Nighttimer, thanks for posting this piece. I've not responded to this debate because my sense of things told me something was wrong. That something wrong is the assumption that a Newspeak (misspelling intentional) article prompted rioting in Afghanistan. Upon further investigation, this turned out to be a false assumption.

Because the debate questions are based on a false assumption, the debate itself has no meaning. As a result of this, I have no further comment or argument to make, other than this:

Just look at the reactions! My goodness, it's as if debate riots are about to break out. Relax, false alarm.

I've asked repeatedly - Exactly how many thousands of stories critical of this administration must run on the big 3 networks, cable, print and radio before we realize that the press is not being "muzzled." This assertion is false on its face.


You realize that you referred to Isikoff being "interned?" It's good to have ya back Wertz! That's the best pun ever, given his writings on Lewinsky.

"Kristallnacht Redux?"

Perhaps you'd acknowledge that rounding up suspects with warrants issued by judges is a rare example of law enforcement enforcing the law? a little different from rounding up innocent jews, wrecking their shops, raping their women and ultimately killing them. No? Do you seriously believe that AshKKKroft is tracking the IP address of your AD postings so that he can come and "round up the liberals?" Or are you saying that the NEWSWEEK scandal another "legitimate" example of how Bush = Hitler?

edited - spelling, grammar, sarcasm

You've lost me entirely. Surely you aren't under the impression that every miniscule detail of every engagement is known instantly by all? They collected the facts of the matter and found an answer.

What's your point? You don't believe that Falluja was dangerous? You don't believe that a large aid convoy is a more obvious target than a lone Iraqi?

When a DOD official does not comment, it is not a de-facto endorsement. It usually indicates that he/she either cannot comment for whatever reason, or he/she simply does not know. It is preposterous to expect that every official knows every miniscule detail about every event. From Newsweek



Edited to answer Logophage:

Obviously intent matters. I wouldn't blame a surgeon for the death of a patient if he did everything correctly according to the proper procedure. I wouldn't blame a soldier who shot a civilian if he did everything correctly according to the laws of armed conflict. I wouldn't blame the journalists or Newsweek if they had properly checked their facts and not taken a no-comment as an endorsement. If the DOD official had answered in the affirmative, I would not place any blame on them.

So Newsweek's source was pressured to says that he or she wasn't certain of the source of the information on the Koran desecration; consequently, Newsweek, also under pressure withdrew their story, sort of. The only problem with this is that the whole world has been lied to repeatedly by the GWB bunch and no one believes them or their attempts to manage the media. We also should be asking ourselves why a few short sentences in one news article could stir up such depth of feeling in the Muslim World. Could it be that this is just one more straw on a very heavy haystack - illegal invasion under false pretense, bombing civilians, free fire zones, attacking hospitals and ambulences, reluctance for elections, permanent bases, intrusive searches, trigger happy checkpoints, and the torture and mistreatment of prisoners. Posters should also contemplate the fact that the Newsweek report only confirmed from a U.S. government source what has been reported repeatedly by ex-prisoners. See AntiWar Article

Yes, I do. It's why I went with internment over, say, gassing.


The rarity of examples of law enforcement enforcing minor drug violations - which accounted for about half of this sweep - and other non-violent crimes (which boosted the arrests well over half) - is evidenced by our overstuffed prisons. But that is the stuff of another debate.


Yes. That is why I referred to the first Operation FALCON as a "dry run". The apparatus for a Kristallnacht is in place - and has been shown to work. But, again, that's the stuff of another debate.


Yes, I do. Not just mine, of course - everyone's. What do you think Poindexter's Total Information Awareness program was all about? You really think they didn't go ahead with it? The worldwide web is still managed by SAIC, I might remind you - and Microsoft's Echelon is still in place, with the FBI monitoring every keystroke that is transmitted over the internet. Again, though, that is the stuff of another debate.


No, I'm not - but this question does touch directly on what's being debated here. What I am saying is that this story - the scandal surrounding the coverage of the Newsweek story - is a legitimate example of how conservative governments demonize the opposition, blaming them for their own failures. Did "the liberal media" prompt the violence in Afghanistan? No, the Bush administration's policies did. Did "the liberal media" put American lives at risk? No, the Bush administration's policies did. Did "the liberal media" desecrate copies of the Qur'an? No, the Bush administration's policies did. Who do we blame? Why, "the liberal media", obviously. This is the sort of tactic that, in its worst excesses can lead - and has led - to rounding up innocents and killing thsm. And this administration is nothing if not excessive.

