17 Dead because of liberal media bias (1 Viewer)

[RightinNYC]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/16/international/asia/16koran.html?th&emc=th

Newsweek apologized yesterday for printing a small item on May 9 about reported desecration of the Koran by American guards at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, an item linked to riots in Pakistan and Afghanistan that led to the deaths of at least 17 people. But the magazine, while acknowledging possible errors in the article, stopped short of retracting it.

Newsweek published a false, unverified claim, backed by omission by an "anonymous source," that was the fuel for anti-american riots that left 17 people dead. The irresponsibility of this action boggles my mind. If they hadn't been so quick to jump the gun to tell tales of how horrible the military was treating people in Guantanamo Bay, perhaps those 17 people would still be alive, and sentiment toward the US would be a bit better.

They owe a lot more than their half-assed apology.

 

[shuamort]

Amusingly, the CNN and New York Times take time off of their liberal agendas to bash Newsweek.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Newsweek published a false, unverified claim...

I don't know about how they're rasing you kids these days; but, in my day, this was called lying.
Bias is something more subtle. Maybe this confusion is why so many people have trouble admitting that Team Bush lied abuot the threat ot the Us from Iraq- they think it was just bias.

 

[bellisaurius]

Why doesn't anyone complain if a Blog blows the gun and publishes too quickly? This isn't a conservative or liberal issue. I think this is the way journalism as a whole is going to be operating nowadays since it's so easy to be scooped.

 

[RightinNYC]

Why doesn't anyone complain if a Blog blows the gun and publishes too quickly? This isn't a conservative or liberal issue. I think this is the way journalism as a whole is going to be operating nowadays since it's so easy to be scooped.

Because there aren't tens of thousands of people having violent demonstrations because of claims in blogs.

 

[RightinNYC]

I don't know about how they're rasing you kids these days; but, in my day, this was called lying.
Bias is something more subtle. Maybe this confusion is why so many people have trouble admitting that Team Bush lied abuot the threat ot the Us from Iraq- they think it was just bias.

I don't know how you old fogeys were raised, but I wouldn't necessarily call this lying. I don't think they maliciously created something and put it out there to cause deaths, but rather that they got wind of something that may or may not have been true, and were too eager to publish it because of sensationalism/bias.

 

[RightinNYC]

Amusingly, the CNN and New York Times take time off of their liberal agendas to bash Newsweek.

If you read the Times article, its far more forgiving to Newsweek's error than the facts warrant. No editorial about the need for news organizations to be wary of what they publish, no op-eds about the horrors of this.

I'd say that constitutes bias.

 

[Squawker]

It depends on what side does the story. If this was say, someone like Bob Novak who reported a story, that may or may not have put one life at risk ------ vs -------- a Newsweek report that actually led to 17 deaths. Novak would be tried and hung by his thumbs, and Newsweek would get a pass by Democrats. Funny how that works. :roll:

 

[akyron]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/16/international/asia/16koran.html?th&emc=th



Newsweek published a false, unverified claim, backed by omission by an "anonymous source," that was the fuel for anti-american riots that left 17 people dead. The irresponsibility of this action boggles my mind. If they hadn't been so quick to jump the gun to tell tales of how horrible the military was treating people in Guantanamo Bay, perhaps those 17 people would still be alive, and sentiment toward the US would be a bit better.

So who is really responsible for 17 deaths? Was it media bias or religious fanaticism?

 

[shuamort]

So who is really responsible for 17 deaths? Was it media bias or religious fanaticism?

Can't it be BOTH media error (to be determined if intentionally biased or not) AND relgious fanatacism?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

If this was say, someone like Bob Novak who reported a story, that may or may not have put one life at risk ------ vs -------- a Newsweek report that actually led to 17 deaths. Novak would be tried and hung by his thumbs...

He did publish such a story. I didn't get to see the thumb hanging part yet though.

 

[aquapub]

I have done a great deal of research on the propagandistic DNC regurgitations of print and TV news sources, and in nearly every study I have seen, no matter how you add things up, Newsweek always comes out to be among the top few most biased publications-often out of over a hundred. Now, one of their obscenely slanted stories-this one about American troops desecrating the Koran-has caused deadly international protests and they are finally admitting the story was erroneous. They are claiming it was just a simple matter of trusting the wrong source, but with a track record like theirs of “trusting wrong sources” (and amazingly always trusting wrong sources that are liberal), conservatives are naturally hesitant to buy that this too was a coincidence.

