Link copied to clipboard
Newsweek Continued
Leave it to Newsweek to Retract a True Story, Corrente sighs.
The Philly blog, named for the Italian word for stream or current, goes deep on the Newsweek flap, providing a series of links to earlier news articles and rights-group reports that also mention Koran-defacing or religion-baiting by U.S. jailers of militants.
There's no question that prisoners returning from Guantanamo have told reporters and investigators of such abuses. The question is did this abuse actually happen.
One article, by the Washington Post's Marc Kaufman and April Witt on March 26, 2003, reported:
The men, the largest single group of Afghans to be released after months of detainment at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, gave varying accounts of how American forces treated them during interrogation and detainment. Some displayed medical records showing extensive care by American military doctors, while others complained that American soldiers insulted Islam by sitting on the Koran or dumping their sacred text into a toilet to taunt them.
Corrente sites a number of other reports, from respected papers such as the Financial Times and The Observer as well as from some dodgy British tabs, all with similar allegations.
After apologizing Sunday for the problems the article might have caused -- the report that U.S. investigators found evidence that interrogators had flushed the Koran to elicit information led to violence in Afghanistan last week that left at least 15 people dead -- yesterday, editor Mark Whitaker retracted the article.
Think Progress puts the violence in another light. (Thanks for the link, Eschaton.)
A Pentagon spokesman told Newsweek on Friday that the desecration charges were "not credible." The Bush Administration has teed off on Newsweek's report, but said the investigation into the allegations is continuing.
Over at Attytood, Will Bunch is teed off at the media's long season of mea culpas.
Some human rights activists have complained the Newsweek's reporting methods will lead some people to dismiss the allegations. Tina Foster is an attorney with the non-profit Center for Constitutional Rights, which is aiding in lawsuits on behalf of about 180 detainees. She told the Chicago Tribune for today's paper:
"There have been firsthand accounts by former detainees of desecration of the Koran. It is unfortunate that the story has become about the reporting because the real issue here is the abuse itself."
Media critics say Newsweek's mistake was relying on a senior U.S. government official's account, which was provided on the condition of anonymity. The source has since told Newsweek that he could not be sure he read about the abuse in the report that the magazine sited. It might have been in another document. Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, told the Trib:
"They never really substantiated this.The incident with the toilet bowl and the Koran may have occurred, but on the level of whether this story is accurate, what Newsweek published is not."
Blinq reader William Young disagrees, and takes issue with the above.
I quote:
"And now that even the fabricators of the "story" have admitted that it's not true, you still believe it must be. That's insanity or tendentious idiocy, and I'm leaning toward the latter, because clearly you are intelligent enough to find and read the articles/posts that disect this "claim" and show it to be false
Here's the problem with you and your ilk: you want to believe the worst when it suits your interests, and your interests here are in defaming the US and laying the current Administration low."
Read Young's own view, unedited by me or my ilk.
"while others complained that American soldiers insulted Islam by sitting on the Koran or dumping their sacred text into a toilet to taunt them. " Ah, and we should just up and believe the former detainees? They have their own interest in spreading propaganda. As, apparently, does the MSM. And statements from someone who was released is a far cry from what Newsweak claimed - that official investigations had verified the story. The proper role of the media is to be a watchdog on government. Not an attack dog. Or a lapdog. If you are doing your job right and uncover a verifiable fact that is embarassing or damaging to the Bush Admin, then that is good. However, if the MSM reports a story because they believe it to be true or, even worse, somehow WANT it to be true, then you are trashing your role. And making it impossible for the public to get accurate information with which to evaluate their elected officials.
Hey, Daniel - since you were linking to the Washington Post, how come you didn't also mention this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/16/AR2005051601320.html U.S. Long Had Memo on Handling of Koran By Robin Wright Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, May 17, 2005; Page A03 More than two years ago, the Pentagon issued detailed rules for handling the Koran at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, requiring U.S. personnel to ensure that the holy book is not placed in "offensive areas such as the floor, near the toilet or sink, near the feet, or dirty/wet areas." The three-page memorandum, dated Jan. 19, 2003, says that only Muslim chaplains and Muslim interpreters can handle the holy book, and only after putting on clean gloves in full view of detainees.
