Boycott Newsweek

[Dru]

Boycott Newsweasels

[Jim]

Manipulation of the press occurs every day. The best example is in the White House press room. Ask a few hardball questions and you'll get sent to the back of the room with the Kansas City Herald, not get invited to have chats on AF1, and generally loose access. Unless the government provides a comment or "undisclosed" source of the story - there is no story. The prisioner abuse at Abu Graib was a classic. A number of independent journalists had published articles but the mainstream press and wire services bascially ignored it until "undisclosed sources" at the Pentagon confirmed it. The level of unaltered government drivel that the press puts forth as news is nothing short of astonishing. It's sad when one of the few good news shows is on Comedy Centra.

 

Mainstream reporters learn early how the game is played, and play along to further their careers. Keep your head low, don't step on toes, and maybe you'll get that coveted White House press pass. Unless your a gay, right-wing, call guy - then you get put to the front of the line.

[JayB]

The proof is in the pudding, JayB. In this morning's newspaper, a letter to the editor noted that this event is just like the Dan Rather memo, and the press obviously can't get it right. Our own Fairweather and PP seem confused by all of this, too. The fact is that the the White House has managed to make Newsweek's use of a single unnamed source into justification for condemning Newsweek for publishing a small statement that is in all probability true, and which they first asked the Military to correct for them if it was not true. Masterful.

 

Your second point is a red herring. You seem to be suggesting that if they could manipulate the press, we would never see in the newspaper that there were no weapons of mass destruction. It's a matter of degree. They haven't been able to squelch the story, but they have certainly spun public attention away from it and we see very little discussion of the Blair memo, either.

 

Many Americans are still bent out of shape over the fact that Clinton lied about a blow job, whereas the Bush administration has spun things so that people like you don't seem to care that we were lied to about everything that actually matters about this war.

 

Similarly, have you forgotten that the Vice President straight out lied in the election debate when he looked straight at the camera and said he never promoted the idea that Iraqi ability to attack the U.S. constituted an imminent threat? I couldn't believe my ears when I heard him say that -- because he had been the administration's "front man" on this point and had talked about how proof of the weapons might come in the form of a mushroom cloud over Manhattan and stuff like that. But the press hardly said "boo." Maybe you are right - maybe if they challenged the administration they could have won a pulitzer. But for some strange reason, we didn't seem much talk in the press about how this was a blatant lie.

 

In a similar fashion, Bush's team was not able to squelch the story that he was awol, but they certainly manipulated that story as a tool to take down Dan Rather and lead the public to increase their ability to spin the news.

 

 

But Matt - a letter to the editor from Joe Blow in Topeka is one thing, and concrete evidence that the administration coerced Newsweek into retracting a story that they didn't like, despite the said periodical having ironclad evidence to support their claims, is quite another.

 

My second point is hardly a red-herring if the specific question is whether or not the adminstration has the capability to squelch stories that they don't like by threatening the news organizations that report them. If that was the case, I doubt that we would have ever seen or heard anything concerning the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, which, to the best of my understanding - were unearthed and investigated by the armed forces long before the press got ahold of them. Again - if there were a story that the administration would want to squelch, this would be it.

 

Your main point actually seems to be that the administration will spin press blunders to its own advantage when someone uncovers problems with the evidence used to support the specific claims in the story, to which my response is "Yes, and..."

 

The "and" in this case, seems to be that the public doesn't seem quite as riled up about these things as people who passionately despise the administration and all that it stands for. Again - I'm left asking - "where's the story here?" Seems like the late Kathering Mackinnon being beside herself when she discovers that the mechanics in the garage down the street don't find strip shows qutie as offensive as she does.

[mattp]

After I said that we might see similarly violent reactions here if the shoe were on the other foot -- for example if we saw news casts showing some rogue village in Aghanistan protesting American presence by wiping their butts with the flat -- and I said this would not come in the form of riots but maybe calls for a bomb to strike that village or retaliation against local Moslems,

 

KK wrote:

What a crock of shit. That just isn't happening - nor will it.

 

John Glenn testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1999 that flag burning can stimulate a violent reaction.

 

After September 11, somebody tried to set fire to a mosque in Seattle.

 

After the Faluja hanging photo was published, some right wingers were calling for massive retaliation.

 

What makes you so sure this would never happen?

[chucK]

I agree with JayB here. There's nothing new about a White House using its bully pulpit. They get a juicy one like this, they're gonna use it to their advantage. These guys play for keeps. We (the opposition) just gotta hope that the press plays hard too.

