Oops, sorry we cause all those riots

[Bruce]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050516/ts_nm/religion_afghan_newsweek_dc

Editor Mark Whitaker said the magazine inaccurately reported that U.S. military investigators had confirmed that personnel at the detention facility in Cuba had flushed the Muslim holy book down the toilet.

The report sparked angry and violent protests across the Muslim world from
Afghanistan, where 16 were killed and more than 100 injured, to Pakistan to Indonesia to Gaza. In the past week it was condemned in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Malaysia and by the Arab League.

On Sunday, Afghan Muslim clerics threatened to call for a holy war against the United States.

Whitaker told Reuters that Newsweek did not know if the reported toilet incident involving the Koran ever occurred. "As to whether anything like this happened, we just don't know," he said in an interview. "We're not saying it absolutely happened but we can't say that it absolutely didn't happen either."

BOOO, Newseek. Apology not accepted. FIRE DAN RATHER!!!

What? Oh. Well fire somebody, godammit!!

 

[clarsct]

Yeah, but it sold a few f**kin magazines....

 

[Zep]

I'd take all the reporting of this type of stuff with a VERY large grain of salt. On both sides.

It's hardly unknown for a number of people to be accidentally shot at Arab weddings and stuff, when they all signify their "joy" of the occasion by everyone firing off their guns in huge volleys indiscriminately in the air, etc. Not to mention all the other stuff that happens in anger all the time right across the Middle East - internicene strife, vengeance killings, angry fathers shooting recalcitrant daughters, etc, etc. My impression is that the "reporters" just add all of these to the "anger at the USA" bunch of riots - keeps it simple even if not really accurate.

Frankly, I suspect many of these "rioters" have just heard of the Gitmo story by (inflammatory) word of mouth, and reacted accordingly and without thinking. Skepticism and restraint are not a concepts that have taken strong root in the Arab world...

 

[Bruce]

That's it. From now on, I'm wiping my ass with pages from Newsweek.

 

[Zep]

That's it. From now on, I'm wiping my ass with pages from Newsweek.

Time is softer, but stronger. And you get more sheets per packet!

 

[peptoabysmal]

Time is softer, but stronger. And you get more sheets per packet!

Time uses cheap ink. You may end up looking like you contracted some mysterious jungle disease.

 

[Zep]

Time uses cheap ink. You may end up looking like you contracted some mysterious jungle disease.

I don't think I would actually be looking at that end...

 

[Hutch]

Trouble is, it may not matter that there was a retraction, the story is out and will continue to spread by word of mouth and who knows where it will end.

Like "Jenkin's Ear" (supposedly a British sailor whose ear was lopped off by the Spanish, causing a war--see here) it may not be true but it can be used for purposes all out of proportion to the purported event.

We shall see.

 

[Mephisto]

Nahhhh . . .

Time is softer, but stronger. And you get more sheets per packet!

The Wall Street Journal is best. Crumple it up and you'll think all those slick glossy-papered rags are anal torture.


Mephisto

 

[rikzilla]

That's it. From now on, I'm wiping my ass with pages from Newsweek.

No way, from now on it's only the Koran for me! I'm thinking that if the Holy Word of Allah cures my 'roids it'll be a verifiable miracle and Randi will have to part with the million! Talk about killing two birds with one stone!

-z

 

[BPSCG]

Trouble is, it may not matter that there was a retraction, the story is out and will continue to spread by word of mouth and who knows where it will end.

And even if it never happened, and had never been reported, something else would have. To the evil, everyting is pretext, and to those who hate democracy, everything is a pretext for demanding death to America.

We've reached the point that we are not only sensitive about making sure we do nothing to offend our enemies; we are now worried about squelching unsubstantiated rumors that we might have done something to offend them.

Maybe we should wake up every morning and broadcast a world-wide statement in Arabic that we sincerely and contritely apologize in advance for anything we may or may not do, true or false, that might conceivably offend the Believers.

Beginning with an apology for our own existence.

 

[Cleon]

Maybe we should wake up every morning and broadcast a world-wide statement in Arabic that we sincerely and contritely apologize in advance for anything we may or may not do, true or false, that might conceivably offend the Believers.

In Afghanistan, especially. That would really work well.

