NEWSWEEK store recanted

[Cat Grad]

Go into JAG, get a security clearance and then consider whether you'd want some of these toys made public.

[Grizlaw]

Go into JAG, get a security clearance and then consider whether you'd want some of these toys made public.

Thanks for the suggestion. I don't think I need security clearance to have an opinion as to whether or not I want to live in a totalitarian society, though.

--GL

P.S. If you're going to twist my words and grossly exaggerate the points I make, I can do the same in return (as demonstrated above). That does not make for a very meaningful debate, though. If you want to respond to my posts, please respond to my posts, and not to some exaggerated, hyperbolic version of the statements I make. Are you going to argue that I claimed to have invented the internet next?

[Cat Grad]

Have you, in this chat room or another made that claim? Trouble deciding what is exaggeration and what is b.s. My query is quite simple; should we not hold our media to a much higher standard than it has demonstrated of late? The National Inquirer has as much credibility as our respected rags and magazines and it troubles me that we as a free society still can't seem to understand why the rest of the world thinks of us as they do, why we have this love of bringing our elected officials down to the Jerry Springer level...

[Grizlaw]

Have you, in this chat room or another made that claim? Trouble deciding what is exaggeration and what is b.s. My query is quite simple; should we not hold our media to a much higher standard than it has demonstrated of late? The National Inquirer has as much credibility as our respected rags and magazines and it troubles me that we as a free society still can't seem to understand why the rest of the world thinks of us as they do, why we have this love of bringing our elected officials down to the Jerry Springer level...

We've brought this discussion through a few different topics with our last few posts, and it looks like you've brought me back to my original point, which was:

Yes, we should hold the media accountable for its mistakes, but only for its mistakes. For my part, I do not hold the media responsible for the actions of others, even when those others are acting in response to something that was published, and even when what was published turns out to be erroneous.

To me, at the end of the day, it is the people doing the killing that are evil, not the writer of the story that caused them to kill. I read a lot of things from various media outlets that make my blood boil, but I don't respond by setting out with a weapon and offing people in protest. The writer of the story may be incompetent as a journalist -- and for that, he should be held accountable -- but that does not make him responsible for the actions of those who would kill because of what he wrote, at least not in my eyes.

--GL

[mslacat]

This is what I think should happen!

Bush and Newsweek should call a joint news conference and Newsweek could apologize
for publishing information that was not collaborated by a second source. They should
also personally apologize to the 100 or so people that were hurt and/or killed because of
this erroneous report. President Bush should then step up to the mike and apologize for
the lies he told about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iran and then apologize to the
200,000 or so people that were hurt and/or killed because of his erroneous report

[Cat Grad]

To a certain extent, I tend to agree. I differ in that I feel the American media influences national and international policy more so than the Hearst family once exerted their influence. Concerns me greatly that Time-Warner is slowly but surely eliminating differing viewpoints by absorbing their competition and opposing views. Writers by putting their biased spin on events with no consequences are just as guilty as the copycat serial killers hyped in our sick world of no-good-news lately reporting. That's why we escape to the world of sports I suppose, and they won't even let those who stand in the arena alone.

[Hell's Bells]

Souldn't they have thought about the responce all the muslim nations would have given had somthing like this got published? Most of the people rioting think that newsweek was pressued into retracting the story. As a matter of fact some of them want whomever desicrated the koran to be handed over so he can get the death penalty.

Here's a question for you:

The reason why this story is creating scandal is because the allegations turned out not to be properly substantiated (which is not quite the same as saying the alleged events did not happen, by the way). We all agree that this allegation should not have been published, on those grounds.

Question: what if the allegations had been properly substantiated? Your response from above suggests that you think Newsweek should not have published the allegations, even if they were true and properly substantiated, on the basis that "they should have thought about the response" of the Muslim nations. Doesn't that rationale hold just as true for allegations that are substantiated as for those that are not? After all, the riot in Afghanistan occurred because the citizens there believed the allegations, not because they were outraged that Newsweek did not obtain proper corroboration before publishing.

