NewsWeek

[BengalsCat]

Journalists and the Military
Newsweek's explosive allegation was no "honest mistake."

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

Newsweek deserves credit for coming clean about its dubious Koran desecration story in an attempt to head off further bloodshed. Already its "Periscope" report last week that U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo Bay flushed a copy of the holy book down a toilet has touched off riots throughout the Islamic world, resulting in at least 17 deaths, and added yet another weapon to al Qaeda's recruiting arsenal since many Muslims won't believe the retraction.

Less reassuring, however, is the magazine's contention that the story is a routine error. "There was absolutely no lapse in journalistic standards here," said Michael Isikoff, who was one of two reporters behind the story. Certainly we all make mistakes. But if printing such an explosive allegation based on the memory of what a single, anonymous source claims he read is standard Newsweek procedure--no documents were even produced--its readers must wonder about the rest of its content too.

The more consequential question here, it seems to us, is why Newsweek was so ready to believe the story was true. The allegation after all repudiated explicit U.S. and Army policy to treat Muslim detainees with religious respect, including time to pray, honoring dietary preferences and access to the Koran. Yet the magazine readily printed a story suggesting that what our enemies claim about Guantanamo is essentially true. Why?

Our own answer is that this is part of a basic media mistrust of the military that goes back to Vietnam and has shown itself with a vengeance during the Iraq conflict and the war on terror. Long gone are the days when AP's Ernie Pyle--an ace reporter by the standards of any era--could use the pronoun "we" in describing the Allied struggle against the Axis. In its place is a kind of permanent adversary media culture that goes beyond reporting the war news--good or bad as it should--and tends to suspect the worst about the military and American purposes.
The best example of this mentality has been the coverage of Abu Ghraib, which quickly morphed from one disgusting episode into media suspicion of the motives and morals of the entire military chain of command. Certainly the photos of sick behavior on the nightshift by a unit from the Maryland Army Reserve were news. But they were first exposed by the Army itself, through the Taguba investigation that was commissioned months before the photos were leaked.

The press corps nonetheless spent weeks developing a "torture narrative" that has since been thoroughly discredited, both by the independent panel headed by former Defense Secretary Jim Schlesinger and by every court martial to look at the matter. But rather than acknowledge that perhaps the coverage had been wrong, the media reaction has been to declare the many probes to be part of a wildly improbable cover-up.

As we say, much of this media pose goes back to Vietnam, and the betrayal that the press corps felt about body counts and the "five o'clock follies." Reporters like Neil Sheehan and David Halberstam made their careers by turning into the war's fiercest critics and creating a culture of suspicion that the government always lies. Mr. Sheehan's Vietnam memoir is titled, "A Bright Shining Lie." And for many of today's young reporters it is a kind of moral template.

We aren't saying that reporters shouldn't be skeptical, and they certainly have a duty to report when a war is going badly. Where the press corps goes wrong is in always assuming the worst about military and government motives. Thus U.S. intelligence wasn't merely wrong about Saddam Hussein's WMD, it intentionally "lied" about it to sell an illegitimate war. Thus, too, an antiwar partisan named Joe Wilson with a basically unimportant story about uranium and Niger is hailed as a truth-telling whistle-blower. And reports from Seymour Hersh in late 2001 that the U.S was losing in Afghanistan set off a "quagmire" theme only days before the fall of the Taliban. The readiness of Newsweek to believe a thinly sourced allegation about the Koran at Guantanamo is part of the same mindset.
We have all been reading a great deal lately about both the decline of media credibility, and the decline of both TV news viewership and newspaper circulation. Any other industry looking at such trends would conclude that perhaps there is a connection. Certainly a press corps that wants readers to forgive its own mistakes might start by showing a little more respect and understanding for the men and women who risk their lives to defend the country.


What do you think about this subject. Honstly i believe in journalistic freedom and they should report this kind of thing if it actualy happend or if the war is going badly. But should they be allowed to just print whatever they want with out checking the facts?????? Personaly i dont agree with that. They ran the story with no written documention at all just an verbal source that was anounmous. Personaly i would love for the reporters to be fired and i think they should be. They are the cause of at least 16 causalties due to the riots on this article that wasnt true to begin with. If i was a relative to the dead i would sue the ever loving shit out of newsweek but thats there call.

[Homer_Rice]

[url="http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/"]Iraq Casualties[/url]

[url="http://www.iraqbodycount.net/"]Civilian Casualties[/url]

[Guest Bengal_Smoov]

Newsweek should be fined, imo. To often media outlets put our military personel in danger because they want a hot story. A heavy fine should send the message that our troops lives won't be sacrificed for the sake of some reporters career. Newsweek basically poured lighter fluid on the fire with there accusation, true or untrue what good is going to come from that story? If Al-Jazeer(sp) ran it then I would understand, but isn't Newsweek supposed to be an American media outlet?

