|
Fake Newsweek Story causes Marine’s Death
|
Posted By:
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
May 16, 2005
|
Newsweek published an article last week, that alleged U.S. soldiers in Gitmo were flushing the Koran down the toilet, as an interrogation technique. This caused some people in Iraq to get seriously pissed off...So they killed some Marines.
Have you have had to say, "Sorry, if anything I said offended you..." Well, looks like newsweek can now say, "Sorry if anything I printed ever got you killed..."
ABC covers newsweek blunder.
Someone else carries info that Newsweek published.
|
Comments
|
Page 1 of 4 pages 1 2 3 > Last › |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 | 10:37 AM
This is why I have issues with freedom of the press and all that. If they'd keep their traps shut about this stuff, nobody would have been killed.
Is flushing a Koran REALLY an issue in the grand scheme of things? |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 | 11:43 AM
It is if you consider it a holy object central to your faith and entire way of life and view the desecration of said object to be an insult directly aimed at your beliefs. |
Owen
in side
|
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 | 02:07 PM
Although I see the perceived insult here, surely any Muslim fanatical enough to kill somebody for flushing the Koran would probably deal similarly with a copy of the Bible? |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 | 03:58 PM
I'm sure that there are reporters out there who have common sense, and judgment, and a feeling of responsibility. Unfortunately, I have yet to meet any of them. Too many of them are simply interested in getting their names in print as quickly and as often as possible, and they either don't bother to think about or else don't care about what their articles might mean. Many more reporters seem to be more interested in being in the news rather than reporting it. I've seen too many people I know get killed because some reporter told the world, ". . .and at eight o'clock tonight, our troops will be making surprise attacks here, here, and here!" Sure, reporters are supposed to report the news. But that doesn't mean they have to mindlessly regurgitate every last little thing they hear. There are things called "judgment", and "personal responsibility", and "confirming your information". Even assuming that the Newsweek story was accurate, a moment's thought would have told anyone that printing that particular bit of information would have had angered any Muslim. And yet they went ahead and printed it, right in the middle of a time when the Muslims of the world are already uneasy and half the countries of the world are walking a fine line trying to get everything settled down. Smooth move, Newsweek. Of course, they'll hide behind the First Amendment, and the worst that will happen to them will be that they'll have to apologize. And then they'll go ahead and print something else stupid later on.
Yes, the freedom of the press is a good thing to have; it helps to keep governments and businesses and suchlike from becoming too flagrantly dishonest. I've been in countries where so much as owning a tunable radio warrants the death penalty, and such countries were not very happy places. But in the Western World the situation tends to go to the opposite extreme, with the media having more influence over people than any other institution or group (with the possible exception of the church). And for the most part, the primary control over them seems to be nothing more than them exercising their own judgment, or lack thereof. |
hcmomof4
|
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 | 04:03 PM
In this case, the problem with freedom of the press is that Newsweek felt free to report as fact, without research or substantiation, information provided to them by a "knowledgeable government source", who now is uncertain just where the information came from originally. That's not freedom of the press, that's irresponsible gossip. |
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 12:48 AM
Journalists are stupid. But religious fanatics are murderers. Funny how they're more worried about one or two books, while they aren't nearly as incensed about the Iraqis we kill, directly and indirectly.
And seriously, we Americans are already hellbound by being non-muslim, so why does it matter if we destroy a few Korans? It's not like it hurts Allah. But it's all about principle, or I should say, excuses to kill people. |
Cranky Media Guy
|
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 03:06 AM
OK, am I truly reading posting from American citizens against freedom of the press??
Um, may I suggest to you that Freedom of the Press is included in the FIRST AMENDMENT to the Constitution because the Founding Fathers thought it was VERY IMPORTANT?
Maegan, I have to think that you must be young. If you were middle-aged like I am, you'd have memories of your grade school teachers telling you that the Soviet Union was evil because it didn't allow free speech and freedom of the press, like "we" do.
If freedom of the press is no big deal after all, I guess all those billions of dollars spent on the Cold War were wasted. I mean, what's the point in fighting people because they don't think freedom of speech and of the press are important if WE don't think they are, either?
