Afghan clerics threaten Muslim holy war over Koran



This story was broken by NEWSWEEK...however it seems that they are dancing to a different tune now...

Quran Desecration Report False



How nice. Civilians are dead...US troops are in harms way...and radical clerics are calling for more violence all because of an unproven, uncredible report of Quran desecration by US troops.

Questions for Debate:

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

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

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

The assumption you are making is that the original story was indeed not true. It sounds like the original source cited in the article came under intense pressure from Pentagon higher ups and is now suddenly trying to retract his previous comments. Newsweek is probably also under intense pressure to distance themselves from the original article since every time a media outlet reports on the situation in Afgahanistan they mention the Newsweek story, not exactly the kind of publicity they are looking for.

This is exactly why abuse of detainees should not be rationalized or excused. That abuse makes credible, especially in areas already suspicious of the U.S., allegations that have not completely been verified. By exposing prisoner abuse the media is doing its job, a job the pentagon refuses to do on its own, which will hopefully pressure the military to prevent future abuses from happening.

The editors should only issue an apology if indeed they themselves made a mistake. If not it is not their duty to provide public relations for the U.S. military and help them cover up cases of abuse, even if it has short term negative effects.

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

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

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

I have to answer the question with a question- what makes you think the pentagon is any more or less reliable in it's press releases than those you are critisizing in Iraq? Native bias?

Remember, there was a time when Cheney (or was it Rumsfeld) said, in no uncertain terms "We know where the WMDs are, around Tikrit"-

our propaganda machine is the best in the world- why should we believe it?

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

Meaning what exactly? that the media is not engaged in 'responsible reporting'?

I don't see any evidence of that so I'm not sure what it is you require beyond the measure's that most democracy's already have in place...


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

No they haven't. They have allowed themselves to be unduly influenced by the Pentagon in an attempt to white wash the human rights abuses that the US military/government is/has been engaged in.


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

Yes.

They broke a true story, one that has been backed up by numerous sources and now the consequence of what the US military/government has been doing has triggered a backlash the media organisation in question has allowed itself to be pressured into retracting its story in a pathetic attempt to portray the US military/government as something other than its true nature.

For more input on this matter, see here.

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

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

3) Should the editors make a public apology and explanation to ease tensions?
Maybe the slant should not be on the press at all. Yes the press as usual got it wrong, but so what else is new. If I read a news story that has anything to do with something that I have personal experience, I have found that in every single case the story was wrong. Not just a little bit but to the extent that the meaning of the story was the opposite of the facts. So the press gets things wrong a lot.

What the heck is wrong with the Muslims for rioting in the first place? Do any of you see any say Christians rioting if somebody flushed a bible down a toilet, I think not! Maybe just maybe there is a fundamental flaw out there.

The total intolerance of a major percentage of Muslims to everybody else's religions and beliefs is incredible.

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

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

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

1) No. If people have freedom of speech, then they may say things that you don't want to hear. You could regulate what people say, so that they only say 'responsible' things, but then it wouldn't be freedom of speech. (Plus you need someone to decide what is 'responsible')

2) Well, in any scenario where armed forces are detaining their enemies, abuses will occur, regardless of official policy or how well trained the troops are. That is life, one of the beauties of a democracy with free speech is that these abuses can be brought to the public's attention. The media is imperfect, the US Forces are imperfect, people in general are imperfect. So long as the media reports the information it has, then it is behaving responsibly.

3) If they believe they should, then yes. If not, then no.

The media is not to blame here at all. If people believe everything that they read or hear in the media, then they are pretty darn foolish, because the media is entirely fallible.

Publisher description for Secrets of victory : the Office of Censorship and the American press and radio in World War II / Michael S. Sweeney.



The media is to blame here. Maybe this war does not require the media to voluntarily censor themselves but they should be darn sure they are right before publishing news sure to enflame the Muslim world.

Newsweek ran with the story from an anonymous source because it fit their perceived bias - Americans are evil, torturing the 'innocent' detainees in Guantanamo. Any story fitting these notions that could make America (George Bush) look bad will receive cursory, if any, fact checking. Any story that could make America (George Bush) look good, needs to be "balanced" or ignored. This bias shouldn't surprise anyone, Newsweek publisher Evan Thomas himself said that the media was going to "add 10 or 15 points" to Kerry's numbers in the presidential election. Then, almost to prove his point, they put the glowing "sunshine boys" on the cover.

Remember the reports, also anonymous, that a satellite tracked the Italian journalist's car at 30 mph? Many print outlets, like the LA Times, took that paragraph out of the AP report because it wasn't super-duper fact-checked. Obviously, that sort of intense scrutiny isn't required when anonymous sources say bad things about Guantanamo.

Newsweek should apologize all right. Even if this Koran thing were true, the magazine's editors apparently didn't understand the consequences - like not knowing that descrating a Koran is a death penalty offense in most of the arab world.

Here's a slogan for ya - Newsweek lied, people died.

