Newsweek gets b*tchslapped by the U.S. government

[Beet]

This deserves its own topic.

So Newsweek has this story confirmed by two government sources, but after riots break out in muslim countries hurting U.S. policy goals the government sources suddenly change their tune and say it never happened? Do people seriously think this never happened? I think it's easy to read between the lines with this whole fiasco. As for Newsweek, here's nothing they can do if their sources changes their minds, after all, that is all they have to rely on for this kind of stuff. But regardless, this will just feed into the right-wing "Dan Rather/Jayson Blair/BBC conspiracy" echo chamber that they've worked themselves into.

Which makes one wonder, in the future, will newsmagazines simply suppress these critical stories coming out of Iraq or Afghanistan, and compromise their status as standard-bearers of the free press, or will they risk a damaging, even fatal backlash followed up by a highly embarassing public apology after their source skips out? Its not a good position for a newsmagazine to be in. And its not a good position for a democracy to be in.

[Richard]

People died because of rioting due to this story.  Do you personally believe it is better to publish stories like this, knowing people will die, or not to publish stories like this to prevent such deaths?

[Beet]

People died because of rioting due to this story.  Do you personally believe it is better to publish stories like this, knowing people will die, or not to publish stories like this to prevent such deaths?

No, I don't think it's good to publish a story knowing people will die because of it. But I do think it's important that the American people are informed of what our own government is doing overseas. As well as the truth of what's going on overseas in general. I think we as a society realized that on Sept. 11, 2001. And there is a dangerous slippery slope we are on here. If you were to restrict any news story from being published just because it might possibly lead to bad future results in some manner, that would affect a heck of a lot of stories. Supposedly, this public, while not meant to be the direct rulers of the country, are supposed to have the final say on political affairs. It is therefore imperative that a free press does not feel compelled to make editorial decisions based on utility, but on its own judgment as to what it is in the public's interest-- the American public's interest-- to know. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Why do the American people need to know if someone is putting a book on a toilet?  Why is this such vital information?

I can understand if its friggin Watergate or even Abu Ghruaib.... but sheesh, this is ridiculous.

There was a time in this country when the media did actually look out for the public's best interest.  Just look at how the media treated FDR and JFK.  If the public had known that FDR was a "cripple" or JFK was a "womanizer", their leadership would have been compromised during some very difficult times in this country's history.  Worse yet, their ability to operate on international affairs would have been compromised.

And yes, the same can be said about the way that talk radio and the media hit Bill Clinton upside the head.   We had men and women in harms way in other countries while the media was going on and on about a consensual blow job.

People died because of rioting due to this story.  Do you personally believe it is better to publish stories like this, knowing people will die, or not to publish stories like this to prevent such deaths?

No, I don't think it's good to publish a story knowing people will die because of it. But I do think it's important that the American people are informed of what our own government is doing overseas. As well as the truth of what's going on overseas in general. I think we as a society realized that on Sept. 11, 2001. And there is a dangerous slippery slope we are on here. If you were to restrict any news story from being published just because it might possibly lead to bad future results in some manner, that would affect a heck of a lot of stories. Supposedly, this public, while not meant to be the direct rulers of the country, are supposed to have the final say on political affairs. It is therefore imperative that a free press does not feel compelled to make editorial decisions based on utility, but on its own judgment as to what it is in the public's interest-- the American public's interest-- to know. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening.

[Beet]

Why do the American people need to know if someone is putting a book on a toilet?  Why is this such vital information?

I can understand if its friggin Watergate or even Abu Ghruaib.... but sheesh, this is ridiculous.

Htmldon, your question is a good set up for a descent down the slippery slope. First try to isolate one incident, then use a judgment on that to spread to another issue, then another, then another. The question is, who decides? Apparently someone at Newsweek when looking at this story felt that it was worth publishing. And for a private media outlet that should be enough, it really should. Not everyone dies in custody. Some of these muslims come out of these prisons and form opinions and views about America that others around them come to respect because they have experience. And over time that kind of thing builds up. And then later we are bewildered at what people in other countries do.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I think that had more to do with social norms back then than any kind of pressure against the press's freedom to report. It's completely different between then, when there were different social norms, and now, when there's pressure coming from the government and society to intimidate the media. The other thing is that most of the media's coverage is designed to cater to people's need for a circus, which explains the Clinton thing. But I don't think this newsweek story was about that at all.

[David S]

Free speech is vital to a free society. Certainly the media should do their best to ascertain their facts, and if they aren't certain they should clearly point out that these are allegations not facts. But free speech should not be muzzled.

[12th Doctor]

Acctually, what happened, as I pointed out in my thread, was that other news organizations went to investigate this and found that the claims were totally baseless.

[WMS]

Or as Stratfor put it: this story fails the 'common sense' test, since why would desecrating the holy book of a religious zealot be used as a method of interrogation? It would have the opposite effect and just piss them off.

I've been a Newsweek subscriber since about 1987, but they ed this one up badly.

[opebo]

People died because of rioting due to this story.  Do you personally believe it is better to publish stories like this, knowing people will die, or not to publish stories like this to prevent such deaths?

Obviously it is better to print stories and let the chips fall where they may.  Free speech often leads to revolt against tyranny - that's one of its main attractions.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Or as Stratfor put it: this story fails the 'common sense' test, since why would desecrating the holy book of a religious zealot be used as a method of interrogation? It would have the opposite effect and just piss them off.

I've been a Newsweek subscriber since about 1987, but they ed this one up badly.

you read Newsweek when you were 12?