The point is that reporting is responsible (despite attempts to abridge freedom of the press), the media has been acting responsibly in reporting detainee abuses, and Newsweek - though I would argue they needn't have - already made a public apology and explanation to ease tensions. Has that stopped the right from demonizing this "enemy"? Not a jot.

The fact that it was a few sentences mean absolutely nothing. I'd be willing to wager that most of the rioting Muslims don't even know the name of the source magazine. It's not the sentence; it's the act of desicrating the holiest of holy books (for them). And doing so by putting it in one of the most vile places, the toilet. For a highly religioused-charged group who has been fed nothing but Al Jezerra for decades, this is huge.

In short, it could have been a sentence, it could have been a book. It doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter if it was true or not. All that people remember in the end is the allegation, not the source and not the veracity.

Fair enough. Has it been demonstrated that Newsweek: (1) intentionally used less than reputable sourcing and (2) the riots were caused by or even catalyzed (leder's proposal) by the article? Only if both of these are true, would the ethical conundrum you've advocated be valid.

What surprises me is the amount of credulity some of the anti-Newsweek posters have shown towards US administration sources. All those sources had to do was suggest that Newsweek had something to do with the riots and then without any evidence it was assumed that the accusation was true. With bilious charm, those posts hyperbolized with a seething resentment I found, well, shocking and irrational.

Your facts are a little weak, Al Jezera didn't exist until 1996 Al Jezerra History, so let's not blame all of Muslim anger on it. Al Jezera has reported the Iraqi civilian casualties in graphic detail to Middle Easterner audiences and that does produce justified anger in many, myself included.

You failed entirely to address my major point that the reaction to the Newsweek article was more the result of pent up rage than the few words in Newsweek. How does the article compare with having General Boykin stand up in several Churches and declared his God to be stronger than their God and their God to be false. Rumsfeld then refused to remove him from the Iraqi theater. Boykin was also tied to the prison abuse scandal and later became head of the "Salvadorizing" of the counter insurgency effort in Iraq. Don't you understand that this kind of insensitivity, together with the other things I cited, have a lot more to do with Muslim anger than one Newsweek article.

I'm inclined to believe it happened at this point, although I can't corroborate the PDF link with NEWSWEEK's (capitalized for Carlitos' benefit) story because 1) I didn't read NEWSWEEK's original article and 2) the description of the guards handling the Koran (again) in the PDF doesn't go into dates.

Page 27:



That’s one way to flush the Koran. I believe that statement is the source of Daffy’s quotes.

The former British detainees giving their account in the statement are, not surprisingly, muslim. I suggest we take Leder's caution regarding the al Qaeda manual. Come to think of it, that is pretty convenient; use ethnicity to determine likelihood of lying when holding citizens of a foreign country in legal limbo.

Previous creative “interrogation techniques” such as smearing fake menstrual blood on detainees and giving them a thong show was confirmed by the Pentagon (Sexual Intimidation at Guantanamo). Back then, it was called “investigating allegations” of abuse when Jamal al-Harith, another British detainee—a conspiracy I tells ya—made the menstrual blood accusation in March 2004. His story was confirmed by Army translator Erik Saar. Some of the conservative posters on the thread who shrugged at the report or asked to be signed up are the same ones that are furious at NEWSWEEK’s audacity. You guys are free to feel the circus (as Mustang aptly called the inexperienced interrogators) has since been replaced with competent MI, but why would “desecrating” the Koran be off limits in the atmosphere that made a pseudo slut show for a demoralizing religious affect possible?

Now I’ve heard it all. Like a stern parent chiding a wayward child, the White House has stepped in to decide Newsweek’s punishment.

I would think this is unprecedented for the government to dictate what a publication will or won’t do. It’s as if all the sins of the administration have been transferred onto Newsweek, and leaving them the responsibility of “cleaning up our image.” Come on, the image was shot waaaay before this tiny snippet of an article was printed. What a joke!

What was Wertz saying about ....?

Edited to add: Jeez, don't these people ever talk to each other??

If the White House was calling for a law to regulate the media industry into doing this, then I would agree with you whole heartedly. But I think the White House is just voicing its opinion which is a far cry from dictation.

I have to give credit to Newsweek for admitting their mistake and retracting the story. Unlike CBS, Newsweek is willing to swallow their pride and take their lickings. It shows character which gives me something to respect them for.

Unprecedented? Hardly. Tell me exactly how this is different from the media strong arm tactics employed by the Clintons (probably Hillary more so than Bill)...or for that matter by politicians of any sort. If anything, this is an extremely minor example of such tactics...your ire here is completely misplaced. Are you proposing that the White House should simply remain silent about misrepresentations in the press that potentially materially affect national security? What exactly is your gripe here? Newsweek got a story wrong (self-admittedly), the White House was certainly negatively affected by this, if not the entire country, and they used the media to counteract the damage (as politicians always do). Oh, yes, that's right, I forgot....its only OK when liberals do this. I'm sorry, my bad.

