Anybody Writing To Newsweek? Here's My Letter, Anybody Else Wanna Share?

[Dinger]

I am a subscriber to Newsweek. I believe the May 9th article by Michael Isikoff and John Barry is true. I also believe you were pressured into the retraction of your story. To hear this administration chastise you for this incident is absurd. After all, how many have died because of "President" Bush's lies? Your story parallels the Dan Rather smear in several ways. I think the same person is behind the REAL story here, and it isn't Newsweek. Why don't you triple your subscriptions, tell all you know about this war criminal and his accomplices in the White House, and begin a renaissance in this country to pull us out of the Dark Ages we are in? Show the world there are some real journalists left in this country! Don't cave in, I am begging you!


Dinger,

Wisconsin



P.S. I know this won't get printed, but I feel a little better now anyway.

[flpoljunkie]

1. No, it won't, but they are sure to take note of it. Great letter.

[NightOwwl]

2. Great letter. And I believe your suspicions are 100% on target. n/t

[applegrove]

3. Way to go. Good letter. They were just being themselves at Newsweek

Never listen to the people who attack you for being yourself. They are sociopaths.

[Darryl Cramer]

4. I respectfully disagree

Just because you believe it to be true, and it probably is, doesn't mean that a newspaper can print it without substantial sources to back their claim. That's journalism 101. As a matter of fact, they've just retracted the story. How can anyone support Newsweek on this one? I suspect that some people are letting their partisanship get in the way of their principals.

[cornermouse]

5. When, how, and why did the sources become non-substantial?

That is the real question; especially with the White House and republican party doing a full court press on Newsweek. You might consider that partisanship. I consider it something to be investigated.

[Darryl Cramer]

8. Yes, Newsweek will be investigated

Since when did the WH not have the right to pressure news organizations? That's what they do all the time, no matter who's sitting in the oval office. It's up to the news organization, however, to have the facts to stand tall in the face of such pressure.

[cornermouse]

23. It sounds more to me like they dictated what they wanted to

Newsweek. There are still a few remnants of America left, believe whatever you want, just don't try to tell me that I have to agree.

[Dinger]

24. So the bu$h Misadministration Has "The Right" To Do This??? Sheesh!!! (nt

[Coexist]

6. My response to you regarding substantial sources - previous post

Fineman was on Imus about 7:30. He explained that the reporter was seasoned, the source, a high-ranking administration official, had been used before. This info was to be released in a a new report on the prison - and it was run by TWO, count 'em TWO Pentagon people - one at SouthCom who had a "no comment" and another (sorry - I forget who) who commented on a different line in this short piece (which they changed after his comments) but no comment on the Koran sentence. Imus was, of course, his usual idiot self.

The typical "Why do you hate our country" "Why do you report the truth if it will get our soldiers killed" stuff. Fineman asked several times, "do you not want to know what happens at places like Abu Gharib other than what our government tells you?" Finally Imus admitted that it was important to know BUT STILL there should have been two sources. Fineman was very patient and tried to explain that two officials had read it and not said it was incorrect - that was a type of acknowledgment in and of itself.

So what I want to know is (my first attempt at framing, tell me how I'm doing!)
Why did the Pentagon TWICE encourage Newsweek to print something it knew to be untrue, something that would get our soldiers killed?

[K-W]

10. Its pretty clear what it means, I think.

They ran the story by two people who okayed it for release, it isnt the first time this has been reported, I dont think they saw the domestic reaction to it coming. Newsweek prints it, the media latches on, it has legs. The white house formulates a strategy, the pentagon will deny the truth, because they never officially said it was true, and they will use this as an opportunity to shift blame for protests in the middle east ag against US occupation. So the pentagon calls newsweek and yells at them and says there is no report. Newsweek calls the reporters, the reporters call the sources who are now changing thier answer from passive yes to no. Newsweek has to retract the story and cant claim that it ever got a yes from the pentagon.

I dont think this, like the rather smear, was initiated intentionally, but I could be wrong.

[Darryl Cramer]

12. That's exactly what happened!

Which is why news organizations need to maintain certain standards of practice in order to avoid having their credibility destroyed. When you print something like that, you know it's going to be inflamatory, which is why you need the guns to back it up.

[K-W]

14. They had the guns.

The pentagon hung newsweek out to dry by letting them print it without comment and then claiming that the pentagon report did not exist after it was printed and caused bad press for the white house.

[Darryl Cramer]

16. So shame on Newsweek!

They should know better.

[K-W]

21. How was newsweek supposed to know this would happen?

It isnt newsweeks fault that the pentagon is lying.

[Darryl Cramer]

22. Seriously?

Shouldn't journalists take into account the credibility of their sources? That's their job. That's what they're supposed to do.

[DesEtoiles]

25. Same goes for that asswipe of a President we have

HE made the decision to go to war on bad info. What a dumbass.

[Dinger]

27. BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You got it NormaR!
:yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock:

[DesEtoiles]

15. What happens when 100,000 die in war started on "bad information"?

[DesEtoiles]

18. When will Bush "retract" the war based on inaccurate information?

[Dinger]

13. Your last sentence is the 64 ZILLION DOLLAR QUESTION!

"Why did the Pentagon TWICE encourage Newsweek to print something it knew to be untrue, something that would get our soldiers killed?"

