|
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 3 of 4 pages < 1 2 3 4 > |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 02:34 AM
*continued from above*
Finally, it is irrelevant whether the story is true or not; by reporting it, the magazine made a mistake. But regarding the veracity of the story:
First, you claim that the story that Newsweek ran is one "which has been reported in many venues other than Newsweek". Just what sources are these? You're constantly asking for evidence, but not supplying much yourself. What other published sources mentioned the Koran being flushed down a toilet at Guant |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 02:37 AM
By the way, I apologize for my rather excessive verbosity in writing four rather long posts in succession. I've been away for a week, and so I had to reply to a week's worth of other people's comments all at once! |
Cranky Media Guy
|
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 02:46 AM
Accipiter said:
"You wrote, "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." That is not correct. General Myers' report said that "the situation in Jalalabad began on May 10 with peaceful student protests reacting to a report in Newsweek magazine". Then, "the following day the protests in the city had turned violent". True, Myers did say that there were other factors involved: "rioting was related more to the ongoing political reconciliation process". Note that one word, "more". Not "only", not "to nothing other than", but "more". That means that the rioting was at least partially about the Newsweek article."
OK, so according to you, the riots had NOTHING to do with the actual incidents of Koran abuse and EVERYTHING to do with Newsweek's reporting of them? The Afghanis weren't mad that it happened but WERE mad that it was reported. That sounds reasonable to you? They may have rioted in reaction to a report in Newsweek, as you quote, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they were mad AT the report itself.
As for your statement about magazines being distributed in other countries, uh, no duh. What I asked was for PROOF that the people who rioted had access to Newsweek. I have no doubt that at least a few copies of the magazine could be found somewhere in Afghanistan, but I have seen NO proof at all that the rioters have ever seen the magazine, let alone "responded" to anything in it.
The fact is that Koran abuse by American troops has been well-documented for the past two years. According to the "Newsweek is solely guilty" theory, NONE of the actual incidents nor any of the earlier reports were reacted to by Afghanis.
As for calling for censorship, well, YOU may not be, but it sure looks to me like Maegan is:
"This is why I have issues with freedom of the press and all that."
What would the alternative to Freedom of the Press be if it isn't censorship?
As for you, Accipiter, what does this mean?:
"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."
How does an American citizen "hide" behind the First Amendment? They didn't yell "fire" in a crowded theater; they reported (accurately, as it turns out) on actions taken by the American military.
Would you prefer a press that NEVER reported on things--done in YOUR and MY name, by the way--that are wrong? If there's a problem with the press in this country (and God knows there is), it's that they tend to be too deferential to those in power.
If you think I'm not a critic of the press, you're WAY wrong. Currently, I am running a blog which comments on a daily basis on one of the TV news shows in my market, specifically designed to point out what a piece of tabloid shit it is. I was pissed off for ages by this "news" show and I finally decided to do something about it. I WANT a press that reports on the bad things done by the military and the government, so long as the reporting is accurate.
Newsweek's story was accurate. Even if it WAS the "cause" of the rioting (which I do not believe), they still had the right and the obligation to report the story. |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 04:26 AM
Cranky Media Guy,
You wrote, "OK, so according to you, the riots had NOTHING to do with the actual incidents of Koran abuse and EVERYTHING to do with Newsweek's reporting of them?" I thought that I'd already addressed that, but this particular part of the debate seems to be going in circles. It's clear that I'm not understanding you and you're not understanding me in regards to this point. Could you try explaining it again, so I can answer you properly and we can actually tell what we're each talking about?
You also mentioned that you've seen no proof that the rioters had seen the magazine or responded to it. Well, quite likely the majority of them hadn't actually held a copy of the magazine in their hands and read it. They wouldn't have needed to. What would have happened is that a few people did read the article, and then they spread the information it contained either by word of mouth or by printing it in their own newspapers (as happened in Yemen). There are plenty of people out there who look for every opportunity to start protests and unrest, and they would have gone to great pains to make certain that the news was spread. By publishing that story, Newsweek gave those people fuel to ignite the protests and riots.