I am hard pressed to remember a time when an official story from the Pentagon turned out to be erroneous. They are pretty sure to either keep their mouths closed or report their findings accurately. Unlike erroneous unsubstantiated story after erroneous unsubstantiated story I've read in the mass media, which are believed unquestioningly by far too many people...to include some in this very forum.

Remember when you wrote this:



These types of stories arne't just confined to local neighborhoods. They sometimes become international news. Yes, I agree that it's tremendously foolish to believe everything the media prints. I also believe that all legitimate media sources have a responsibility to report the news accurately...especially when so many lives are at stake.

1. Yes, impose consequences for reports from legitimate news magazines written with a reckless disregard for the truth. If they cannot back up their stories and consider themselves to be a legitimate news source and people get hurt or killed, they should have to answer for this. Incitement is not protected free speech, and recklessness should not be a defense to incitement. Be responsible or don't report.

2. I honestly don't know.

3. Yes, but this will not ease tensions. There's already an msnbc report stating that Muslims are skeptical of Newsweek's "amendum." Once the damage has been done, it cannot be repaired.

Is there anything that can be done to ensure responsible reporting without abridging freedom of the press rights?
A Newsweek employee was asked how did this happen on a Sunday morning show.



He was regretful but insisted the source was vetted. If we're going to hold Newsweek in contempt shouldn't we reserve the same for their source? More importantly, who gets to decide how the media should vet their stories and what "independent" outside body could be charged with making sure the media is lockstep with the new rules? There's no foolproof method of vetting stories. Is the media to automatically assume CID has an axe to grind or is incompetent?

Newsweek should publish anything it wants. It shouldn't, however, be granted immunity in court simply because it is a member of the fourth estate.

Has the media been acting responsibly in regards to reporting detainee abuses by US Forces?
The media has been a coward since 9/11 and has done an inconsistent job of making up for their lapse since.

Should the editors make a public apology and explanation to ease tensions?
They already did. Apologizing will have little impact with practitioners of a major religion that hasn't gone through reform. It may serve to soothe nerves here. Little else.

Seriously. You can hold our countrymen until they rot and subject them to interrogation methods considered illegal in your own country, but by Allah, we will issue death threats and die in demonstrations against blasphemous fiction that mocks our holy book!



Or we can shift conservative emphasis of personal responsibility from "weak willed muslims" to Newsweek so dissing a liberal(?) rag for the actions of others doesn't smack as onerous.

I wouldn't call the protesting Muslims "weak willed." I'd call them ignorant, brainwashed, uneducated and backwards. But not weak willed. As Iran's parliament closed the session with "death to america" chants the other day, we shouldn't be so overly deferent to their customs, BUT ... it would be nice if Isikoff and Barry said to themselves "gee, even if this story is confirmed (sort of - not denied isn't really confirmed, is it?), what if the arab world uses it as a flashpoint to kill Americans?" It's not like they didn't have an Abu Gharib story to compare reaction. Does Newsweek help or hurt America by printing this?

And in both the original article and the retraction, Newsweek spells Koran as "Qur'an." What a load of PC-pandering nonsense. The English word for "Koran" is Koran. If they are so smart and witty and can mis-spell arabic phonetics, maybe they also understand that the Koran is too thick to be flushed down a toilet. I don't need fact-checkers to help with this, I can just go to my toilet, insert a 464-page Koran, and note that, after flushing, the book remains. Unless I'm in Saudi Arabia, of course, where I'm promptly beheaded.

I guess we'll agree to disagree, Carlito. The veracity of the story concerns me, not the repercussions. Besides a strong belief in providing correct information to the public, whether or not it's 'good' information for individuals/PACs/countries/service members, we can't take the word of muslim moderates that extremists have hijacked their religion and on the one hand act on behalf of the moderates by establishing a democracy, on the other placate fringe believers. Muslims either want what "everyone wants," including due process and we should hold them to it or we don't have the whole picture and Iraq is a sham, reform an impossibility. Arguing in favor of censorship in this case is as selective and self-defeating as touting the capture of high profile al Qaeda operatives and downplaying the need for Saudi Arabia to take the initiative in shutting down terrorist charities on their own.



I don't need to stuff the entire bible in the toilet to "flush it" down. You could still be right. Critical thinking and seeing patterns is not something a common virtue among media elites or otherwise. I'll sit tight for now on the matter.

The obvious answer to this is, OF COURSE! Who was the source of this information? According to Newsweek, the information came from a "knowledgeable U.S. government source" Okay, fair enough. WHO? Apparently, they aren't saying....Therefore, any anonymous information should be checked and confirmed before it hits the printing press.

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

I think there is a serious dilemma here. Is the problem the veracity of source used for the article or the fact that there was rioting?

1. If the problem is veracity, then surely you must understand that mistakes can be made. Recall that the major justification for the invasion of Iraq was based on fallacious evidence for WMD. I'm okay with setting the bar this high, however it must be set high across the board: not just in the media but in the US government as well.

