Newsweek Story: Who's Wrong?

NEW YORK - (KRT) - The White House demanded Tuesday that Newsweek magazine “help repair the damage” done by its discredited report that Qurans were tossed into toilets at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, prison.

This has got to be the most bald faced lying spin, from the bald faced lying president, of a bald faced lying administration, of a bald faced lying Republican party, that I’ve ever seen, and that is saying something. Its like a new world record of whitewash.

OK, King George the 2nd, Newsweek is now responsible for damaging US reputation, as if you haven’t done more damage to that than any ruler in history (in any country), as if you even give a sht about that. Maybe Newsweek wouldn’t have written the story if, you hadn’t fabricated reasons to invade in the first place, set up a prison camp in contempt of the law, tortured people there, and killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s… and now suddenly King George 2nd is wringing his hands about “repairing the damage”? Please! I have to go vomit. This is like a galactic record cluster fck of spin, ignoring the fact that I PROBABLY IN FACT HAPPENED that they desecrated the Koran.

I have to go vomit again. What is the difference between Bush and a barrel of pig sh*t? THE BARREL.

Well, hold on.

Your opinions of Bush and his admin. aside, do you thing that it is wrong for Newsweek to “help repair the damage?” By what you are saying, it sounds like you believe that it is ok for Newsweek not to do just that because, the Bush admin has damaged the US image too.

The administration is right on calling out Newsweek on this one…just as anyone else would be (questionably) right in calling out Bush. The mistake of Newsweek was heinous…inexcusable…and it has caused a lot of misery. They SHOULD do more than issue a small apology.

So do I given [sic] that the press is very much losing credibility. Latest polls show journalists are respected to the same degree or lower than lawyers and that is saying something![/quote]

All it says to me is that FS is making further deceptive comments that he’s putting forth as purported facts. According to a NY Times poll that was published this week, Americans regard lawyers and judges as the most prestigious of all occupations, above doctors, teachers, computer scientists and engineers. So it is true that journalists rank below lawyers, but so do all other occupations. … ex_03.html

And the poster whose comment FS mocked made a valid point. It would have been more accurate if the article had said that this incident will “further damage America’s image abroad.” One doesn’t have to be a genius to recognize that U.S. popularity worldwide has steadily deteriorated under the Bush administration.

They have done more than issue a small apology: they issued a retraction of the story, stating that they lack sufficient evidence to support it. The incident has obviously damaged their reputation considerably and has/will cost them huge monetary losses. And bear in mind that their story is based on allegations that have been made repeatedly by various sources for over a year and the story has not been proven false; it just isn’t supported by sufficient concrete evidence. What more would you have them do?

why does it seem like Fred Smith’s posts are directives straight outta the mouth of Rupert Murdoch???

it’s like having our very own Bill O’Reilly on Forumosa…

Fred’s comments, while appearing to be well imformed, are rarely based on verifiable facts. this makes me even more convinced that he moonlights as a Fox News employee.

the most legitimate work O’Reilly has on his resume’ is his time as host of “A Current Affair”…

Here we go again… Dan Rather revisited. Free press revoked. REAL issues ignored.

[quote]And while Newsweek was wrong to claim that military investigators had confirmed the incident, numerous other sources have reported over the past two years that guards at Gitmo have flushed, kicked, and otherwise conveyed disrespect for the Quran. Official records from Abu Ghraib and other locations indicate that the abuse of Islam is nothing new for American interrogators, who have forced inmates to eat pork, poured liquor down their throats and heaped obscenities and abuse on their religious beliefs, among other tactics.

No one has stepped forward to declare that the Quran incident is a fiction. More generally, no one can pretend any longer that the U.S. military simply would not engage in abuse and torture


still defending rathergate, i see. you gotta learn when to give up. “fake but accurate” news just puts the media on the hotseat and gives the administration more ammo.

Spin Buster
May 17, 2005
by Brian Montopoli
Columbia Journalism Review

The Story of the Story Isn’t the Story At All
We know opening a post with a line like this might cause
those whose anger at Newsweek has overtaken their
common sense to click elsewhere in search of their daily
dose of vitriolic rhetoric, but it needs to be said: The media’s
performance in the wake of Newsweek’s blunder has been,
from a journalistic standpoint, more disheartening than the
original sin.

Newsweek made a serious error in relying on a single
source for its story, and its subsequent report may (or may
not) have spurred fatal riots. The magazine subsequently
apologized, then retracted the part of the story in question
and vowed not to make the error again. In contrast, most of
the rest of the media, in reporting the story, has continued
to stumble all over itself, making the same mistakes over
and over again. And unlike Newsweek, none of them are
showing any signs of remorse.

Read the rest of the story:

Desecration of Koran Had Been Reported Before

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 18, 2005; A12
Newsweek magazine’s now-retracted story that a military
guard at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, flushed
a copy of the Koran down a toilet has sparked angry
denunciations by the White House and the Pentagon, which
have linked the article to Muslim riots and deaths abroad.

But American and international media have widely reported
similar allegations from detainees and others of desecration
of the Muslim holy book for more than two years.

Read the rest of the article: … 15_pf.html

Post (quote) cut by moderator due to length. Please observe the following rule:

Newsweek should thoroughly retract and apologize for reporting that koran-flushing by interrogators would show up in an upcoming report when it will likely not. Future readers of that report might be disappointed that they will have to go elsewhere to find information about Koran-flushing by interrogators. Also, the National Association of Qualified Interrogators (NAQI) will be greatly relieved to hear that most of the reports floating around for the years concern guards tossing Korans into toilets, kicking Korans, etc. However, it can be reliably predicted that the American Association of Abusive Guards (AAAG) will not be happy about recent coverage. Recent other reports of Koran-tearing-and-flushing by a detainee at Gitmo may prove embarrassing to the Islamic Federation of Sacriligious Religious Extremists (IFSRF).

I agree. Newsweek should take steps to ensure that NAQI members feel better in the coming weeks. They should report fully on the Koran activities of the AAAG and the IFSRF. The good news is that they will not need to apologize to the people of Afghanistan now that it is clear that the rioting did not have anything to do with the Newsweek report.

I’m sorry…what? They threw (or did not throw) a book in the terlit?

So what? Someone hurt their feelings? Sniff. Cry me a river.

Once we stop treating ignorant peoples across this world like children, the better for all. What we are saying now, “It is ok for you be so completely illogical because it’s yer cultture man and we can dig that.” :raspberry:

So, if I put a ham sandwich on a Koran, someone has the moral right and duty to kill me? Or any other “guilty” American?

Yeah, that sounds reasonable. :loco:

I read thrugh a couple of Alien’s links…without fail, the treatment of the pows (for lack of a better word) was much much worse back where they were picked up (THEIR words). Fine, send them back. There are fewer pressfolk back that way. I’m certain it won’t be a koran thrown down the toilet then.

The US psy-ops folk are monsters. Sure, but they’re the nicest monsters around.

A guy’s been in jail with guys for 4 years and some army gal squeezes his nuts? Thanks! :sunglasses:


My original question has not been answered. Regardless of who has reported what in the past, is it admissable for a news organization to publish information that is not verifiable?

Should a news organization not be held accountable when that information bites them in the ass?

This is the basis of this dispute in my mind. I don’t care how many organizations have reported it before. I think it is true, regardless. However, they NEED TO HAVE VERIFIABLE FACTUAL DATA. Otherwise, they merit retribution when the consequences of reporting unverifiable data explodes in their face.

I don’t care if every station in the US has reported it or not without consequences. If one of them has real proof, that’s just fine and dandy. But I hold Newsweek acountable. They DON’T have an excuse, regardless of how many people have said it before.

One of the basic ideas of journalism is to report factual information. Come off it already. :noway:

Obviously untrue but a statement that nonetheless just begs people to answer with a “prove it” in return. Put your money where your mouth is big guy (My MFGRism for this thread)


Let me take a closer look at your poll but offer you this in return… from your beloved BBC of all places…

[quote]The top ten most respected professions, listed in order, were - doctor; nurse; teacher; fireman; paramedic; Army/Navy/RAF; scientist; ambulance driver; police officer; care assistant.

The top ten least respected professions, listed in order, were - MP; estate agent; government minister; lawyer; journalist; footballer; advertising executive; car dealer; company director; accountant.

Listeners were invited to vote for their three most and least respected professions and points were allocated accordingly.

Any use of this material must include a credit for the BBC Today programme.[/quote]

Ah MT:

Hoping no one would actually look at your “poll?” Seems to me that your poll is about prestige as in which professions are viewed as being highest in terms of social status because of high salaries. No where in your poll can I find any evidence to show that lawyers are “respected.” The use of “prestigious” here is to indicate social status as in terms of wealth and money. That is very different surely?

Deceptive? Read this statement again and plug it into the context of our earlier conversation. No one is talking about which profession makes more money. We are talking about which ones are respected or liked by people in other professions.

Your comparison is like saying the French are more “presitigious” than the Egyptians, Indians and Indonesians because they have a higher per capita income and you are then saying that this immediately and directly translates into how well they are respected and liked. Sorry but I ain’t taking any wooden nickels (my MFGRism for this post).

Or how’s about this one for size… … 041022.pdf

Oops did I just pull a trifecta. Did I just use facts to support my views and thereby prove that other poster wrong as well as MT? Amazing how easy this gets with practice and I ain’t just a whistling Dixie (in deference to MFGR).

[quote=“fred smith”]
Oops did I just pull a trifecta. Did I just use facts to support my views and thereby prove that other poster wrong as well as MT? Amazing how easy this gets with practice . . .[/quote]

Keep practicing. You need it. You need to address the root problem though if you really want to make any progress, which is your (apparent) belief that innuendo, in time, will replace the facts just fine.

The key is to always keep in mind that denial ain’t a place in Egypt, it’s a state of mind and also a place in Nevada where chickenhawks flock to when the chickens come home to roost – or something like that.

I’m already in trouble for using an Elizabethan-era colloquialism earlier so I’m a little shaky right now.

Hahahah Where in Nevada?

Anyway, all I see is a bunch of reporters printing a lot of shaky stuff that it may have been better to have checked into thoroughly before going to press. It would be a darned shame if this was to turn into another Rathergate. I know that I for one would be very concerned that reporters would suffer for printing such apparently unverified news stories. Like I said a true shame, but “shames to blame for the game, so let’s start playing it.”

How was that? Do you think it was too much, I mean the last sentence? I do strive for accuracy and a genuine MFGR voice. haha

[quote=“fred smith”]Ah MT:

Hoping no one would actually look at your “poll?” Seems to me that your poll is about prestige as in which professions are viewed as being highest in terms of social status because of high salaries. No where in your poll can I find any evidence to show that lawyers are “respected.” The use of “prestigious” here is to indicate social status as in terms of wealth and money. That is very different surely?[/quote]

That’s completely false Fred. Go back and read it again. … ex_03.html

The poll states, “One way to think of a person’s position in society is in terms of four factors – education, income, occupation and wealth (four commonly used criteria for gauging class).” I know you’re not trained in critical thinking and logic, Fred, but are you with me so far? Four factors for gauging class: education, income, occupation and wealth.

Move the cursor over the spectrum where it says “occupation” and you will see that the legal profession is regarded as the most prestigious of all occupations according to polls referred to on the lower left. Presumably that determination was not based on salary, as you allege, because income and wealth are completely separate criteria for judging class. Presumably the people were simply asked to rate various occupations in terms of prestige.

Upon looking at the poll again, presumably you can now see that you were wrong and respondents did list the legal profession as most prestigious of all occupations. Therefore, I trust that you can see how it was deceptive for you to mock journalists as being ranked lower than lawyers when all other professions rank lower, especially yours, whatever that might be.

Your BBC poll doesn’t count either. British legal professionals are clearly inferior to the American variety as they can only serve as either a solicitor or a barrister and American lawyers can do it all. . . and are thus worthy of higher prestige. :wink:

You are taking this down the sidepath. Anyone looking at this poll will realize that prestigious and respected or even well liked are two different things. You can pretend that there is confusion over this but there is clearly not. The main theme of your NY Times poll is status. Not likeability, not respectability but how high professions rank in terms of factors based on status.

ERGO (critical thinking and logic 101 here), they were asked the first question: which profession is most prestigious in their view and they ranked lawyers? Why? Because they respect them? because they admire them? because they like them? because they are paragons of ethical virtue? No. Because they have the highest or are perceived to have the highest incomes. That is why we subsequently see this followed up with polls based on perception of who makes the most and who has the most wealth. So sorry, my point still stands. People do not like or trust reporters or lawyers. They are at the very bottom of indexes for these attributes. You are focusing on money and prestige and I have no doubt that lawyers make a great deal of money. How is that relevant here? Do you want to send me a check to get me to change my attitude about lawyers. If so, name a figure and I will decide how much it would take. Whoops! Am I becoming George Galloway? hahah

[quote=“fred smith”] Like I said a true shame, but “shames to blame for the game, so let’s start playing it.”

How was that? Do you think it was too much, I mean the last sentence?[/quote]

Don’t quit your day job. :slight_smile:

Don’t blame Newsweek
Despite sloppiness, Newsweek didn’t fabricate Koran story
AUSTIN, Texas – As Riley used to say on an ancient
television sitcom, “This is a revoltin’ development.” There
seems to be a bit of a campaign on the right to blame
Newsweek for the anti-American riots in Afghanistan,
Pakistan and other Islamic countries.

Uh, people, I hate to tell you this, but the story about
Americans abusing the Koran in order to enrage prisoners
has been out there for quite some time. The first mention I
found of it is March 17, 2004, when the Independent of
London interviewed the first British citizen released from
Guantanamo Bay. The prisoner said he had been physically
beaten but did not consider that as bad as the psychological
torture, which he described extensively. Jamal al-Harith, a
computer programmer from Manchester, said 70 percent of
the inmates had gone on a hunger strike after a guard
kicked a copy of the Koran. The strike was ended by

… [/i]

Read the rest of the story: … emid=19061

Post (quote) cut by moderator due to length. Please observe the following rule:

Bull shit. The riots occured because a bunch of ignorant twats with no sense of perspective decided to go on a rampage. Fuck 'em frankly. I hope the ones who felt the need to attack innocents over this rot in what ever hell they believe in. Fuck 'em and their ‘feelings’. They clearly have no morals worth the name.