If that's your argument, then frankly, I think it starts us down a very scary path. In my view, if the allegations were true and substantiated (which Newsweek, rightly or wrongly, believed them to be when they published them), then they should be published, regardless of how anyone might react to them. Any other result, and "right to a free press" is as worthless as the paper on which it is printed.

grizlaw

first of all there is a difference between a rumor and somthing that is true. A rumor has a ring of truth to it but can not be proved true by multiple sources. Knowing that lets observe what happened in this case

Newsweek prints a story that, because of only one source used, would not pass for a high school term paper.

this source...all of a sudden does not know if it happened or not

the reporter could not find anyone that can cooberate the origional sources story

the department of defence looked into it - after some very terse statements from president bush stating that the koran should be respected as a holy book...could not find that the incodent actually happened....Abu Grieb was being looked into well before the photos went out just that it was religated to the back pages until the pretty picutres...save you distrust for the president for another thread btw

Newsweek aplolgised for the story after people died as a DIRECT RESULT of that story...reminds me of the spanish-american war for you history buffs...but would not retract the story...then eventually does after pressure from the president.

Personally I belive that Newsweek was reckless and generally at fault for what happened with the riot...but about as much at fault as the Local rumor mill rag if it would have published such a story...

[Hell's Bells]

another thing...what is the chances of somthing to have happened if only one person had stated it...of course did not want to go on record...and could not be cooberated? slim to none and slim left town

[briannell]

Grizlaw- ain't no jabba here, I rule the hut

Just try never to agree with anyone that has UM affiliations. Come from a proud line of Bobcats.

on a side note - i personally love Missoula. I know boo hiss this coming from a bobcat, but Bozo just lost me when it became Jackson Hole. Still want to know why they'd ruin the rocking R by making it trendy.

- r.n

[SonomaCat]

Now the countries with the murdering freaks are piling on Newsweek. I don't know ... I'm not so sure they got off the hook themselves quite so easily. I agree with those who say that the primary responsibility for the deaths is at the hands of the people who did the killing. If the thought of a friggin' book (or flag, or whatever symbol you insanely worship) being flushed down a toilet sends you into a murderous rage, then you have slipped a few pegs below "human" status.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... 940D24.DTL

[Grizlaw]

Well folks, I have enjoyed this thread a great deal. Unfortunately, I am on my way out the door to catch a train to Washington, DC, where I will spend the next four days attending the American Bar Association Tax Section's annual meeting. (Please try to contain your jealousy; it won't be nearly as exciting as it sounds. )

In other words -- I'm gone until Sunday night. This thread will probably be seven pages long by then, but I'll try to get back into it when I get back.

Hells -- I'd like to respond to your post, but I don't have time to do it properly right now and I'm not going to do it half-way, so I guess you get the last word...for now.

[Cat Grad]

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/iraq

Off the Wires, Feature Articles and News Stories all come from such highly respected papers and periodicals: NY Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, USA Today, CNN and the Christian Science Monitor All of this on Yahoo and some can't stand claims that our news is rather strange? Why don't we just go a little south of Livingston and ask the Church Universal Triumphant for their viewpoints on national and world events--wait, I have an epiphany--Claire Prophet had how many of hers living down there who in the real world wrote for these "reputable" sources...our perceptions of life is being skewed by a few...still...believe what you read.

[BobCatFan]

.

To me, at the end of the day, it is the people doing the killing that are evil, not the writer of the story that caused them to kill.

--GL

What! The media has started lots of wars. Take a look at the American/Spanish War. The Hirst (SP) Newspapers got the country all worked up over the sinking of the Maine. As hisotry now shows, the Maine sunk because of a design flaw in the coal bins. How about Hilter, I do not think he killed anybody, but his writings sure did have a hugh impact on the Germany. After his writings, his followers killed about 30 million people. History is full of writers not killing anybody, but there remarks lead other people to kill. Learn you history!

