The Deadly Irresponsibility of Newsweek Magazine

[krisy]

Joe Scarborough is doig an excellent show on the media bias right now. At the top of the show,a report form Pete Williams from NBC was played and it was so adamantly defending Newsweek it was unbelievable. Pete Williams said that the riots were allready brewing and that they couldn't necessarily be blamed on the article in Newsweek. I have to applaud Joe S. He said it was absurd to insinuate that anything started these riots other than Newsweek. I give him credit for critsising another guy from NBC. The media from here on out will be paying for these mistakes in their wallets.

 

[IControlThePast]

That still puts him way ahead of the MSM/DNC. Also, you stated - unequivocally - that Drudge is only right 1/3 of the time. Good thing we're not checking YOUR accuracy, huh?

Go ahead then and provide your burden of proof to prove me inaccurate by evaluating every single story he's done, including the delinked ones in e-wasteland. Tell me when you're done :tng:. Drudge is right only about 1/3 of the time, personal observation. You have a link for the accuracy of the MSM?

Do I detect a whiff of elitist arrogance? Save it. I understand Ward Churchill has a whole drawerful of accolades.

Don't worry, he's a conservative too. His Princeton and Pulitzer credit show that he's not just another Mike Moore, that he has a lot of credibility to analyze the situation. I can't put a whole book into a post but if you're really concerned about the FD that's a good source to read up on it.

Do you seriously deny it?

Seriously, I don't buy into vast conspiracy theories. The whole world is Democratic and out to get you isn't it?

As has been ably pointed out by other members of this board, liberals want it reinstated because A) they aren't the only game in town anymore, and B), now that the market has expanded beyond the friendly confines of their former monopoly, they understand that an increasing number of Americans recognize their garbage as...garbage. They're dead men walking, like their bed partners in the DNC. And, just as the DNC will do anything they can to circumvent the will of the American electorate, so will the MSM welcome any artificial means by which they can circumvent the market. It's a simple matter of survival.

I wouldn't be so sure. With Dean in charge of the DNC I wouldn't be suprised to start seeing Democratic versions of Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Coulter springing up all around. I think the Dems have decided to abandon the ethics. Watch the ratings then. Viewership is ultimately dependant upon entertainment rather than information.

But, you know what? I was right. You ARE an elitist. The news is just too vital a potential weapon to trust to the market, isn't it? We're all just slack-jawed yokels waiting for the next sound bite. Lead us, o Rush! Matters of this importance need to be handled by the true professionals - the products of our finest journalism schools - the denizens of Upper Manhattan - the folks who have learned to think the "correct" way - in short, our betters. Right?

Even the "free market" isn't really free, it's got libel controls but I bet you're not for removing them. The FD still allows media sources to compete against each other in a free market scenario.

This is some sort of joke right? If it's not you just might be a slack jawed yokel . The FD does the complete opposite of this.

 

[musicman]

How many Democratic "commentators" are there? The only ones I can think of are Franken and Moore.

Aw, c'mon, man - you're just not trying. Maybe this'll help:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20821

Byron Pitts is such an abject suck-up that he ought to count for twelve Democrat commentators all by himself. And, he's not an anomaly, as you can plainly see.

When I read the kind of stuff you've been posting, and consider the fact that you're an obviously intelligent person, I come close to despair. But, then I realize that you probably don't even believe this weak crap yourself; you're just doing what you gotta do - fighting what you think is the good fight. I don't envy you on this one. How could Newsweek be any more wrong? You want to talk inaccuracy? How about Eason Jordan? How about the fact that the common thread running through the more putrid inaccuracies of the MSM/DNC is its burning hatred for America?

Again, I don't envy you. You're holding a lousy hand.

 

[musicman]

Drudge is right only about 1/3 of the time, personal observation.

It also appears to be your personal observation that Americans are stupid. We're not. Drudge wouldn't last long being accurate 1/3 of the time.

You have a link for the accuracy of the MSM?

They're sinking like a rock, and it's because - thanks to competition and the blogosphere - they're finally being held to account for their shabby, underhanded practices.