 

[Baker]

Newsweek editor Mark Whitman: "Whatever facts we got wrong, we apologize for. I've expressed regret for the loss of life and the violence that put American troops in harm's way. I'm getting a lot of angry e-mail about that, and I understand it."

I guess whether that constitutes a real apology, or the moral equivalent of "Whoops, my bad," after running a car through a crowd of people, depends upon the listener. It sounds less than fully satisfactory to me.

 

[Skeptic]

So, let's summarize:

1). Newsweek is willing to print unverified rumors which, by pure coincidence, make the US (and Bush) look bad;

2). "Good" (in their own eyes) Muslims, on no stronger evidence than this rumor, erupt in mob violence of "death to USA!"-type, causing a dozen deaths.

What a surprise. Who would have guessed?

 

[crimresearch]

3). Afterwards, blame is shifted on the anonymous source that the media based the report on in the first place, and it is implied that the White House deliberately fed Newsweek bad info to cause the whole thing.

 

[Renfield]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050516/ts_nm/religion_afghan_newsweek_dc





BOOO, Newseek. Apology not accepted. FIRE DAN RATHER!!!

What? Oh. Well fire somebody, godammit!!

More misdirection and misinformation from the right. The defense department had a number of chances to refute the story before it came out, but remained silent for some reason. Not too surprising that the right is now using this to point the blame at the "liberal" media for the anti american attitudes prevalant worldwide.

 

[Skeptic]

Re: Re: Oops, sorry we cause all those riots

More misdirection and misinformation from the right. The defense department had a number of chances to refute the story before it came out, but remained silent for some reason.

The reason is obvious: it's not the DoD's responsiblity to disprove every conspiracy theory and "evil USA" rumor somebody makes. On the other hand, it IS Newsweek's responsiblity to make sure that they don't print canards. But they didn't.

Not too surprising that the right is now using this to point the blame at the "liberal" media for the anti american attitudes prevalant worldwide.

Let's put it this way: when was the last time the oh-so-objective CBS or NYT or Newsweek (to name a few) made a mistake and overhastily reported a poisitive rumor about US forces' behavior that turned out not to be true?

...thought so.

 

[Renfield]

Re: Re: Re: Oops, sorry we cause all those riots

More misdirection and misinformation from the right. The defense department had a number of chances to refute the story before it came out, but remained silent for some reason.

The reason is obvious: it's not the DoD's responsiblity to disprove every conspiracy theory and "evil USA" rumor somebody makes. On the other hand, it IS Newsweek's responsiblity to make sure that they don't print canards. But they didn't.

Not too surprising that the right is now using this to point the blame at the "liberal" media for the anti american attitudes prevalant worldwide.

Let's put it this way: when was the last time the oh-so-objective CBS or NYT or Newsweek (to name a few) made a mistake and overhastily reported a poisitive rumor about US forces' behavior that turned out not to be true?

...thought so.

This was hardly an "evil USA" rumor or conspiracy theory. The story involved a high ranking defense department official who was making specific claims about a defense department report. And it was being reported in one of the largest newsmagazines in the country.

You would think the DoD would have at least bothered with a denial.

Your second point is pretty absurd. When there is a positive story, Bush and the DoD don't hesitate to push it. Every news outlet in the country is going to repeat it. You can't really compare how those kinds of stories devolope to one like this.

Anyway, the media has certainly had to retract or correct a number of stories that had a positive slant for US forces. Even though you don't have much of a point to begin with, its easily refuted.

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Jul/05/mn/mn03a.html

Here's a story that was huge, widely reported in the US media (and quickly refuted internationaly, though you wouldn't be able to know that if you only paid attention to the so called MSM). Note that the media not only selectively edited the news footage to make the protest in the square seem a lot bigge then it actually was, but they were not too enthusiastic about making a correction when they finally bothered to do so.

Maybe that's why you don't know about it?

 

[RPG Advocate]

This is what happens when the government isn't accountable to its citizens. This could likely have been avoided if the camp at Guantanamo wasn't a black hole from which no light escapes. Newsweek relied on a single source for this story, which according to Newsweek, had given them credible information in the past. Had the government not been so secretive, Newsweek could have consulted other sources at the camp to either corroborate or discredit the assertions made by the original source.

This is as much the government's fault as Newsweek's.

 

[a_unique_person]

The issue can be easily resolved, let an independent body have full access to Guantanamo to investigate the issue.