 

It all depends on your POV. The right-wing nutcases are gonna gobble this up and indignantly blame Newsweek for all that's wrong in the world. The wacko lefties are gonna be pissed that the politicians in power are being hypocritical .

 

I am a bit confused by everyone (even the lefties) saying that Newsweek bungled. They sent this to the military first for comment ferchristssake! Definitely seems less shoddy than Rathergate.

[chucK]

Calling an entire religion nutty because of riots and protests over desecration of their sacred book seems a bit farfetched coming from somebody who supports an invasion based on false pretenses that has killed more than 100,000 people!

[j_b]

this entire episode is a farce and most everyone knows it. newsweek isn't responsible for muslim anger at the US. isikoff, one of the writers of the story, is in fact one of the main pundits who amplified the 8-year long anti-clinton media onslaught (much of it unsubstantiated smears). newsweek is certainly not "liberal" as was shown ~3 weeks ago when they had coulter on the front cover and, in the main feature, whitewashed her repeated lying and calls to violence against liberals.

 

i'd like also to remind people that the Rather-episode memo hasn't been established to be forged, including by the commission that "investigated" the fiasco. 'small' detail, i guess.

[mattp]

Yes, all administrations work to control the press and that is part of their job. However, this administration has proven obsessed with it and they are masters at it.

 

Can I "prove" that the White House controls media stories more than they should? No. The call as to whether it is "more than they should" is value driven.

 

Jay may like it when they take a story about how the U.S. is mistreating prisoners and spin it so we are mostly arguing about whether Newsweek was not careful in their reporting. Maybe he thinks it is pretty cool that they took down Dan Rather over publishing a story that was in fact true, and he doesn't mind that they had the press sufficiently intimidated that nobody much made noise about the Vice President's blatant lie in a nationally televised election debate. But his assertion that if they had the truth on their side, Newsweek or any other reporter would fight back and win a Pulitzer for it is just not supported by the last 5 years' history.

 

Jay argues that if they could control the press we would know nothing about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction or we would never have heard about prisoner abuse. Seemingly, he says that it is all or nothing.

[JayB]

Value judgements aside, wasn't your specific claim that in this case the administration was - literally - forcing Newsweek to retract a claim that they had irrefutable evidence to support? I was just asking what factual evidence there was to support such a claim, and went on to argue that if they were posessed of such power there were other, more significant stories they would have used the said power to repress long before this story ever broke. I also argued that the claim that any administration has, or has ever had, effective control of the press is not consistent with history.

 

Also - with respect to the stories that you cited - the very fact that you - as an average citizen with no special connections -know of them suggests that they did, in fact, receive sufficient coverage for the average citizen to be fully aware of them. It further suggests that your fellow citizens have also followed these stories, but that their knowledge of them hasn't quite aroused the same level of outrage amongst them as it has in you , because their politics are different than your own.

[mattp]

Jay, you argue that I haven't proved that Newsweek has retracted the story due to political pressure from the Administration, and you are correct. I have not. However, they retracted their story after the Administration demanded they do so and I have not seen you or anybody else suggest any other reason why they are retracting it.

 

General Meyers said the violence in Afghanistant was NOT (read again NOT) caused by that story and the idea that this one line in the Newsweek makes us look any worse than we already did, after all the last two years' stories about prisoner abuse and all the high level rhetoric about Moslem extremists, and the president's even saying we were on a "crusade," seems kind of silly. However, the Administration clearly said they needed to see this story retracted, and it quickly got retracted.

 

As to what the average citizen knows, you apparently have not read any of the myriad news stories about how uninformed the American public is. Most of us cannot even put Iraq on the map - in fact a large number cannot even put America on the map. Many or most think weapons of mass destruction WERE found and that Saddam DID perpetrate the Trade Center attacks.

 

I'm not saying that the Administration has forced the press to put these mis-statements in their headlines, but the degree of public misunderstanding of history, and the manner in which this administration successfully and so easily re-writes history every day (like their denying they said there was an immminent threat) and puts such a spin on everything is nothing short of astonishing.

Edited May 18, 2005 by mattp

[j_b]

I also argued that the claim that any administration has, or has ever had, effective control of the press is not consistent with history.

 

effective control we currently have, complete control we don't have and it's, in fact, not necessary.