Don't worry, he's a conservative too. His Princeton and Pulitzer credit show that he's not just another Mike Moore, that he has a lot of credibility to analyze the situation. I can't put a whole book into a post but if you're really concerned about the FD that's a good source to read up on it.

I say again - I was there. I've seen the media operate under the gentle guiding hand of the Fairness Doctrine, and I wasn't impressed. What - do I need somebody to tell me what I saw?

Seriously, I don't buy into vast conspiracy theories. The whole world is Democratic and out to get you isn't it?

Fine. Rejoice in your blindness.

I wouldn't be so sure. With Dean in charge of the DNC I wouldn't be suprised to start seeing Democratic versions of Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Coulter springing up all around.

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody, anywhere gives a shit, does it make a sound?

I think the Dems have decided to abandon the ethics.

Really? What ethics?

 

[IControlThePast]

Aw, c'mon, man - you're just not trying. Maybe this'll help:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20821

Byron Pitts is such an abject suck-up that he ought to count for twelve Democrat commentators all by himself. And, he's not an anomaly, as you can plainly see.

When I read the kind of stuff you've been posting, and consider the fact that you're an obviously intelligent person, I come close to despair. But, then I realize that you probably don't even believe this weak crap yourself; you're just doing what you gotta do - fighting what you think is the good fight. I don't envy you on this one. How could Newsweek be any more wrong? You want to talk inaccuracy? How about Eason Jordan? How about the fact that the common thread running through the more putrid inaccuracies of the MSM/DNC is its burning hatred for America?

Again, I don't envy you. You're holding a lousy hand.

So basically you're just claiming Dan Rather and Byron Pitts are liberals?

I think you've got me marked wrong. I'm a slack jawed yokel and proud of it. I guess you can start to see if you think my posts carry any weight, but you lack perspective. You think that conservative views are the only ones possibly right.

How many commentators has the DNC had to pay off, or do they not even have to do that? :tng:

 

[freeandfun1]

His ID is telling... he controls the past by creating whatever past HE wants to believe....

 

[IControlThePast]

It also appears to be your personal observation that Americans are stupid. We're not. Drudge wouldn't last long being accurate 1/3 of the time.

Americans are stupid, and I recognize that I'm stupid too. People don't realize when Drudge is inaccurate, so he does last.

They're sinking like a rock, and it's because - thanks to competition and the blogosphere - they're finally being held to account for their shabby, underhanded practices.

I'll take it that means you don't have a link. Nice job trying critisizing me for a personal observation.

I say again - I was there. I've seen the media operate under the gentle guiding hand of the Fairness Doctrine, and I wasn't impressed. What - do I need somebody to tell me what I saw?

There are many inherent biases in the media. The FD won't solve them all, but what you might need is another look to remind you of the difference between the old media and now.

Fine. Rejoice in your blindness.

It really feels better if you're not filled with fear all the time, you should try it .

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody, anywhere gives a shit, does it make a sound?

Rejoice in your deafness

Really? What ethics?

Any sort they had left resembling not putting people like Coulter in the media.

 

[Annie]

I like this comment from Captain's Quarters:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004491.php

May 16, 2005
Comment Of The Day
Frequent CQ commenter Aileron has this to say about Newsweek's reporting standards, and that of the American media in general (boldface emphasis mine):

... there is absolutely no legitimate reason to run a story like this. Newsweek ran the story knowing that it would excite the passions of the world's muslim population.

Contrast this with the media's refusal to show pictures of our fellow citizens jumping out the the world trade center. We were told that such pictures would unneccessarily anger the American people and lead to violence against Muslim Americans.

The MSM will show us endless Abu Ghraib pictures, and Newsweek goes so far as to print false stories to inflame muslims against the U.S.

This type of reporting does a disservice not only to the victims of the violence it caused, but also to our Country - one of the few Countries actually committed to religious tolerance and willing to sacrifice our sons and daughters to protect the very freedom that allows religious diversity.

Exactly.

 

[IControlThePast]

I like this comment from Captain's Quarters:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004491.php

I wonder what the story was like in Newsweek. Does anyone have a copy of it? Is it intentionally made inflamatory by rhetoric or just by the subject nature? We as a nation don't seem too concerned about inflaming Terrorists with statements like "Bring it on." It is wrong that Newsweek wouldn't show those WTC pictures. I also thought that the people didn't jump, but were pushed out windows by so many people trying to go down the narrow stairwells.

