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 ...
In 1955, a young black man was apparently lynched, or otherwise murdered, in the US after a story went around that he whistled at a white woman, or something like that. Obviously whistling is not a crime, and the blame for the murder lies with those who committed it.
I could also ask whether it's ironic that the press runs with stories like these after trashing the Bush administration for itself (allegedly) not being thorough enough in vetting stories about WMDs in Iraq.
But that was different!
WPO, who owns Newsweak, has plummeted 12% (and it's only 11:00 am here in the east) to $813 (??? WHO buys this stuff???).
The rats are jumping from this shipwreck as fast as they can.
The more I hear this half baked Newsweek apology, without story retraction, the more I think they should be charged for support of terrorism. They knew what the reaction would be and they went with this fake story anyway.
I just can't imagine how an outlet could be so irresponsible.
Or maybe I can . . .
Left Wing media hate for America, our military and our President has gone WAAAAAY over the line. It's getting to the point that ALL media reports have some false information in their stories all designed to make America and Conservatives and republicans and W look bad.
They gambled that: both the story with the damaging accusations, and then an "apology" would keep the fires burning.
It was a risk they were willing to take because: the end justifies the means in the minds of these "journalists" and their editors. "The Big Lie" theory was employed by Newsweek and is at work.
Their MO is to: First make America, our Administration and military look bad. Then, come up with a weak apology that still doesn't clear anything up, is not a retraction, but makes it looks like there was pressure put on them to "cover up," the story.
Both ways they show their intent to tear down America, arouse anti-war supporters, and give strength to our enemies. Nothing they say now will convince those who want to believe their lie. Words spoken/written cannot be retracted in a case like this. Any apology will hardly be accepted in our own country, let alone the Muslim world. This will never go away and will become the new mantra for killing infidels.
lol, I like those keywords.
I like that idea - it would give them a taste of their own medicine as I am sure they have supported the idea of a world court and its jurisdiction over America.
Bank of America is one of their biggest advertisers.
Bank of America Corporate Communications
100 North Tryon Street
Mail Code NC1-007-18-01
Charlotte, NC 28255
"Newsweek did not spill their tea on the carpet"
Exactly, News-weak pissed on the United States Military. Apologies do not suffice for intentional malicious acts.
Keep the good work.
You know I'm sure a bunch of us are tired of these whiny assed muslims. They sound just like harry reid and the liberals. i wouldn't apologize to a single one of those illiterate barbarians over in the desert. their religious leaders must have taken classes on media manipulation and propaganda from rev. jackson and the libs in congress. if this country didn't have mercy we and russia woulda blasted everyone and split the world up by now.
/dumber than a small pile of rocks
How many more 911's has Newsweak just caused in their hatred for Bush?
"Their shoddy xxx journalism got people killed."
If it were true, I'd have no ax to grind. But since it was based on falsehood, that seems a little different, doesn't it? I think a congressional hearing is in order. If they were blatantly irresponsible, then they should be exposed in the most public way possible.
If Bibles were torn up by satanists, smeared with refuse, and plastered on a canvas, we'd just give the satanists tax money [note Bush's INCREASE of NEA funding]. To revere a God other than the 'Almighty Baby Killing Law' is alien in this nation.
But as for killing people over a book, well that is going too far as well. You make an excellent point. We didn't kill people in riots-- they did.
But now to counter your point, giving it some thought: Solomon once said that a slanderous tongue is more deadly than a thousand swords. Solomon hated slanerers. He believed in seeking them out and punishing them vigorously.
They should be charged with manslaughter.
NewsLeak is going to say that since the Washington Post and NY Times printed similar stories last year, they believed the story was true.
Well then, those two paragons of truth said it, so it must be true?
Powerline update. Powerlineblog.com is quoting IndigentPundit regarding Newsweek's "excuse." Newsweek has now defended itself by quoting an Al-Qaeda detainee saying "yes this happened to me" and it was so traumatic he couldn't sleep at night.
But Newsweek forgot to google,
If Newsweek had googled, they would have found that when this Mr. Bader Bader was released from Gitmo some time ago, he gave lengthy interviews to the press, but never mentioned the "Koran-in-the-toilet" event which he now claiims to be so mentally tormented about!!.
Only now, Post-Newsweek Periscope, is this man miraculously recovering from repressed-memory syndrome and Newsweek, self-righteious self-promoters that they are, run out with this Newsweek-inspired story and print it as fact!! They bought the fable hook line and sinker!
May a herd of ambulance chasers track down relatives of the 15 dead and sue Newsweek out of existence.
I didn't hear the apology. Was it like the clinton/fonda non-apology?
"If Newsweek had googled, they would have found that when this Mr. Bader Bader was released from Gitmo some time ago, he gave lengthy interviews to the press, but never mentioned the "Koran-in-the-toilet" event which he now claiims to be so mentally tormented about!!."
Well done! There you have it. Newb-week. They come of looking like a bunch of newbies.
The story killed people. The story would have killed people true or not.
But that does NOT mean that it is "irrelevant" that the story was fabricated. It matters a great deal. This is a case of anti-American propaganda killing people...a far worse crime than publishing the truth and seeing the same people get killed.