One unfortunate outfall of the Newsweek blunder is that it gives ammunition to those who want to blame the media for everything that goes wrong, as demonstrated by some of the previous writers' broad-sweep comments. As Dan Rubin's colleague at The Inquirer, I've spent a little time in Afghanistan, and I can tell you that anti-American sentiment runs deep in Central Asia, despite the best efforts of under-funded coalition forces. Whether Newsweek's report was way off target or just narrowly missed the mark is beside the point. Afghans believe such reports because they hear far worse news about American behavior all the time from Iranian and Pakistani news outlets whose journalistic practices are as shady as, ahem, some of our nation's most popular bloggers. The Afghan public, already manipulated by their own twisted news reports, were easily whipped into a frenzy by extremist elements. While Newsweek deserves its share of blame, it would be wrong to dismiss broad, pre-existing cultural conditions as the creation of MSM. That's just too simplistic. The Afghan backlash serves as a reminder about why U.S. forces have to be on their best behavior all the time, and so does the news media. Unfortunately, in the real world of terrorists and deadlines, neither soldiers or reporters can be perfect all the time.
"One unfortunate outfall of the Newsweek blunder is that it gives ammunition to those who want to blame the media for everything that goes wrong, as demonstrated by some of the previous writers' broad-sweep comments. " Oh, cry me a frickin' river. I'm not blaming the media for everything that goes wrong. I am blaming Newsweek for using a single unnamed source with no additional verification - and then not properly representing in the article how the claim was verified. But those weasel words allow you to continue with your attempt to downplay what Newsweek did here. "While Newsweek deserves its share of blame, it would be wrong to dismiss broad, pre-existing cultural conditions as the creation of MSM. That's just too simplistic." Ah, and now the condescension. Us right-wing rubes are just too simple-minded to understand what is going on, eh? I'm not so simple as to be unable to recognize a strawman argument when I see it. I'm not blaming Newsweek for the fact that the Afghanis can get crazy. And I know a bit about people from that part of the world - I was married to someone who was half Pathan. But at the end of the day, Newsweek screwed up because they, IMO, WANTED to believe this story. And you are trying to spin away a major journalistic blunder - and going nowhere in the process. Do you somehow want this story to be true as well? Here's another simplistic observation - when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Newsweek apparently is smart enough to realize that. I guess you and Daniel Rubin and Will Bunch aren't.
Neither Newsweek, nor any of the outlets that reported the story have EVER said the allegations are false. I personally don't think Newsweek has anything to apologize for, except perhaps for reporting something that isn't really news. These allegations have been reported by and in a NUMBER of other sources, news and otherwise, long ago. I immediately blew off the story myself, thinking, "Oh, I've read that before." The real story here is how quickly Newsweek's "anonymous government source" and the publication itself backed off at almost the same time the White House decided it would be bothered by the story. Something stinks, and it's not that infamous Koran toilet!
"Neither Newsweek, nor any of the outlets that reported the story have EVER said the allegations are false." Gee, and I always thought the purpose of fact-checking was to demonstrate an allegation to be true. I guess now an allegation will be treated as true unless fact-checking demonstrates it to be false. And then the MSM wonders why they have a credibility problem.
And Daniel, your opening to this blog entry was, IMO, disingenuous: "Leave it to Newsweek to Retract a True Story, Corrente sighs." Do you think you could get away with that in the Inky? By doing this in a blog, can you get away with laundering unsubstantiated claims from the blogsphere such as this one? Does leading the article with it give the impression to the casual reader that the story is, indeed, true?
"Laundering unsubstantiated claims from the blogsphere since 2005" -- Now there is a motto. Better than my father's "If we can't repair your lawnmover then you can throw it away." My job here, as you know, is to find where the heat and light are and do my best to separate the two. On a piece like this -- where we do not yet know what actually happened -- I wanted to put people's words out there, and allow others to react. People reveal themselves. And we all learn when our eyes are open.
"My job here, as you know, is to find where the heat and light are and do my best to separate the two." And you've been a journalist long enough to know that placement is EVERYTHING in impressions made by an article. "On a piece like this -- where we do not yet know what actually happened -" Uh, what happened to the concept that something needed to be confirmed to be truthful? I posted on this thread a story today from the Wash Post that shows official policies for handling the Koran at Gitmo. The only evidence on the other side are claims by former detainees of Koran abuse - and those former detainees have a vested interest in generating anti-American sentiment. It's a wash at best. I'm sorry, but I find your response to be disingenuous as well. I think the foray of media outlets into blogging is allowing them to get away with promoting unsubstantiated allegations that they could never get away with in print. Which wouldn't be so bad if the coverage was balanced. But so far, Attytood hasn't been and I haven't seen such here as well.
