1) Is there anything that can be done to ensure responsible reporting without abridging freedom of the press rights?

No, if anything, with the regime in power right now, we need more freedom of press, not less.

2) Has the media been acting responsibly in regards to reporting detainee abuses by US Forces?

So far what I have been able to glean from al this:
1) there is wide spread allegations, probably true, since (as Mustang pointed out, not illegal) that US forces use the Quoran and thier religion against INNOCENT detainees - and Newsweek had a credible source, but when this GOVERMENT source realized that there was a firestorm a brewin, he backed off his/her comments. Boy, sounds a little suspect right there doesn't it? You have a goverment source, a credible source in several other stories, suddenly backing off statements he made as the full wieght of the GW attack machine comes to bear? - I think Newsweek made a mistake by not exploring how GW and co are once again attacking the messenger, and there is a large pattern of this- Whitman, etc etc.

I do not think they have been responsible however- I think they have given Rumsfeld and associates to easy a "pass"- it is obvious to anyone that abuses and torture are widespread and sanctioned.

3) Should the editors make a public apology and explanation to ease tensions?

There is no apology neccesary for the media- in fact, I have become disgusted with thier wimpy-ness towards this admin- they need to bring it to GW daily, never give them any breathing room- GW is the enemy of freedom here, not the ally- HE is the one that has inflammed Muslim tensions in those regions for his entire presidency, and he alone bears the responsibility. Like someone here said- I wasn't aware that Newsweek was such a best seller in the Muslim world?

So, all these rioters got thier copy of Newsweek, about the same time in rural afghanistan, pakistan etc, and were outraged over what they read? LOL

Let us put the blame for any dead right were it belongs- on the Buchco regime.

Newsweek owes nothing to anybody- I think it is admirable that they hold themselves to higher standards than anyone in this administration- but this administration doesn't play by Newsweeks high journalistic standards- I have yet to see an apology, a real one for
1) forged nigerian documents about yellowcake and aluminum tubes (yet Dan Rather had to resign over something similar)
2) obviously true reports of torture at various US concentration camps (Gitmo, Abu Gharib, flights to other countries to better torture others)
3) Total lack of WMD, despite the regime saying "they know exactly where the WMDs are, they are around Tikrit"

It is sad that supposedly "moral" right wing holds the media to so much higher standards than thier own leaders- and this burns me more than anything else.

If you are going to hold one group to high standards, at least be consistant and hold your own leaders to those standards, I mean COME ON

If the anti-newsweek crowd here ever held GW to the same standards as Newsweek, I would be right beside you- but this is so tiny and miniscule compared to the sins of this regime it is laughable, in a sad kind of way.

1. Unfortunately, no.

2. Unfortunately, no.

3. I really don't see what any sort of apology will help "ease tensions". The real question in my mind is should our society (and ALL free societies for that matter) have to walk on egg shells and talk in whispers in fear of offending these FANATICS?

It's time we recognize that the root cause of most of the world's terrorism is NOT the US policy in the middle east, President Bush, the Palestinian's, etc., etc., etc., but the fanatics who follow Islam. That's the elephant that's in the room that even Bush won't recognize out of fear that we will be viewed as not "respecting" this obsolete belief system.

Appeasing these people clearly doesn't work. It's not a peaceful religion in the way that it's practiced by any stretch of the imagination. It's predatory; it seeks to convert and handles any insult (perceived or real) with violence. Where Christianity teaches to "turn the other cheek" and that the "meek shall inherit the earth" and Judaism is based on the 10 commandments (which include "thou shall not kill"), Islam's teachings include "kill the infidel".

Our western traditions of tolerance, understanding, and peace are just not shared by those who lead Islam. We can continue to live in denial of this reality, adopt strict PC rules on speech out of fear of offending these fanatics (our mere EXISTENCE offends many of the Islamists), or we can start a slow but sure process of undermining this belief system and replacing it with a modern set of beliefs that does not include a draconian dark ages view toward women, technology, and individual freedom.

We should use the power of our technology, our mass media, and our skill at delivering a message to systematically provoke an enlightenment, a renaissance, and a liberalization in the Islamic world. Failing to do this will eventually lead to a world war, fought with nuclear weapons.

Jihad has come to free nations. We did not come to it. It's time to recognize reality and deal with it.

I know now that I have seen it all concerning this topic. I believe that it is a fair assessment to state that neither the administration nor Newsweek are blameless in this affair, and Newsweek has done all it could be expected to do, after the fact.

But to state that when a mob of violent worshippers of a supernatural being of dubious existence, kills 17 people...over pages of a book being allegedly flushed down a commode.........to state that it's the administrations fault .....well, I would have spewed liquid all over my keyboard, had I been drinking while reading.

I wonder where the blame would have been placed if christians had rioted and killed when palestinian terrorists holed up in the Church of the Nativity.....when they used altars for tables, defecated on shrines and looted religious artifacts.

For that matter, where was the outrage at all? Where was the news coverage?

If true, flushgate, though not violating the Geneva Convention, or any agreement concerning POW's or detainees, was a PR error. Nothing more.

I agree. The problem we have these days is that there are so many sources of news and information available, the competition has become fierce. This has resulted in soddy journalism practices becoming the norm for nearly every news outlet around.