Consider this:

1) Newsweek was the first to catch wind of the Lewinsky scandal, but they buried it. The drudge report later found it and broke the story.

2) Newsweek jumped the gun on the National Guard lie about Bush.

This is only one example of Newsweek's situational ability to apply caution-i.e. ability to show restraint only when breaking a story would hurt liberals, but total inability to show restraint when breaking a story would hurt America/conservatives.

There are many more.

 

[ShamMol]

Because there aren't tens of thousands of people having violent demonstrations because of claims in blogs.

These claims have been made time and time again by detainees. This is nothing new. It is just the fact that protests have started over this instance that has people pissed. How is this liberal bias? Because it went against the administration? Is that it? Did it ever occur to you that they may have just jumped the gun on reporting so to beat the other news places out of a story. That happens in journalism and I think that is what happened here.

 

[IndependentTexan]

you know...i remember when FOX in the 2000 election posted that bush had won when it had not been official...republicans raised hell about the recount and Bush won.....liberal or republican, we both make mistakes...really what does being liberal have anything to do with this? what happened was that the media is in competition with each other and will manly show anything even if their not substantiated. It's all about the ratings...

 

[ShamMol]

you know...i remember when FOX in the 2000 election posted that bush had won when it had not been official...republicans raised hell about the recount and Bush won.....liberal or republican, we both make mistakes...really what does being liberal have anything to do with this? what happened was that the media is in competition with each other and will manly show anything even if their not substantiated. It's all about the ratings...

I mean, most people think that Rather was and so forth, but honestly, it is about who gets the press and ratings for getting it out there first. It is about journalistic competition, not liberalness or conservativeness.

 

[akyron]

It is about journalistic competition, not liberalness or conservativeness.

Competition is certainly a factor but the slant is determined by these people as well and cannot be discounted so easily.

 

[ShamMol]

Competition is certainly a factor but the slant is determined by these people as well and cannot be discounted so easily.

Yeah, I will say it again. The only bias is that it goes against the administration's wishes, right? Cause otherwise, there is none. If you think that is bias, go back to the days of Woodward, go back then. Was investigating Nixon biased action by the press? No! They tried to do the same here, failed and it is a big mess cause they wanted to get the story out first before all the big news organizations got wind of it and stole their glory. That is why Rather did it, that is why the vast majority, not all, the vast majority put out semi-sunstantiated stories without fully investigating-to beat the other guys to the punch. So, if investigating and putting out information is bias because it may be anti-administration, then the news is shot to hell.

 

[RightinNYC]

These claims have been made time and time again by detainees. This is nothing new. It is just the fact that protests have started over this instance that has people pissed. How is this liberal bias? Because it went against the administration? Is that it? Did it ever occur to you that they may have just jumped the gun on reporting so to beat the other news places out of a story. That happens in journalism and I think that is what happened here.

Those claims have been made time and time again, you're right.

But Newsweek claimed they were fact, citing an unnamed source, who, as it turned out, didn't even tell Newsweek what they attributed to him.

So it wasn't just "jumping the gun," they actually put words in the mouth of an unnamed source, in order to make a story. And looking at their track record, and the slant of the story, it's not unimaginable to believe that the implications of this story spurred on their decision.

And that in and of itself, places responsibility for the 17 deaths partially on Newsweeks shoulders.

 

[RightinNYC]

Yeah, I will say it again. The only bias is that it goes against the administration's wishes, right? Cause otherwise, there is none. If you think that is bias, go back to the days of Woodward, go back then. Was investigating Nixon biased action by the press? No! They tried to do the same here, failed and it is a big mess cause they wanted to get the story out first before all the big news organizations got wind of it and stole their glory. That is why Rather did it, that is why the vast majority, not all, the vast majority put out semi-sunstantiated stories without fully investigating-to beat the other guys to the punch. So, if investigating and putting out information is bias because it may be anti-administration, then the news is shot to hell.

You seem to be more worried about the right of the news to be uniformly anti-administration than you are about the news's duty to be CORRECT.

I don't give a damn if every single media source out there dedicates all its resources toward bringing down the administration. But I DO care when they make up stories to do the same thing that stories based in fact can't.

