Newsweek F*cks America...

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Suprised this story didn't get more play here. Way to go, lib media....

 

Linky

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Suprised this story didn't get more play here. Way to go, lib media....

 

Linky

337562[/snapback]

 

The retraction's not going to make one damned bit of difference, either. It's not like the Islamic world is going to read it and say "Oh...we were wrong, we're sorry. Carry on."

 

And I'm sure the irony of the Afghanistanis rioting over the loss of a single copy of a widely printed book when they destroyed two literally irreplacable religious icons themselves back in '99-'00 is lost on precisely everyone.

[blzrul]

Hmm. A news magazine prints an article that contains erroneous information from a government official who now states (according to this morning's radio news) that he can't remember where he heard the information. A riot ensures, and people die.

 

A bunch of government agencies produce a bunch of documents that contain erroneous information. Based on that, an invasion occurs, 1600+ American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis die.

 

What's the difference? We hold news magazines to a higher standard than the government of the most powerful country on earth? Wow.

So, you're right, where IS the outrage?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Hmm.  A news magazine prints an article that contains erroneous information from a government official who now states (according to this morning's radio news) that he can't remember where he heard the information.  A riot ensures, and people die.

 

A bunch of government agencies produce a bunch of documents that contain erroneous information.  Based on that, an invasion occurs, 1600+ American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis die.

 

What's the difference?  We hold news magazines to a higher standard than the government of the most powerful country on earth?  Wow.

So, you're right, where IS the outrage?

337573[/snapback]

 

News flash: The US wasn't the only country that believed Iraq had WMD. Far from it.

 

Another News Flash: We're fighting a war that has a heavy public-image aspect to it and Newsweek has just undermined that part of the war effort. They are consistently anti-American, as are Time and other major newsmagazines.

[SilverNRed]

What's the difference?  We hold news magazines to a higher standard than the government of the most powerful country on earth?  Wow.

So, you're right, where IS the outrage?

337573[/snapback]

I'm outraged at how stupid your analogy is. Does that count?

 

There is a slight difference in using essentially all the intelligence information from around the world as the basis for an invasion (not to mention that the onus was on Saddam to prove he was clean and not us) and rushing a BS story to print because it helps make America look bad. The War in Iraq was to remove a dangerous dictator from power and (hopefully) spark the spread of democracy in the Middle East; Newsweek's goal (their *only* goal) was to crap on America. They don't rush half-truth, unconfirmed stories to print that make our country look good, now do they?

 

It's typical of journalism these days anyway. If someone is smart enough and honest enough to be a good journalist, they've probably selected a better profession. And we're left with the bottom of the barrel squad that currently makes up our "best" journalists.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Here's the kicker....they used an UNNAMED source without verification!

 

What's the purpose of that? What possible benefit could come from a story like this?

 

Ever notice that you never hear anything negative from the newsreels of the WWII era? Perhaps we should go back to that model. Lock the press out of sensitive matters because they are obviously up to no good.

[OnTheRocks]

i love to see how long it takes blzrul to listen to Air America for her posting material before she turns around and posts a rant.

[/dev/null]

What's the difference?  We hold news magazines to a higher standard than the government of the most powerful country on earth?  Wow.

So, you're right, where IS the outrage?

337573[/snapback]

 

i've never met a government employee that had to meet high standards

[Chilly]

This sucks. Big time.

 

Newsweek should retract the story and run a story in next week's magazine talking about the retraction. They also need to invesigate the editors who checked out the story, as well as the authors of the story, and remove them if they didn't meet Newsweek's standards.

 

The pentagon though doesn't seem to understand how the media works. "“Newsweek hid behind anonymous sources, which by their own admission do not withstand scrutiny,” Whitman said. “Unfortunately, they cannot retract the damage they have done to this nation or those that were viciously attacked by those false allegations.”" Of course they're going to stand behind an anonymous source, thats how you get insider information. If the sources' name gets out, they're going to stop telling you stuff. Other sources that you have will stop telling you stuff too.

 

The calls to censor the press on here are equally appaling. We have the freedom of press built into our laws to provide a check on our government, and with all of the secrecy of this current administration, we need the freedom of press to balance it out.

