NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7857407/site/newsweek/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156591,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/15/newsweek.quran/index.html

Now that they have sparked anti-American hatred in the Moslem world and gotten people killed in riots they say oops we got it wrong. What irresponsible journalism. :(

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7857407/site/newsweek/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156591,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/15/newsweek.quran/index.html

Now that they have sparked anti-American hatred in the Moslem world and gotten people killed in riots they say oops we got it wrong. What irresponsible journalism. :(
Wait there is such a thing called responsible journalism? :eek:

How can they admit they got it wrong? It was an anti-American policy, anti-Bush story so it becomes true simply by it nature. It must have been true!! ;)

Nice job, Newsweek.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7857407/site/newsweek/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156591,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/15/newsweek.quran/index.html

Now that they have sparked anti-American hatred in the Moslem world and gotten people killed in riots they say oops we got it wrong. What irresponsible journalism. :(


Like the press has ever taken responsibility for the lives it has needlessly cost.

...That is the STUPIDEST reason to riot and kill and burn.

Oh no, they FLUSHED AN UN-UNIQUE BOOK! Nooooooooooooooo!

People must die, lest they start flushing an almanac! Or a Bible! Or a copy of Uncanny X-Men #154!

Idiots.

...That is the STUPIDEST reason to riot and kill and burn.

Oh no, they FLUSHED AN UN-UNIQUE BOOK! Nooooooooooooooo!

People must die, lest they start flushing an almanac! Or a Bible! Or a copy of Uncanny X-Men #154!

Idiots.

The point is they didn't flush the book down the toilet.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7857407/site/newsweek/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156591,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/15/newsweek.quran/index.html

Now that they have sparked anti-American hatred in the Moslem world and gotten people killed in riots they say oops we got it wrong. What irresponsible journalism. :(

Could we compare that to the irresponsible government that took us to an unjustified war as well?

The point is they didn't flush the book down the toilet.

The shoddy reporting is shoddy reporting.

But you can't blame stupid reporters for crazy zealots.

People burn books I like all the time (Chick fans do so love the smell of roasting Dungeon Master Guides in the morning). I have yet to burn down one of their buildings in response.

The shoddy reporting is shoddy reporting.

But you can't blame stupid reporters for crazy zealots.

People burn books I like all the time (Chick fans do so love the smell of roasting Dungeon Master Guides in the morning). I have yet to burn down one of their buildings in response.

Maybe, Maybe not. but you can fire and blacklist cruddy reporters for cruddy reporting that cost people their lives. You can also hire people to beat the crap out of them in back alleys. Oh, I am so sorry, your entire family died because I wanted to make a headline and didnt bother to verify sources.

The point is they didn't flush the book down the toilet.according to some reports, it was the Detainee who was "ripping pages out of the Quoran and stuffing it into the toliet to stop it up in protest."

The sad thing is, all the damage to the US, all the lives and property lost in Riots, all the good that the US done is now ruined. and all Newsweek can say is "oops, sorry."

How many papers and news services rushed to get the "juicy" story out and ended up being embarrassed and wrong. How much damage needs to be done before people stop assuming that "Credible Sources" aren't "Infallible Sources"

They always talk about the "Freedom of the Press" but never about the "Responsibility of the Press."

Oh sure, someone will be labled the scapegoat and be fired, but that's a small price to pay after all the damage they've done.

Embarassing and unfortunate, but that's the price we pay for a free press. I'd rather have an incident like this every week than face the alternative.

according to some reports, it was the Detainee who was "ripping pages out of the Quoran and stuffing it into the toliet to stop it up in protest."

The sad thing is, all the damage to the US, all the lives and property lost in Riots, all the good that the US done is now ruined. and all Newsweek can say is "oops, sorry."

How many papers and news services rushed to get the "juicy" story out and ended up being embarrassed and wrong. How much damage needs to be done before people stop assuming that "Credible Sources" aren't "Infallible Sources"

They always talk about the "Freedom of the Press" but never about the "Responsibility of the Press."

Oh sure, someone will be labled the scapegoat and be fired, but that's a small price to pay after all the damage they've done.
And, of course, the first words out of the right's mouth is "censorship".


Get over it. Things happen, that's the price we pay for a free press. Did you even bother to read the article? Newsweek explains how this happens, and how the original report held alligations that were misconstrued and never caught by the military itself.

And, of course, the first words out of the right's mouth is "censorship".


Get over it. Things happen, that's the price we pay for a free press. Did you even bother to read the article? Newsweek explains how this happens, and how the original report held alligations that were misconstrued and never caught by the military itself.

Censorship? Who said censorship? How is responsible reporting equated to censorship? I'm sure the people killed and injured from riots can just "get over it."

Censorship? Who said censorship? How is responsible reporting equated to censorship? I'm sure the people killed and injured from riots can just "get over it."
Please. Let me guess, the story has to be run past the government to ensure that it is 'resonsible'. Stories that might incite rioting will, of course, be denied publication. Because someone might get hurt.

oops

oops

Tee hee hee, SP believed the first story!! Heh ehe. Unlike you I am perfect and have never ever believed a story when it first came out! Perfect me perfect me!!! ;)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7857407/site/newsweek/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156591,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/15/newsweek.quran/index.html

Now that they have sparked anti-American hatred in the Moslem world and gotten people killed in riots they say oops we got it wrong. What irresponsible journalism. :(

Seriously, this isolated incident would be just that, and isolated incident, if everything at Abu Ghraib never happened. That's what really sparked the Anti-American sentiment over there, the TRUE photographed and documented abuse.

If none of that had never happened, this faux pau by Newsweek might have been tolerated in the Arab world and veiwed objectively, instead of subjectively as it is now viewed since Abu Ghraib.

To put it quite simply, the Arab world has had quite enough, and they're way to incensed at this point to parse hairs on abuse scandals, they simply just want America out at this point.

Embarassing and unfortunate, but that's the price we pay for a free press. I'd rather have an incident like this every week than face the alternative.
That's a bunch of nonsense. I'd rather have a free press that can print facts. I'd rather have a free press that can tell facts from fiction, too.

Its funny how people make a big deal about this despite the fact that Newsweek had reliable sources. If you read the whole article or if you read the condensed version found here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7857154/site/newsweek/

You find out the complete story. The story about the Quran desecration had already been published in other media sources based only on things prisoners had said. Newsweek did not report on the incident at that time. When a high level government official told them that same information, then they decided it was worth looking into. So, they wrote all of that down and gave it to another high level government official so he could corroborate it. That official pointed out an inaccurate section unrelated to this allegation, so Newsweek changed their story about the section deemed inaccurate to reflect that. The high level official said that the rest of the document looked accurate to him. Therefore, with two well placed high ranking government officials as sources, as well as the allegations of former prisoners, Newsweek published their article. This is a fine example of responsible journalism that this time ended up being incorrect. Newsweek actually had better sources for this story than Bush did when he claimed Iraq had a WMD program.

Its funny how people make a big deal about this despite the fact that Newsweek had reliable sources. If you read the whole article or if you read the condensed version found here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7857154/site/newsweek/

You find out the complete story. The story about the Quran desecration had already been published in other media sources based only on things prisoners had said. Newsweek did not report on the incident at that time. When a high level government official told them that same information, then they decided it was worth looking into. So, they wrote all of that down and gave it to another high level government official so he could corroborate it. That official pointed out an inaccurate section unrelated to this allegation, so Newsweek changed their story about the section deemed inaccurate to reflect that. The high level official said that the rest of the document looked accurate to him. Therefore, with two well placed high ranking government officials as sources, as well as the allegations of former prisoners, Newsweek published their article. This is a fine example of responsible journalism that this time ended up being incorrect. Newsweek actually had better sources for this story than Bush did when he claimed Iraq had a WMD program.
The story I've read makes it sound like the well-placed sources were only reporting gossip. If this information was so reliable, why the apology?

The story I've read makes it sound like the well-placed sources were only reporting gossip. If this information was so reliable, why the apology?

The story you read was incorrect. The source did not give them gossip he gave them information he claimed to have read in a government report due to come out soon. That is why the government was able to say this isnt true. All the government had to say is that the report they are publishing does not contain that information despite Newsweek's claims that it does. The part of the story Newsweek has backed off of is the claim that the report will contain that information (something we now know for a fact to be false). Their source now claims he was mistaken about which report he read that information in. He still stands by his statement that he read it in some document. The fact that this information has been alleged by the prisoners who have been released from Gitmo, it has been read in some memo or official document that passed the desk of a high ranking government official, and was not immediately noticed as a fabrication by a high ranking official of the Department of Defense who corroborated the article before publication, all point to the idea that there is truth to this allegation. Newsweek is being careful because they want to be responsible, specially when the consequences of being incorrect could translate into lost lives. But this does not change the fact that there is still likely to be alot of truth to the core of the story although the allegation that this specific government report would reveal this allegation was incorrect.

So here is what my favorite source, the WSJ has to say on the matter:

Newsweek now reports that, on rechecking with the senior U.S. official who earlier reported seeing details of the Koran incident in a report on a military investigation, the "longtime reliable source" could no longer be sure exactly where he had seen them.

Whitaker said Newsweek reporters had sought comment from two Defense Department officials. One declined, while the other challenged another part of the story but did not dispute the Koran claim.

I see how someone with an anti-administration bias could read sinister implications into this. On the other hand, one could interpret this to mean that the "fact" was unsubstantiated upon pressing the issue. Fortunately, Newsweek recognizes that the second case is more likely, hence the public apology. Unfortunately, they realized it a little too late for the fifteen who have been killed as a result.

...That is the STUPIDEST reason to riot and kill and burn.

Oh no, they FLUSHED AN UN-UNIQUE BOOK! Nooooooooooooooo!

People must die, lest they start flushing an almanac! Or a Bible! Or a copy of Uncanny X-Men #154!

Idiots.
Of course those savages won't pay any attention to Newsweek's retraction. Those animals are always ready to beleive the worst about the USA. In fact, I've heard that some of their backwards, primitive, benighted clerics have called for US troops who desecrated the koran to be turned over to them. It'll be a cold day in hell when that happens. Their dark-ages mentality just can't grasp the concept of free speech.

It appears they got big daddy o pissed. :rolleyes:

Of course those savages won't pay any attention to Newsweek's retraction. Those animals are always ready to beleive the worst about the USA. In fact, I've heard that some of their backwards, primitive, benighted clerics have called for US troops who desecrated the koran to be turned over to them. It'll be a cold day in hell when that happens. Their dark-ages mentality just can't grasp the concept of free speech.


They already hate, and any excuse will do. They fire Ak47s into the air when they are mad or happy. There will always be people that love to mass in the streets and burn cars and chant. Here in the US-it only takes the defeat of your favorite basketball team.
Actually-when the favorite team wins they often behave the same way.

...That is the STUPIDEST reason to riot and kill and burn.

Oh no, they FLUSHED AN UN-UNIQUE BOOK! Nooooooooooooooo!

People must die, lest they start flushing an almanac! Or a Bible! Or a copy of Uncanny X-Men #154!

Idiots.
Now you're just being silly. Sure, rioting over toilet flushing X-Men #138 or #142, but X-Men #154? pfft. That's just stupid. grow up.

Please. Let me guess, the story has to be run past the government to ensure that it is 'responsible'. Stories that might incite rioting will, of course, be denied publication. Because someone might get hurt.


Print what you want. If something is falsely reported, damages should be paid.

Print what you want. If something is falsely reported, damages should be paid.

Exactly. That's how a responsible press must work. And the folks who did this should lose their jobs and maybe spend some time in jail, considering the severity of this colossal screwup.

Please. Let me guess, the story has to be run past the government to ensure that it is 'resonsible'. Stories that might incite rioting will, of course, be denied publication. Because someone might get hurt.

No. Any piece of reporting, whether it will encite rioting or not must be TRUE. Its not about whether or not it will encite rioting, its about whether or not its accurate. If its inaccurate it shouldnt be published. Simple as that.

That's a bunch of nonsense. I'd rather have a free press that can print facts. I'd rather have a free press that can tell facts from fiction, too.
It is up to the people, that's us to sift the wheat from the chaff. We can't just blindly believe the media in any of its' forms whether it be T.V. , or newspapers. I mean every piece of news that put out there is slanted one way or another depending on the source that is reporting it. It may be subtle or hit over the head obvious, but the spin is there. You must have your bullshit detector on and working. That said ,there is little excuse for shoddy or misleading journalism .

Now that they have sparked anti-American hatred in the Moslem world and gotten people killed in riots they say oops we got it wrong. What irresponsible journalism. :(


Why are they reading Newsweek in the first place? If they had read the Quran instead, people would still be alive.

Why are they reading Newsweek in the first place? If they had read the Quran instead, people would still be alive.

Hey. You know what would make good bum wad?

A copy of Newsweek.

Well, maybe not good. But sufficient.

That does it. I'm declaring Friday International Newsweek Wipe &
Flush Day. Have a nice, big lunch. Then steal a copy from the
dentist's waiting room or your neighbor's coffee table, head for the
nearest facilities, have a reeeeealy good dump, then put your copy of
Newsweek to its best use. Be sure to flush a couple of times after
wiping; it's a long way to their News Department.

Hey ... at least they admitted it.

Wait there is such a thing called responsible journalism? :eek:
The only way to win is not to play.

Please. Let me guess, the story has to be run past the government to ensure that it is 'resonsible'. Stories that might incite rioting will, of course, be denied publication. Because someone might get hurt.

No. what needs to happen, is for there to be a resurgence of something long-out-of-fashion in so-called "Journalism". It's called 'ethics'. Newsweek printed a story based, for all intents and purposes, on unsubstantiated rumours, because it was 'edgy' and fit the pre-perceptions of the writer and editors.
Had the source provided some form of actual evidence to back up his claims, this would be different-however, all Newsweek had, was the bullshit of a "Highly placed source" that they CLAIM was "Reliable".

Given Arab and Islamic culture, it's a reasonable assumption that 1) a story about americans desecrating Islamic religious texts will be presumed true and accurate by the majority of Arabs in the Islamic world, and 2) that it will generate a riot.

It's not brain-surgery. Failure to follow-up and obtain hard evidence of something that, if reported, will generate strong reactions is unethical at best, and callous "Newsmaking*" at worst.

[*Newsmaking is publishing something unsubstantiated or largely false to create a real situation. Kind of "Making your own fun" on a slow news cycle.]

Its funny how people make a big deal about this despite the fact that Newsweek had reliable sources.

The problem is the source (only one source) may or may not have been “reliable.” As he/she was and will remain anonymous, we will never know. The point is a responsible journalist would have corroborated the story from more than one source. A responsible editor would have demanded that.

Of course those savages won't pay any attention to Newsweek's retraction. Those animals are always ready to beleive the worst about the USA. In fact, I've heard that some of their backwards, primitive, benighted clerics have called for US troops who desecrated the koran to be turned over to them. It'll be a cold day in hell when that happens. Their dark-ages mentality just can't grasp the concept of free speech.

Hey, no flaming or trolling. This type of rhetoric is totally uncalled for.

Print what you want. If something is falsely reported, damages should be paid.

How much is a life worth, how much should be paid to the famalies or those who were killed? Wouldn't it have been better to make sure the story was true before prinitng it?

... head for the
nearest facilities, have a reeeeealy good dump, then put your copy of
Newsweek to its best use. Be sure to flush a couple of times after
wiping; it's a long way to their News Department.

My hemorrhoids couldn't stand that. Why not just boycott Newsweek and their advertisers. They might get the hint.

Yeah, a boycott would be an okay way to get them. But. . .I am annoyed by boycotts. Boycotts go along with that crusader, save the children, don't eat tuna mentality and I just can't stomach it.

I don't read Newsweek, (WSJ, Economist, and US News and World Report are my news) because they seem to be almost unabashedly biased in all of their reporting.

Printing a story about something that is totally unprovable and turned out to be false (and threated American lives by providing even more anti-American propaganda and inflamming the Arab world) is outright despicable. They just didn't seem to get that this isn't some kind of trivial affair or congressional scandal but a serious charge that could endanger American lives, and yet they published it.