Alright, we usually stay away from hard news, but I'm curious what people might be thinking about this whole Newsweek flap.
ONE article in that magazine has caused protests, rioting and several deaths in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The article "claimed" a copy of the Quran had been flushed down the toilet at Guantanimo Bay by a U.S. Soldier.
As soon as I heard the story I thought it sounded fishy, I just can't see a book actually managing to flush down the toilet.
It immediately started coming out that what ACTUALLY happened was several inmates had torn pages out of the Quran and STUFFED it into the toilets to plug them and make them overflow, thus causing problems.
Now, after all the harm that's been done, Newsweek is saying they were incorrect, and can not verify their allegations.
THESE ARE THE TOPICS THAT MAKE ME WISH FREEZE-FRAME RADIO WAS A 24 HOUR TALK STATION.
There are SO many interesting angles here...
1) In this day & age, where EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE can get ANYTHING, doesn't Newsweek and other news sources have an absolute obligation to know exactly what they're talking about before making claims that can inflame the situation?
2) Even if they find the information to be true, is it really necessary to include it in the story knowing the trouble it will cause? Could they not have used a more vague approach to "questionable activities at Guantanimo Bay"?
3) How do we deal with a fact that the folks in Afghanistan & Pakistan are willing to riot based on a "story" in an American magazine. Yet, when that magazine relents and says their article was wrong the rioters simply say our government pressured the magazine into retracting.
Iy yi yi, There's many other points I'd like to bring up, but this post is getting to that size where no one would read it because it's too long, so I'll leave it here and open it up to your thoughts?
I haven't seen or read enough to commit on the Newsweek mess. However, when there are religious fanatics that are willing to kill and die for their religion that scares the hell out of me. I don't believe in discounting someones beliefs because they're different than mine. When a few interpet their religion to THAT extreme it becomes a world problem. One that I think people are just beginning to discover it's been festering for several years. Aren't we all trying to get to the same place? Apparently not.
Well, that's exactly it Ray, I have a hard time understanding the fanaticism and how to deal with it.
I mean, if I read that someone flushed a copy of the Bible down the toilet in Iraq my first thought is to feel sadness, but I don't feel the urge to run out and start rioting and burning an Iraqi flag.
I can't comprehend what they think they're accomplishing with their actions. And I can't understand people who commit murder and create mayhem while standing behind their religious convictions.
It's very frustrating to watch. Particularly in Afghanistan where I beleive we've accomplished so much. To have something as silly as an errant story in Newsweek destroy much of the good-will we've managed to build over there is sad. Perhaps even criminal. If they could prove Newsweek never had a reliable source before they printed their claims I would like to see them held accountable.
Here's my . I think this adds to the arguement that the media is decidedly liberal and greedy. Why cram through such a story when the potential for violence is so high? Because it sells, and more criticism can be leveled against current policies. It also has a circulation ripple. Newsweek will sell because of the report, and newspapers will sell filled with stories about the protests and violence. Remember Dan Rather and "The Memo"? Very similar. Here's another log for the fire. Burried in the papers today is a report that a federal jude in Nebraska overturned the states constitutional ban on gay marriage even though it passed by a 70 to 30 popular vote. A judge dictated the constitution over the will of Nebraska residents! Why didn't that get bigger headlines? The fact that the ammendment was on the ballot sure got ink. But to mention the ruling gives credence to the conservative arguement that the courts need to be held in check. That doesn't the same press.
Yeah, this thread may need to come with a warning.
But I think as long as we respect each others opinions and do not get personal we should be able to handle a serious thread now and then.
The judge issue is dead on. It's what Bush has been talking about all along. He wants judges who enforce the law, not make personal decisions on what they think is right or wrong. They're not lawmakers, but more and more they're beginning to think of themselves as exactly that.
The think that kills me with the press is, that while they're burying the "good news" stories about this war that they are clearly against (which is fine, if that's you're viewpoint I have no problem with that), they're trying to put every horrible event that unfolds front and center, which only serves to create more problems.
There is no fair and balanced reporting (no, not even on Fox which uses that very phrase, because they lean too far right).
I've now heard from three soldiers that have come back from Iraq and the stories they've told are always MUCH more upbeat than what I read in the paper. My neighbors son was there, and he couldn't say enough about how frustrating it was to everyone over there to hear all the negative news that was coming out, while all the good they were doing every day was virtually ignored in the press.
Back to Jeremy's first post and #1 shouldn't someone at Newsweek have pointed out that a whole book couldn't have fit down the toilet. I could have told you that. We can't even put paper towels in our toilets without trouble. Anyway, they should have put some sort of statement saying they weren't sure about it! I agree.
It is sad, but it sells. I truly do not think that the media cares or thinks about the consequences. Either way, they win. We buy the crap to read about sensationalized demonstrations, murder, mayhem etc. The media does not care if they are incorrect in reporting as, we buy the crap to read about the scandalous and inaccurate reporting. I speak with some danger here now, I believe that demonstrative behavior from the press, as inaccuracy should be punishable by fines and or prison. The paradox, what then do we do with the ammendment for free speech? The alternative would be to quit supporting the media--but we are all to ingrained and facinated. Neither of my solutions would ever happen. Long story short, this will continue unabated.
Ah, but technology cuts both ways! How can you stem the tide of shoddy journalism? By speaking out and presenting a different view. Like we are doing right now! Chat rooms, blogs, emails, they can all be used to make sure that all sides of a story get heard. Self control and solid content need to be maintained, but we have a powerful tool right here in our hands.