OR

2. However, if the problem is that there was rioting after the article was published, then whether or not the article was completely and totally true is immaterial. In other words, even if beyond a shadow of a doubt the article was accurate, then there would have been rioting. The only conclusion to make is that, if there could be rioting, then it can't be published. This would clearly fall under the domain of censorship.

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

You mean by reporting that there have been detainee abuses? I suppose I'm confused. Were the Abu Graib abuses a fabrication by the media? Torture and death sells: the more sensational, the better. The media will report on things that gets them more profit. It's capitalism at work. Does this debate question have an anti-capitalist bias built in to it?

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

The editors should apologize for any inaccuracies and misrepresentations they have made. They should not apologize for well-documented reporting. In fact, I wish the tradition of apology for misrepresentation and inaccuracies were more inculcated in our society. It would be good to see retractions by the media AND by the US government.

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

As has been pointed out by several other posters, the apology has already been made. What those who are accusing Newsweek of publishing questionably sourced material are forgetting is what is included in Lesly’s post with the Newsweek apology.

So, two DoD officials were given the opportunity to vet the story. One refused, but one did, and had no problem with the text that caused the problem.

And, still, this is Newsweek's fault? Does anyone wonder whether the Muslim publications who passed the item along (and who knows, embellished it maybe?) should be liable for inflaming the Afghans? After all, I don't think there are too many newsstands in Kabul supplied with Newsweek.

Edited to add: Well, I'll be darned. Someone else wondered the same thing, and posts some of the Arab press exaggerations here.

As for "causing" Jihad, it was declared on the decadent West long ago. It's hardly a new phenomenon caused by a little blurb in Newsweek. Why not blame the people involved in CAUSING the riot instead of a mere print publication? The rioting would likely have occurred even if the sources had been ironclad, and there were photos of the act taking place.

Actually, neither of the two DOD officials questioned confirmed the charge. Additionally, there is no reason to conclude that the two DOD officials questioned even had an ounce of information to prove or disprove the veracity of the charges. They simply didn't comment, yet the reporters ran the story.

Um, Yes.

I think the point DaffyGrl was making was: were the riots in Afghanistan the fault of Newsweek? If you believe Newsweek is at fault, Mrs. P, then you're much more of a consequentialist than I thought. How much does consequence vs. intent matter? If the intent was to report based on the best sourcing available, does that make any difference to the ethical implications? What standards do you apply and do those standards get applied equally across all authoritative entities?

How nice. Civilians are dead…US troops have died and are in harms way…it’s cost us an arm and a leg….and radical clerics are calling for more violence because of an unproven, uncredible report of WMD by our intelligence agencies.

Just who do you want us to believe?

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

Sure. Make sure you give out or corroborate accurate information, the irresponsibility here doesn’t’ belong to the press, but the source.

In this case it appears the fault lies with the Defense Department and they should take the blame, they had the opportunity to discredit the story. If I’ve heard it once I’ve heard it a thousand times by any of the following: those on this board who support Bush and the war: Bush, anyone in his administration, any right wing talking head who tries to justify the cost of this war - “There’s a price for freedom”, which certainly includes freedom of the press. Can’t have it both ways.

Are we supposed to go through this whole Iraq mess in the name of ‘democracy’ but shelve what’s possibly our most sacred freedom? The stink being raised here should be directed towards our military and their heinous interrogation methods.

The public has the right to know how low we’ll stoop. If this were an American detainee who found themselves in a pile of naked prisoners and had the Bible flushed in front of them would you want to know?

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

If it’s the truth then yes they are acting responsibly. But who knows, if you were at Abu Gharib, GetMo, or when we let someone else do the dirty work by shipping detainees to other countries for interrogation then maybe you could honestly answer the question. I shudder to think what’s not being reported.

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

They have and it won’t make a bit of difference. They’re not calling for a holy war because we reported it happened, they’re calling for a holy war because it appears it did happened. And if you’re on their side of the fence looking in it’s quite plausible considering the other detainee atrocities.

Well said.

I think it's about time the media reclaim their cojones and investigate and print stories without the fear if they don't toe the party line, they will be crucified for it. No more Jeff Gannons!! Why is the Bush administration given carte blanche to lie to us, but the press has to meet a higher standard? Do I doubt interrogators would "flush the Qu'ran? No. Does anyone? With all of the more horrific things done to prisoners, why would this come as such a shock?

Well, looky here. It seems that Newsweek is by far not the only news outlet to report desecration of the Qu'ran. And as far back as 2002.

Referring to an occurrence in 2002:


Occurring in 2003:


So, did the White House blame the media outlets then for the unrest in Afghanistan and Iraq? They seem eager to make a scapegoat of Newsweek for some reason, claiming that the magazine has "hurt the US image". Whoa. As if the Bush administration's actions have improved our image???