Consider this scenario: I visit a prison where I know there are dangerous, unrepentant murderers, even if most of the other prisoners are non-violent types. I go into the bathroom and intentionally leave a box of loaded guns in it, knowing that anybody could have access to it. An inmate takes the box and distributes the guns. The prisoners decide that since they have the guns, they ought to use them. Therefore they start a prison riot, and several guards are shot. Am I or am I not therefore at least partly responsible for the guards being shot, even though the majority of the prisoners never saw the actual box that the guns came in?
As for evidence of the people responding to the magazine, there is plenty. I already mentioned Myers' report where it was said that the protests were regarding the magazine article. Many of the news articles have also mentioned it, as well as showing pictures of Afghans carrying banners about the information carried in the article. Then there have been all the press releases by Afghan officials referring to the story and the information it contained.
Why do you say that in order for the Newsweek article to have led to the protest, no other reports of other incidents could have previously caused disturbances? There have been previous protests about other incidents and issues. This particular protest was about the information that the Afghans had gained from the Newsweek article. True, there might have been a protest on May 11 about some other issue if Newsweek hadn't printed the article. Or there might not have, in which case the people who are dead now wouldn't have been killed. For that one particular protest, though, it was the information that Newsweek had published that provided the reason for gathering.
*continued below* |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 04:33 AM
*continued from above*
In defense of Maegan: obviously I can't really know what's going on in her mind. But she has said that she's not supporting general censorship, and I haven't seen anything in her posts that leads me to doubt her. Her having "issues" with Freedom of the Press does not mean that she's automatically leaping to the extreme of censorship. You yourself mentioned that you have issues with a so-called "news show", and with the press being too deferential to those in power. That doesn't mean that you want to censor them. It only means you want them to change the way they do things. You can support something while at the same time not being satisfied with the way it is currently being done.
And about my own comment about people hiding behind the 1st Amendment, I meant exactly what I said. People do stupid things, and then claim that it was their right and obligation as journalists rather than admitting that they made a mistake. You seem to agree that shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is a violation of the 1st Amendment. Why is it a violation? Because it is irresponsible and likely to cause injury and chaos, even if the person yelling it only intended it for entertainment purposes and not intending to cause injuries. By the same reasoning, if somebody were to write a note saying "there's a bomb in the theatre" and people got injured, that would also be a violation. Even if it was only meant as a joke, or as entertainment. Whoever chose to write the note was irresponsible and didn't fully consider the possible results of their actions. Well, Newsweek chose to write the article in question, even though it had at best very scarce and shaky evidence backing it up, and at a time when relations with Muslims was already tense and when Muslims were protesting and killing people due to all sorts of other issues As a result, people were injured and killed.
Again, with what proof are you saying that the Newsweek story is accurate? The military says it isn't, the people criticizing Newsweek say it isn't, the people defending Newsweek say it isn't, and the editor himself says it isn't.
As for Newsweek having the "right and obligation" to publish the story: how do you come to that conclusion? Are they supposed to publish every single piece of information they come across, no matter what the results are? If they happen to find out that the army is planning a surprise attack on enemy positions two weeks from now, do they have the "right and obligation" to rush to the printing press and publish that information? |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 06:00 AM
Hm. Well said. |
Cranky Media Guy
|
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 | 02:55 AM
OK, let's see...
Copies of the Koran were abused by American troops as early as 2002.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/25/AR2005052501395.html
But that's the "liberal media." No one backs that up, right?
Well, the FBI has documented the incidents; the ACLU filed to get a copy of the FBI reports:
http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/052505/
Here's some background on the ACLU's discovery:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=790814
Some people have distorted the facts about Newsweek's reporting on the subject and
General Myers' assertions that Newsweek wasn't the cause of the rioting:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200505170003
The White House's *new* official position is that Newsweek WASN'T the cause (amusingly,
the President's spokesman is now pretending that he never claimed that Newsweek caused
the rioting):
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000930917
The president of Afghanistan also says Newsweek didn't cause the rioting:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/22/123747/999 (I've also seen video of Karzai saying this
in an interview with Wolf Blitzer)
OK, so what's the case for the argument that Newsweek was guilty of causing the riots now? |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 | 12:57 PM
Cranky Media Guy,
Only one of those links contradicts anything that I said earlier. The rest tend to support my views instead.