Gosh, wouldn't it be great if we had a time machine and we could all go back to 1972-1973? Back to DB Cooper's heady days after all that exortion and getting away with hijacking an airplane? Back when DB and Arn and Co. could have been apologists for Nixon? Wouldn't that have been fun? The Washington Post could have make a mistake in reporting and DB could have dismissed the entire Watergate affair as a couple of guys who accidentally wandered into the wrong office one dark evening in 1972. And in our little time machine, we could institute the "I didn't do it, my hand did it" defense as law of the land. Then Lynndie England would have been found not guilty because even though she said she was guilty of torturing prisoners, the U.S. government would say "she didn't know what she was doing." Oh, wait, that did happen. Shining light in dark corners, that's journalism's job. Doing what's right and ethical. that's our government's job. Who's doing better, the people who write millions of words a day or the people who make up a million words a day? Newsweek misreporting about the Koran, or George Bush lying about WMD to go to war? Hmmm.
"Shining light in dark corners, that's journalism's job. " Bad reporting makes that light dimmer. But apparently for pointing out the obvious, I'm somehow transmogrified into a Nixon apologist. Which is a typical attack from posters who can't defend what Newsweek did but don't want the allegation to be false. I'm sure it will impress your friends. But it sure as heck won't shine any light.
The Newsweek fiasco is an issue of bad journalism. The Koran desecration may, and probably has, happened, but it doesn't sound like Newsweek HAD the story yet. Oddly, this reminds me of a bit of gossip I heard recently about an editor at a daily (not yours, Dan) who was disciplined for missing deadline. The paper was late because -- I'm told -- a page was remade to remove a story that was incomplete and/or erroneous. Always time to correct errors tomorrow, as long as nobody misses deadline tonight, I guess. Very sad.
Regardless of whether or not the story is proof of bad reporting, the retraction is not going to do anything to slow down anti-American protestors in the Muslim world. Like most malcontents, they likely have a slew of reasons to oppose the U.S. and aren't going to pay much attention to a retraction from one of them. Besides, like Corrente, I heard this claim repeated frequently in a variety of sources, which makes the his incident even less significant from a practical view. More than anything else, this retraction is a PR maneuver from Newsweek. They may have figurative egg on their faces, but they've washed the implied blood from their hands.
"Besides, like Corrente, I heard this claim repeated frequently in a variety of sources, which makes the his incident even less significant from a practical view" There was a key difference between the earlier accounts and the Newsweek cite. The earlier accounts were allegations from detainees, which should be taken with your choice of salt grain. The Newsweek article claimed that investigators had verified the Gitmo allegations - giving the allegations the scent of truth.
db & drubin, is that the point of the blog anyway? Is there a mission statement for this thing?
"db & drubin, is that the point of the blog anyway? Is there a mission statement for this thing?" That's a really good question. What is the purpose for a blog such as Blinq that has ties to a major media outlet - as compared to something run by folks on the side? Does an MSM blog need to have a higher standard than someone posting at home? Does linking and covering unproven stories from blogs, via a MSM-connected blog, make those blogs seem more factual?
Here's one mission statement, undertoad: "Blogs convert news and information to conversations." Those are your own words from yesterday, and not a bad way to describe what Blinq attempts. It opens the pipe two ways, allows people to talk back and use the space to sidestep me at times and talk to each other. It's a sort of text radio. And db, it is a filtered aggregator, being mainstream as it is. But use a small brush when tarring the MSM. No one here has told me what to do or how to do it, other than Cover the blogs, be a reporter and don't put people to sleep. My blog will be different from others in that I have been reporting and writing articles for newspapers for 25 years. There are advantages and disadvantages to that. You'll see. And this site is paid for by the newspaper. That means you won't find a tip jar. You won't find me priming someone with false praise in hopes of getting mentioned. You won't find me dropping in commercial references for pay either. These things happen in the blogosphere all the time.
"And db, it is a filtered aggregator, being mainstream as it is. But use a small brush when tarring the MSM. " After this latest incident with Newsweek, I was thinking of upgrading to a Wagner Power Painter. I'll grab a smaller brush when the MSM starts cleaning up this mess and stops rationalizing away the problem.
I see MSM-sponsored blogs as a modern reworking of the Letters to the Editor page. Why wait to have some jerk filter through the letters, then run the ones that fit the space, when you can actually engage in conversation WITH the media outlet in real time? *disclaimer: I was once a jerk who filtered through letters to find the ones that fit the space*
Don't shoot the messenger...I think that is pretty important to remember. Nonetheless, responsible journalism is mandatory. I don't know if NewsWeek erred, or did they succumb to political pressure. But I, for one, recognize that the United States and its citizen are capable of great offenses and atrocities. We don't have clean hands. SPADES
"I see MSM-sponsored blogs as a modern reworking of the Letters to the Editor page. Why wait to have some jerk filter through the letters, then run the ones that fit the space, when you can actually engage in conversation WITH the media outlet in real time? " Good point - I feel the same way myself, but more because I don't have to cram my opinions into 150 words when I'm posting on a forum or blog. *disclaimer: I was once a jerk who filtered through letters to find the ones that fit the space* Ah, so YOU'RE the one who rejected my 850 word masterpieces.