Spanish profanity-filter-avoidance and hysterics aside, I'd love to hear what stories aren't being investigated because of the press' "fear of being crucified." Every day, I hear stories critical of Bush, the administration, the war on terror and corporate America. How can people (not just you, but mainstream and alternative liberal press as well) hurl accusation after accusation at BushCo and in the same breath complain of being persecuted? It's a contradiction in itself. The New York Times had Abu Ghraib on its front page for what, 60 days straight? Did Ashkkkroft raid their headquarters, steal their women and pillage the lobby?

It's nonsensical. And as someone noted, there is a freaking war on. Yes, what you print about what the troops are doing does matter to their safety. How far have we as a nation sunk from the WWII-era common sense adage "loose lips sink ships."

PS - No more Paul Krugmans!!!!!

Would you prefer "huevos"? And I hardly think it's hysterical of me to deride the hysteria surrounding one paragraph in Newsweek.

Mainstream media hardly "criticizes" Bush and Friends. And I don't mean the talking heads on radio OPINION shows...of either extreme. You have to dig into the internet to find any true criticism. Please, are you telling me Chris Schieffer is up there telling us the hard news? Hardly.

Okay, I'll bite. So, you're saying that, when there is a war, then the media should not report on anything to do with the war (unless it houses it in a positive, information-lite format) as it could get soldiers killed, correct? And this applies to any reporting that could affect the soldiers even if that reporting has little or nothing to do with the combat itself or the countries where that war is being fought, correct? This is a pretty broad brush you're painting here, carlitoswhey. I can certainly understand not reporting on to-be-commenced combat missions, but you're saying that anything which might be interpreted in a negative light by a class of people (nearing the 1 billion mark) should be considered a "loose lips" situation.

Okay, let's say you're right. Let's say that we apply your "loose lips" definition to mean "censoring that which could incite violence against our soldiers". What happens when a member of, say, the government states things which incites such behavior, such as "bring 'em on"? Does this "loose lips" standard apply as well?

carlitoswhey

The whole point of a free media is that it is not subject to any form of political censorship. That, in its freedom to pursue the truth, or to get as close to the truth as possible, it is allowed to break story's, even those that may present the government in a bad light, regardless of whether or not the government is responsible of any wrong doing, because giving the press such freedom is the only way to guarantee that freedom.

The media is a mirror on society and if you don't like what you see then its not good breaking the mirror because the lack of a reflectation will only allow the ugliness to fester unchecked.


I'm confused by the constant references to the second world war by the pro war/Bush camp with regards to Iraq.

If Iraq is somehow comparable to the second world war, (but apparently not Vietnam) then I'd like some sort of a clarification offered as to why. Just what parallel exists between these two 'wars'?

I use the word 'war' loosely, because technically, Iraq does not qualify as a 'war' since no decleration of war has been made against Iraq (as was the case with Vietnam I believe)

But this is the point. The issue is not censorship. NEWSWEEK admits that their source was unrealiable and that they cannot prove the event actually happened. It is not as if they had a factually true story and were criticized for running it. They took a story that had no credibility or reliability and passed it off as fact. Now they stirred the beehive and perhaps diminished 3 years of progress in Afghanistan.

If the story was factual with hard evidence...then it is of course within their right to print the story.

Flushing America’s Afghan successes down the toilet


If the story NEWSWEEK alleges is supposed to be given the benefit of the doubt by some...is not the line that this is all just a propaganda tactic also not out of the realm of possibilty?

I don't know who Chris Schieffer is, but here are some examples of mainstream media criticizing Bush and Friends. I don't see much fear of crucifixion here. (from http://www.mediaresearch.org)


Karl Rove killed Senator Paul Wellstone, Bush is a war criminal, Halliburton is war profiteering, Bush knew about 9/11 in advance, etc. All of these things are in the mainstream press. And yet no one is in a gulag or has "disappeared" because of it. Why don't press go to a place like Cuba if they want to see where dissent really is crushed with the jackboot of government. Instead, they stay here in America and say nice things about Fidel secure in the fact that our government will protect their freedom.

I suggest you ask the Marines in Iraq if they would prefer to have the terrorists "bring it on" or hide in a basement. 99 / 100 will tell you that they'd prefer the enemy in front of them shooting vs. hiding out.

edit - Paul Wellstone was a Senator

I couldn't agree more carlitoswhey. It was a seriously irresponsible act on the part of Newsweek. I am not advocating that the media not report information that may incite violence-- but if they do, they darn well better be sure of their sources and the veracity of what they are reporting.

Newsweek did lie and people did die.

Maybe its just my pessimistic nature, but frankly I don't see how any 'success' of the last three years could be jeopardised by this story.

Its fairly obvious for any casual observor that the middle east is bloated with anti western, and especially anti American hatred and this is but one more straw gently settling on the camels back.

I don't accept any notion that this story is at any way to blame for the riots that followed it. The hatred that fuelled those riots has its roots far deeper than any journalistic ambiguity of the News Week journalists.


So... how about those people who have been released from Guantanamo without charge and who have made similiar claims of physical and religious abuse at the hands of the US interogators?