 

Also - with respect to the stories that you cited - the very fact that you - as an average citizen with no special connections -know of them suggests that they did, in fact, receive sufficient coverage for the average citizen to be fully aware of them. It further suggests that your fellow citizens have also followed these stories, but that their knowledge of them hasn't quite aroused the same level of outrage amongst them as it has in you , because their politics are different than your own.

 

so are you saying that bush supporters are in denial?

 

This tendency of Bush supporters to ignore dissonant information extends to other realms as well.

[Peter_Puget]

What are you saying in either one of these posts, PP?

 

(1) that the White house says this "wouldn't" happen because it is not our policy?

(2) that you think somewhere they have actually said that the "unnamed source" was incorrect?

 

Try again.

 

 

Matt - it was a simple question: what facts were disputed? What exactly was retracted. That you choose not to answer this and instead obscure the issue at hand in fact quite telling. You even bring in poor Mr. Rather and again miss the point regarding him. He simply failed to meet journalisitc standards and when he got caught he refused to step up to the plate and admit his error. Whether or not Bush evaded in duties as a memeber of the NG is simply besides the point. I think you know that. Making claims about Bush's behavior is I guess a sideways admission that Rather was not up to snuff. The same can be said for Newsweek.

 

For Newsweek it is simply a case of: Newsweek asserted P. Their attempts at confirmation yielded ~P and Null. They then concluded P. From a standpoint of logic their conclusion was simply wrong.

 

Here is what appeared in the Washington Post:

link

"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," Newsweek Editor Mark Whitaker wrote in a note to readers. In an issue dated May 9, the magazine reported that U.S. military investigators had found evidence that interrogators placed copies of Islam's holy book in washrooms and had flushed one down the toilet to get inmates to talk.

 

Whitaker wrote that the magazine's information came from "a knowledgeable U.S. government source," and before publishing the item, writers Michael Isikoff and John Barry sought comment from two Defense Department officials. One declined to respond, and the other challenged another part of the story but did not dispute the Quran charge, Whitaker said.

 

But on Friday, a top Pentagon spokesman told the magazine that a review of the military's investigation concluded "it was never meant to look into charges of Quran desecration. The spokesman also said the Pentagon had investigated other desecration charges by detainees and found them 'not credible.'" Also, Whitaker added, the magazine's original source later said he could not be sure he read about the alleged Quran incident in the report Newsweek cited, and that it might have been in another document.

 

 

 

The answer to my earlier question regarding Deep Throat is I believe that they did not rely soley on Deep Throat. Thus there appears to be a change in journalistic standards. This change is proabaly the result of several things not the least of which is asense of desperation on the part of the MSN - really left in general.

 

PP

[Stonehead]

What a classic 'pot calling the tea kettle black' (not you PP, but Bush Administration)

 

One word: Curveball

[markinore]

Let's see if the White House and its supporters express one tenth as much outrage over the murder of prisoners as it does over a goddamn magazine article.

 

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/225135_abuse20.html

[mattp]

PP,

 

I'm not falling for that one. If you read the thread, and if you've read the newspaper, you'll see that we're talking about a Newsweek report that an interrogator flushed a Koran down the toilet in an attempt to rile a prisoner. As you already know, the "retraction" was rather vague, and as I've pointed out (I think twice already), nobody in the Military or in the Administration denies that a Koran ever got flushed down the toilet. What they say is that "we've heard these complaints several times before, and we find no proof that it ever happened."

 

You'd have me chasing my own tail, debating the "facts" when we really don't have any "facts" except these:

 

1. Newsweek prepares a story that contains lots of information along with a short reference to a line in an upcoming report about Koran being flushed down the toilet.

 

2. Newsweek names an "unnamed military source" as confirming this.

 

3. Newsweek sends the article to the Military for comment or correction.

 

4. The Military does not comment on or correct this item.

 

5. Roitting occurs in Afghanistan.

 

6. The Administration blames the riots on the Newsweek piece even though the military commanders in Afghanistan clearly say the riots were NOT caused by a reaction to that piece.

 

7. The Administration beats their drum about how everybody should rally against Newsweek.

 

8. Newsweek offers the "retraction," in effect falling on their sword - albiet a weak retraction, but a damaging one never-the-less.

 

9. Peter Puget and others on cascadeclimbers.com are confused by all of this and somehow think that the story here is about Newsweek'd violation of journalistic standards.

[Jim]

Right on Matt. The discouraging part is that the simple minded press, and the public just nod along at the political theater.

