The Deadly Irresponsibility of Newsweek Magazine

[IControlThePast]

That's not true at all.





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





I have. No, thanks.





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...

Main Entry: elit·ism
Pronunciation: A-'lE-"ti-z&m, i-, E-
Function: noun
1 : leadership or rule by an elite
2 : the selectivity of the elite; especially : SNOBBERY 1 <elitism in choosing new members>
3 : consciousness of being or belonging to an elite

Well which of these do I fit?

Nope, I speak of not making inflamatory statements for attempts at entertainment. Politics has quite a bit of corruption on both sides.

 

[musicman]

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.

It's no use, Kathianne. If the whole of the MSM/DNC stood up and admitted they were agenda-driven charlatans, this guy would say they did it for ratings.

 

[Annie]

It's no use, Kathianne. If the whole of the MSM/DNC stood up and admitted they were agenda-driven charlatans, this guy would say they did it for ratings.

Well I need to be heading for bed, but wanted to read just a couple more sites. However could we all have forgotten this? The link to the 'cozy deal' can be found at site!

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/002478.htm

NEWSWEEK: PROTECTING KERRY, BUT NOT THE TROOPS
By Michelle Malkin · May 16, 2005 08:52 PM
Reader M.E. points out:

Just for the sake of argument let's say the Newsweek article was true. No one's pointing out that Newsweek is the same publication that had a non-disclosure agreement with the Kerry campaign last fall. The editors agreed that anything their reporters discovered while "embedded" with Kerry/Edwards would not be published until after the '04 election. So let me get this straight... Agreeing not to air Kerry's dirty laundry during a political campaign is fine and dandy. But not airing Gitmo's dirty laundry during the War on Terror would be a compromise of journalistic ethics. Got it.
I had forgotten about that cozy arrangement between Kerry and Newsweek. Thanks for the reminder.

 

[musicman]

Main Entry: elit·ism
Pronunciation: A-'lE-"ti-z&m, i-, E-
Function: noun
1 : leadership or rule by an elite
2 : the selectivity of the elite; especially : SNOBBERY 1 <elitism in choosing new members>
3 : consciousness of being or belonging to an elite

Well which of these do I fit?

Number one. You consider the average American stupid. You don't trust him to decipher information without the guiding hand of the elite. You are an elitist.

 

[Annie]

Lest anyone forget, there are repercussions that a quick retraction:

NEW YORK — Newsweek on Monday retracted a story alleging interrogators at Guantanamo flushed the Koran down a toilet in front of detainees.

“Based on what we know now, we are retracting our original story that an internal military investigation had uncovered Koran abuse at Guantanamo Bay,” editor Mark Whitaker said in statement released Monday evening.

just doesn't quite make up for.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18078

Newsweek's Victims
By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 16, 2005


The Left’s journalistic jihad against the War on Terror inspired the deaths of 16 Muslims, the injury of at least 100 more, the destruction of numerous Western buildings, and untold hatred for U.S. troops stationed in the Arab world – with a lie.

The May 9 issue of Newsweek vouchsafed that a new report issued by the Southern Command (“SouthCom,” which includes Guantanamo Bay) would reveal that, “in at least one case,” a Gitmo GI attempting to interrogate Muslims “flushed a holy book [Koran] down the toilet.” Leftist writer Michael Isikoff and partner John Barry cited an unnamed “senior U.S. government official” as the source for this tiny paragraph, oddly out of place with the larger story in which it was embedded. However, they did due diligence, Newsweek claims, by trying to verify the story with two subsequent officials who, respectively, gave no comment and did not specifically deny the charge. (The latter did not deny it, because he knew little about the report in question.) On the basis of one anonymous source, one “no comment,” and one non-denial from an uninformed source, Newsweek pressed forward with the damning release.

The trouble began when Pakistani opposition leader Imran Khan held a copy of the prevaricating Newsweek story high aloft during a press conference, thundering, “This is what the U.S. is doing, desecrating the Koran!” Others helped Khan spread the Newsweek scoop. “The American soldiers are known for disrespect to other religions. They do not take care of the sanctity of other religions,” chimed in Qazi Hussain Ahmed, the pro-Osama chief of Jamaat-e-Islami (“Party of Islam”), which calls for the “Islamization” of Pakistan.