Are we to assume these apparently innocent people are also bound by this al qaeda manual?


editted for spelling

I agree with you, leder. Newsweek should be retracting any unreliable and/or factually inaccurate reporting it has done. It is important to hold the media to a high standard. It is important to hold any and all authoritative sources to such a high standard. This whole brouhaha demonstrates that the media isn't just composed of opinion articles. We (the media consumer) demand reliable and accurate sources of information. What Newsweek shouldn't be doing though is capitulating under the pressure of those who don't like the article because of its political implications.


That's not the point and you know it, carlitoswhey. To reiterate: if we use your "loose lips" definition, then does it apply to authoritative bodies other than the media?

Care to explain why you would call them "ignorant, brainwashed, uneducated and backwards"? You seem to be going into this debate with an overtly anti-muslim stance and so I'm a bit more apt to dismiss your position on the whole matter. Not all Muslims are "extremists" just as not all Christians are "Bible thumpers." The idea of viewing a whole group of people as "less" than "us" because of their religion didn't seem to work out too well in Germany and I suggest we don't follow suit. I think their would be plenty of protests in America if someone were to flush a Bible down the toilet. I know I wouldn't be happy about it. Would these objections lead to death? Most likely not but we're not under occupation now are we?

Unlike you I don't think Newsweek automatically assumes a story like this would be used as a "flashpoint to kill Americans" because they hold them in a bit more regard than you do.

Radicals are looking for any excuse whatsoever to spark anti-US sentiment. Look at poll numbers in Afghanistan. A huge majority wants the US to stay and improve conditions. Look at Iran, reports show that their young population are favorable towards the US and want to reintroduce diplomatic relations.

I agree that this story was not a reason...but it was a catalyst. And sometimes thats all it takes.



Perhaps if you provided some evidence of these people i could better comment on the issue. But not all allegations are to be taken seriously. Everything with credibility needs to be investigated fully...but we cannot believe every little thing that is said. You would just be trading American propaganda for Al Queda propaganda.

So I got his name wrong - it’s Bob Schieffer, and he replaced Dan Rather as anchor at CBS News. But to rebut by posting quotes by the likes of Rosie O’Donnell and Geraldo Rivera?! You don’t seriously consider what they do as “hard news,” do you?

I don’t suppose you paid any attention to the articles from 2002 and 2003 that I posted HERE of interviews with prisoners released from Guantanamo describing what their interrogators did with the Qu’ran, including dropping it in the toilet. So, again, why is one paragraph in Newsweek magazine to blame for riots and our government/president/miliary are blameless?

I mean:
- Ignorant -not aware of the world, living in a controlled-media environment, succeptible to fabricated rumors like "the polio vaccine will sterilize you"
- Brainwashed -having been educated that America is the great satan since birth, believing that you should "slay the infidel where ye find him," whereupon you get 72 virgins in heaven.
- Uneducated -not having been educated, not reading books. Not writing books. Not inventing things. Less than 50% literacy in Afghanistan, for example.
- Backwards -of the 12th century, not progressive or reformed. For example, mutilating women's genitalia, marrying your cousin, not using your left hand, forbidding women to drive or go to school. That sort of thing.


My quote clearly referred to "those protesting Muslims" and not all Muslims. Muslims so agitated by a rumor that they are willing to riot and kill each other are all of the things I listed above. Having said that, I can happily make a case that Islam has had no reformation and yes, that has a huge impact on how "extreme" its adherents are. It also makes your example less valid - We're not comparing two reformed religions, we're comparing the 12th Century to the 21st.If it's your point that Newsweek "holds them in a bit more regard" than Newsweek is delusional. If by "them" you mean the rioting Muslims, then Newsweek has no business holding them in any regard, and is guilty of naivete in addition to bad sourcing.


I could crash the AD server posting mainstream media criticism of the Bush Administration. Rosie O'Donnell has a syndicated talk show watched by millions - she is mainstream. I can turn on Peter Jennings for 10 minutes on any night of the week and guarantee criticism of Bush. The larger point is that there is NO reason for fear on the part of any journalist, and they (and you) know it.


There were obviously rumors of Koran desecration in the prison. There were also rumors that a prisoner desecrated the Koran himself as a form of protest. There are also media sources willing to print such rumors. For instance, one of your sources is the guardian (uk). The Guardian is biased enough that it once printed the urban myth that George Bush had the lowest IQ of any president. So while I acknowledge that you have read these things, I retain my skepticism.

A catalyst without a cause is a dud. Plain and simple.

It may be that 'radicals' are looking for any excuse to spark anti-US sentiment, but the same is true for the right wing in the USA who are looking for any donkey upon which to pin this particular tail.

Along comes a single journalistic mistep and then, hey presto! we're back into the good old days of the second world war mentality where freedom of the media must be muzzled for the safety of the US troops who just happen to be dying because their leader sent them into a nation they had no right to enter in the first place...

Excuse me, but am I the only one who see's whats wrong with this picture? I doubt it...


...but we can believe polls taken in nations like Aghanistan?


editted to add:


Daffygrrrl

Because it blew up into riots. Plain and simple.