The anti-administration attitude is prevalent in every administration, but only under the Bush administration has the media taken such a no-holds-barred, "make up whatever we can to get him out" attitude. CNN/NBC/CBS didn't spread lies about Clinton, in fact they went out of their way to cover for him.

 

[ShamMol]

Those claims have been made time and time again, you're right.

But Newsweek claimed they were fact, citing an unnamed source, who, as it turned out, didn't even tell Newsweek what they attributed to him.

So it wasn't just "jumping the gun," they actually put words in the mouth of an unnamed source, in order to make a story. And looking at their track record, and the slant of the story, it's not unimaginable to believe that the implications of this story spurred on their decision.

And that in and of itself, places responsibility for the 17 deaths partially on Newsweeks shoulders.

The slant of the story? Just because it went against the administration's wishes? Is that considered bias nowadays? I never knew that, thank you for clearing it up for me.

Who broke the watergate scandal? A couple of reporters with an unamed source. What happened here? Well, watergate didn't happen when there was actual investigating. What happened here was taking a source with not enough investigation and putting it out there in a very small article (it was quite small in fact) so that they would be the first out. Notice that they were indeed the first out with this.

They found out they were wrong, and they are indirectly responsible for the deaths, but that doesn't mean that they are slanted to the left. Are they slanted to the left because they went agaisnt the administration? Where would the best journalism be without reporting against the administration? It is not unimaginable that there is a possible slant, but there is absolutely no proof of it and most likely is just them trying to get the story out there. You see that time and time again where there is no bias whatsoever, this is just another case.

 

[ShamMol]

You seem to be more worried about the right of the news to be uniformly anti-administration than you are about the news's duty to be CORRECT.

I don't give a damn if every single media source out there dedicates all its resources toward bringing down the administration. But I DO care when they make up stories to do the same thing that stories based in fact can't.

The anti-administration attitude is prevalent in every administration, but only under the Bush administration has the media taken such a no-holds-barred, "make up whatever we can to get him out" attitude. CNN/NBC/CBS didn't spread lies about Clinton, in fact they went out of their way to cover for him.

Based in fact? Is this entire story not based on all the rumors, all the rumblings of the lawyers in addition to a misquote (btw, papers misquote all the time if you didn't know)? This is completely based in fact if you want to look at it. You have women coming into cells rubbing themselves onto the prisoners in Gitmo, you have them touching themselves, you have reports of them humiliating the muslim religion, and even reports by lawyers for the prisoners of the quaran being tarnished. That doesn't seem like it isn't based in fact. That seems like it is clearly based on all the rumblings.

CNN and all those people went out of their way to cover for him...well, I don't know about that, and it seems that would be entirely based on the person's opinion, but I wasn't into politics then so I won't debate that except for one point-the media was focused in on it. If the media is focused in a problem, the truth comes out, and it did.

Newsweek thought they were correct, they found out they weren't, they retracted, but it still remains that there is basis in fact for all the claims that are made by these prisoners at Gitmo. And the tarnishing of the quaran is just one of those many claims based in fact.

I won't defend what Newsweek did, they did something wrong, they just tried to rectify it and will likely face a suit by the families who lost loved ones in the Middle East. They will pay and pay dearly, especially in subscriptions most likely. But just because they were wrong does not mean they are liberally biased (in fact of the two main ones, time and newsweek, they are the more moderate of the two). There was no media bias here, just people with wrong facts and a wrong attitude towards journalism, of trying to beat the competition at the detraction of the viewers and readers.

Oh, and by the way RNYU, I could care less whether my media is liberal or not. I am just defending them because they aren't liberal for publishing a story due to journalistic misconduct and there is no evidence whatsoever that they have a liberal bias. I repeat again, just because it is anti-administration, that does not make it liberal. Would you call Bob Woodward a liberal? I think not. I think you call him a patriot, as good journalists, which these idiots who published the piece were not, are.

 

[RightinNYC]

The slant of the story? Just because it went against the administration's wishes? Is that considered bias nowadays? I never knew that, thank you for clearing it up for me.

Who broke the watergate scandal? A couple of reporters with an unamed source. What happened here? Well, watergate didn't happen when there was actual investigating. What happened here was taking a source with not enough investigation and putting it out there in a very small article (it was quite small in fact) so that they would be the first out. Notice that they were indeed the first out with this.

They found out they were wrong, and they are indirectly responsible for the deaths, but that doesn't mean that they are slanted to the left. