Koran being flushed story was fake.

[Az]

mommy told me I am human, too.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sikander


It seems quite likely that the person who vetted the story either missed the Koran bit (which was a tiny part of a larger story) or did not know for a fact that it was false (which is understandable as that would be quite difficult to find proof of that). There was some correction of the facts put forth in the advanced copy of the story by this same official, so it's obvious that they didn't simply rubber stamp it. Even a dubious claim could be problematic for the government to complain about if it was difficult to refute. This is an uncomfortable process for both institutions as it tiptoes pretty close to prior restraint even on its better days.

The story was two paragraphs long- how much more could there have been? Also, IIRC, Newsweek did cut out a piece the gov. objected too.

I think it took a while for the government to acertain that the story was weak or false. They certainly stepped up their criticism of the story as Newsweek backed up step by step. It looks to me as if people simply spun the story in the way that best suited their needs based on the information they had available. In other words, business as usual.

Well, the sad part is that now the right-wing spin machine is out there attacking the "liberal media" as always. It does get repetitive.

The fault of Newsweek was using a single anonymous source without getting some form of corraboration. Of course, wasn't that the same way they broke the Lewisnki story?

[Ned]

XXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX TUE MAY 17, 2005 11:01:28 ET XXXXX

NEWSWEEK ISIKOFF TOLD RESIGNATION WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED

**Exclusive**

NEWSWEEK's top executives and editors are standing firm behind reporter Michael Isikoff after the magazine retracted his story that U.S. investigators found evidence interrogators at Guantanamo Bay desecrated the Quran.

"Mike was told he would not be sacrificed, we are standing behind him 100%," a top magazine source told the DRUDGE REPORT. "We do not, I repeat, do not let this White House, any White House, make our staff decisions for us."

The top NEWSWEEK executive claims an emotional Isikoff offered to resign from the magazine over the weekend, in a gesture to cool off the international situation.

Isikoff's Guantanamo article was blamed for inciting riots in the Muslim world, where at least 17 people were killed in the ensuing violence.

MORE

White House staffers suspect Isikoff's source for the Quran report was from congress, not from the administration.

Isikoff said in a published interview Tuesday morning: "Whenever something like this happens, you've got to take stock and review what you did - how the story was handled. The big point that leaps out is the cultural one. Neither NEWSWEEK nor the Pentagon foresaw that a reference to the desecration of the Koran was going to create the kind of response that it did. The Pentagon saw the item before it ran, and then they didn't move us off it for 11 days afterward. They were as caught off guard by the furor as we were. We obviously blame ourselves for not understanding the potential ramifications."

MORE

Meanwhile, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said a retraction was only "a good first step" and said NEWSWEEK should try to set the record straight by "clearly explaining what happened and how they got it wrong, particularly to the Muslim world, and pointing out the policies and practices of our military."

Daniel Klaidman, NEWSWEEK's Washington bureau chief, said Tuesday in an interview on CBS that the magazine will "continue to look at how we put together this story, learn from mistakes that we've made and make improvements that are appropriate as we go along."

Developing...

[Ned]

I agree that Newsweek owes us all an explanation. There is a stink about this that suggests that the origin of the false report was from the Democrats.

[Winston]

It is clear to me they were mostly focused on painting the administration in a bad light, with journalistic principles, including something as trivial as reporting the truth, a very distant second. And then they weren't aware of the backfiring it created.

Reminds me a little of the Guardian's amateur attempts to influence Ohio voters during the election campaign. Some of these people are totally blinded by their hatred of the current administration. At least nobody got killed over that one.

[CharlesBHoff]

Muslim around the world includeing the 10 million in America Muslim donot buy Newweek taken the stroy back. Too many muslim that where release said they saw the Koran flush drown the toil by america military ******* in unfroim..

There are 10 million muslim in America as CAIR did than study
of America Islamist Center Membership in 2000 which show since only 25% of the member show up for firday prayer . So than 7 million to 8 million number is reasoning estimate of Muslim in America. The CIA World Fact Book it complete inaccurate and worthless of Muslim only being 1% of the America Population. USA estimate 3.5 % of the America population is muslim. They did this for thet Tibal Wave story in South Asia. America population is about 298 million people
. While China has a 35% muslim population Muslim woman in China donot have to wear the headscraf or muslim woman clothing to make the Government there happy that there are
hartly any muslim in China, the government there no the truth and allow muslim to workship free unlike the Christian in China who have toublle with the government there.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Winston
It is clear to me they were mostly focused on painting the administration in a bad light, with journalistic principles, including something as trivial as reporting the truth, a very distant second. And then they weren't aware of the backfiring it created.

Reminds me a little of the Guardian's amateur attempts to influence Ohio voters during the election campaign. Some of these people are totally blinded by their hatred of the current administration. At least nobody got killed over that one.

It is although reassuring that such a thing never could happen at this site.

[atawa]

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff
. While China has a 35% muslim population Muslim woman in China donot have to wear the headscraf or muslim woman clothing to make the Government there happy that there are hartly any muslim in China, the government there no the truth and allow muslim to workship free unlike the Christian in China who have toublle with the government there.

Can I have some of that acid?

[atawa]

Originally posted by Winston
It is clear to me they were mostly focused on painting the administration in a bad light, with journalistic principles, including something as trivial as reporting the truth, a very distant second. And then they weren't aware of the backfiring it created.

Reminds me a little of the Guardian's amateur attempts to influence Ohio voters during the election campaign. Some of these people are totally blinded by their hatred of the current administration. At least nobody got killed over that one.

Journalistic principels have nothing to do with it, there is no such thing in modern media.

[Ari Rahikkala]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Just how does one flush a book down a toilet anyway?

You burn it first.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ned
I agree that Newsweek owes us all an explanation. There is a stink about this that suggests that the origin of the false report was from the Democrats.

Classic Nedaverse.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Odin

Originally posted by Ned
I agree that Newsweek owes us all an explanation. There is a stink about this that suggests that the origin of the false report was from the Democrats.

Classic Nedaverse.

Quite agree. This is just common thoughtless journalists eager to see their story on frontpages dreaming wet dreams about pulitzer. Even democrats would know that they would be hurt just as much as Bush.

[Ned]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Classic Nedaverse.

Quite agree. This is just common thoughtless journalists eager to see their story on frontpages dreaming wet dreams about pulitzer. Even democrats would know that they would be hurt just as much as Bush. [/QUOTE]

You guys are sincerely credulous. We still have not heard who crafted the forged documents that Rather used to smear Bush. Could the reason we have not heard be because the truth is embarrassing to the Dems. You can be sure, if it were embarrassing to the Republicans, CBS and its staff would have been all over it.

[chequita guevara]

Let's see, a massive, powerful, corporatoration is secrettly helping the Democrats to sabotage the party that gives back more to corporations . . . why?

[DinoDoc]

Che if we were to believe you, why would CBS have published the false story to begin with or even have all of that contact with the Kerry campaign? That's not to say that Ned isn't full of it cuz I thought the consensus was that the person who gave them the documents forged them.