Soon riots had broken out throughout the Muslim world, from Malaysia to the Suez Canal, with violent crowds chanting “Death to America!” and burning American flags – and U.S. and UN government buildings. A Palestinian protestor stomping through the Jabalya refugee camp raging, “The Holy Koran was defiled by the dirtiest of hands, by American hands.” The strongest of uprisings took place in the Afghan mountain town and Taliban-stronghold of Jalalabad, with many demonstrations led by “remnants of the Taliban” (with its legendary tolerance for other faiths’ religious symbols).

All the while, the Left jeered knowingly. Howard Dean’s “Blog for America” [sic.] gloated over the revelations and the subsequent riots, inexplicably tying the fabricated infraction to Gen. Jerry Boykin.

In an attempt to stop the hemorrhaging, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice issued a strongly worded statement attesting, “Disrespect for the Holy Koran is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, tolerated by the United States. Disrespect for the Holy Koran is abhorrent to us all.” Still, 16 Muslims died and more than 100 were injured before the media-inspired hatred came to an end.

And now the writers admit the story was false.

In the newest issue of Newsweek, which hits newsstands today, Editor Mark Whitaker and Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas tell their readers the original source cannot remember where he read the allegation of flushing the word of Allah. This means he cannot verify it is in any government report. In fact, the glossy rag now questions whether the incident ever occurred. While not ruling it out conclusively (proving a negative is logically impossible), Whitaker told Reuters, “As to whether anything like this happened, we just don't know.” Whitaker tells his own readers, “We regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst.”

Thomas, however, writes a long story about the impact of his publication’s malfeasance entitled, “How a Fire Broke Out,” in which he all but pours gasoline on the raging fires of Islamist revulsion. Thomas justifies Newsweek’s coverage of the scantily sourced provocation on the grounds that similar reports had been issued – by released detainees and al-Jazeera Television. When weighed in that balance, this newest allegation “seemed shocking but not incredible.”

He then expresses shock this tiny story would touch off violence “[a]fter so many gruesome reports of torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.” I mean, what’s the angry mob’s problem: don’t they read Newsweek?

Thomas also shifts blame for the widespread Islamic unrest to the government of U.S. ally Hamid Karzai, which, “pressed by the United States,” shut down domestic opium producers. Besides, “Afghan men are sometimes rounded up during ongoing U.S. military operations” and “many Afghans regard [Karzai] as too dependent on and too obsequious to the United States.” Although aware that the State Department feared Islamist riots would topple friendly Muslim governments around the globe, Thomas nearly drafts Osama’s Declaration of Independence.

After excusing the backlash his employees’ story engendered, Thomas rightly notes there is widespread belief the substance of this story was fraudulent. When asked about Michael Isikoff’s charges, Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita inquired of his interviewer, “People are dead because of what this son of a bitch said. How could he be credible now?”

Fully acknowledging the impact of one widely reported anti-Muslim atrocity story, Thomas proceeds to all list two more unverified accounts immediately after this quotation. Thomas cites Gitmo detainee lawyer Marc D. Falkoff’s claim that an American serviceman stomped on a Koran and former detainee Bader Zaman Bader’s avowal that another serviceman threw a Koran in an inmate’s latrine.[1] (Bader Bader says nightmares still plague him, even though the GI immediately apologized – strange behavior from a heartless MP.) Recognizing that his editorial team got nearly a score of Muslims killed in the past week, Evan Thomas all but begs pacified Muslims to resume torching Western aide centers.

Thomas omits the fact that a Pentagon spokesman told Newsweek it “had investigated other desecration charges by detainees and found them ‘not credible.’” Many of these original allegations were popularized by the Muslim Council of Britain, the largest Muslim organization in the UK which, when it isn’t calumniating Allied soldiers protecting its host nation from its constituents, stays busy inventing tales of Islamaphobia. The MCB also opposed the war against the Taliban and refused to take part in the commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, because the event ignored “ongoing genocide and human rights abuses around the world and in the occupied territories of Palestine.”