 

blzrul's rant makes me want to buy some guns and shoot some democrats with the guns that they hate so much.

 

The white house is handling this very well I'd say. Keep pressuring for a full retraction and pressure newsweek to hold the writers and editors accountable for the story.

[Pete]

Fug Newsweek! Thats borderline treason. They are gonna get buried. There will be a huge backlash...

[Alaska Darin]

Fug Newsweek!  Thats borderline treason.  They are gonna get buried.  There will be a huge backlash...

337663[/snapback]

Yeah, until American Idol starts...

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Yeah, until American Idol starts... 

337683[/snapback]

 

Of course. Whereas Newsweek has clearly demonstrated itself to be fiction now, American Idol is "reality TV". Which do you think is more important, fiction or reality?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Of course.  Whereas Newsweek has clearly demonstrated itself to be fiction now, American Idol is "reality TV".  Which do you think is more important, fiction or reality? 

337684[/snapback]

 

What's the old saying? Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction....

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

The calls to censor the press on here are equally appaling.  We have the freedom of press built into our laws to provide a check on our government, and with all of the secrecy of this current administration, we need the freedom of press to balance it out.

 

337646[/snapback]

 

While I'd normally agree with you, the idea that restricting the press's ability to lie constitutes unwarranted trampling of their rights doesn't quite sit well with me...

[Alaska Darin]

The calls to censor the press on here are equally appaling.  We have the freedom of press built into our laws to provide a check on our government, and with all of the secrecy of this current administration, we need the freedom of press to balance it out.

337646[/snapback]

Censor is probably not the right word. Hold accountable works better. Of course, asking the press to be responsible is the moral equivalent of taking a 5th graders mouth shut when they won't behave. Whaaa!

[Wacka]

 

The calls to censor the press on here are equally appaling.  We have the freedom of press built into our laws to provide a check on our government, and with all of the secrecy of this current administration, we need the freedom of press to balance it out.

337646[/snapback]

 

This is a fuggin' war. Sorry, but there is censorship during wartime. Everything the press put out in WWII was run past the censors first. It's common sense.

 

 

F Newsweek, Time, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN . The almighty$ rules over lives.

[PastaJoe]

This is a fuggin' war. Sorry, but there is censorship during wartime. Everything the press put out in WWII was run past the censors first. It's common sense.

F Newsweek, Time, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN . The almighty$ rules over lives.

337709[/snapback]

 

I guess you never read "1984" by George Orwell.

[Chilly]

This is a fuggin' war. Sorry, but there is censorship during wartime. Everything the press put out in WWII was run past the censors first. It's common sense.

F Newsweek, Time, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN . The almighty$ rules over lives.

337709[/snapback]

 

I like how you didn't mention Fox News there.

 

Hey man, they did it in World War II, it must be good! You know what else might save us some lives? We could put all Middle Eastern people and Middle Eastern Americans into Internment camps! With censorship of the press, this would be pretty easy. We did it in WWII!

 

The almighty political correctness rules over lives, apparently. Oh well.

[Wacka]

I like how you didn't mention Fox News there.

 

Hey man, they did it in World War II, it must be good!  You know what else might save us some lives?  We could put all Middle Eastern people and Middle Eastern Americans into Internment camps!  With censorship of the press, this would be pretty easy.  We did it in WWII!

 

The almighty political correctness rules over lives, apparently.  Oh well.

337790[/snapback]

 

At Fox news America comes first. That's what is wrong with the rest of the media. They are Americans FIRST. If I was Rather or those CBS guys who interviewed Saddam several years ago, I would then go to the military and tell them everything I saw, on the off chance it may have helped get that scum.

[Ghost of BiB]

The problem here, among others, is that I hear a lot from the left side of the aisle as to how much we should be working to "win the hearts and minds" "seek out the reasons and adress them" etc.

 

Do you have ANY idea how mauch damage this just did to those efforts?

[Pete]

15 people dead so far and the blood is on Newsweeks hands...

[Wacka]

The left loves slogans so much, here's one:

 

"Newsweek lied and people died!"

[Alaska Darin]

The left loves slogans so much, here's one:

 

"Newsweek lied and people died!"

337886[/snapback]

Conservative hippies UNITE!

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

The problem here, among others, is that I hear a lot from the left side of the aisle as to how much we should be working to "win the hearts and minds" "seek out the reasons and adress them" etc.

 

Do you have ANY idea how mauch damage this just did to those efforts?

337869[/snapback]

 

Probably irrepairable too. Even if Newsweek somehow went to every single Muslim and told them "the story's false, we screwed up, it never happened, we're sorry", people'd STILL forget the apology and remember the story. And when the Islamic world calls for an investigation into the story, and the US response is "There's nothing to investigate, Newsweek admitted the story's fabricated", all anyone will remember is "The US refused to investigate the allegations."

 

Were I in Scott McClellan's postion, if Newsweek has a White House press pass, I'd be making serious noise about pulling it. Unconscionably stupid bush-league mistake on their part, at least as bad as anything Rather was ever blamed for.

[Thurman's Helmet]

"I'm so outraged, I'm going to write my local congressman and then....DING! Oh, my hot pockets are done, mmmmm Cheeseburger hot pockets...aaaaaaaahhhhrrrrrrrgggghh...... Oh snap! Time for that hunky Ryan Seacrest CLICK"

[VABills]

"I'm so outraged, I'm going to write my local congressman and then....DING!  Oh, my hot pockets are done, mmmmm Cheeseburger hot pockets...aaaaaaaahhhhrrrrrrrgggghh......  Oh snap!  Time for that hunky Ryan Seacrest CLICK"

337998[/snapback]

Too bad they don't have kabob hot pockets in Afghanistan. memories tend to be a little longer over there, and that is where the problems are.

[TheMadCap]

The retraction's not going to make one damned bit of difference, either.  It's not like the Islamic world is going to read it and say "Oh...we were wrong, we're sorry.  Carry on."

 

And I'm sure the irony of the Afghanistanis rioting over the loss of a single copy of a widely printed book when they destroyed two literally irreplacable religious icons themselves back in '99-'00 is lost on precisely everyone.

337569[/snapback]

 

 

Refresh me on this please....

[Ghost of BiB]

Refresh me on this please....

338284[/snapback]

 

Taliban

[Adam]

screw the media....they think they are entitled to do whatever they want....they really need to be taught a lesson.

[stuckincincy]

Here's the kicker....they used an UNNAMED source without verification!

 

337586[/snapback]

 

Reminds me of Dan Rather, with his attempt to stab Bush with his National Guard "reports".

 

Good ole Dan...I still remember him and Diane Sawyer in 1989 putting faces and names of protesters on tv in Tienamen Square in 1989. Good for their ratings - too bad those they fingered "disappeared".

[TheMadCap]

Reminds me of Dan Rather, with his attempt to stab Bush with his National Guard "reports".

 

Good ole Dan...I still remember him and Diane Sawyer in 1989 putting faces and names of protesters on tv in Tienamen Square in 1989. Good for their ratings - too bad those they fingered "disappeared".

338325[/snapback]

 

 

Good job Danny boy!!!!!!!

 

Kind of like when someone, I can't remember which talking head it was, made the statement "they probaly already have enough evidence to convict him", in reference to poor Richard Jewle.

[Campy]

Is it totally beyond belief that the story was true and that Newsweek is backing off at the request of the government?

 

Considering how many people here are calling for reinstituting full-fledged censorship of the media, it wouldn't be totally out of the question for something like that to occur, would it?

[ExiledInIllinois]

Is it totally beyond belief that the story was true and that Newsweek is backing off at the request of the government?

 

Considering how many people here are calling for reinstituting full-fledged censorship of the media, it wouldn't be totally out of the question for something like that to occur, would it?

338360[/snapback]

 

I thought of that but wouldn't Newsweek want to blow the cover on this type of government intrusion?

 

I would rather be honest in the end.

 

They can't prove it as fact? They have to back off?

 

There is a lot of stuff floating out there, they should be careful not to fall into a propaganda trap that is aimed at making the media out to be worse than it already is.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Is it totally beyond belief that the story was true and that Newsweek is backing off at the request of the government?

 

Considering how many people here are calling for reinstituting full-fledged censorship of the media, it wouldn't be totally out of the question for something like that to occur, would it?

338360[/snapback]

Thanks for putting that into words for me.

 

I don't know what to make of this, either way it is a pretty god-awful situation. But I don't think shutting down the press and limiting it to the official party line (how we hated the Soviets yet are talking about emulating them -- irony) is a good idea at all. But if Newsweek indeed erred with the source they cited, the blood is on their hands and the ensuing economic hit they are about to take is justified. The truth is probably lost somewhere in-between as usual.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Another question, unpoliticized for your pleasure, I just honestly would like to know: if the story is indeed untrue, what sort of motivation would the "unnamed source" have for telling it, knowing the damage it could cause either way?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Thanks for putting that into words for me.

 

I don't know what to make of this, either way it is a pretty god-awful situation.  But I don't think shutting down the press and limiting it to the official party line (how we hated the Soviets yet are talking about emulating them -- irony) is a good idea at all.  But if Newsweek indeed erred with the source they cited, the blood is on their hands and the ensuing economic hit they are about to take is justified.  The truth is probably lost somewhere in-between as usual.

338381[/snapback]

 

Look, during WWII tha American Government censored to press to ensure it wasn't aiding and abetting the enemy. If youa sk me, that was the government's one huge mistake in the Vietnam Era and it's being repeated today. They should have taken the Gulf War or WWII approach to the media this time around. Controlled access.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Thanks for putting that into words for me.

 

I don't know what to make of this, either way it is a pretty god-awful situation.  But I don't think shutting down the press and limiting it to the official party line (how we hated the Soviets yet are talking about emulating them -- irony) is a good idea at all.  But if Newsweek indeed erred with the source they cited, the blood is on their hands and the ensuing economic hit they are about to take is justified.  The truth is probably lost somewhere in-between as usual.

338381[/snapback]

 

I don't disagree on the idea of censorship...but the flip-side of that argument I keep hearing implies that freedom of the press carries with it freedom from any responsibility for their reporting. I don't want to see the press censored...but I do want to see the press held officially culpable for egregiously irresponsible reporting (particularly when a story KILLS people).

[RuntheDamnBall]

At Fox news America comes first. That's what is wrong with the rest of the media. They are Americans FIRST.  If I was Rather or those CBS guys who interviewed Saddam several years ago, I would then go to the military and tell them everything I saw, on the off chance it may have helped get that scum.

337829[/snapback]

I find it amusing that you think the media's job is to do the government's job, or that the media would somehow know more about Saddam than the military would. If it troubles you so much, why don't we just get rid of the first amendment and start subscribing to the "Uncle Sam Times"? Neo-Stalinism rules!

 

I also find it amusing that you think Fox News is any less driven by capital than NBC, CBS, CNN or any other news division. Preposterous. If you honestly believe this, you are as brand-driven and media manipulated as any of the "lemmings" you and your pals chastise.

[RuntheDamnBall]

I don't disagree on the idea of censorship...but the flip-side of that argument I keep hearing implies that freedom of the press carries with it freedom from any responsibility for their reporting.  I don't want to see the press censored...but I do want to see the press held officially culpable for egregiously irresponsible reporting (particularly when a story KILLS people).

338388[/snapback]

Again, if the story is false, and people died because of it, this is unacceptable and possibly illegal. If so, those responsbile should see charges or some heavy fine/suit for it. Also, as fans of the free-market system I'm sure you all understand the hit Newsweek is going to take here, whatever the facts. They are going to be hurting, and that reaction is part of the responsibility they bear if the source was bad.

 

My question about the source remains unanswered, though. If the source did lie, then ultimately Newsweek's trusted source is most responsible. If not, then what happened, here?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Again, if the story is false, and people died because of it, this is unacceptable and possibly illegal.  If so, those responsbile should see charges or some heavy fine/suit for it.  Also, as fans of the free-market system I'm sure you all understand the hit Newsweek is going to take here, whatever the facts.  They are going to be hurting, and that reaction is part of the responsibility they bear if the source was bad.

 

My question about the source remains unanswered, though.  If the source did lie, then ultimately Newsweek's trusted source is most responsible.  If not, then what happened, here?

338394[/snapback]

 

The source may be responsible, but if he did lie, it was the Newsweek editorial staff's job to catch the lie before it made it to press.