer

Has no knowledge of the subject in question and either has to refer upwards or do some research.Press officer doesn’t say,”Search me squire,your as wise as I am.” Because it is part of the job to field questions,the most common answer is “No Comment.”

Because some other department could be in the process of acknowledging or denying what the reporter ia asking,and more chaos is caused by contrary announcements in big departments than could be imagined, the safe answer is,”No comment”.

There is an official announcement to be made by some bigwig and it is more than the press officers job is worth to steal their thunder.

So “No comment”

Journalists are perfectly aware of the protocols,through several levels of bureaucratic meaning.No experienced journalist is naive enough not to understand what the situation is,Newsweek chose to interpret “No Comment” as not construing a denial.Even if there had been a denial,the story would had still been printed,but as “Although the Pentagon denies……”

As for believing the Jihadis,I can only requote a famous “Prostitute before the bench,”Well he would say that wouldn’t he?”

May 16, 2005 - 3:06 pm 104. charlotte:

…when Abu Ghraib comes along they just gotta show the pictures over and over and drool with moral superiority.

Terrye, I think you’re forgetting that the press, in showing us endless pictures of Abu Ghraib, did treat us to a good deal of Russian porn in their practice of fact-checked, editor-layered and superior-to-blogs journalism. Let’s not forget their drooling moral superiority over that.

Buddy,

Saddam’s “call” with Chirac and Putin’s invaluable input, yes?

May 16, 2005 - 3:15 pm 105. Rick Ballard:

“who are you going to believe?”

Given that the burden of proof always lies with the accuser I will believe the accused pending production of evidence that would lead me to a conclusion based upon a standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

Would you prefer that the accuser be given the benefit of the doubt? That an accusation whether by a prison guard or the terrorist scum he is guarding be given more weight because it is an accusation? The matter is under investigation – Newsweek could have waited for the reported findings. Instead they went with an uncorroborated allegation that has caused fifteen deaths because of its use by rabble rousers in the Muslim world.

The terrorists in Guantanamo have forfeited all their legal rights through their conduct. I don’t have any sympathy for them and wish that they could be returned to Afghanistan for disposal.

May 16, 2005 - 3:17 pm 106. Kevin P:

Markus-

The “senior” pentagon official said no comment because he didn’t know. He decided that since Issikof told him that his source had seen the report that stated the story was true he wasn’t about to try to deny it. If he had not claimed to have knowledge about what was in the report he more then likely would have said no. And why does the Pentagon source need to be confidential. Maybe I miised it but has Issikoff mentioned who the pentagon person was. There is no need for this person to be confidential. Maybe the pentagon person was indentified, unlke newsweek, I won’t make an accusation that In don’t have proof for.

May 16, 2005 - 3:46 pm 107. Buddy Larsen:

What a coincidence that the Kuwait parliament has just voted in women’s suffrage (ht instapundit), on the heels of the Iraq elections. But expect no statement from Eleanor Smeal (any expression of satifaction over the ongoing Mideast advance of women’s rights might help that Chimpy McHitler feller).

May 16, 2005 - 3:56 pm 108. Buddy Larsen:

KevinP, maybe this is the unidentified source?

FoxNews is reporting as I type that NewsWeek has Retracted the Story in it’s entirety.

Now to resuscitate the dead people. Please answer the “it was only one line” evasion by pointing to the blast emails that pointed to that one-line.

May 16, 2005 - 4:08 pm 109. Les Nessman:

“Les, Rick, others: Obviously Newsweek should have checked their source better…go ahead, focus on that if you wish.”

Are you trying to make the Understatement of the Year?

Their sloppy and reckless reporting directly instigated violence and murder. That should be focused on.

May 16, 2005 - 4:21 pm 110. Terrye:

markus:

The point is Newsweek let their bias overwhelm what good sense they might claim to have.

Bringing democracy to a country like Afghanistan is difficult enough without giving the gift of propaganda to a bunch of terrorists who would just as soon lob off your head as look at you.

May 16, 2005 - 4:47 pm 111. Jimmie:

Roger, I swear if you haven’t seen it, you ought to check out Jim Lampley’s post up at HuffPuffPost. He’s punching way out of his weight class…again.

May 16, 2005 - 5:41 pm 112. HA:

Markus,

an allegation may be true, nevertheless not completely verifiable. Lots of room to cover one’s tracks.

Hmmm. An allegation MAY be true? If you want to play that game, it MAY be true that you are a communist sympathizer. After all, only an communist sympathizer could claim that Stalinists masterminded the Civil Rights Movement:

And Stalinists were the earliest, most uncompromising fighters against segregation and Jim Crow

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000526.html

I’m assuming that you are the same Markus Rose that made this idiotic claim over at Michael Totten’s. Of course, you may not be. But the allegation MAY be true. Isn’t that good enough according to your own standard?

