Skip to comments.Newsweek apologizes for getting Koran-Guantanamo Bay story wrong. (The Editor's Desk)
Posted on 05/15/2005 10:31:22 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Enough is enough. The liberal media is effectively giving aid and comfort to America's enemies. If Al Qaeda ever printed a newsletter in this country, everyone from the publisher to the paperboy would be lead away in leg irons. So there's no reason why the editors and reporters of magazines like Newsweek shouldn't be prosecuted for disseminating treasonous or seditious propaganda. Forget this crap about freedom of the press; there is no such thing as freedom of treason and sedition.
As others have pointed out the damage has been done, now how do we (or more specifically newsweek) fix it.
Write and have printed (at newsweek cost) a retaction and have it placed in EVERY paper in the Islamic world. That might be a place to start.
"From another thread on this.
Do these idiots understand what's going on? This is not a game we're playing, peoples lives are at stake and the security of the country is a stake.
Of course they understand that we are war and that lives are at stake. THEY DO NOT CARE.
The end.... the downfall of the Republican Party and Conservative thought.....justifies any means.
They don't care
It's all about making President Bush look bad because he was reelection
These IDIOTS have no shame and NOTHING is to low for them
Even the lives of people of Afghanistan .. Our Country and Our Military
Not really. I thought that question had been answered years ago, along about the time of the Tet offensive...
A footnote on the Newsweek mess
Much more remains to be said on the stunning mess Newsweek has created with its May 9 Koran in the toilet story. Newsweek climbs down from the story today, sort of. Others elsewhere have correctly noted that Evan Thomas's article on the mess reads like "damage control."
Why did Thomas have to collaborate on this article with four Newsweek reporters for additional reporting when the man with the information interested readers most deserve to hear from is Thomas's colleague Michael Isikoff? Isikoff makes a token appearance in paragraph 5 of Thomas's article, like Alfred Hitchcock walking through a scene in one of his own movies.
The observant John Steele Gordon writes to note a point of interest in the text of Thomas's Newsweek article:
Liberal MSM magazine finds marginally credible story that makes the military (and Bush Administration) look bad and rushes into print with it without any consideration of the possible consequences. So what else is new?
What I find most interesting is that Newsweek insists on spelling the name of the holy book of Islam "Qur'an" despite the fact that there has been a perfectly good word for it in use in the English language ("Koran") since 1625. "Qur'an" is a transliteration of the Arabic word for the Koran (although my dictionary says there should be a long vowel mark over the A--but, since I don't speak Arabic, I will have to take its word for it). So using Qur'an instead of Koran is like using "Athina" for "Athens" of "Moskva" for "Moscow." In other words, political correctness run amok.
I think the apostrophe--utterly meaningless in an English-language context--is a particularly nice touch of cultural pandering.
I could be wrong - but I do not think I so :
Michael Isikoff at Newsweek was the one who sat on and covered up the Monica Lewinski story that they had researched and written well before Matt Drudge dropped the bombshell and made the Clintonista MSM suddenly play catch-up because they were caught pimping for Slick Willie.
Good point. Thanks, I forgot the rules the MSM plays by
1 We're never wrong
2 In the unlikely event that we are wrong...see rule #1
How did we get the facts wrong?
Facts, what are those?
Let's refer to them as Newsweak, from now on.
Can't imagine who will believe them...that's the funny thing about trust (credibility): once you lose it, it's lost forever...
I want to know the name of this...
person slimey little twit.
Can we say State Dept.?
"...As this is an age in which we are bombarded by messages that tell us what to buy and what to think, when one dissects the real elements of power who has it and, more important during a time of rapid change, who increasingly has it one is left to conclude bleakly: Ours is not an age of democracy, or an age of terrorism, but an age of mass media, without which the current strain of terrorism would be toothless in any case.
Like the priests of ancient Egypt, the rhetoricians of ancient Greece and Rome, and the theologians of medieval Europe, the media represent a class of bright and ambitious people whose social and economic stature gives them the influence to undermine political authority. Like those prior groups, the media have authentic political power terrifically magnified by technology without the bureaucratic accountability that often accompanies it, so that they are never culpable for what they advocate. If, for example, what a particular commentator has recommended turns out badly, the permanent megaphone he wields over the crowd allows him to explain away his position if not in one article or television appearance, then over several before changing the subject amid the roaring onrush of new events. Presidents, even if voters ignore their blunders, are at least responsible to history; journalists rarely are. This freedom is key to their irresponsible power."
Here's the Link: http://www.policyreview.org/dec04/kaplan_print.html
The USDOJ could be paying them a visit.
I don't disagree, but realistically what can the government legally do?