Considering the potential issues this misrepresentation could have caused, I think a case could be made for this action being treasonous. As such, the comments the White House made are pretty subdued, if anything.

2) Has the media been acting responsibly in regards to reporting detainee abuses by US Forces?
Overall not irresponsible, but they certainly gravitate towards the sensational. There seems to be have been minimal reporting, for instance, of the measures taken to ensure these detainees had Korans and other religious items in the first place, and that they were normally handled with the utmost care, in deference to the customs of handling and keeping of the Koran.

I've seen many posts so far that paint Newsweek as part of the vast left wing conspiracy, and just as many that infer this incident is the gateway to Kristallnacht and boxcars.
And both are just as laughable in my opinion.

Detainees held in Guantanamo Bay, who are then released, innocent or not.....now have an axe to grind against the US government. They are also clever enough to realize that they need only to follow one pattern to strike a blow back against the great satan.
Make allegation, rinse, repeat.

They know that allegations, particularly incendiary allegations involving the Koran or other items of their faith, will spread like a brush fire. The allegations will be shouted from mosques, sermoned by mullahs and..........reported in the press.

Just as some claim the administration, any adminstration, can or has manipulated the media for it's own selfish gains, the same can happen when individuals or movements spread inflammatory rhetoric or accusations. The media at large is a whore. The media will sell it's proverbial soul and/or mother to broadcast a sensational story. Whether for the sole sake of profit, or to reaffirm or re-establish it's position in the news food chain, these outlets will latch on to these stories by unnamed, unsourced and unverifiable entities.

This is a case of shoddy, sloppy and down right embarrassing news reporting. Newsweek rightly issued somewhat of an apology, the White House should keep it's mouthpiece muzzled, and the muslim world who are so enraged, who will riot and kill over an allegation, might want to look deep within and see if they are living by the tenets of the faith they are so violently protesting for.

You can’t possibly be serious. If that were the case, then every other publication who published the same or similar things for the last 3 years, plus everyone involved in the Abu Ghraib mess - by that I mean the military personnel, officers, CIA, FBI, and whoever - would have to be accused of treason.

Even Rumsfeld and his cronies don’t believe the article caused the “issues”. Why does everyone here insist that it did? Could Rumsfeld and Co. be wrong?

This is the same justice department that can't figure out how to keep millions of Americans from playing online poker for money, betting on sports, or viewing Dutch online porn. Ashcroft's biggest online victory to date appears to be sending Tommy Chong to jail for selling bongs. I'm skeptical. But hey, if I'm wrong, this post will be entertaining in court!


As I've indicated ad infinitum, we see hundreds, thousands of anti-Bush stories in the mainstream media. There is no chilling effect. None. Daily Kos is free to fantasize about rigged Ohio elections, Peter Jennings can still say "Halliburton," Keith Olberman can do whatever it is he does. If Bush can't even get the media to temper their remarks, how can you credibly argue that next we'll be rounding them up to camps?


An enterprising blogger attempted to test the feasibility of literally flushing a book down a toilet - "mythbuster"

As to whether Newsweek indeed was the cause of riots, it at the very least appears that they have exacerbated the situation. I mean, look at this guy. He looks upset to me.



I'm sure that Newsweek had the public interest in mind when they published this story, true or not. They did not appear to think of the consequences, however, and you are suggesting that they shouldn't have to think that far ahead. Let me try another example. Newsweek had an exclusive deal with the Kerry / Edwards campaign. They agreed not to print any behind-the-scenes scoop until after election day. Whether or not this information would have better informed the electorate, enlightened us about the Senators' disposition or beliefs, Newsweek traded off the public interest for their "exclusive" access. If holding a story on Kerry throwing a temper tantrum is OK, why wouldn't holding this story be OK?

EDIT - The more I'm thinking about this, the more I'm inclined to completely absolve Newsweek in this fiasco. I'd balance that by saying that I also absolve the administration, war on terror, etc.

This kind of rumor-mongering has been going on since the beginning of time and it's nothing new. Blood libel rumors persist in Islam today (jews kill babies and drink their blood). There were rumors of host desecration in the 12th or 13th century in Europe (jews torture the communion wafer). This whole mess goes back to my earlier assertion about backward, uneducated masses.