Give it up, Markus. Newsweek got busted. Big time. Now they need to come clean. They need to disclose their “sources” that they claim had been reliable in past stories. They need to disclose what other stories were based on information provided by these newly impeached sources.

May 16, 2005 - 6:07 pm 113. Caroline:

The partisan finger-pointing around this rather reminds me of the film I just saw this weekend on DVD – Open Waters – the scene in which the couple abandoned in the ocean (to the sharks) by a dive boat starts bickering with eachother re who is to blame for the situation in which they find themselves.

Someone above,I forget who -lambasts the media for their failure to report the truth. The truth? How much of the truth do you actually want reported? How about the fact that Islam justifies jihad when Islam is under attack but not otherwise? Which of course totally explains the utterly ludicrous claims of victimhood like we have seen not only in this story but ad nauseum from Muslims worldwide, because those ludicrous claims serve as a pretext for jihad! Ergo, someone does or does not flush a Koran down the toilet and now 300 Muslim Afghani clerics call for jihad against the US. But wait a minute! Silly me!. I thought there was already a jihad against the US! Which jihad are we on now? Of course everyone in the west already knows about the destruction of the Buddhist statues, the desecration of Jewish graves, the burning of American flags, the desecration of Christian churches. But like the couple in Open Waters, Americans go at eachother, while the sharks circle.

I hope that Newsweek got a wake-up call. Maybe they are so stupid and naive in their efforts to discredit the Bush Administration that they don’t actually understand that the sharks are circling them too. So maybe this story was false. But no doubt next time it could well be true. What then? Who will we point the finger at then? At the likes of Van Gogh, who insulted Islam, and presumably deserved what he got?

And what’s with all the “innocent” people killed or injured in these riots. Unless they are US soldiers, what’s with the concern? Give our soldiers wide latitude to defend themselves. As far as I’m concerned they’re the only innocents here. My understanding is those killed and injured were the rioters themselves. It’s their damn choice to riot over something so stupid. I can’t stand to see our own government apologizing for the innocent lives lost. Let them go after Newsweek for endangering our own soldiers lives but otherwise I find the false sanctimonious cries over the “innocent” lives lost rather ludicrous. I’ll save my tears for the victims of the Janjaweed in Darfur or the children blown up in Kashmir instead. Really, how much of this bullshit is a rational person expected to take anyway?

May 16, 2005 - 6:39 pm 114. Buddy Larsen:

Thanks, Jimmie. I think Lampley is saying that because Chimpy McHitler stole the 2004 election, that NewsWeek’s screw-up–since they admitted their error [as if they had any other choice-ed]–deserves great respect.

Furthermore, the dead of the NewsWeek Riot don’t bother him much, says Lampley, so certainly they don’t bother anyone else much, either.

I think the nut graf is his ridicule of the idea that there exists any such thing as an anti-Bush press. This saves the piece, turning boilerplate into comedy, as it is only a few lines from the “what really happened” in Election 2004 is that Bush Stole That One Too!

May 16, 2005 - 6:41 pm 115. LC Mamapajamas:

Posted by: Cousin Dave [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 16, 2005 07:10 AM: “This Newsweek article is another matter. Newsweek knew, or had to have known (after all, they are high-level professional journalists, and the principle of criminally gross negligence has to apply), that (a) their story was not substantiatable, and (b) it would lead to deaths of American servicemen. In publishing it, they crossed over the line from ordinary left-wing snobbishness, and into Lord Haw Haw / Tokyo Rose territory.

“Am I out of line here?”

No, Cousin Dave, you are NOT out of line here.

Even had this story turned out to be 100% true, what purpose did it serve? Did it enlighten the world? Did it raise a vitally important issue WORTH the lives of the people who would have been killed in the rioting that was certain to result?

It did not. All it would have done (had it been true) was cause a moment of embarassment for the military in charge at Guantanamo.

Would that have been worth those 15 or so lives that it cost?

I hardly think so!

The fact that Newsweek can’t think along those lines of responsibility to reach the obvious… that this story would have caused a riot true or not… shows an excessively negligent attitude toward managing the news.

Newsweek seems to forget that we are dealing with a 9th Century mentality over there. And that is something that must NEVER be forgotten!

The very BEST thing that can be said about Newsweek’s transgression here is that it was tatamount to shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater and should be treated at LEAST that seriously, considering the deaths. The other end of that “blame” spectrum is that this might well have been a deliberate and calculated attempt to sabotage the nation.