Army Colonel Brad Blackner exposed the true provenance of this psychological warfare, noting, “If you read the al-Qaeda training manual, they are trained to make allegations against the infidels.” I posted the link to this on the WOT thread Hence, Medea Benjamin and Leslie Cagan made exposing troop “atrocities” one of the key functions of their Baghdad-based anti-American venture, Occupation Watch. Convicted terrorist lawyer Lynne Stewart similarly counseled her client to claim the Ashcroft Justice Department had denied him his diabetic medication – to whip his supporters into a violent frenzy culminating in bloodshed.

Despite a plenitude of false premises, Newsweek’s Thomas comes to a true conclusion: “More allegations, credible or not, are sure to come,” and “Such stories may spark more trouble.”

Credible or not, it seems likely Evan Thomas and Newsweek will broadcast them to the best of their ability.

ENDNOTES:

1. The aforementioned Marc Falkoff should not be confused with the American Enterprise Institute’s homonymic Latin American expert, Mark Falcoff.

 

[IControlThePast]

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.

Or I can just try to analyze your study myself. Using the work of others would be elitism right . Of course I could give you a link to Chomsky, who is part of one of the top PoliSci Dept. in the country, but would that really mean anything to you? Well I'll do it anyways. Read Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media by Chomsky which also does a study on media bias. Here's something else for you to look at: http://media.eriposte.com/4-1.htm

The study omits 78% of Fox stories, because editorial opinion is not allowed to enter. That's not looking too good right there. Leaving things like that out have skewed the study and made it unrepresentative.

There is, however, a more fundamental problem with the authors' analysis though one has to read the paper to see it. Their principal measure of "bias" is indirect; it consists of the number of times each media outlet cites news from a "think tank" that the authors have coded as "liberal" or "conservative." How do they know a "think tank's" political orientation? They cite the number of times liberal and conservative members of Congress cite the work of a given think tank. (Are you still following this?)

The problem is that most cited "liberal" think tanks are also the largest and best known institutions (e.g. Rand Corp.; Brookings Institution) that have a long-standing reputation for the quality of their work. The "conservative" think tanks are predominantly less well known and more overtly partisan in their missions. (e.g. Heritage Foundation, Right to Life, etc.)

There is a bias in the mainstream media. However, it's a bias that leads it to emphasize the views of well-known, established institutions such as the Rand Corp, and Brookings Institution (which the authors admit do work all over the ideological map) rather than seeking the view of institutions like the Heritage Foundation, and American Enterprise Institute that make no secret of their conservative agendas.

Since such think tanks are coded as "liberal" because they're more likely to be cited in Congress by moderates and liberals than by conservatives, the scoring for the news outlets reflects the bias of members of Congress.

In short, the study indicates that conservative members of congress disproportionately cite the views of conservative think tanks, most of which see their mission as pushing the Republican, conservative agenda. Moderate and liberal members of Congress cite the work of better known institutions such as Rand and Brookings. That leads the authors to classify the think tanks as liberal or conservative and to code the media according to the degree to which they (the media) cite the same sources.

 

[IControlThePast]

Number one. You consider the average American stupid. You don't trust him to decipher information without the guiding hand of the elite. You are an elitist.

Wrong, I don't think there is a guiding hand of the elite. There is no smart ruling class in government or media that can tell us what to think, like I said.

 

[musicman]

Wrong, I don't think there is a guiding hand of the elite. There is no smart ruling class in government or media that can tell us what to think, like I said.

But you consider the market an unacceptable determiner of the manner in which news is disseminated. Right? We can't be trusted to do this for ourselves. Right? While we simple Americans may have some wonderful qualities, we're overall just too gosh-darned excitable to handle all them bells and whistles. Right? We needs help - the right kind of help. Right?

How are you not an elitist?

 

[musicman]

LMAO - Chomsky on media bias! Chomsky on ANYTHING!

http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm

"Today, Chomsky's hypocrisy stands as the most revealing measure of the sorry depths to which the left-wing political activism he has done so much to propogate has now sunk".