I couldn't agree with you more. And the source for the Newsweek article in this case was a US government official. The source for Newsweek having investigated the story in the first place was claims made by former (innocent) detainees. And the source for their claims was most likely US military personnel who desecrated the Qur'an. You're right: the few sentences eventually published in Newsweek mean absolutely nothing. The source here is the desecration itself - not its inevitable coverage.

I get it. When all else fails try humor. Hopefully your intention is sincere, an attempt to lighten the mood so we're not at each other's virtual throats and the thread is locked. I hope I'm right but I won't demand an apology if I'm not and I decide to fillet my cat and light my hair on fire.

I feel bad for the cleric in the picture for unrelated reasons but using the story as the excuse (if that's even the case) for rioting is as weak as supporting the case for Reginald Denny's hospital bill.



Unfortunately this example of one exception, not the exception. For instance:



I wish no media outlet would broker deals on publication dates (or for that matter, have employees write drafts before attending presidential debates and be stupid enough to post the polished version on the web before the first star appears in the eastern sky) but it'll never make a whit of difference what the circumstances and trade-offs are surrounding the decision to delay passing the information to the public. Despite 60 Minutes' unnecessary cooperation with the DoD, CBS was just acting the part of the evil left-wing leviathan out to destroy BushCo. and kill our troops.

In the words of Goldmember, "There is no pleezing you" [where "you" = the side that has a problem with justification(s) for the delay and/or story].

Abuse of a book - whether Qu'ran, Bible, or Torah - is not a violation of the Geneva Conventions. It does not fall under the rubric of prisoner abuse, and can be a legitimate psychological tactic in the interrogation of a difficult source, when used in synch with a properly structured approach and follow-through. It is not something which should have been "news" in the first place.

Newsweek took a non-issue, spun it into a story making us look like we're attacking the Islamic faith, and caused the United States serious harm in its relations with many of our allies in the Muslim world. Let alone the riots and deaths at the street level. Even had their sources been beyond reproach, making this a "story" and reporting it in this manner was irresponsible, to put it mildly.

Treasonous???

That's an incredibly harsh word to use, Hobbes and coming from you makes it all the more unexpected.

Let's get something straight here. NEWSWEEK's shoddy journalism may---I emphasize--MAY have been the straw that broke the back of anti-USA sentiment in the Islamic world, but the actions of the Bush Administration have contributed significantly in exacerbating the antipathy that exists between the two cultures.

All this sturm und drang over the 17 deaths in the riots that occurred after Newsweek's gaffe, pales in comparison to the nearly 500 that have died in insurgent attacks and bombings in Iraq and the over 600 that were killed in eastern Uzbekistan by the troops of a pro-U.S. tyrant.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1614062,00.html

The humiliation, brutality and torture of Arab and Islamic prisoners did not begin with one ten-line article in a weekly newsmagazine. We would do well to remember that.

Other news organizations had previously published similar stories about U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo Bay defiling the Koran, the holy text of Islam. But those reports were attributed to former detainees, not an anonymous Pentagon official. Given everything else we know about what went on inside Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, the Newsweek report did not seem all that far-fetched.

While the Pentagon is angrily disputing the Koran allegation, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz wrote on Monday, "U.S. officials have confirmed numerous reports by detainees, especially at Abu Ghraib, about guards attempting to humiliate them with tactics that violate religious taboos of the Muslim faith. A senior Pentagon official has confirmed reports that female interrogators rubbed their bodies against the men, wore skimpy clothes, touched them provocatively and pretended to spread menstrual blood on them."

The Newsweek retraction cannot erase the photographs of abuse at Abu Ghraib or the documented mistreatment of Muslim detainees at Guantanamo. I stand by my view that the abuse of Muslim prisoners has made the battle against Islamic extremism more difficult and put U.S. troops at greater risk.

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/05/17/Opinion/...w_and_tak.shtml

Hobbes, I share your disgust with the lousy job NEWSWEEK did on verifying the story. But let's not forget that WE DO NOT KNOW what is going on at Gitmo or in Afghanistan or in Iraq with these prisoners. Yes, we all want to avoid another attack on the nation, but how far are we willing to go to protect ourselves?

I will be looking forward to reading Erik Saar's Inside the Wire: A Military Intelligence Soldier's Eyewitness Account of Life at Guantanamo for his insights as to what is happening there.

AMY GOODMAN: You describe one scene of a female interrogator. Can you talk about what happened that day and start from the beginning?