This is true. However, every media outlet has become sensationalized when it comes to headlines, advertising and the like. "A deadly killer resides in your kitchen sink, learn more at eleven." Similar headlines and lean in are are all over. Then when you watch the news, the tease you with this story through the entire broadcast as each commercial break appears. Then, when there are a few minutes left to the news, they finally tell the tail, 5 minutes on how bacteria grows in kitchen sinks when they are not cleaned properly. This may not rise to the level of the Newsweek story but it is now the norm. Sensationalize everything to get more readers / viewers.




The 90% responsible parties would be those who actually used the story, and likely other stories, half-truths, lies etc, to wipe up the crowds and create the riot. The ones mostly responsible for these deaths would be those that incited the riots and those who acted violently and killed people. Words did not kill, people did. Someone just used the words, likely alone with alot of other words, to manipulate people to act violently.



It is debateable that the story put anyone in danger simply because of the reality of the region. If the story had not run, those that incited the riot and violence most likely would have incited riot and violence anyway, using all the lies and manipulations they have used in the past. In this case, the Newsweek story just gave them a few new ounces of gas to add to the gallons of fuel used to start that fire.

You miss the point- Newsweek didn't throw innocent poeple into concentration camps- Bush did.

Newsweek didn't torture anybody- Bushco did

Newsweek didn't invade a country while lying to justify it- Bushco did

Some final observations from "Working for Change." The real problem is what we have done and are doing, not what the media reported.
Geov Parrish Article

As long as this kind of attitude and ignorance is prevalent throughout America, I don't think we'll be able to "ease tensions." I don't see how anything in your rant above addresses the question leder posed and I refuse to sit idly by as you purposely lambast a religion...even if it's not my own.




I'm confused as to why this is an "obsolete belief system" seeing as how their are about 1.3 billion followers of Islam.





Islam is a peaceful religion and does not teach "kill the infidel." Bare in mind Christianity and Judaism are not without their passages that advocate violence. It's the few people that manipulate scripture and take it out of context that advocate the use of violence. To call Islam predatory can't be further from the truth. Islam teaches respect for all religions and Muslims honor all the prophets of God, including Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus. Muslims have to respect all these prophets, just as they respect the last prophet, Muhammad. Lastly, may I remind you of the Crusades.



Your own post seems to contradict this notion.





This is Coulter-esq insistence to reform Islam is exactly what the fanatics are in opposition to. If we continue on this path, the true followers of Islam are going to start believing these fanatics. It is not our place to meddle in the religion of others and if you truly understood Islam, you would realize their isn't a need to reform it.




Again, a misunderstanding of Islam. The word jihad translates to “struggle.” It refers to the difficult effort that is needed to put God's will into practice at every level: personal and social, as well as political. I undergo Jihad everyday, when I undergo temptation and have to struggle between sinful actions or doing God's will. Jihad has been taken used out of context by the Western world due to its misuse by people like Osama Bin Laden.

You cannot equate the words of fanatics like Osama Bin Laden to the teachings of Islam as they are vastly different.

1) Is there anything that can be done to ensure responsible reporting without abridging freedom of the press rights?
From reading posts on this board it seems to me Islam is greatly misunderstood. One can attribute the part of the misunderstanding to irresponsible journalism. So what exactly would responsible reporting entail? I can find dozens of sources in which the term Jihad is used out of its true context. Should those sources be reprimanded for misuse of the term? I'd like to think that the problem of responsible reporting would take care of itself. That those news media that don't follow the rules will become untrusted sources and thus people will stop reading. Yet in the case of things like the misunderstanding of Jihad or Islam or any complex concept, a misunderstanding can have major ramifications.

2) Has the media been acting responsibly in regards to reporting detainee abuses by US Forces?
If detainee abuses are truthful, they should be reported. I think the Whitehouse could play an active role in the determining truth as they are privy to much more information as to what's going on in GitMo than Newsweek is.


3) Should the editors make a public apology and explanation to ease tensions?
As others stated, they already have so it's a moot point.

What specifically don't you understand about my point? The question was related to "easing tensions" and I addressed it. Once again, my point is that neither Newsweek, Bush, or anyone else in the western world are responsible for inflaming those tensions in the first place. They are the result of a conflict of belief systems; freedom and democracy as practiced by most of the "west" on one side, and an increasingly radical version of Islam on the other. My point was made to point out that the question itself was based on a false premise.



Do you really believe that a belief system that systematically discriminates against women, allows for the murder of a young woman who "shames" her family by having sex out of marriage, and that tolerates the homicide of innocents by suicide pack carrying children is "modern"?? Frankly, the number you quote is scary and it backs up my point that a global conflict along the West/Islamist fault line is inevitable unless that system is defused on purpose.



I'm far more interested in the practical reality of the Islamists vs. the theoretical teachings that can be found only within a few "moderate" Islamic intellectuals. The 9/11 terrorists, and those who routinely commit atrocities in the middle east, Asia, Africa, and in the former USSR under the banner of "Islam" are who I'm referring to. Frankly, the reason I'm making my point is that the prevailing PC position in our society (and the west) parrots the point you made above. Even President Bush has gone to great lengths to make that point. I maintain that even he is misguided.



In what way? I'm just pointing out the reality of the global situation. My point has nothing to do with the inherent tolerance and understanding that exists in the "western" traditions.



When you compare theory with practical implementation, perhaps the radical followers of this religion are the ones who you should try to reach in order to increase their "understanding" of their own religion?



The issue is which "brand" of Islam is most popular in much of the world right now. Again, you have posted theory and I have posted reality.