Have you read those FBI reports? Many of the claims of abuse, including most of the ones involving the Koran, are hearsay or nonsense. The claims of Koran abuse that may have been actually witnessed by a prisoner occur in sections 3836-3838, 3878-3881, 3959-3960, 3962, 3966, 3982-3984, and 4084-4085. That's seven whole inmates; not an overwhelming number. 4084-4085 is a complaint that guards had simply looked in his Koran, an action by the guards that another prisoner in section 3982-3984 admits was justified. 3959-3960, 3962, and 3982-3984 are complaints that prisoners' Korans are removed when they misbehave. Only 3836-3838, 3878-3881, and 3966 mention actual abuse to the Koran, and with them it is vague whether they saw it or are merely reporting hearsay. 3836-3838 says a Koran was kicked. 3966 says a Koran was dropped on the floor. It's only one inmate out of all the others, in section 3878-3881, who mentions the flushing. This is in a prison (prisoners often naturally have a grudge against their detainers) full of Afghans (many of who have been taught since an early age to hate and hurt the US), many of whom are potentially terrorists (who will naturally do anything they can do to damage the image of the US). On the other hand, we have inmates in sections 3973-3976 and 3982-3984 who state that they have not seen any cases of the Koran being abused. We also have cases in sections 3873-3875, 3998, and 4086-4088 where prisoners were shown to be lying about abuse. There are many instances of inmates contradicting each other. You consider this to be conclusive proof that the Koran was flushed in the toilet? Newsweek took what was said to them by a single source who had read from a single source an unconfirmed report based on a single source (who quite possibly is intending to damage America's image) who claims that he is aware of a case of the Koran being flushed, and then the magazine printed that as though it was a confirmed fact.
Ah ha, thanks for the copy of General Myers' press conference. I couldn't find a copy of exactly what he'd said, and had to go by what news articles said he'd said and by what the report he'd been referring to said. So it was actually mentioned by him in the briefing that the violence was not connected to the magazine article, although he's actually paraphrasing General Eikenberry's report from Afghanistan. So he's saying that somebody else said it. Unfortunately, he mis-stated what Eikenberry's report said. Since I hadn't been able to see just what Myers' had said to the reporters, I was having to base my earlier argument regarding his briefing on what Eikenberry's report said. When I'd written on May 24th, "General Myers' report said that "the situation in Jalalabad began on May 10 with peaceful student protests reacting to a report in Newsweek magazine". Then, "the following day the protests in the city had turned violent"", I was quoting from Eikenberry's report. It seems that Myers misrepresented Eikenberry's findings, so you were right about Myers.
*continued below* |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 | 12:58 PM
*continued from above*
Furthermore, White House Press Secretary McClellan is not saying that Newsweek is not responsible for the riots. He says that the reporters were not clearly representing what he's saying. That's completely different from recanting his previous statements. And in that exact same article you've linked to above, he says, "The discredited report was damaging. It was used to incite violence" and, "There are some that want to continue to defend what is a discredited report that has been disavowed by Newsweek" That's hardly supporting the view that the article was correct or that it wasn't at least partly responsible for the riots.
The same goes for your link to Afghan President Karzai. Where exactly is Karzai saying that Newsweek isn't responsible? He says that the riots were directed at the peace process. I agree that that's likely. As I've said before, agitators used the information in the Newsweek article to upset the Afghans and get them to protest, and then the protest was turned into a riot that was intended to damage the peace process and the new Afghan government. Flawed Newsweek article leads to propaganda leads to protest leads to rioting leads to deaths and political turmoil.
Incidentally, even Karzai is saying there that the article was only gossip and a rumour, and that it was a serious problem that effected "people's beliefs and feelings". That doesn't support your arguments.
The Newsweek article has done even more damage than the riots in Afghanistan, too. Al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya have broadcast what the article said, and many foreign newspapers and magazines have quoted the article. So now many Muslims around the world are protesting about the alleged incident that Newsweek published. It has become something of a cause c |
Hairy Houdini
|
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 | 01:02 PM
Koff-bullshit-Koff |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 | 03:32 PM
Quite possibly, Hairy! |
Cranky Media Guy
|
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 | 06:36 PM
Hey, Accipiter, the video of Karzai saying that the riots were caused by something other than the SINGLE SENTENCE in a ten-paragraph article in Newsweek can be found at crooksandliars.com .