Also, Newsweek has offered a complete retraction of the story.

 

[musicman]

Americans are stupid, and I recognize that I'm stupid too. People don't realize when Drudge is inaccurate, so he does last.

Ah - candor, at last! You're an elitist - your disingenuous disclaimer notwithstanding.

I'll take it that means you don't have a link. Nice job trying critisizing me for a personal observation.

"Drudge is only accurate 1/3 of the time" violates any reasonable standard of "personal observation". At least my personal observations can be borne out by observable fact.

There are many inherent biases in the media. The FD won't solve them all, but what you might need is another look to remind you of the difference between the old media and now.

Not necessary, thanks. In the heyday of the old media, the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth would never have been heard. Dan Rather would still be at his desk, probably congratulating himself on a Kerry victory. Eason Jordan and Newsweek would still be spewing their poison. I like now better.

It really feels better if you're not filled with fear all the time, you should try it .

I am vigilant but guardedly optimistic. Thanks for your concern, though.

Rejoice in your deafness

Hah??!!

Any sort they had left resembling not putting people like Coulter in the media.

After thirty years of the heinous behavior of the MSM/DNC, you can speak of their ethics? I don't know what to tell you.

 

[musicman]

I wonder what the story was like in Newsweek. Does anyone have a copy of it? Is it intentionally made inflamatory by rhetoric or just by the subject nature? We as a nation don't seem too concerned about inflaming Terrorists with statements like "Bring it on." It is wrong that Newsweek wouldn't show those WTC pictures. I also thought that the people didn't jump, but were pushed out windows by so many people trying to go down the narrow stairwells.

Also, Newsweek has offered a complete retraction of the story.

What the hell are you - a STOCKHOLDER???!!!

 

[Annie]

Since Mr. Past cannot understand the media bias towards the left, let's give a couple of links:

from January of this year:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?p=229807#post229807

Then of course there is THIS, which has all sorts of citations to other studies, including the joint one from University of Chicago/Stanford, not exactly conservative strongholds:

http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc

 

[IControlThePast]

Ah - candor, at last! You're an elitist - your disingenuous disclaimer notwithstanding.

The more one learns the stupider he realizes he is. If there does happen to be anybody smart, he knows to stay out of Politics. I know quite a few stupid people who think they are smart. I'm no better than anyone else, and when it comes to political decisions they are based on perception and not intelligence, nobody really knows the answer. To be an elitist I would at least have to think we are ruled by smart people or that I am smart, but I believe neither.

Not necessary, thanks. In the heyday of the old media, the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth would never have been heard. Dan Rather would still be at his desk, probably congratulating himself on a Kerry victory. Eason Jordan and Newsweek would still be spewing their poison. I like now better.

Where is the clause of the FD that says don't punish people for their mistakes? It's not in there. The FD expresses more viewpoints, so the Swiftboaters may have even recieved more publicity. Focus on things that would change if we used the FD.

After thirty years of the heinous behavior of the MSM/DNC, you can speak of their ethics? I don't know what to tell you.

I speak of the liberal ethics, not of the bad media ethics. They are not the same.

 

[Annie]

Another good take on how the MSM is handling this as opposed to Abu Ghraib. There are links to referenced posts/articles, at site.

http://austinbay.net/blog/index.php?p=327

UPDATED: More thoughts on Newsweek’s Abu Ghraib– after today’s tv appearance
Filed under: General— site admin @ 5:30 pm
My wife and a friend were having lunch around the corner from the tv studio where I went to do the MSNBC segment. They came over and watched the show live, such as it was– I sat in front of a camera with the Texas Capitol in the background. As we left the studio the three of us discussed the Newsweek story. Here’s the tough nut for Newsweek and its media partners, as we saw it walking down Congress Avenue. (Remember, Newsweek is not only associated with the Washington Post, it collaborates with NBC and MSNBC. MSNBC disclosed that clear during the broadcast– and good for MSNBC’s producers.) But the tough nut: Compare the weak “mea culpas” from Newsweek (which MSNBC ran prior to my appearance) and the as-yet downplayed coverage of the incident to what happens when the US military gets 15 civilians killed due to an error in judgment. (I mentioned this during the tv segment.) Track back to last year. When Abu Ghraib broke – and remember, “Abu Ghraib” is about grievous prisoner abuse, not 15 dead in the street– we had “all Abu Ghraib all the time” on cable tv. We had banner headlines. Why, Abu Ghraib fit right in with the “Vietnam/Watergate” template. Newsweek’s Whitaker is now saying that the magazine’s “regrets” amount to a retraction. So weak.