ERIK SAAR: That day, a technique was used in the interrogation booth where sex was used as a weapon to create a wedge between the detainee we were speaking with and his faith. For example, more specifically, the female interrogator I worked with that day sought to sexually entice the detainee. The logic behind that was that if he would be sexually attracted to her, he would feel unclean, and therefore, she believed, in Islam, he would be unable to go back to his cell and pray. One thing she additionally did in order to humiliate him and also to make him feel unclean was wipe what was red ink on his face, but it was done in a way that he believed it was menstrual blood. All of this again was in an attempt to create this wedge between himself and his religion and not only was it ineffective, but I thought it was unethical.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/04/1342253

As I said in my initial post. "So much hysteria. So few facts." The White House and it's media lapdogs are all over this one because point out how NEWSWEEK screwed up shifts attention away from their own screw-ups. I don't excuse what NEWSWEEK did and maybe somebody needs to lose their job over it, but there are hands in the Bush Adminstration that are bloody as well.

....just meeting hyperbole with hyperbole. I don't consider this act treasonous myself, although I do think its potential impact on global politics should have made it worthy of additional scrutiny/verification, not less.



Yes, agreed...although I would take out 'Bush' and just insert 'U.S'. But it should take more than one uncorroborated news article to start a jihad (although I guess it wouldn't be unprecedented if that indeed was sufficient).



I have no problems with such things being reported....but given the topic and its ramifications, I would hope that all due diligence is exercised before going to press. Smearing such as this goes beyond domestic politics...it has worldwide implications. Those need to be considered before publishing.


As will I. If things are being done there which should be questioned, I hope they are. If, upon investigation, offenses were found to be committed, those committing them (or ordering them committed) should be dealt with. The US public should not be kept in the dark. However, neither should the US public be unneccessarily placed in danger merely for the sake of printing an article.



Again, I agree. What I would hope is that, in the future, a few facts are gathered and corroborated before anything is published. This is not an area in which shoddy journalism can be tolerated. Any bloody hands in the administration can (and should) be uncovered and reported without unnecessarily creating an international incident. Wars have indeed been started over such things.

I don't know how I feel about the press being asked to hold back from publishing. I can see where it might be helpful when police are working an ongoing investigation. In politics, I tend to agree that, for the most part, the press should publish away. As for Newsweek, I wasn't aware that they were asked not to publish their problematic article. Are you saying that they were asked and then published anyway? If so, I'd like to see the evidence for this.


Wow. That's quite a reversal. So, are you saying that sources of authority (press, government or otherwise) should not be held responsible for their dubious claims?


Not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that rumor-mongering is always okay since it's not new?

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

No, I think journalism will be best preserved on a basis of trusting that they will act responsibly in regards to reporting. If you are found tp be consistantly unreliable, people won't buy your mags.

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

Yes and no. I think DTOM made a great point in the fact that the media tends to steer towards who is abusing who, rather than who is doing the right thing.

That being said, until now at least, they haven't started taking liberty with information provided to them.

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

There's a good cartoon in the L.A. Times which has a Newsweek suit apologizing to a tombstone saying '...Good news, we retracted the story.'

The damage has been done. Apologizing isn't going to do any good.

That being said...

I believe that Newsweek chose to favor running a damaging piece over responsible journalism. I don't buy the "cold feet via the Pentagon" argument, it's too convienent. Someone screwed up and realized the damage that was being caused and decided it wasn't worth his conscience. So he retracts it. Meanwhile, Newsweek insists that it followed procedure correctly and issues a half-muled apology. But instead of the blame being soley on the magazine, others clammer that the Pentagon had it's hands in the mess.


It's interesting to note how because the CJC cites an AAR that says rioting in a centralized place at a specific time was "not necessarily" (he's not even sure himself) related to the magazine article, Newsweek is not to blame.

Yet, overlooked is the fact that there were other protests with other casualties throughout Afghanistan.

Newsweek sparks global riots with one paragraph on Koran

Those who do see grievous fault with Newsweek are alluded to as being severe consequentialists.

Well, it's also interesting to note that many cooler heads in the Middle East have actually laid down harsher criticsm on Newsweek than many Americans have.

Afghanistan, Pakistan Angry at Newsweek's Mistake in Quran Report



So are Mrs. P et al being irational with their blame (or lack thereof?) I don't think so in the least. Do you Logo?

Now whether or not anyone dies, publishing articles like the one Newsweek did, without intense investigation, is dangerous and irresponsible anyhow. Yet instead of laying heavy handed criticism, people cite that "Bush did it, so it's ok." Yeah, if you build one, others will too... Irresponsible journalism is to blame here. Plain and simple.

The truth, no matter how damaging, will come out and see sunlight, as was proven with Abu Ghraib. Pushing stories that could have a dangerous impact elsewhere in the world through without intense scrutiny, and then give a lame excuse ("I suppose you could say we should have foreseen the consequences of the report, but we didn't."- Newsweek editor Mark Whitaker) when the crap hits the fan is just that...crap. To tolerate that is crap. Just because "it probably happens all the time somewhere else" is not a good reason to recklessly publish information that puts people in harms way.

Now, now, Titus. If you scroll to my very first post, you will see that for question 3, I answered precisely Newsweek should apologize for any inaccuracies made in their reports. Whether or not the subsequent apology was sufficient, I suppose that's a personal opinion. As for consequentialism, you, my debating friend, are taking my position waay out of context. First, I don't have a problem with someone who is a consequentialist, I find nothing inherently wrong with that philosophical outlook; I'm just looking for consistency in its application. Second, unless it can be proven that the Newsweek article was the cause of the riots (which seems altogether unproven), then even a consequentialist would have a hard time blaming Newsweek. Third, unless you can demonstrate that Newsweek intended harm/rioting/etc., then a teleological ethic fails as well.

As for my comment on irrationalism in one of my posts, I think you know that absolutely none of Mrs. P's posts ever fit that description. Yet, I find it ironic how easy it is to blame one article for its dubious evidence while employing dubious evidence when making such a claim of blame. It is simply insufficient to assert something; you need evidence. Newsweek apparently had poor sourcing. I see a similar failure of sourcing when blaming Newsweek for the riots.


Well, I don't think it's okay. I hold all bodies of authority to a high standard: a much higher standard than I hold every day people. It's never okay to make poorly sourced claims. It is an abuse of power. I don't like it as much as you, Titus. But, let me reiterate, I hold this standard consistently for everyone in positions of authority.


I cannot agree more, Titus. But, let's be honest here. Let's say the story was completely true and verified. And let's say it was proven that the riots were because of the article. And finally let's say the Newsweek editors knew that the article was political dynamite but chose to publish. How would you feel about it then? Would you think the riots were okay in such a case?

Bush officials trotted out a military spokesman to tell us that maybe the explosives were destroyed. That was in October, after it was revealed that the weapons had indeed been at that location when the US invaded.




Well and good, except for one thing: They knew when they trotted this guy out what had happened to those explosives. They were looted while soldiers watched and tried to call for backup (But they didn't announce this until November 4. In other words, right after the election). Meanwhile, they circulated lies:



It is true that it is difficult to trust our media. They did, after all, bow to requests to sit on the Abu Ghraib photos for a couple weeks after they got them and who never showed us all the photos. One journalist with a website, just one, could have showed Americans the whole, gruesome batch, but they never did. We have never seen the worst ones, and I read on boards and websites and hear people say every day, "It was just a little nudity and some humiliation."

So the spin worked. Even when some of the photos came out, even when reports of much worse surfaced, their propaganda worked.

I have no reason to believe this government over the Newsweek source. Besides, like I said before, accounts of Koran desecration have come out of Gitmo for a long time. And Newsweek has no reason to print a false story, in fact, they have every reason to be as accurate as possible. While this Administration has plenty of reasons to lie, and has done plenty of lying in the past.

As for my point on the NPR story. You'd have to hear it. If you did, you'd understand. Unfortunately, I can't find it. Anywhere. I'm going to email NPR, pay a couple bucks, and try to get a transcript and/or a recording!

I find it amazing how many Afganis read Newsweek. Of course this had nothing to do with the bases we plan on in the area and many Afganis simply not wanting us in their country permanently.
Or the warlords reminding Karzai they won't go quietly. Not too mention the growing tensions over the future of the Drug trade and the money it brings to farmers.


I find the Downing Street memo of more importance.

One thing to remember when considering the Middle East, specifically Afghanistan, is that the majority of the population has very little education. Add to this that they have limited access to information (though this has certainly improved in recent years), and the fact that many believe that whatever their religious leaders tell them is the truth (something you can see among the poor and uneducated within ANY organized faith), and you have potential for abuse and manipulation.

There are religious leaders in Afghanistan that do not want us there. There are religious leaders in Afghanistan that liked the way the country was run under the Taliban. They have alot of power to sway the faithful, and there have been religious leaders who have shown a willingness to manipulate the truth, or simply make it up to get the response they want from the faithful.

We have seen violence and death, and riots caused by extremist religious leaders throughout history (from all faiths). We have seen terrorism, warfare, and riots in modern times caused by radical Islamic extremist and their manipulation the Qu'ran and the truth. This is not new.

