Newsweek apologizes for getting Koran-Guantanamo Bay story wrong. (The Editor's Desk)

Newsweek ^ | 05/15/05 | The Editor's Desk

[Pikamax]

May 23 issue - Did a report in NEWSWEEK set off a wave of deadly anti-American riots in Afghanistan? That's what numerous news accounts suggested last week as angry Afghans took to the streets to protest reports, linked to us, that U.S. interrogators had desecrated the Qur'an while interrogating Muslim terror suspects. We were as alarmed as anyone to hear of the violence, which left at least 15 Afghans dead and scores injured. But I think it's important for the public to know exactly what we reported, why, and how subsequent events unfolded.

[Miss Marple]

I think I see your point. If this had been true, it would have been the action of one over-zealous and out of control interrogator, not the policy of the US government. Any actions like this, particularly when they are not policy, should be investigated by the Pentagon but NOT published, especially in an international magazine.

However, to me, the problem with your point is that Newsweek doesn't even have the excuse that this is something that should be brought to the attention of the American public, since it was FALSE to begin with.

Even assuming they thought it was true, they obviously did not check with the Pentagon beforehand nor did they verify their source. They simply ran with it and gave no thought (or worse, maybe they did) to the violence that would ensue from this story.

[CFC__VRWC]

Newsweek should have known that reporting this "story" would have negative consequences given the fanaticism of our enemy, whether the story were true or false. Was it that important?

Of course they knew it would have negative consequences - why do you suppose they ran it to begin with? They saw their chance to take another cheap shot at the Bush Administration and to undo everything our miltary has fought and died for in Afghanistan and Iraq, and of course they took it. As for the truth of the story, how many times have we seen Newsweek in particular (Monica Lewinsky) and the MSM in general (Nancy Pelosi's ethics problems, Hillary's campaign finance scandals, ad nauseum) scuttle stories that had solid bases in fact because they would have "negative consequences" for the wrong people (fellow liberals)? You're straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel.

That's the issue that everyone seems to be overlooking.

The real issue that's being overlooked to some extent is, who fed Newsweek this bogus story, knowing that they'd snap at it like a marlin at a squid? Obviously their source is yet another Bush-hating leftist troll embedded in the DOD, and this was probably the highlight of his/her/it's whole career.

[robertpaulsen]

"Any actions like this, particularly when they are not policy, should be investigated by the Pentagon but NOT published, especially in an international magazine."

Bingo! Someone gets it.

Yes, the fact that it was false compounds the error -- the error being the publishing of this story to begin with (even if true).

On an "Atrocity" scale of 0 to 10, the events in this story are about a .002. On a "Bad Things That Can Happen To Innocents Overseas If We Publish This Story" scale of 0 to 10, this would be a 9.9999.

[Coleus]

They should hire Dan Rather, the two would go together very well.

[robertpaulsen]

"The real issue that's being overlooked to some extent is, who fed Newsweek this bogus story"

Since the story was false, it's critical we know who it was. But again, even if the editors at Newsweek were convinced this was true by a videotaped interview and sworn deposition, or even if it was really true, my point is that the story should not have run.

[Allosaurs_r_us]

That would have been OK with you since it was good investigative reporting?

 

I am surprised at this remark. For an old timer at FR it is apparent you posted this just to get something started. What the heck for? I would expect someone with your seniority at FR would refrain from such petty B.S.

 

Investigative reporting my eye! Do you consider this and putting panties on the heads of detainees torture? Why should this be reported at all? Why don't we just take all of these prisoners and put them up at the Holiday Inn? Furnish them lawyers, hand them our Constitutional Rights and be done with it. Better yet, why not just release them to kill again? After all, we can't have them getting upset, can we?

 

It is clear that whether or not the facts were true, NewsWeak and it's reporters were out to damage this country. I don't give a rusty what happens to prisoners that their sole purpose in life is to kill what they consider "infidels". It is impossible for me to think NewsWeak did not know this story could put Americans in danger. No one is that naive!

 

Are you taking a position that if this story were true, it is ok to incite violence on our troops, or just throwing around horse nuggets in order to have someone to argue with?

[swilhelm73]

But now the story will live on in the Arab press, exactly as Newsweek most likely wanted.