As for Newsweek's story, take a gander at this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/politics/17koran.html?ei=5088&en=4e8173c92dc1f2af&ex=1273982400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
You'll notice that just the other day, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that the protests were caused by something other than the Newsweek story. Gee, it would be nice if the Bush administration could get their story straight.
May I suggest an alternate possibility? My theory is that the administration either set up Newsweek with the source OR it got to the source after the fact and told him/her that they had to suddenly "forget" where they got that information from.
As a point of interest, Newsweek is owned by the Washington Post, never a favorite with Republican administrations. This administration has made it more than amply clear that they consider any venue that prints anything critical of their policies as "liberal" and evil.
There are many sources for similar stories of American troops treating the Koran with disrespect; this did NOT originate with Newsweek.
Also for the record, I do not believe it is possible to "hide behind the First Amendment." Freedom of speech and of the press are GUARANTEED to all American citizens by the Constitution. You aren't "getting away with something" by saying or printing what you believe to be true. Ever. |
Cranky Media Guy
|
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 03:13 AM
It occurs to me that there is a simple way for Newsweek to deal with this. What they should do is simply break the usual guarantee of confidentiality and reveal their government source for this story.
I know that that goes against the usual journalistic practice, but I believe it is warranted in this case. After all, either the source lied to them about the original story (although it has been verified by stories in other publications) OR he/she is lying now about suddenly "not being able to remember" where the original information came from.
In my opinion, this whole "scandal" is a product of the Bush administration which is trying, yet again, to discredit any mainstream press venue which has the temerity to challenge their policies.
Wouldn't it be fascinating to find out that the Newsweek government source is the same person who gave CBS the Rathergate memo? I'm not saying that that is necessarily the case, but suppose it was. Wouldn't THAT be fascinating?
The only way to find out what the real story is is for Newsweek to reveal their source. After all, why should they protect someone who is responsible for ruining their reputation? Let that weasel squirm. |
DFStuckey
in Auckland New Zealand
|
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 04:24 AM
Well, Newsweek joins the grand tradition of The Dallas Post and the Boxer Rebellion, and W R Hearst and the Spanish/American war.
Gotta love the better media members.... |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 08:14 AM
...Flushing a bible isn't that big of a deal. It's a BOOK. It's not something that I HAVE to have in order for me to have faith!
...I quite agree w/ Acci.
...CMG- I'm not against all freedom of the press. Fine, let the paper print another story about a religious face in someone's breakfast. BUT, I take serious issue with military "news" being reported and then our military being killed or endangered b/c of it. During the Shock & Awe campaign, reporters were being protected by OUR military. Now those same reporters are getting our military boys killed. Reporters wanted to go oversees to be in the thick of things and get the story of their lives. There is a prize for that isn't there? They're not doing it to 'update & enlighten' the public. They're doing it for a hunk of metal on their shelf and an extra line in their resume. |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 08:19 AM
Cranky Media Guy,
Just because the Founding Fathers thought that something was so, that doesn't mean that they were entirely right. Notice, for example, how they decided not to ban slavery. Nor were they able to foresee everything; that's why there are now 26 amendments instead of the original 10.
But I never said that the First Amendment shouldn't exist. I said that it does serve a purpose. What I was complaining about were journalists who lack either judgment or ethics, or even both. These journalist do sometimes use the First Amendment as an excuse for their actions. They use it as an excuse for going into peoples' yards and taking pictures through their windows. They use it as an excuse for printing articles that can cause great harm. They use it as an excuse for all sorts of things. Certainly, the journalists should have freedom to do their work. But they can't work in completely unrestrained freedom, or else they'll start interfering with our freedoms.
After all, another part of the First Amendment is freedom to practice your own religion. But would you want to have some people who follow a religion involving frequent human sacrifices to move in next door to you? Probably not. You'd probably object to being dragged from your bed and thrown screaming into a bonfire. That would interfere with your own personal rights. And so there are safeguards to allow freedom of religion within certain limits. The point I was making was that the safeguards for another part of the First Amendment, freedom of the press, are either haphazardly applied or else not there at all.