Newsweek went forward with a story that they should have checked out better. I see this more as a symptom of the intense competition for dollars in the news media, then an attempt to disparage the White house. They made a mistake. When they realized they made a mistake, the immediately admitted it and retracted the story. That is Admirable, and should be commended. If CBS, had acted the same way rather then stone wall and criticize their accusers Dan Rather would likely still be in "the chair".

Islamic Extremists have never needed American media sources before. They have developed their own distortions, half-truths and out-right lies to manipulate their followers into violent actions for decades. If Newsweek had not run the story, I am confident that the radical leaders would have found something else, or made something up to whip up the desired frenzy.

Blaming Newsweek for the deaths here not just misguided. It is itself, a distortion of reality that distracts from the real causes of violence and death in the region. Failure to see the real causes of strife in the region will doom us to see this sort of violence and death continue for decades to come.

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

If you want a free press, able to report on what is really happening in the world, and what your government is really doing then you will also have a press, able to distort a story towards their own individual bias. Bias in reporting is NOT new. It is also impossible to stop. Most reporters do not actively seek to distort their reporting to forward an agenda. Most happen to lean one way or another personally, which can distort how they perceive the event they are reporting on. That is human nature. Since reporters are humans (though some might feel that is debatable ), that makes bias in reporting natural IMHO.

Thankfully, these days we have an enormous variety of news sources. If you want to really know the truth, simply find a source you like that leans to the right, and another that leans to the left and listen to / watch / read both. The parts of the story that are the same in both reports are the truth.

I would much prefer a free press and the possible mistakes that comes with that, then one hamstrung in some way, and a limitation on my ability to know what is happening around me.. In some stories, it is the truth of the story, or rather, the debate about what really happened that is the story. Reporters are not always correct. In my personal experience, when a story involved me in some way they were more often wrong then they were right. But that does not require some sort of draconian measure to correct. All it requires is that people consider the source when the get their news. It also requires that when people KNOW a story is wrong, that they make an effort to get the truth out.

There is no grand conspiracy in the media. There is about a 5-1 ratio of liberal leaning reporters to conservative leaning reporters. This makes sense when you consider that journalism is hard job, requiring alot of work and hours for not the best pay. Someone seeking this career is frequently motivated by the good they can do in that field (before they discover the reality of the dollar in the business). That makes this profession more attractive to a left leaning person then a right leaning person. The same holds true in other professions. How many socialist leaning investment bankers do you know? There is no conspiracy. The stories lean one way or another because personal bias tends to color what we see. Some stories get covered and others don't not because of some hidden agenda, but rather because space / time is limited and the news media is an enterprise designed to make money, so the run with the stories most likely to help them in that regard.

In this particular story the fault lies squarely on those that whipped up the frenzy/riot and those who chose to quell it with lethal force, not Newsweek or any other media source.

It's not really a matter of whether or not the article did cause the riots. The problem is that it certainly could have, and much worse. Given the potential consequences, it's further not necessary to prove that that is what Newsweek intended. Rather, all that is necessary to show is that Newsweek did not do due diligence on the story, and they have admitted that themselves. Which leaves only two possible scenarios. Either they were too stupid to realize the possible consequences, or they did realize and didn't care (or actually wanted the consequences to occur). Neither of these is acceptable for a supposedly reputable magazine, is it?




The riots wouldn't be OK in this scenario, but the blame for them wouldn't lie with Newsweek, it would lie with those who took the actions described. I have no problem with magazines reporting such actions if verifiable, although I would hope that they would do so knowing the potential consequences, and handle it accordingly.



There is a big difference between these two scenarios. One was essentially a domestic issue, while the other had geopolitical consequences. As I said earlier, wars have indeed started this way. Is printing something with that sort of ramification really remedied by an apology? I don't think so. As for the Islamic world not needing such an article to rile up their masses, this is true. But we don't really need our magazines unnecessarily throwing gasoline on the fire, do we? Newsweek's article put all of us in greater danger. To what degree is debatable...but is any degree acceptable? How much of your security are you really willing to trade away so that magazines might sell a few more copies? Also, if you don't see the political bias here, I think you are being naive. Was that bias intentional? Probably not. But you can see from various posts in this thread how an anti Bush sentiment would cloud one's objectivity on this issue, probably causing them to miss the greater implications running this story would have. Hasn't one of the main arguments against Bush's actions been that he increased the danger of terrorism unnecessarily? Well, that's exactly what Newsweek has also just done. Don't criticize it on the one side, and overlook it on the other.

No, merely pointing out that if they can agree to hold a story in exchange for an exclusive, they could also self-censor a story for fear of inflaming international relations and possibly jeopardizing our military.

Not exactly. I think that Newsweek was irresponsible in this case printing an inflammatory story based on one unconfirmed source. Same for the LA Times. But... see below.