Hold them accountable. For the intention. For the method. For the outcome. For the ramifications.
The sad fact is, Gitmo former detainee Bader Bader is good at his job. Michael Issakoff is not. Which is why Al-Qaeda can spin Newsweek like a top.
Great slogan! But in the media free market, I believe in letting the consumer decide the outcome. By the time Rush, Hannity, Savage, Boortz, Mike Reagan, Fox News, Drudge, and let's not forget Laura Ingraham are finished with Newb-week, they will be less respected than Dan Blather.
"What's amazing is that Newsweek, with its patented StupidStaff of reporters, are entirely unaware that Al-Qaeda, in its training, teaches its people to fan the flames in precisely this fashion."
I might track your posts for a while. You're one sharp FReeper. FReegards....
How soon can we expect the folks killed in Afghanistan
to return to life? And when can we expect the heightened
danger to our guys in Muslim countries triggered by this
story, to subside?
Agreed. What I'm finding most difficult about all this is how my parents' (the Great) generation has swallowed so much lib BS, and just can't see exposed reality now (like Walter Cronkite columns). Does staying on the dole really override all they fought and died for in WWII? I'm actually becoming ashamed of them.
"What I'm finding most difficult about all this is how my parents' (the Great) generation has swallowed so much lib BS, and just can't see exposed reality now (like Walter Cronkite columns)."
If you read Coulter's books, "Treason" and "Slander", you will understand how they did it. I don't know if Coulter mentioned it, but sometimes they would buy up or even snatch up every book or paper they could find if there was too much truth in them.
People would run around with one of the few newspaper clippings or books that was recalled, snatched, etc-- who would take them seriously? Try a google on "Tragedy and Hope", and you will see what I mean. One of those rare copies got in the hands of Shlafley, which inspired her to help Reagan become president. Also note that the author of Tragedy and Hope, Carol Quigley, was possibly Clinton's greatest mentor. What was the book about? The International Banking Establishment. Note Clinton's impeachable EO to bail out the IMF.
Saw the rep from Newsweek on a sunday show. He said, "Our Bad!" That does it for me, end of story.
The logic you are using is utterly specious. If someone yells "Fire!" in a crowded theatre and people are killed in the ensuing stampede, there IS absolutely a difference in the degree of culpability for the resulting casualties depending on whether or not there actually existed a fire. Someone who recklessly yells "FIRE!" when there wasn't one (as Newsweek did) can & would be held responsible for the deaths he caused. Isikoff (he's a pretty smart guy, I'm very surprised he's part of this) better get a good lawyer.
In these days, people are charged indirectly for murder involving car wrecks, etc. The author should suffer the same.
NewsReek knew exactly what those lunatic Muslims would do after reading their little article. Newsreek is responsible for everything that happened.
I used to know a guy so ticklish that if he was standing in front of some one talking and someone goosed him, he would commence to beat h*ll out of whoever he was talking to. And many their were who sought an opportunity to pull this stunt on him and his unsuspecting conversee.
For every action there is a reaction-Newsreek knew exactly what the reaction to it's action would be. It was with sinister intent that this liberal bird cage liner publisher, printed this lethal lie.
And once the World Court has tried, convicted and strung up...........er....sentenced Newsreek-the World Court must be made as extinct as the dodo bird.
Thanks so much for providing the details & those links.
Apparently I must have heard it from Gen. Meyers when FNC showed a clip.....and not from Tony Snow.
Does the name Abu Ghraib sound familiar. The only difference that "truth" would make is that the journalists could justify themselves by claiming, "Only doing our job." In this case, they can't even make that sorry excuse.
Thanks for the ping!
Even if they can justify printing a story, it doesn't mean they should.
So if the story were true and Newsweek reported it (thereby resulting in the same number of deaths) this would be a non-issue with you. Which answers my question.
So: if people die in a stampede when someone yells "fire", it is a tragedy regardless of whether there actually was a fire or not.Dead folks are just as dead no matter how they got that way. But if someone incites a stampede on false premises, and people die, the people advancing the bogus alarm need to be held accountable.Yes the rioters need to be held accountable, but the folks stoking the violence do as well. Dan Rather never got anybody offed. Isikoff did. Post/Newsweek has deep pockets, and I understand there are ambulance chasers here already lining up colleagues over there to troll for clients. No joke.
If what you are asking is would I be outraged if the story were true, I wouldn't be outraged at Michael Isikoff (again, a guy I used to have some respect for). I'd be outraged at the idiots in the US military who handed such prime propaganda on a silver platter over to the enemy, and I'd be outraged at the irrational muslims who use their religion as an excuse to commit gravely evil acts who did the actual killing. But since Newsweek has admitted that they didn't have any professionally responsible basis to print the charge, and pretty much breached every journalistic ethic in the book in order to do it, I (and others here) are just saying that Isikoff deserves whatever our good friends over at the American Trial Lawyers Association are currently planning for him. Heck, I like the guy, but Isikoff wouldn't want me in that jury box. Even I'd say: REAM him!