[SonomaCat]

.

To me, at the end of the day, it is the people doing the killing that are evil, not the writer of the story that caused them to kill.

--GL

What! The media has started lots of wars. Take a look at the American/Spanish War. The Hirst (SP) Newspapers got the country all worked up over the sinking of the Maine. As hisotry now shows, the Maine sunk because of a design flaw in the coal bins. How about Hilter, I do not think he killed anybody, but his writings sure did have a hugh impact on the Germany. After his writings, his followers killed about 30 million people. History is full of writers not killing anybody, but there remarks lead other people to kill. Learn you history!

If you are suggesting that propoganda is a key piece of any military engagement, you are correct. Hearst's papers did encourage the U.S. government to declare war on Spain (but didn't start the war -- the U.S. government did that). Hitler's writings and speeches did ultimately give rise to the Nazi party (just like every other politician throughout history that rose to power). The seeds of the American revolution were self-published hand bills calling for independence from Great Britian distributed to the public. The American press' unwillingness to pierce the incorrect propoganda disseminated by the U.S. government allowed us to invade Iraq. Yes, propoganda is always involved in wars.

How that absolves from all responsibility the fanatic religious murderers who overreacted to an incompletely researched news story in Newsweek doesn't make complete sense to me. It seems to me that you have to be pretty evil (as popularized by the endearing term, "Axis of...") to do something that rash over a snippet published in a magazine.

"Remember the Maine," this ain't. Apples and oranges.

[Hell's Bells]

How that absolves from all responsibility the fanatic religious murderers who overreacted to an incompletely researched news story in Newsweek doesn't make complete sense to me. It seems to me that you have to be pretty evil (as popularized by the endearing term, "Axis of...") to do something that rash over a snippet published in a magazine.

"Remember the Maine," this ain't. Apples and oranges.

actually "remember the maine" this is....same kind of animal...to think otherwise is to be neive. Although "remember the maine" was on a much grander scale.

B.A.C. you claim yourself as a pretty even-keel thinker, if so you would have realized these points

1) yes, there are religous people in the world and yes they do have religous texts that they consiter sacred. I bet that if it were a bible that was flushed christans around america would get up-in-arms...well they would not riot but that is another point

2) to say that americans...let alone the rest of the world...has not rioted over somthing rash is to be totally blind to RECENT HISTORY.....Remember that whenever a american city's professional team would win a championshp there would be riots....yes somthing rash over somthing even more stupider then religous texts. What about the Rodney King Riots in 1991? Or your typical european soccer match? Americans and the rest of the world has history of rioting over somthing stupid and to prance around saying that we are two civilized to riot is to totally ignore history

3) Newsweek is at fault for gross failure to take into account how a person would take this who has grown up to hate america, this religion, mind you IS THEIR LIFE, THEIR GUIDEING FORCE, AND IN MOST MID-EAST COUTRIES HOW THEY ARE SUPPOSTO LIVE THEIR LIVES (iraq and afganistan are ecxeptions ) Knowing that...how wise is it to print a poorly reaserched article, inditing the united states, by proxy president bush and the United States Millitary, accusing them of desicrating their holy book.

[SonomaCat]

How that absolves from all responsibility the fanatic religious murderers who overreacted to an incompletely researched news story in Newsweek doesn't make complete sense to me. It seems to me that you have to be pretty evil (as popularized by the endearing term, "Axis of...") to do something that rash over a snippet published in a magazine.

"Remember the Maine," this ain't. Apples and oranges.

actually "remember the maine" this is....same kind of animal...to think otherwise is to be neive. Although "remember the maine" was on a much grander scale.