As I said on this blog and on the air, I am personally sympathetic with Isikoff et al, but they’re going to have to show me the same grit I see in the service when a mistake gets made. Look at the depth and breadth of the “Sgrena Incident” Route Irish shooting investigation. Okay, disagree with the conclusion, but the investigation lays out details and questions judgments. Will Newsweek produce the equivalent? I believe the magazine need to do just that. Dan Rather has yet to find “Lucy Ramirez.” Eason Jordan’s tape has yet to be released. Newsweek could avoid the Rather-Jordan quagmire with an investigation as thorough as the “Sgrena Incident” investigation conducted by the US and Italian militaries. Some people will never believe them. But if a New York Army National Guard sergeant has the guts to tell investigators what he saw and how he felt standing at a check point on Route Irish, the suits and ties at Newsweek can submit to the same tough routine of sworn questioning. Let’s find out who the anonymous source was. I see some commenters are already spinning a conspiracy theory that this whole incident is a Bush administration “distraction” (ie, some kind of calculated Rovian press manipulation). With 15 to 17 dead, that source needs to come forward on his own; if the source doesn’t, Newsweek needs to tell us who he is. I suspect we’ll find the source is a bureaucrat or political appointee who leaked to the press on the expectation of “future considerations,” and this “flushing” tidbit sounded just like the kind of “hot tip” the Vietnam/Watergate template press would love to have. Let’s get the principal players out in the open, the reporters and editors who were at the “press checkpoint.” Let’s ask Newsweek’s senior editors and publishers the kinds of questions Don Rumsfeld had tossed at him by Congress. Remember, Rumsfeld said –in what I remember as a tough but begrudging reply– that if his resignation proved to be the best way to handle Abu Ghraib, he’d do it.

I suspect Newsweek thinks this incident will somehow “blow over” and they’ll get by with some slight degree of professional embarrassment. I also suspect no one serving in Afghanistan thinks the “blow over” Newsweek faces in New York in DC is anything like the heat they face in Kabul.

A link to my original post on the Newsweek fiasco.

A reminder to commenters– read the rules, covered once again in Update 2 on the first Newsweek post. Violate the rules and if you’re lucky you’ll get edited. The biggest factor in “lucky” is how much time I have– whch usually isn’t very much. If I’m in a time squeeze, I delete your post. The worst posts remind me of gang and teenage graffiti on New York subway cars. Rudy G cleaned up the cars and set a tone in New York.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin hunts for Newsweek’s source.

UPDATE 2: Isikoff’s done some good reporting. See Comment 97 on the original post. Being sympathetic doesn’t mean I’m not hard on the man’s mistake. I’m waiting for the comment that asks me “Austin, would Isikoff be sympathetic to someone else caught in this bind? A sergeant or major or general, for example?” I don’t know the answer to that. I’m not him. He’d have to answer that.

 

[Annie]

I wonder what the story was like in Newsweek. Does anyone have a copy of it? Is it intentionally made inflamatory by rhetoric or just by the subject nature? We as a nation don't seem too concerned about inflaming Terrorists with statements like "Bring it on." It is wrong that Newsweek wouldn't show those WTC pictures. I also thought that the people didn't jump, but were pushed out windows by so many people trying to go down the narrow stairwells.

Also, Newsweek has offered a complete retraction of the story.

To think that Isikoff would be unaware of the inflammatory nature would be absurd. With that said, it wasn't a 'major piece' but because it came from a source that Isikoff 'vouched for' they went with it.