When they print false stories here they now have to deal with bloggers and FReepers, however the largely government controlled press of the Middle East will, however, just parrot the MSM's lies.

[swilhelm73]

The next entirely predictable chapter in this drama - the grave comparisons to "fascism" and "McCarthyism", the wailing about "censorship" and "chilling effects on free speech" to be applied to anyone who demands any sort of accountability for what the people at Newsweek have done.

Of course at the same time the Left is busy trying to get the government to shut up the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity, prosecute people for "hate speech", and restrict political speech via CFR.

Hey Orwell, you were all to right...

[sageb1]

""Freedom of the Press carries with it an implicit understanding of truthfulness."

And responsibility.

Newsweek should have known that reporting this "story" would have negative consequences given the fanaticism of our enemy, whether the story were true or false. Was it that important?

That's the issue that everyone seems to be overlooking."

What is sad, is that it took me so long reading through posts in this thread, to find someone who understands this. Simply put, any responsible media outlet would not have printed this - true or not.

[InvisibleChurch]

completely disgusting ... people died because of them ... thanks for the apology ........ punk

[Allosaurs_r_us]

I read the article on the web, so I'm qualified. I volunteer to be a witness. Is there another stout-hearted freeper to join me? Must be able to pack on a moment's notice, LOL.

 

Please refer to my tagline........LOL        Count me in!

[swilhelm73]

All of this "unnamed, anonymous, reliable, officials" reporting has gotten way out of hand.

Makes you wonder just how much the MSM was getting away with prior to FR and blogs now doesn't it? After all, is it more likely the MSM just started lying on a regular basis within the last couple of years, or that now that we are looking closely they are finally being caught in the act?

[Allosaurs_r_us]

I apologize to Newsweak for saying they're nothing more than fishwrap.

(And my apology means about as much as theirs does.)

You forgot to add, no self respecting "dead" fish would have anything to do with your leftist toilet paper!

[Cboldt]

Simply put, any responsible media outlet would not have printed this - true or not.

Why not?

'GREEDY MONSTERS' RULED CHURCH
Published By The Washington Times
May 15, 2002
SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES
BETHLEHEM, West Bank

Even in the Roman Catholic areas of the complex there was evidence of disregard for religious norms. Catholic priests said that some Bibles were torn up for toilet paper, and many valuable sacramental objects were removed.

'GREEDY MONSTERS' RULED CHURCH

[robertpaulsen]

My position is that the story should not have been published, whether it was true or not. The fact that the story was false only compounds Newsweek's error.

This was not a big story. On an "Atrocity" scale of 0 to 10, the events in this story are about a .002. On a "Bad Things That Can Happen To Innocents Overseas If We Publish This Story" scale of 0 to 10, this would be a 9.9999.

To blame Newsweek for shoddy journalism misses that point. It implies that if the story were true and Newsweek reported it, it would be OK that innocents died.

[robertpaulsen]

Thank you for understanding the real issue.

[okie01]

Let's face it, as long as there's Republicans in charge the MSM media will work overtime to damage the U.S. all they can.

And there will be petty bureaucrats with partisan motivations willing to produce unattributed leaks for the purpose of embarrassing the administration.

The media and their willingness to use partisan sources have created a tragic situation.

[Allosaurs_r_us]

My position is that the story should not have been published, whether it was true or not

 

Agreed. I guess it was the way it was posted that it led me to believe NewsWeak would not be "liable' for the deaths had the story turned out to be true. This story and one's like it, never need to see the light of day. They are merely attempts to put America in a bad light, and as far as I am concerned traitorous. Any journalist, who intentionally submits a story that harms our troops or innocent civilians, needs to be held accountable.

[Seaplaner]

An apology is not going to cut it! Newsweek did not spill their tea on the carpet. Newsweek has caused people to be killed and aided and abetted the enemy.

Modok - well stated!

What I don't know is just who Newsweek considers to be "the enemy"?

Are Fellow Travelers such as Whitaker and Isikoff at all bothered that they aided the bad guys; or, are our bad guys their good guys?

What Say You - NEWSWEEK?

Care to tell us whos side you are really on?

(And no LYING, this time)

.

[auburntiger]

You can bet that Newsweek will do it again, again and again.