Not to highjack a thread but DB - do you have your own blog? If not, why?
"Not to highjack a thread but DB - do you have your own blog? If not, why?" I'm a regular poster on Free Republic and an occasional poster on a couple of other political forums. I prefer forums, where you have debate and exchange, as opposed to a blog which is more of a one-way communication.
Yo, db, whats with the hostility? What do you do that gives you so much expertise and free time to comment? What's the story with the wife? Why do you identify with an airplane-hijacking thief? Since you seem to be crying out so much for attention half the comments on this post are yours -- let us in a little about yourself. We're dying to know. And is this your photo or somebody else who hijacked your heros handle? http://www.livejournal.com/users/db_cooper/ My, what a big gun.
From SusanHu's Diary posted at Daily Kos "But I took the extra step today of contacting an attorney that is representing over ten Guantánamo detainees. He works for a prominent, private, Washington, D.C. law firm, and has visited Guantánamo four times since late last year. All of his clients share the same nationality and, partly for this reason, all of his clients have been kept in complete isolation from each other... He meets with his clients one-by-one, never in groups. The detainees have had no contact with each other, and no opportunity to collaborate on false allegations of abuse. I asked him, "Have you heard any accounts of Qur'anic desecration?" He replied, "Yes, two detainees told me completely independently that they had witnessed a Qur'an being thrown in the toilet. Another told me that he had witnessed a Qur'an being stomped on. And another told me he had witnessed a Qur'an being urinated on." Other news sources have been reporting this story for awhile. Don't you think that Afghanistans and other Muslims, probably believe the detainees' accounts. If an American POW gave account of his internment a lot of Americans would believe his account over the nation that imprisoned him. PS I'm glad to see the Inquirer suporting a Blog like this. There needs to be a place of balanced discourse.
I was just thinking - someone so passionate, who can write very, very well, who definately stirs the pot, would be a great blogger.
Jeez! I took a few journalism courses in college, and I even passed them. So here's my take on Dan's journalistic integrity (as per this blog post): Dan never owned the statements at the head of his post, and he didn't do anything inappropriate, especially considering the format of this site is that of a blog, not a newspaper. There's nothing inappropriate about asking questions in this context. If readers are going to stretch the meaning of it in pursuit of further controversy, that's the reader's doing. If all you can handle is a direct re-hashing of news copy, don't read a blog! Stick with the straight news; you'll (apparently) be much happier. Leave the blog-reading for folks who understand what the difference is.
There are too many lazy reporters. Otherwise, they would have discovered that captured Al Queda training manuals teach members to make such claims.
The Al Qaeda training manuals actually were discovered and publicized by lazy MSM reporters.
Program on the emergence of civilization. "14 species of large animals capable of domesitcation in the history of mankind. 13 from Europe, Asia and northern Africa. None from the sub-Saharan African continent. " Favor. And disfavor. They point out Africans failed attempts to domesticate the elephant and zebra, the latter being an animal they illustrate that had utmost importance for it's applicability in transformation from a hunting/gathering to agrarian-based civilization. The roots of racism are not of this earth. Austrailia, aboriginals:::No domesticable animals. The North American continent had none. Now 99% of that population is gone. AIDS in Africa. Organizational Heirarchy Heirarchical order, from top to bottom: 1. MUCK - perhaps have experienced multiple universal contractions (have seen multiple big bangs), creator of the artificial intelligence humans ignorantly refer to as "god" 2. Perhaps some mid-level alien management 3. Mafia (evil) aliens - runs day-to-day operations here and perhaps elsewhere (On planets where they approved evil.) Terrestrial management: 4. Chinese/egyptians - this may be separated into the eastern and western worlds 5. Romans - they answer to the egyptians 6. Mafia - the real-world interface that constantly turns over generationally so as to reinforce the widely-held notion of mortality 7. Jews, corporation, women, politician - Evidence exisits to suggest mafia management over all these groups. Survival of the favored. Movies foreshadowing catastrophy 1985 James Bond View to a Kill 1989 San Francisco Loma Prieta earthquake. Many Muslims are being used like the Germans and Japanese of wwii::being used to hurt others and envoke condemnation upon their people. I wish I could find a source to educate many Muslim fundamentalists. Muhammad is alive. He is a man chosen like Jesus Christ and, due to his historical status, will live forever. They can affect the weather and Hurricane Katrina was accomplished for many reasons and involves many interests, as anything this historical is:: 1. Take heat off Sheenhan/Iraq, protecting profitable war machine/private war contracts 2. Gentrification. New Orleans median home price of $84k is among the lowest in major American cities, certainly among desirable cities.