Their retraction is insufficient and won't bring back the dead. YOU would not take such from a Drudge, a GW, or a Rumsfeld.

 

[Annie]

And if Newsweek's retraction WAS that, why this? This wasn't what they did with the prison problem, right?

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/web...tline-_Newsweek_Report_Fake_But_Accurate&only

ABC Nightline: Newsweek Report Fake, But Accurate

Oh brother. Here comes the very predictable “fake but accurate” canard, right on schedule, courtesy of ABC News Nightline: An International Incident. (Hat tip: LGF readers.)

One small item, not a full-blown investigative or cover story, just one small 320-word item inside Newsweek has caused reverberations across the globe. Now, two weeks after that first publication, Newsweek acknowledges errors in a 1,500-word correction, but at least 15 people are dead and many more are injured. It is a story about journalism, but it is also a story about the standing of the United States in the Muslim world.

You have to ask yourself, why did this story take? For many it is easy to explain; it’s because in the minds of the people who have expressed outrage it was so believable. We have heard a continuous trickle of reports from Guantanamo Bay, where some 520 detainees (primarily picked up on the battlefield in Afghanistan) remain. There have been stories from former detainees about lack of respect for Islam on the part of guards, and even from a former translator at Guantanamo, Eric Saar, about the sexual humiliation of detainees by female American guards and interrogators. So when Newsweek reported that a U.S. military investigation had found that interrogators had flushed a copy of the Muslim holy book, the Koran, down the toilet, for a lot of people it fit a pattern. Protests ensued and people died. The protests were particularly large in Afghanistan and Pakistan, two allies of the United States in the war on terror. So were the protests opportunistic efforts on the part of the opposition in those countries or do they reflect a real sense of outrage? Probably both.

 

[IControlThePast]

Since Mr. Past cannot understand the media bias towards the left, let's give a couple of links:

from January of this year:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?p=229807#post229807

Then of course there is THIS, which has all sorts of citations to other studies, including the joint one from University of Chicago/Stanford, not exactly conservative strongholds:

http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc

Ah, I've already discussed that study elsewhere. There are quite a few studies done that say the media is biased both ways. Basically, you're not going to find the objective truth in a study. The study wouldn't make it in a peer reviewed journal. The scoring method is flawed, especially in establishing the scores, and the authors have bias themselves.

 

[musicman]

To be an elitist I would at least have to think we are ruled by smart people

That's not true at all.

or that I am smart,

Neither is that. You know what an elitist is. Read your own posts, for God's sake.

Where is the clause of the FD that says don't punish people for their mistakes? It's not in there. The FD expresses more viewpoints, so the Swiftboaters may have even recieved more publicity. Focus on things that would change if we used the FD.

I have. No, thanks.

I speak of the liberal ethics, not of the bad media ethics. They are not the same.

Ah, yes - ethical liberals. You mean like George Soros, Richard Clarke, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, John (Ol' Form 101) Kerry, Joe (filibusters are a good thing NOW) Lieberman, Ted Kennedy...

 

[IControlThePast]

To think that Isikoff would be unaware of the inflammatory nature would be absurd. With that said, it wasn't a 'major piece' but because it came from a source that Isikoff 'vouched for' they went with it.

Their retraction is insufficient and won't bring back the dead. YOU would not take such from a Drudge, a GW, or a Rumsfeld.

There's a difference between reporting on an inflammatory topic which deserves to be reported on (if it's true) and trying to make a topic even more inflammatory with rhetoric.

You're right to a point. I don't hold GW or Rumsfeld accountable for the dead like I don't hold Newsweek, but I don't respect any of their credibility anymore, including Newsweek.

 

[Annie]

Ah, I've already discussed that study elsewhere. There are quite a few studies done that say the media is biased both ways. Basically, you're not going to find the objective truth in a study. The study wouldn't make it in a peer reviewed journal. The scoring method is flawed, especially in establishing the scores, and the authors have bias themselves.

You asked for links, you got I gave you 3 major universities: George Mason, University of Chicago, and Stanford. Fine, you give me the same sort of authoritative links that debunks them or shows the opposit. Mind you, George Mason is highly regarded, the other 2 are probably in the top 5 or 6 in the country.