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Bengal_Smoov' date='May 17 2005, 01:22 PM']Newsweek should be fined, imo.  To often media outlets put our military personel in danger because they want a hot story.  A heavy fine should send the message that our troops lives won't be sacrificed for the sake of some reporters career.  Newsweek basically poured lighter fluid on the fire with there accusation, true or untrue what good is going to come from that story?  If Al-Jazeer(sp) ran it then I would understand, but isn't Newsweek supposed to be an American media outlet?
[right][post="93226"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


I sooo agree with that, also I think we should be more restrictive with what we give the media, if you watch the video that GAFan put in his thread it shows the winter home of Bin Laden?!?!?!?!?!?!

THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN AIRED!!! It lets him know we know where he could be....how incredibly stupid is that?!?!

I've worked in the news room, granted not as a reporter, of a major media outlet so I know not all are bad but the lust to be the 1st to air with the report is there and it causes people to not be though with their work.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' date='May 17 2005, 12:14 PM'][url="http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/"]Iraq Casualties[/url]

[url="http://www.iraqbodycount.net/"]Civilian Casualties[/url]
[right][post="93222"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

as just an ordinary citizen, i hate to tell a former veteran this, but what the hell is that about homer? this report DIRECTLY came from a report that a US soldier flushed a koran down the toliet... the middle east went up in flames, all b/c of this report... then more people look into the alligations and come to find out, they ran the story on one source, and the source is was a prisoner... 15 people died b/c of that false story, but all you do is show us how many soldiers and civilians have died b/c of a war that has freed millions... yeah, that makes sense...

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Bengal_Smoov' date='May 17 2005, 12:22 PM']Newsweek should be fined, imo.  To often media outlets put our military personel in danger because they want a hot story.  A heavy fine should send the message that our troops lives won't be sacrificed for the sake of some reporters career.  Newsweek basically poured lighter fluid on the fire with there accusation, true or untrue what good is going to come from that story?  If Al-Jazeer(sp) ran it then I would understand, but isn't Newsweek supposed to be an American media outlet?
[right][post="93226"][/post][/right][/quote]

<sirens going off>



[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//6.gif[/img]

i can't find the applause icon, but that is what is supposed to go next

needless to say, i agree...

[Jason]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' date='May 17 2005, 01:14 PM'][url="http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/"]Iraq Casualties[/url]

[url="http://www.iraqbodycount.net/"]Civilian Casualties[/url]
[right][post="93222"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

First off, what do those numbers have to do with whether or not Newsweek LIED in a story? They cited that there were also "other media outlets" that reported this. One of those was al jazeera. Is that who's side they are on?

Regarding "Iraq Casualties" (# of US Soldiers killed in Iraq) - not to minimize the value of 1 American soldier, but a little over 1600 deaths in over 2 years is really pretty low. And this is a 100% volunteer army. Everyone knew the risks when they signed up. For perspective, how many lives did the US lose in 2 years of WWII? Vietnam? How many Americans die in 2 years in Detriot or DC? And lastly, (and I know, Iraq was not directly linked) how many Americans died in 9-11?

As for civilian casualties:
- first off, how are they defining civilian? Is an insurgent who is not a member of the Iraqi military who performs a suicide bombing considered a civilian?
- Since the new government is at least somewhat in place, are there any "military" casualties since they aren't part of what would be considered the legitimate Iraqi army???
- lastly, where are these numbers coming from?

Yes, war is bad, but sometimes it is necessary. And while some would consider that debatable for Iraq, personally, I am glad Saddam is out of power, as, I am sure, are most Iraqi citizens.

[BengalsCat]

Well first off i think afganistan is taking the right aproach to this. They are going to seek damages from newsweek for all the damages done in the riots. Which i think is the least they could do for causing this shit.

[Homer_Rice]

My bad. I thought the topic was: "What happens when bad information, and bad decisions, lead to unnecessary death."

[Jason]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' date='May 17 2005, 08:49 PM']My bad. I thought the topic was: "What happens when bad information, and bad decisions, lead to unnecessary death."
[right][post="93446"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

Well, I disagree that the war was a "bad decision", and I'm willing to bet there are millions of Iraqis that agree with me.

[jza10304]

[quote name='Jason' date='May 17 2005, 08:47 PM']Well, I disagree that the war was a "bad decision", and I'm willing to bet there are millions of Iraqis that agree with me.
[right][post="93458"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]
Who are we gonna go free next??? Let's keep the momentum going while we can. I'm Cuban, so I would love to see Castro taken down, but I must look at the big picture (can't be selfish). In all fairness, it could be done during a long-weekend.

**sorry bout the sarcasm, just saw [u][b]Team America: World Police[/b][/u] "America, FUCK-YEAH!!!"**

[|Bunghole|]

War breeds all kinds of bullshit. This is just another round of BS perptrated by an alarmist media that is trying to either discredit anything one political party or another does, or keep us scared/angry to sell papers/magazines.