No one gave a toss until it got bloody and then its out with the long knives for the messengers as usual.

I think you are the only one. Becuase you are still missing the point. The story is baseless, without fact, uncredible. But it was run anyway. It wasnt a factual story that was supressed in violation of freedom of press rights. It was false. We are not talking about censorship at all here. We are talking about responsible reporting...responsible meaning having evidence or proof to back up your story. Unless of course you think the media should run any odd claim without proof, especially if it fits your political agenda.

Is it? If this story is baseless then why did the Pentagon officials who were consulted not nip it in the bud?

Why have previous claims (as posted by Daffygrrl) not been pounced like this one was?

Why have I read and heard numerous accounts of religious and physical abuse in Guantanamo detention camps from former prisoners who were later released without charge?


How is it false?

Because Condoleeza Rice says so? Because the Pentagon says so? Because Newsweek got cold feet and said so?

This story is not false. It is merely unproven, related in a flawed manner, and if we are to expect photographic corroboration of every single incident of the reported US maltreatment of captives then its hardly surprising people can be abducted and carted away with impunity these days and no raises an eyebrow.


No. I don't think the medai should run any old story that sounds 'good'.

I think the media should investigate its claims.

However I believe, in the light of the previous posts in this thread that the story was investigated and was allowed to pass because no one thought it would have any adverse effect.

First, perhaps those Pentagon officials (who are mysteriously nameless) did not have the information to comment on the issue. Perhaps it is still being invesitagted. Or perhaps they just didn't want to continue giving Newsweek information.

Because this one led to riots and people died.

I don't know why you heard that. Perhaps you read it somewhere. If you showed me where you read/heard perhaps i could comment on it.



Its false because it is not true.

No, No, No...because its not true.

Oh i get it now. Its not false...its just unproven! Come on.



That doesn't make any sense. Of course they should investigate claims...but the story should be allowed to pass because they didn't think it would do any harm?

I've read it in just about every account of what is being done at Guantanamo. If you really haven't heard of this before then I fret for your apparent ignorance, but be that as it may, pressing me to go searching up old articles I read months ago when you owe it to yourself to search the truth of the matter isn't going to get me any where so I'll pass thanks.

Your ignorance is your concern. Not mine. I suggest however you start with Amnesty International and read what they have to say about Guantanamo Bay.


So you say, but how do you know its not true?

There are plenty of previous articles and reports from former inmates who say it is. Apparently you are quite happy to dismiss these but for my part I prefer to balance the one against the other.

I find neither side particularly engaging, but the notion that the human rights violations being commited at Guantanamo Bay don't include the disfigurment of a book whilst human beings are being physically mistreated is so far fetched as to be absurd.

...or perhaps your going to tell me that no one has been abused at Guantanamo Bay at all?


I didn't say that. I said that the story was ignored by the Pentagon officials who were asked to comment on it (or so I am led to believe) and I surmise that is because they really didn't think it was such a big deal.

If for nothing else, this story was worth it just to emphasise once again the monumental indifference and abject popular denial that Guantanamo Bay apparently inspires in the US media and population.

Firstly, i apologize if i don't rummage through just about every claim ever made by prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. I haven't yet finished reading the testimonies of all death row inmates so i think ill finish that up first.

Secondly, its not my job to just take your word for it and accept things as fact. If you show me hard data and information on what was claimed then i can comment on it. I don't know the sources you used or if they are credible. You can call it ignorance if you want, i could care less...but if you can prove something indeed happened, then by all means. I am not going to sit here and prove to you that things didn't happen. If you don't want to take the time to display evidence then don't make such claims. It seems you and the editor of this Newsweek editor have something in common.

Yes, and ill start reading what Amnesty International has to say about Gitmo about the same time i started reading the Boston Herald for analysis on the New York Yankees. AI thinks that every prisoner should get the same treatment as one does at the Plaza Hotel. They criticize the US all day because countries like China and North korea (among the world's worst human rights abusers) won't let them in. And as a free society we are an easy target. We treat our prisoners probably better than any other nation on earth. This might be because we have more lawyers than any other nation on earth. Joking aside... to err is human and is going to happen. Nobody condones ill-treatment but by blowing it up to make it seem that the US is a huge human rights abuser is really not looking at reality.



Because it has yet to be proven.

Oh you prefer balance? The Pentagon and Bush are always wrong while the prisoners are probably right. Thats not balance.

People probably have been abused, but that word has so many meanings. There was a story that the troops used hookers to offend the Arab men. Is this abuse? I mean i think if you started playing Britney Spears songs over and over...it is damn near torture. But is it?



Or maybe its because what i said. They didnt know, dont know yet, or dont want to tell Newsweek any more information.

I think this story just goes to prove that any anti-US story that some people come across will be taken as fact even with a lack of sufficient proof.

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

Yes, people who care about receiving true information should not purchase copies of Newsweek. They should also terminate their subscriptions. This will send a loud message to not just Newsweek but to media in general that true and acurate reporting is important to the public.

So much hysteria. So few facts.

1. NEWSWEEK made a mistake. They should have fact-checked better with a second and possibly a third source before publishing the piece. The source that Michael Isikoff was one he had used before and trusted. But apparently this time there was more rumor than fact to the story. However, I sincerely doubt that the following violence is entirely based on the fact that all the rioters were ticked-off NEWSWEEK subscribers.

But despite what the White House and lederuvdapac might have us believe, while this story may not be true, it seems that there are past incidents of descercration of the Koran that are true.

And the Joint Chiefs of Staff says the magazine is not to blame.

Afghan Riots Not Tied to Report on Quran Handling, General Says
Army investigating allegations of mishandling at Guantanamo Bay facility

By Jacquelyn S. Porth
Washington File Staff Writer


Washington – The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff says a report from Afghanistan suggests that rioting in Jalalabad on May 11 was not necessarily connected to press reports that the Quran might have been desecrated in the presence of Muslim prisoners held in U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Air Force General Richard Myers told reporters at the Pentagon May 12 that he has been told that the Jalalabad, Afghanistan, rioting was related more to the ongoing political reconciliation process in Afghanistan than anything else.

According to initial reports, the situation in Jalalabad began on May 10 with peaceful student protests reacting to a report in Newsweek magazine that U.S. military interrogators questioning Muslim detainees at the Guantanamo detention center “had placed Qurans on toilets, and in at least one case flushed a holy book.” By the following day the protests in the city had turned violent with reports of several individuals killed, dozens wounded, and widespread looting of government, diplomatic and nongovernmental assets.

However, Myers said an after-action report provided by U.S. Army Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry, commander of the Combined Forces in Afghanistan, indicated that the political violence was not, in fact, connected to the magazine report.

http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive/2005/May/13-299433.html

2. If anything the media has bent over backwards to provide the most consumer-friendly, sanitizied images of war and the treatment of prisoners in Iran and Guantanamo. Abu Gharib was the exception, not the rule. Most prisoners are not being treated inhumanely by U.S. armed forces, but when they are there should be a independent organization to investigate these claims. The military cannot investigate itself. Invariably, when it does it only punishes low-level soldiers or whitewashes the entire incident.

3. Sure the editors should apologize and have done so. Now when is the Bush Administration going to do the same for leading the nation in an immoral, illegal and unwinnable war in Iraq under the prextext based on bald-faced lies?

Well, gee...if desecrating bibles will get fanatic Muslims to violently kill themselves, bring the boys home from war - everyone start torching Korans instead.

To beleive that Newsweek caused violence that caused many to be killed is absurd. That point, as noted by Nighttimer, has been thorougly debunked by none other than Gen. Richard Myers. But I'm sure that by the end of the night, Gen Meyers will be tossed in the dumpster along with...with...uhhh...virtually every person no longer working for the president who has tried to warn us the guy is practically nuts.

Did Newsweek get it wrong? Maybe. But talk about the pot calling the kettle black. What has Bush gotten right? And supposedly, we pay trillions of dollars to what should be better sources.

This is politicking at it's lowest and I truly hope this is the first shot of the Bush/press war. Finally, the gloves may come off and Bush will be exposed for what he really is.

After all, what do they have to lose now? Will the media allow Bush to control them?

I'm disappointed to hear on the local news that Newsweek has bowed to pressure and retracted the story. Who's to say the source didn't get cold feet and regret passing along the story? We'll never know, as long as the press continues to be bullied and muzzled by this administration.

There have been plenty of incidents of desecration of the Qu'ran, as has been pointed out by myself and others. But, that will never be enough for some; all that remains to them is that Newsweek has been admonished, so everything else must be false, also. Groupthink at its finest.

I agree with the liberals on this board that Newsweek should have no obligation to verify their sources. I was at the supermarket yesterday and saw a headline on a tabloid "Elvis, JFK and the Loch Ness Monster dine at the White House." I don't see why we should hold Newsweek to higher standards than supermarket tabloids. I am sure there was a source to the dining at the White House story also. Of course, no Afghanis died due to that story. I won't be reading Newsweek anymore, them supermarket tabloids are much more entertaining..if you enjoy fiction..and no one dies as a result of their tales.

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

Yes. It's called fact-checking. And that's exactly what Newsweek did with this story. The original facts, which merely corroborated claims by former Gitmo detainees, came from a US government source. In pursuing that information, the reporters made contact with two US Department of Defense officials. One declined to respond. He or she did not respond by saying, "This is false, don't run with it." He or she did not respond by saying, "Don't you know that desecrating a Koran is a death penalty offense in most of the Arab world? Even if this is true, please delete that line." He or she did not respond. The second US Department of Defense official did respond. Not only did he or she fail to call the story false - or caution about the possible consequences - he or she did not dispute the Qur'an charge.


If "this Koran thing" is true (and no one has yet denied it), shouldn't those responsible for "desecrating a Koran" be the ones we're targeting here? Or should we maybe be looking to the Defense Department officials who failed to warn Newsweek of the potential inflammatory nature of their report rather than shooting the messenger?