SPEAK UP AMERICA!
(In my mind, I'm at a big podium with Old Glory behind me and balloons falling from the ceiling.)
I agree. My Grandfather was a member of the House of Representatives. I have never known a man with a deeper love of country and knowlegde of history. He always used to tell me, and this was not orginated by him-- There are three kinds of people in this world. Those who make things happen, those who watch things happen, and those who don't know anything is happening. He would sadly speak of the latter two categories and tell me he thought the greater of the US (90%) fell in to these areas. He would impolore me to become one of the people that makes things happen.
I think your grandfather came from a much nobler generation.
Today's career politicians are in my opinion much more interested in protecting their comfortable lifestyle and repaying favors to the special interests that got them elected than they are concerned about keeping America on the right track.
I have always said I wish there were limits to how long you could be in government, not just a post, but in government overall.
I wonder how differently these congressmen and representatives would act if they knew that when their 6 or 8 year term were up they were going to have to live in the "real-life" world they've created for their constituants.
How much more serious would they be about health care if they didn't have their ridiculously perfect government paid health care plan? What would they do about retirement funds and programs and social security if they weren't spending the rest of their life on a huge government pension?
It's supposed to be a service to your country, you're not supposed to make a living and get rich by being a public official.
You are right Jeremy. I had always aspired to be a politician. I wanted to be a member of the US Senate. What holds me back is the scrutiny the press gives. I can handle whatever anyone says about me, but unfortunatley it does not stop there. I don't know if I could put my daughters and wife through the same criticisms.
ask youelf the following questions , 1 , does newsweek take its leads from cbs news ? 2 , do you really believe the people in afg. and pak. actually know what a toilet is ?how upset do you think those idiots would be if they knew what i did with pages of koran before i flushed it ?hmm .., what time does the patent office close?
When I log in on my computer at work the first thing I get is today's news. I read the story about the Koran.
I was torn between outrage that anyone would print an unproven story so volitile that it would cause the death of 15 people and a worry that maybe the story wasn't false, but the US govenrment hushed it up.
After seeing the photo's of the prison horror stories earlier this year, I find it hard to discount a story about flushing pages of a Koran.
I think in America, it is hard to understand the religious fervor that is so deeply ingrained in middle eastern countries. Religious tolerence is not a part of their society and probably never will be.
I am not happy with the way the US looks in the eyes of the world these days. I think our "Big Brother" attitude has created much tension in the world.
OK, I'm coming down from the pulpit now. Sorry for the rant. (actually i deleted more that half the rant as it was really quite blue statish)
You know, the thing is, the only difference between now and 40 years ago is the press.
Can you IMAGINE the world outrage if when we dropped the bomb in Hiroshima we had the press we do today?
Personally, I don't care what they do to prisoners to get information out of them that can save the lives of Americans. I don't think it's anything worse than they've done in the past, it's just that now they can't hide it.
Zacharias Mossoui (mispelt I'm sure) was being held in Minnesota a MONTH before 9/11 and his laptop had the details of the 9/11 attack. Because we didn't have the Patriot Act then the FBI wasn't allowed to look in that laptop and as a result thousands of Americans died.
I have a hard time justifying protecting one mans right to privacy against the potential disasters that await us in this day and age.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating "big brother" marching in any house at any time and taking a look around, but if they have reason to beleive they should be concerned then I'll waive my right to privacy so they can check out the situation.
I'd like to say to whoever posted anonymously, we welcome all view points on this forum, but I would ask that you not be quite so inflamatory in your comments. Calling into question their intelligence, or suggesting even worse things you would like to do to their holy book makes us no better than them.
We have to remember that you are dealing with a small segment of the Muslim society that over-reacts in this manner. The whole problem with that small segment is that THEY are allowing the supposed actions of one or two Americans represent our country as a whole. Don't sink to their level.
I would hate to think that if a person of the Muslim faith were to view this board they would feel as if they were unwanted or thought badly of because of the actions of people that are not necessarily acting on their behalf.
I agree with JR about the Anonymous poster's comments, I don't feel its right to disrespect the whole muslim faith because of the actions of a minority faction from within that faith.
The beauty of this site is that we all have equal access to the soap box, no need to blind slap from the shadows. Goodness knows that I have an opinion about EVERYTHING, but if I'm going to speak it, it better have some merit, and I'd better back it up.
Back on track, so nice of Newsweek to retract the story! I find it funny that they are pulling a "Cover Your **s" move by saying "We thought our info was correct! It was a reliable source!" Why wasn't that explanation good enough when it was President Bush, our Intelligence Agencies, and the WMD's?
. I think this adds to the arguement that the media is decidedly liberal and greedy. Why cram through such a story when the potential for violence is so high? Because it sells, and more criticism can be leveled against current policies. It also has a circulation ripple. Newsweek will sell because of the report, and newspapers will sell filled with stories about the protests and violence. Remember Dan Rather and "The Memo"? Very similar. Here's another log for the fire. Burried in the papers today is a report that a federal jude in Nebraska overturned the states constitutional ban on gay marriage even though it passed by a 70 to 30 popular vote. A judge dictated the constitution over the will of Nebraska residents! Why didn't that get bigger headlines? The fact that the ammendment was on the ballot sure got ink. But to mention the ruling gives credence to the conservative arguement that the courts need to be held in check. That doesn't the same press.