Fuck 'em all.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[b]Related side note:

I wish I didn't live in a world where people were dumb enough to riot when you burn an idiotic made up book that was created to control them [/b]

[Guest #22]

Religion is fuckery.

But on another note, the source for this document was apparently an anonymous Soldier stationed in Git'mo who had previously given them good information.

[Jason]

[quote name='jza10304' date='May 17 2005, 09:59 PM']Who are we gonna go free next???  Let's keep the momentum going while we can.  I'm Cuban, so I would love to see Castro taken down, but I must look at the big picture (can't be selfish).  In all fairness, it could be done during a long-weekend.

**sorry bout the sarcasm, just saw [u][b]Team America: World Police[/b][/u] "America, FUCK-YEAH!!!"**
[right][post="93465"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

It AMAZES me how many liberals are for human rights, and freedom, for others (I can't tell you how many "Free Tibet" bumper stickers I have seen) EXCEPT when a Republican is President.

Absolutely amazing!

[Guest #22]

Whereas republicans are for sending BILLIONS of dollars of aid to other countries (in exchange for oil), while ignoring the millions of women and children living below the level of poverty in this country...

[Jamie_B]

Free Tibet

[img]http://tbs.com/TBS/Images/Dynamic/i11/familyguy_peter_240x260_070220041210.jpg[/img]


Hello China.... Ill Take it.... Thats right.... ALLLL The Tea.

[Jamie_B]

Greed and Coruption and Helping people with their problems... are not a exclusive right for either party.

[Guest #22]

What about Christianity?

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='#22' date='May 17 2005, 11:28 PM']What about Christianity?
[right][post="93565"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


Agreed.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='#22' date='May 17 2005, 09:21 PM']Whereas republicans are for sending BILLIONS of dollars of aid to other countries (in exchange for oil), while ignoring the millions of women and children living below the level of poverty in this country...
[right][post="93553"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]
That is a problem that will not/cannot be solved by our government no matter which party is in power, and furthermore, we all ready have an incentive program for bad behavior, and it's called welfare, and neither party is in a rush to abolish it.
People in this country who actually WANT to work, can. Those who cannot have govt programs in place for assistance. The homeless in this country eat better than many poor people in other countries.

[jza10304]

[quote name='Jason' date='May 17 2005, 10:19 PM']It AMAZES me how many liberals are for human rights, and freedom, for others (I can't tell you how many "Free Tibet" bumper stickers I have seen) EXCEPT when a Republican is President.

Absolutely amazing!
[right][post="93550"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]
I actually am in favor of Tibet's freedom, but will not go to war with China for it. I am for all types of liberation but if you are going to concentrate most of your military in one region of the world, at least make it worthwhile (like capturing the person responsible for the worst attack on U.S. soil). I was against Clinton's embargo against Iraq because all it does is punish the Iraqi people (the same goes with the Cuban embargo).

I wrote papers and did a presentation in college, before we invaded Iraq, stating that North Korea was more of a threat (Asian Politics class), and that was like 3 years ago. I'm not the smartest guy in the world and can't be the only one who thought that. I also thought and still think that China needs to be involved in the talks (so they can use their influence) to rear in North Korea. The North Koreans may get a little more freedom, and progress can be made, but it is not in the country's best interests to fight 2 wars on 2 different fronts.

[jza10304]

[quote name='BlackJesus' date='May 17 2005, 09:48 PM'][b]Related side note:

I wish I didn't live in a world where people were dumb enough to riot when you burn an idiotic made up book that was created to control them [/b]
[right][post="93521"][/post][/right][/quote]
from your mouth to God's (maybe) ears [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//41.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//41.gif[/img] .

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='jza10304' date='May 17 2005, 11:53 PM']I actually am in favor of Tibet's freedom, but will not go to war with China for it.  I am for all types of liberation but if you are going to concentrate most of your military in one region of the world, at least make it worthwhile (like capturing the person responsible for the worst attack on U.S. soil).  I was against Clinton's embargo against Iraq because all it does is punish the Iraqi people (the same goes with the Cuban embargo).

I wrote papers and did a presentation in college, before we invaded Iraq, stating that North Korea was more of a threat (Asian Politics class), and that was like 3 years ago.  I'm not the smartest guy in the world and can't be the only one who thought that.  [b]I also thought and still think that China needs to be involved in the talks (so they can use their influence) to rear in North Korea.[/b]  The North Koreans may get a little more freedom, and progress can be made, but it is not in the country's best interests to fight 2 wars on 2 different fronts.
[right][post="93587"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


Whoa...my dad is VERY republican and he said the exact same thing to me when we discussed all this stuff.....maybee there is hope for some common ground on some of these issues after all.

[Guest #22]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='May 17 2005, 11:56 PM']Whoa...my dad is VERY republican and he said the exact same thing to me when we discussed all this stuff.....maybee there is hope for some common ground on some of these issues after all.
[right][post="93590"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]
[i]deo volente[/i]...