Eh, what does HE know, though? He's just the president of Afghanistan. |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 10:32 PM
Hmm, I'll try watching that video clip at some point. The joys of trying to open large files when you're using dial-up. Rather anaemic dial-up, for that matter. |
crankymediaguy
|
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 02:01 AM
I'm in the same boat, Accipiter. Although I grew up in NYC, I now live on the coast in Oregon. No version of broadband, other than very expensive satellite, is available to us here.
In fact, I only saw the clip by semi-accident. I clicked on the link, realized how long it would take to download it and unclicked it. Well, I *thought* I unclicked it. Over a half-hour later, while I was looking at other stuff on the 'Net, the clip suddenly started running. I had been downloading it all that time.
Anyway, in case you don't get the chance to see it, Karzai really does say that the rioting wasn't caused by Newsweek to Wolf Blitzer on it.
We're probably never going to resolve this. I even have the quotes from Bush's press spokesman from the 16th and 17th of this month where he says that Newsweek DID cause the death (which he later lied about ever having said) but do we care that much anymore? |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 03:20 AM
The problems with this debate are the lack of primary sources, as well as the contradictory nature of what sources are available. Maybe time will sort things out. |
Fender Washburn
in The Emerald Triangle
|
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 11:25 PM
After reading and seeing pictures about what has gone on in U.S. run prisons in Iraq/Afganistan/Gitmo--like the beating to death of detainee's, sic-ing attact dogs on naked handcuffed people, and the rape of a boy while his father was made to watch--I don't doubt for a second that the Qu'ran was disrespected by U.S. personel. |
Cranky Media Guy
|
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 01:52 AM
Accipiter said:
"The problems with this debate are the lack of primary sources, as well as the contradictory nature of what sources are available. Maybe time will sort things out."
I like, you, Accipiter. I think you're a little stubborn on the Newsweek issue, but you're obviously bright and you're a decent guy. |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 05:14 AM
Me? Stubborn? How can anybody ever think such a thing?
Actually, I am willing to admit that there might be just the tiniest chance of me being slightly wrong on the whole Newsweek problem. There's no real way anybody who I've seen on here can know exactly what went on in Guantanamo and Afghanistan, since we were all probably wasting time in front of our computers while it was going on. But I am still firmly convinced that at times reporters do get carried away and report things that they really shouldn't have. |
Razela
in Chicago, IL
Member
|
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 02:14 PM
Ok, so I haven't actually posted in this thread, though I have been keeping up on reading it, and have found much of what you all have had to say interesting, here's my two cents:
Without getting into whether or not the Newsweek story directly caused any riots (which I have many doubts about anyway), I don't feel that there was anything irresponsible in Newsweek writing about possible misrespects of the Koran if they got the information from an inside source and had no reason to doubt it. Even if it was certain the riots were caused by the Newsweek article, how would Newsweek of ever been able to acertain the future of their article?
I agree that the press shouldn't be posting things that would obviously be stupid, like telling everyone where the president is hiding when he is a possible target, however, I see nothing of this nature in the Newsweek article.
Should the press not report anything that may upset someone? On the contrary, I feel that it is the responsibility of the press to use their connections to bring to light anything that could possibly be being kept secret by the government for no other reason than that they know they would get alot of shit for it if the American public every knew of their behavior.
Is that not why the freedom of press is so sacred? Although as a society we have come to view the press as greedy and irresponsible, and perhaps they are, we need to look past that sometimes and see how essential they really are to protecting the American people from corruption in our government. |
crankymediaguy
|
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 03:16 PM
Accipiter said:
"Actually, I am willing to admit that there might be just the tiniest chance of me being slightly wrong on the whole Newsweek problem. There's no real way anybody who I've seen on here can know exactly what went on in Guantanamo and Afghanistan, since we were all probably wasting time in front of our computers while it was going on. But I am still firmly convinced that at times reporters do get carried away and report things that they really shouldn't have."
Oh, we're in complete agreement on that last part. I don't think it happens all that much, though, assuming you're talking about stuff like Geraldo Rivera showing the approximate location of troops in a battle zone on live TV.
If anything, in this era of corporate news departments, I think the press tends to be too obsequious to people in power. The New York Times, for example, was just lead around by the nose by Ahmed Chalabi, a Bush weasel, during the run-up for the war and printed total propaganda, which they have since admitted. I'd like to see a lot more challenging of authority by the press. I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen, though. |
|
Page 3 of 4 pages < 1 2 3 4 > |
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.
|