Wow, you're goooooooood!!!:bounce:

[K-W]

17. You dont think it is true?

I think that makes the most sense. There was a report mentioning the abuse, that is why the pentagon didnt deny it, but after the hubub they decided to make it dissappear.

[Dinger]

9. That's Why I Said "I BELIEVE" I Don't Need To PROVE My Beliefs

Because it's my OPINION, got it?
How can anyone support Newsweek? After Rather/CBS Smeargate, how in the hell could you even ask?

[DesEtoiles]

11. Newsweek story on Bush war crimes corroborated-multiple sources here:

The major problems with the blame-Newsweek tack:

1. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers, in a U.S. State Dept.-issued press release on May 12, said the Newsweek story isn't a chief cause of the riots: " e has been told that the Jalalabad, Afghanistan, rioting was related more to the ongoing political reconciliation process in Afghanistan than anything else."

2. I've found four reports -- with more easily found -- to back up Newsweek's sources on the desecration of Korans belonging to Guantanamo detainees.

The four instances I found:

A. From The Philadelphia Inquirer, Jan. 20, 2005:

Lawyers allege abuse of 12 at Guantanamo

By Frank Davies
Inquirer Washington Bureau

<.......................>

Some detainees complained of religious humiliation, saying guards had defaced their copies of the Koran and, in one case, had thrown it in a toilet, said Kristine Huskey , who interviewed clients late last month. Others said that pills were hidden in their food and that people came to their cells claiming to be their attorneys, to gain information.

"All have been physically abused, and, however you define the term, the treatment of these men crossed the line," Wilner said. "There was torture, make no mistake about it." ...


B. From the Center for Constitutional Rights, New York City, NY and linked as a footnote in a Human Rights Watch report:

72.They were never given prayer mats and initially they didn't get a Koran. When the Korans were provided, they were kicked and thrown about by the guards and on occasion thrown in the buckets used for the toilets. This kept happening. When it happened it was always said to be an accident but it was a recurrent theme.


C. From the Center for Constitutional Rights, New York City, NY and linked as a footnote in a Human Rights Watch report:

74. Asif says that `it was impossible to pray because initially we did not know the direction to pray, but also given that we couldn't move and the harassment from the guards, it was simply not feasible. The behaviour of the guards towards our religious practices as well as the Koran was also, in my view, designed to cause us as much distress as possible. They would kick the Koran, throw it into the toilet and generally disrespect it. It is clear to me that the conditions in our cells and our general treatment were designed by the officers in charge of the interrogation process to "soften us up"'.


D. From the Center for Constitutional Rights, New York City, NY and linked as a footnote in a Human Rights Watch report:

Statement of Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal and Rhuhel Ahmed, "Detention in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay," released publicly on August 4, 2004, para. 72, 74, available online at:
http://www.ccr- ny.org/v2/reports/docs/
Gitmo=compositestatementFINAL23july04.pdf,
accessed on August 19, 2004. The disrespect of the Koran by guards at Camp X-Ray was one of the factors prompting a hunger strike. Ibid., para. 111-117.


There are more.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/15/211444/985

[Sooner75]

19. Go read the Editor's Note in Newsweek.com

Check this out and see if you still feel that way.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7857154/site/newsweek/

Also, go back and read the piece in the May 9th issue (China's Century cover) page 10. Read all of the OTHER things that are also mentioned in that piece.

Based on the Editor's Note, I believe that Newsweek acted responsibly and should stand it's ground -- which I believe it's trying to do.

Have we forgotten that there are anti-American Muslims spoiling for a fight and looking for something to stir up an angry mob? Recall that government investigators brought this Quran desecration thing to light. Have they DENIED that it happened? The Bushies have given the Muslim extremists LOTS of material to stir things up. Abu Gharib and other escapades at Gitmo.

Newsweek didn't make it up. They put it out there for confirmation and a source did not deny it. I believe in the shadowy world of investigative reporting that if a source does not deny a fact it is assumed that they are tacitly confirming it. The Bushies play hardball with everybody.

[Coexist]

7. share it here!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3664790

[bennywhale]

20. Same when they were threatening Al jazeera, and killing them actually

"Report our truth or you die" was the basic message.

[xchrom]

26. targetting journalists.

seems to be thread with this admin.

they kill them in iraq.

here they do it the ol soviet appratchik way.
a story might be true -- but they do everything they can -- and that's considerable to turn it into a mine field for the journalist and the publication.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eridani]

29. My letter

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

To the editor:

There is no reason for Isikoff to apologize for having one Pentagon source for his story about desecration of the Koran. This story is not only multiply sourced, but has been in the news for months, albeit rarely ‘above the fold’. For other examples dating back to January of 2005, see the following links.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/15/211444/985
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/10685611.htm\

It is important to point out that the White House did not call Isikoff’s story "inaccurate". Instead, it used the term "irresponsible", which is their code word for “When we do really stupid things, the rest of the world has no right to find out about it.”