[WMS]

Or as Stratfor put it: this story fails the 'common sense' test, since why would desecrating the holy book of a religious zealot be used as a method of interrogation? It would have the opposite effect and just piss them off.

I've been a Newsweek subscriber since about 1987, but they ed this one up badly.

you read Newsweek when you were 12?

Yep. My family paid for it for the first several years, of course. I was especially interested in the international stuff - yes, even then.

[dazzleman]

I'm glad to see that Newsweek got b**chslapped.

The US media is largely inimical to our national interest, and looks for every opportunity to print stories, true or not, that will hurt us.

I don't know whether the story is true, and frankly I don't care.  I think if you're dealing with real terrorists, you can't take anything off the table, and whatever method works to get them to do what we want is OK with me, including torture.

[phk]

I wish this story was true, Korans should be desecreated.

[Jake]

Hopefully the government will realize that if they want to "torture" these people or whatever they want to do, they gotta kick the media out of these areas and punish whoever leaks this stuff. If we learned anything from Vietnam, hopefully it's that we can't allow the media to cover the war.

[dazzleman]

Hopefully the government will realize that if they want to "torture" these people or whatever they want to do, they gotta kick the media out of these areas and punish whoever leaks this stuff. If we learned anything from Vietnam, hopefully it's that we can't allow the media to cover the war.

That's right.  The media wanted us to lose Vietnam, and they want us to lose this war too.  They'll do everything in their power to make it happen, so we can't trust them.  The media must be treated as an enemy, and manipulated warily if possible.

[phk]

Hopefully the government will realize that if they want to "torture" these people or whatever they want to do, they gotta kick the media out of these areas and punish whoever leaks this stuff. If we learned anything from Vietnam, hopefully it's that we can't allow the media to cover the war.

That's right.  The media wanted us to lose Vietnam, and they want us to lose this war too.  They'll do everything in their power to make it happen, so we can't trust them.  The media must be treated as an enemy, and manipulated warily if possible.

Wouldn't desecreating Korans help win the war against Islam?

[J. J.]

Acctually, what happened, as I pointed out in my thread, was that other news organizations went to investigate this and found that the claims were totally baseless.

I have no objection to news organizations publishing the truth.  It looks like they didn't here.

[A18]

I have no objection to news organizations publishing the truth.  It looks like they didn't here.

[dazzleman]

Acctually, what happened, as I pointed out in my thread, was that other news organizations went to investigate this and found that the claims were totally baseless.

I have no objection to news organizations publishing the truth.  It looks like they didn't here.

The point is that when they found a potential story that would be harmful to the interests of the US, they couldn't rush it into print fast enough.  That's typical of the liberal media.  Whether it was true or not was a secondary concern, at best.  They so badly wanted to believe it that they gave those telling the story the benefit of every doubt.

[Akno21]

While the short term effects of such a story, if it were true (and even now that it isn't) are disasterous, in the long run knowing the truth will be beneficial. If we cannot deliver the whole story on an action to the public to keep their support, then the action needs to stop.

Newsweek should be ashamed for reporting something not true. If it were true, there is nothing wrong with publishing it. You cannot manipulate truth and be on the "right" side.

[dazzleman]

While the short term effects of such a story, if it were true (and even now that it isn't) are disasterous, in the long run knowing the truth will be beneficial. If we cannot deliver the whole story on an action to the public to keep their support, then the action needs to stop.

Newsweek should be ashamed for reporting something not true. If it were true, there is nothing wrong with publishing it. You cannot manipulate truth and be on the "right" side.

I agree that there isn't anything wrong with publishing the truth.

The problem with the media is that even when purporting to tell the truth, they publish certain aspects of the truth and ignore others, thereby creating a distorted picture.  And the intent is to slant the news, and cause the viewer or reader to arrive at the conclusion that those publishing the story want them to arrive at.

In complex situations, the concept of truth is not always black and white.

[Akno21]

While the short term effects of such a story, if it were true (and even now that it isn't) are disasterous, in the long run knowing the truth will be beneficial. If we cannot deliver the whole story on an action to the public to keep their support, then the action needs to stop.

Newsweek should be ashamed for reporting something not true. If it were true, there is nothing wrong with publishing it. You cannot manipulate truth and be on the "right" side.

I agree that there isn't anything wrong with publishing the truth.

The problem with the media is that even when purporting to tell the truth, they publish certain aspects of the truth and ignore others, thereby creating a distorted picture.  And the intent is to slant the news, and cause the viewer or reader to arrive at the conclusion that those publishing the story want them to arrive at.

In complex situations, the concept of truth is not always black and white.

I don't disagree with what you said, I'm merely disagreeing with the opinion that has been voiced here that even if it were true, it shouldn't be published since it may harm American interests.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

People died because of rioting due to this story.  Do you personally believe it is better to publish stories like this, knowing people will die, or not to publish stories like this to prevent such deaths?

Freedom of the press is more important than upholding a fascist regime.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Acctually, what happened, as I pointed out in my thread, was that other news organizations went to investigate this and found that the claims were totally baseless.

Why did those ing asshole news organizations not investigate anything Bush said about Iraq?  them all.

[Beet]

Acctually, what happened, as I pointed out in my thread, was that other news organizations went to investigate this and found that the claims were totally baseless.

Why did those g asshole news organizations not investigate anything Bush said about Iraq? f**ck them all.

What can you do? The bottom line is that reporters are nothing but ordinary civilians with no real skills armed with printing presses and cameras. They have access to no more than we do, which is what our government feeds us. Even if they wanted to break out of the mold and try and get some non-government sources, they would be attacked as incredible and anti-American. Yet their current set-up is profitable enough.