May 16, 2005 - 7:10 pm 116. Captain Hate:

Lampley is really pathetic; I used to think that he had a bit more integrity than most of the sports reporters. Maybe he did but somewhere along the line his career path went south, with his annual highlight being a stand-in for the ego-laden Jim Rome. Now he’s making snarky comments on a blog that will soon be the equivalent to the Chevy Chase Show.

May 16, 2005 - 7:13 pm 117. dick:

Markus,

In the first place how do we know that the senior military person in the Pentagon was the right person to comment on the subject. Not all senior military persons in the Pentagon are qualified to comment on all subjects. If he were not the right one, then he would either check the story with someone else and wait for them to get back to him or he would say no comment. If he was waiting for someone to get back to him, then it seems that Newsweek in their infinite wisdom decided that they had waited long enough and assumed that he agreed with the statement.

As to blaming the Muslims for the rioting, who are you to tell anyone how to run their religion. It is a well known fact (ask Salmon Rushdie) that for Muslims the Koran, any Koran, is the word of God as passed down to Mohammed and as such to do anything to desecrate that book is a crime punishable by death. The reporters (**spit**) and editors (**spit**) at Newsweek since they are reporting on this area of the world as experts should have known this. For them to publish what they did without having battened down the sources and double checked with the sources after that is tantamount to waving a red flag in front of a bull and they know this. That they went ahead and did so is a shame on them and they bear full responsibility for what happened.

You can tell us all day long that the Muslims should not have done this because it is only a book but to them it is central to their life and faith. You have absolutely no right to interfere in their religion just as you have no right to interfere in my religion as a Methodist or my friend’s religion as a Catholic. No matter what you think, it is not your business.

May 16, 2005 - 8:45 pm 118. cubanbob:

If Newsweek is to regain any measure of credibility it must fire Thomas and Isikoff immediately. Actions have consequences and perhaps this would be a good start to getting rid of hacks in the MSM and replacing Gonzo journalism with the real deal. Just the facts and nothing but. Leave the editorials for the op-ed page.

For what it’s worth,I am not renewing my subscription to Newsweek and I cancelled my subscription to Time several years ago.

P.S. MSM schmucks, I am the last guy you want to loose, the right demographic your advertisers want. Middle aged, kids and lots and lots of disposable income.

May 16, 2005 - 9:58 pm 119. markus:

Terrye –

“Before we start equating Gitmo with Abu Ghraib it might be a good idea to remember that more died because of this stupid story than have died in Gitmo or were said to have died because of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib.”

You are correct we should put this story in perspective, but you are misinformed on the facts.

108 people have died in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan. 150 sent out to be tortured in other countries. And a former Army Sgt. who did Guantanamo Bay interrogations 2002-03 details torture. http://www.booktv.org/feature/index.asp?segid=5282&schedID=362

May 17, 2005 - 7:21 am 120. erp:

Literally

From Dictionary.com …

Used as an intensive before a figurative expression.

Yes, Phantom Stranger, I really did mean literally.

May 17, 2005 - 9:26 am 121. HA:

cubanbob,

If Newsweek is to regain any measure of credibility it must fire Thomas and Isikoff immediately.

I think Thomas and Isikoff should dropped off at a riot in Jalalabad without military protection.

May 17, 2005 - 5:54 pm 122. HA:

Markus,

Eric Saar’s book is a work of fiction. Even the publisher has acknowledge that Saar – like Newsweek – simply made shit up:

At pages 191-192, Inside the Wire: A Military Intelligence Soldier?s Eyewitness Account of Life at Guantanamo by Erik Saar and Viveca Novak, erroneously states that civilian interrogators hired through an army contract with CACI were in Guantanamo Bay. The book also describes the activities of two contract interrogators. CACI has unequivocally stated that it had no involvement in any interrogation operations at Guantanamo and that it had no relationship whatsoever with the civilian contract interrogators involved in the use of the interrogation techniques discussed in the book. The Penguin Press and the Authors acknowledge and regret the error. In addition, The Penguin Press and the Authors are taking a number of corrective actions, including inserting erratum slips in Penguin?s remaining copies of the book, providing erratum slips to Penguin?s accounts for insertion into books that have already been shipped, and advising media organizations that will be interviewing the authors of the error. Future printings will be corrected to address the error.

http://www.penguinputnam.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,0_1594200661,00.html

Saar is about as credible as Kitty Kelly.

May 17, 2005 - 6:02 pm 123. Buddy Larsen:

Les Nessman, I thought that name sounded familiar!

May 17, 2005 - 7:35 pm 124. Les Nessman:

I swear to God I thought those turkeys could fly.

May 17, 2005 - 9:14 pm 125. Buddy Larsen:

Oh, I’ll never forget those last words, “Hey, everybody, watch this!”

May 19, 2005 - 10:24 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: