NationStates Jolt Archive

We have this on Haditha... They seem to be taking a step back from saying it was an outright massacre.

From Time magazine...

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1174649-4,00.html

In the original version of this story, TIME reported that "a day after the incident, a Haditha journalism student videotaped the scene at the local morgue and at the homes where the killings had occurred. The video was obtained by the Hammurabi Human Rights Group, which cooperates with the internationally respected Human Rights Watch, and has been shared with TIME." In fact, Human Rights Watch has no ties or association with the Hammurabi Human Rights Group. TIME regrets the error.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1198843,00.html

And here we have a Human Rights Watch person who evidently now admits that he's never seen the photo evidence he spoke of - just hearsay.

In the original version of this story, TIME reported that "one of the most damning pieces of evidence investigators have in their possession, John Sifton of Human Rights Watch told Time's Tim McGirk, is a photo, taken by a Marine with his cell phone that shows Iraqis kneeling — and thus posing no threat — before they were shot."

While Sifton did tell TIME that there was photographic evidence, taken by Marines, he had only heard about the specific content of the photos from reports done by NBC, and had no firsthand knowledge. TIME regrets the error.

Not saying the Marines are innocent, but obviously, the media was initially quick to assume the worst, helped in that by people who obviously want to spin the story hard with bullshit they pull out of their asses.

you are really clutching at straws here.

they clarify a relationship between human rights groups and a photo that does exist not seen by a journo who described it.

hardly getting to the core of the issue now is it.

these are not retractions, they are clarifications, and well you know it.

you are really clutching at straws here.

they clarify a relationship between human rights groups and a photo that does exist not seen by a journo who described it.

hardly getting to the core of the issue now is it.

these are not retractions, they are clarifications, and well you know it.

Admitting that there is no firsthand evidence of a massacre is a retraction.

these are not retractions, they are clarifications, and well you know it.

A retraction is when you say that something you previously said was incorrect. TIME said there was a photo orignally and now they are saying there wasn't

A retraction is when you say that something you previously said was incorrect. TIME said there was a photo orignally and now they are saying there wasn't
The first quote is a simple correction, not in any way a retraction.

The second qoute is a correction, not a retraction. They still claim that there is photographic evidence, but they have no sources with firsthand knowledge.

A retraction is when you say that something you previously said was incorrect. TIME said there was a photo orignally and now they are saying there wasn't

Admitting that there is no firsthand evidence of a massacre is a retraction.

you wish.

a retraction is saying the core of the story was innacurate or they cant stand by the substantive. and the retractors say they are retracting.

this is a clarification of two minor points.

Not saying the Marines are innocent, but obviously, the media was initially quick to assume the worst, helped in that by people who obviously want to spin the story hard with bullshit they pull out of their asses.If you define "the media" as one magazine, that frankly has become more fluff than journalism in recent years.