[Peter_Puget]

I must say that I haven't read this post since I lasted posted - - Science to the rescue!

 

LINK

[mattp]

[Peter_Puget]

By the way Matt I just spent a bunch of time writing a devastating rejoinder and lost the whole post !

 

Never hit the back button!!!!

[Dechristo]

It's sad when one of the few good news shows is on Comedy Centra.

 

Don't discount the powerful influence upon the masses of satirical political barbs sharpened by wry wit; for centuries, it has been the subtle impetus of change.

[Peter_Puget]

PP,

 

I'm not falling for that one. If you read the thread, and if you've read the newspaper, you'll see that we're talking about a Newsweek report that an interrogator flushed a Koran down the toilet in an attempt to rile a prisoner. As you already know, the "retraction" was rather vague, and as I've pointed out (I think twice already), nobody in the Military or in the Administration denies that a Koran ever got flushed down the toilet. What they say is that "we've heard these complaints several times before, and we find no proof that it ever happened."

 

You'd have me chasing my own tail, debating the "facts" when we really don't have any "facts" except these:

 

1. Newsweek prepares a story that contains lots of information along with a short reference to a line in an upcoming report about Koran being flushed down the toilet.

 

2. Newsweek names an "unnamed military source" as confirming this.

 

3. Newsweek sends the article to the Military for comment or correction.

 

4. The Military does not comment on or correct this item.

 

5. Roitting occurs in Afghanistan.

 

6. The Administration blames the riots on the Newsweek piece even though the military commanders in Afghanistan clearly say the riots were NOT caused by a reaction to that piece.

 

7. The Administration beats their drum about how everybody should rally against Newsweek.

 

8. Newsweek offers the "retraction," in effect falling on their sword - albiet a weak retraction, but a damaging one never-the-less.

 

9. Peter Puget and others on cascadeclimbers.com are confused by all of this and somehow think that the story here is about Newsweek'd violation of journalistic standards.

 

 

 

Now Matt you’re cracking me up. First I never challenged any of your facts. I simply asked that you layout the facts that you are arguing about. I just wanted all of us to be on the same page. That you consider this to be debating the facts is simply silly.

 

 

Here by the way is the Washington Post:

"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," Newsweek Editor Mark Whitaker wrote in a note to readers. In an issue dated May 9, the magazine reported that U.S. military investigators had found evidence that interrogators placed copies of Islam's holy book in washrooms and had flushed one down the toilet to get inmates to talk.

Whitaker wrote that the magazine's information came from "a knowledgeable U.S. government source," and before publishing the item, writers Michael Isikoff and John Barry sought comment from two Defense Department officials. One declined to respond, and the other challenged another part of the story but did not dispute the Quran charge, Whitaker said.

But on Friday, a top Pentagon spokesman told the magazine that a review of the military's investigation concluded "it was never meant to look into charges of Quran desecration. The spokesman also said the Pentagon had investigated other desecration charges by detainees and found them 'not credible.'" Also, Whitaker added, the magazine's original source later said he could not be sure he read about the alleged Quran incident in the report Newsweek cited, and that it might have been in another document.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/15/AR2005051500605.html

 

Now here is eactly why I asked you to layout the facts ==>you seem to express them in a confused manner.

In your first paragraph you seem to suggest that the issue is whether the Koran got flushed down the toilet. The question is really about whether a US Government report found evidence of it. This is the claim of the Newsweek story. This is consistent with the US reply (that you for some reason consider fishy), the Newsweek retraction and your item #1. You simply appear to be confused. Asking for clarification is not debating or getting you to chase your tail.

 

Nice list however you are missing one important fact disclosed in the Newsweek retraction. Namely their original secret source is now backing away from his/her claim. Also items 5-9 have nothing to do with my criticism of Newsweek. Newsweek simply published a story without adequate support. The same organization in the past (Watergate is my example) chose not to publish stories without additional corroboration. There is a decline in standards.

 

With regard to your item #6 – you again appear confused. The Koran story may not have started the riots but it may have turned a more controlled demonstration into a much more deadly and destructive event.

[olyclimber]

I'm glad you guys have this shit all figured out. I expect a three sentence memo summarizing all points on my desk by Monday.

[cj001f]

I'm glad you guys have this shit all figured out. I expect a three sentence memo summarizing all points on my desk by Monday.

Who elected you president?

[olyclimber]

It's quite simple, actually. My deity did.

[foraker]

Meanwhile, our friends the Saudis have been busy....