Nor can blaming the Bush administration for the story answer the problem. Whether the story was a set-up, or "the government" got to the source, or none of the above scenarios, the paper chose to write and print the article. It was their own decision, and it was a stupid one.
Anyway, regardless of any political machinations going on behind this current story (I can tell you're very strongly anti-Bush, so I don't want this to devolve into that sort of political debate), unethical or plain stupid journalism has been going on for longer than the Republicans have been in control. |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 08:25 AM
Right, Acci. Just what I was thinking.
And CMG...I don't think age has anything to do with it. My being 22 doesn't mean that I don't understand, or don't know what the cold war was about. Even at my age, I can have an opinion.
You might just be cranky because you're middle aged.  |
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 09:16 AM
I can understand not reporting the movements of the American army, but seriously, why doesn't a single news source have the guts to report the an estimate on the number Iraqi casualties? Our news agencies seem pretty tame to me. |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 09:37 AM
Casualties in Iraq.
Iraqi Body Count.
Iraq Coalition Casualties.
The War's Toll on Iraqi Civillians
...I found those using Google. Didn't have a lot of time b/c I'm working. But I'm sure you could find more if you have time and the right keywords. |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 09:38 AM
The CORRECT link for the War's Toll on Iraqi Civillians. |
Hairy Houdini
|
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 09:54 AM
I wonder if the Newsweek article would have caused as much outrage, had these last three years not been dominated by true stories of American imperialism, disrespect for Islam, and outright lies from the Bush Administration. Oh yes, let's not forget deaths of thousands of innocent civilians. The whole War On Terror has been incompetantly waged. I find it ironic that the Bush boys are now calling for Newsweek to make ammends, but refuse to acknowledge any mistruths or misprepresentations on their part. It's all sad, regretable, avoidable, and takes us away from forging a secure future of Peace. (end rant) |
aw
in Glasgow
|
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 10:00 AM
I am not excusing the actions of the rioters for a second, but there are other people coming forward to back up Newsweeks story; namely the former Guantanamo Bay detainee Moazzam Begg, who supports the story and claims that it was policy to deface / descrate the Koran as part of a policy of breaking down prisoners using their religion.
(NB: Begg - a British citizen - was a detainee from roughly 2002-2004; he was transferred to the UK with 3 others and released without charge after being interviewed by the police upon arrival).
I think it's worth noting 2 things about the story; firstly, the source only withdrew what they said *after* it had been published. Secondly, Newsweek claimed they contacted 2 DoD officials to try and verify the story; one refused to comment atall and the other didn't deny it (but did comment on other allegations).
Before being heavily critical of the story, it's probably best to be able to check out how well they researched/confirmed it; that's something noone here (unless they edit Newsweek...) can probably accurately judge.
This - http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=764702 - somewhat worries me; specifically
'McClellan said a retraction was only "a good first step" and said Newsweek should try to set the record straight by "clearly explaining what happened and how they got it wrong, particularly to the Muslim world, and pointing out the policies and practices of our military."'
To me it sounds almost like a request for a nice PR whitewash, particularly the latter part. |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 10:09 AM
The reason I was upset was b/c A news story (it could have been about anything) directly caused a riot in which Americans were killed.
I don't think that Americans are a superior people in any way. But I AM an American. So knowing that an AMERICAN newspaper carried a story that caused AMERICAN soldiers to die is just awful.
I wish none of this was going on, but we are occupying Iraq, and people are being killed. I'd rather it be people that are TRULY terrorists being killed rather than innocent civillians. |
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 04:48 PM
Thank you Maegan, it's true I've been lazy in looking it up; however, I think with a truly objective news media, this information would be known by the average individual. The information is being collected and published, but there |
padego
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 10:34 PM
one person's terrorist, another's freedom fighter... |
|
Page 1 of 4 pages 1 2 3 > Last › |
In order to post comments you have to register as a member of the site. We were forced to restrict commenting because spammers were flooding the comment form with spam and crashing the server.
|
Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.
|