No, I'm saying that the mere fact that rumors based on one's religion are still pervasive in one largely uneducated part of the world means that there is no point in overanalyzing nuance, diplomacy, what's printed in Newsweek. There are millions of Muslims who believe that Jews eat babies, that the Mosaad caused 9/11, etc. The reason they believe we are desecrating the Koran is that it's a Centuries-old rumor, the worst thing they can think of. Therefore, the rumors fly around whether it happened or not. Probably some Sergeant somewhere didn't show the book the respect that the prisoner wanted. This is completely irrelevant. The rumor would have started anyway, because it's known to inflame the Muslims, and therefore the evil, brainwashing Imams and terrorists would claim it to be true no matter what. The only thing I'd put on Newsweek is that they may want to familiarize themselves with the middle-eastern rumor mill, so that they don't report any other 1000-year-old urban myths.

Example - this week's sermon from the Palestinian Authority. The "legitimate" government of the West Bank and Gaza, whose leader is headed to the White House. middle east media research institute


A better example of a rumor, as we've all heard this one - guy falls asleep in Vegas, wakes up in a bathtub full of ice with a note "get to a doctor, we've taken one of your kidneys." It's a myth - an urban legend. Never happened. And yet the following was published in both Saudi and Iran...



How can we expect an illiterate Palestinian, Pakistani or Afghani who hears this drivel every day to be capable of critical thought regarding Newsweek, democracy, whatever. It's hopeless. The only answer is to export democracy and freedom, at the point of a gun if necessary, and shed light on the sickness that rules the hundreds of millions of muslims in the middle east.

Why does the blame for the riots lie with rioters if the story is true, but the blame should shift to Newsweek if the story is false? Are populations responsible for their actions only when they're acting on the right information?

Did this, and does this way of thinking, grant a backdoor Get Out of Jail Card or apology for an invasion based on faulty intelligence (to put it mildly)? If yes, this point of view is not necessary to arrive to the conclusion that we should want democracy for Iraq by now, regardless of how we ended up there, but it would certainly explain the gymnastic deflections made in defense of the administration.

Well, Lesly beat me to it. So, in your proposal, Hobbes, blame can be assigned to Newsweek if the reporting is false but not if it's true, correct? Can you tell me what difference that condition makes to the rioters? If the rioting can occur because the story is true AND the rioting can occur because the story is false, then logically the truth-state of the story has no effect on the rioting. Thus, one must conclude that it isn't the truth/false value of the story which matters, but the fact that the story was published. So, if you wish to prevent rioting AND the publication of the story is the cause of such rioting, then the only conclusion the make is that we must prevent publication of the story whether or not it is true. At least, this is the logical implication of your statements, Hobbes.


So, let me see if I understand your position correctly:

1. From above, if the riots occurred because of the Newsweek article, then it is to blame if the article is false but not if it is true.

2. Also, the potential to cause riots, even if the Newsweek article was not in fact the cause of the riots, is tantamount to being the cause of the riots. Or another way of putting it, Newsweek should never publish because it potentially could cause rioting.

In point 1, you're laying blame in Newsweek only if the article is false AND rioting is caused by the article. This seem to advocate a type of deontological moral theory but I'm not sure. In point 2, you're not necessarily laying blame but making a larger claim: the potential to cause bad things is enough justification to prevent publication in the first place. It is point 2 which appears to have the most interesting implications for you.

If you believe the potential to cause bad things is enough justification to prevent doing the thing which has this potential, then how do you reconcile other things which could have potentially bad consequences, such as war? Clearly, wars, while having good intentions and even good consequences, also have bad consequences (such as the killing of innocents). Unless, of course, you wish to now qualify your initial claim that if the good outweighs the bad (by some calculation), then war is justified. If that's the case, then why can you not also do a similar calculation with regard to freedom of the press?

Anyway, as you can see, I'm a bit confused as to the philosophy you're advocating, Hobbes.

Who said anything about blaming the rioters? (although, in general, people should indeed be responsible for their own actions). I said the blame would be with those who took the actions described, or those who ordered them to do it....that would be the interrogators. My, my, aren't we quick to jump to the wrong conclusions!



...see above. Given that, no, it is not the logical implication of my statements, only of your perceptions.

Wait a minute...isn't this exactly what the Newsweek reporter did? Making inflamatory allegations off of uncorroborated allegations?

Why is it that, when presented with multiple ways to view someone's statements, people always are so quick to assume the view that inflames them the most? Seems like a sure way to drive yourself crazy to me. Maybe I should just go with the flow, and invest in Tums? .