 

[NATO AIR]

LMAO - Chomsky on media bias! Chomsky on ANYTHING!

http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm

"Today, Chomsky's hypocrisy stands as the most revealing measure of the sorry depths to which the left-wing political activism he has done so much to propogate has now sunk".

He had me respecting the argument until he mentioned Chumpsky.

 

[Adam's Apple]

I think the Dems have decided to abandon the ethics.

Dems have ethics? News to me.

 

[Adam's Apple]

I like this comment from Captain's Quarters:

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

Isn't it the truth?

 

[IControlThePast]

But you consider the market an unacceptable determiner of the manner in which news is disseminated. Right? We can't be trusted to do this for ourselves. Right? While we simple Americans may have some wonderful qualities, we're overall just too gosh-darned excitable to handle all them bells and whistles. Right? We needs help - the right kind of help. Right?

How are you not an elitist?

No, we can't rely on the media stations to maintain ethical standards, like being unbiased, without having some type of enforcement. There is a framework the free market needs to operate in to keep the corporations working well, and that's why we have things like libel laws. We don't trust the free market to stop libel or monopolies either, do you think we should?

 

[IControlThePast]

LMAO - Chomsky on media bias! Chomsky on ANYTHING!

http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm

"Today, Chomsky's hypocrisy stands as the most revealing measure of the sorry depths to which the left-wing political activism he has done so much to propogate has now sunk".

He had me respecting the argument until he mentioned Chumpsky.

Try and look a little deeper into what I say. In his field Chomsky is much more respected than this posted study, which doesn't seem to be conducted by Professors either. If Chomsky has more authority than this study in the framework I was asked to operate in, and look at the respect for Chomsky (there isn't much), then conclude that this study is not well respected at all.

 

[Annie]

Try and look a little deeper into what I say. In his field Chomsky is much more respected than this posted study, which doesn't seem to be conducted by Professors either. If Chomsky has more authority than this study in the framework I was asked to operate in, and look at the respect for Chomsky (there isn't much), then conclude that this study is not well respected at all.

Which of the studies was not conducted by a professor?

 

[Adam's Apple]

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/toons/coxandforkum/coxandforkum.asp

 

[Annie]

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/toons/coxandforkum/coxandforkum.asp

:clap1:

 

[IControlThePast]

Which of the studies was not conducted by a professor?

Oops, I meant your study, which has a Professors name on it, but it looks like a graduate school research project he had students do the work for. The paper is not presentable to any sort of peer-review by other Professors as I've shown.

 

[Annie]

Oops, I meant your study, which has a Professors name on it, but it looks like a graduate school research project he had students do the work for. The paper is not presentable to any sort of peer-review by other Professors as I've shown.

Again, which study? There is the George Mason and the U of C/Stanford one. Perhaps you weren't familiar with the process, but once a study is published, which both of these were, then other universities are free to replicate the methods and publish THEIR findings?

BTW, what have you SHOWN? I just see you throw out Chomsky and a left blathering site. I may have missed it, post the Thanks.

 

[IControlThePast]

Again, which study? There is the George Mason and the U of C/Stanford one. Perhaps you weren't familiar with the process, but once a study is published, which both of these were, then other universities are free to replicate the methods and publish THEIR findings?

BTW, what have you SHOWN? I just see you throw out Chomsky and a left blathering site. I may have missed it, post the Thanks.

The study's been refuted. Did you not read my post at all where I refuted it? Did you stop after my link? How can it claim to be accurate if it eliminated 78% of the stories in Fox News because they had editorials. Just look at how many think tanks Fox was given credit for citing in the paper, not many. Editorials are where the bias comes in. This study does not account for editorials at all.

I've also shown how the scoring method is flawed. Read my post. What generally happens in academia, is that if something is well respected, it is published in print, instead of being just a "link." Book are more well respected than articles, but books do not come in electronic form for free. I have given you a book that offers up another study with different evidence. There's your "link." Chomsky is part of the MIT PoliSci Dept, which is one of the top three in the country. I'm not faulting the "replication" part of this study, you can do it again and again by the same methods and recieve the same results. I am faulting the methedology.