Both of the officials contacted by Isikoff and Barry- and their original source - had every opportunity to suggest that such a report could cost lives. They didn't. As a matter of fact, outiside of Punditland, no one is suggesting that the Newsweek item has cost any lives. Indeed, the only official government statement on the story stated that "the political violence [in Afghanistan] was not, in fact, connected to the magazine report" [emphasis mine]. Further - and more to the point - no one is denying that Qur'an desecration took place. Not a single member of the military, not a single spokesperson for the Pentagon, not a single Defense Department official, not a single representative of the White House has said, "This is false. No one at Guantanamo Bay has ever desecrated a Qur'an."

Indeed, the only thing that Newsweek admitted they might have "got wrong" is that the "evidence" of Qur'an desecration which "government investigators" found may not have appeared in the report that the article cited, but instead may have appeared in "other investigative documents or drafts".

Therefore, the link used to the retraction in the opening of this thread, "Quran Desecration Report False", is itself false. Not a single official on the planet has claimed that the charge that the Qur'an was desecrated is false - merely that the evidence of such desecration may have been cited in a different document than the one to which Isikoff and Barry referred.

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

To an extent. Certainly Isikoff and Barry have been. Those who have been spinning the Newsweek retraction, however, and attempting to blame their item on violence in Afghanistan, have been acting most irresponsibly indeed.

By and large, reporters for the major media - be they liberal or conservative, employees of the LA Times or the Washington Times - have been acting with a considerable amount of responsibility in terms of reporting detainee abuse. All of the major dailies and national news magazines go through extensive fact checking, vetting stories like the one cited here with at least one or two additional government source before publishing - and giving the military the opportunity to respond. And that is what happened in this case. It is hardly the fault of Newsweek that their three sources in this case did not correct any possible errors - or that their original source has changed his or her story since its publication.

When it comes to news commentators, though, the notion of responsible journalism goes right out the window. And that, sadly, is also the case with this story. Newsweek did not lie - and, again, no one is saying that the Qur'an desecration story is false. But commentators are lying left, right, and center about the "consequences" of Newsweek's possibly having misattributed the source of the evidence which has been turned up in relation to Qur'an abuse.

What really cracks me up about this is that, during the Clinton administration, when Michael Isikoff was reporting on such pressing national issues as Monica Lewinski's blue dress, he was the darling of conservative pundits - and his articles in Newsweek were being hailed as triumphs of the free press. Now that a small article has been perceived as critical of US policy under a Republican president, he's a shoddy reporter publishing biased lies in a liberal rag.

While the Clinton administration was being distracted by the Congressional Follies of the late nineties - with the help of Isikoff and just about every other journalist in the country - crippling the administration's efforts to find Osama bin Laden, shut down al-Qaeda, and nip anti-American terrorism in the bud, where was the "putting America at risk crowd" then? I'll tell you where they were: they were drooling over cigar stories - and putting America at risk.

The press, at least (Isikoff included), seems to have got a bit more responsible since those dark days.

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

Um, they already have. You quoted it.


This whole thing would be even more hilarious if it weren't the shape of things to come (with echoes of the past). Whenever things start going wrong with Bush administration policies (when do they ever stop going wrong?), the first instinct of its supporters is to blame someone else. The more disastrous the Bush administration's policies become, the more we will see spin like this - and the more hysterical they will become. It's the liberal media's fault! They're putting our soldiers at risk! It's the Democrats in Congress! They're losing us the war in Iraq! It's the leftist bloggers! They're keeping us from finding bin Laden! It's the Bush critics! It's the America-haters! It's them - it's them!

Last month, there was a dry run of Operation FALCON - a coordinated effort to round up and arrest some 10,000 suspects with outstanding warrants, using ninety federal, state, and local agencies in one sweep. With the sort of blame-laying, finger-pointing, and scapegoating prompted by this sort of story - or, rather, its spin - how long will it be before a similar sweep rounds up tens of thousands of "traitors" (like those at America's Debate who identify themselves as "liberal") because they are responsible for all of the Bush administration's mistakes? When Kristallnacht Redux comes, Michael Isikoff - once the champion of oral sex in the Oval Office stories - will probably be one of the first to be interned.

Apparently, government officials reporting that a Newsweek article is to blame for the riots in Afghanistan is factually incorrect. So, now, we'll need an apology from them too. Of course, it could be that the Joint Chiefs of Staff statements about the incorrect government sources stating that factually incorrect Newsweek was the cause of the riots is incorrect. So we'll probably need an apology from them. But, wait, the media sources reporting about The Joint Chiefs of Staff stating that the government sources stating that the Newsweek article was factually incorrect is incorrect could also be incorrect. Just to be safe, I think everyone should apologize now.


Clearly, Hugo, as you have so eloquently stated, it would seem you must hold government sources who report factually incorrect information with a similar level of contempt to which you hold Newsweek.