B.A.C. you claim yourself as a pretty even-keel thinker, if so you would have realized these points

1) yes, there are religous people in the world and yes they do have religous texts that they consiter sacred. I bet that if it were a bible that was flushed christans around america would get up-in-arms...well they would not riot but that is another point

2) to say that americans...let alone the rest of the world...has not rioted over somthing rash is to be totally blind to RECENT HISTORY.....Remember that whenever a american city's professional team would win a championshp there would be riots....yes somthing rash over somthing even more stupider then religous texts. What about the Rodney King Riots in 1991? Or your typical european soccer match? Americans and the rest of the world has history of rioting over somthing stupid and to prance around saying that we are two civilized to riot is to totally ignore history

3) Newsweek is at fault for gross failure to take into account how a person would take this who has grown up to hate america, this religion, mind you IS THEIR LIFE, THEIR GUIDEING FORCE, AND IN MOST MID-EAST COUTRIES HOW THEY ARE SUPPOSTO LIVE THEIR LIVES (iraq and afganistan are ecxeptions ) Knowing that...how wise is it to print a poorly reaserched article, inditing the united states, by proxy president bush and the United States Millitary, accusing them of desicrating their holy book.

The Newsweek article was a bit of unprofessional journalism motivated by the call of glory (I don't buy the Hannitized version of events to include a conspiracy to defeat America by Newsweek). Hearst's campaign was an intentional bit of propoganda designed to start a war for his own personal profit. You might be able to find casual points of similarity, but I don't personally put them in the same realm either based on motive or magnitude.

Points 1 and 2: I agree. There are unstable people all over the world who react violently and/or irrationality over perceived slights to their favorite symbols. I thought this line from my post expressed that same idea:

"If the thought of a friggin' book (or flag, or whatever symbol you insanely worship) being flushed down a toilet sends you into a murderous rage, then you have slipped a few pegs below "human" status."

Point 3: It's interesting that the argument you are putting forth in this point is identical to those people who say that we (Americans) are responsible for 911, because it was our policies that lead to the terrorist attack (and that we should have known better, so it is our own fault that so many innocent people were murdered). I doubt you agree with that point in that context, so let's be consistent and apply the logic the same to Newsweek. Has the U.S. government made mistakes in dealing with Islamic countries and people? Yes. Is the U.S. government responsible for 911 or other terrorist attacks around the world? I say no ... the terrorists are responsible for them. Similarly, Newsweek is not primarily responsible for the deaths from the riots -- the people who rioted and killed people are. However, Newsweek did screw up, just like the U.S. government has screwed up.

We probably agree more than we disagree on this whole thing, once we sort through all of the attempts to disagree with each other.

[Cat Grad]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005 ... stan_x.htm

Okay BAC, who should we believe here? Is this even a story ten years ago? We stuck our heads in the sand and let all this go on because it wasn't in our best interests for how many years and the same hideous carnage is going on in Africa now. Guess somebody else posed the question whether or not it's our responsibility to put an end to it.

[SonomaCat]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005 ... stan_x.htm

Okay BAC, who should we believe here? Is this even a story ten years ago? We stuck our heads in the sand and let all this go on because it wasn't in our best interests for how many years and the same hideous carnage is going on in Africa now. Guess somebody else posed the question whether or not it's our responsibility to put an end to it.

Yeah, that's a question I posed before. If we decide that Iraq is a humanitarian mission and a mission to bring freedom and democracy to a suffering country (as opposed to invading in self-defense), then we need to ask ourselves how many of these other mucked up countries we also need to invade for the same reasons. I don't know the answer, but it's a question every single one of us should be thinking about.

[Cat Grad]

Yeah, big time. But, given our countries ancestry, which ones should we save from themselves first?

[SonomaCat]

Yeah, big time. But, given our countries ancestry, which ones should we save from themselves first?

That's where I think we all become a little (rightfully) cynical as to our government's decision-making tendancies.

It's a safe bet that if a brutal regime is friendly towards our government, then they aren't in danger of being invaded anytime soon. We only really dislike brutal regimes when it is convenient for us to do so. I'm not saying that's a bad thing (it's actually a solid pragmatic approach in most cases), but that's just the reality of it.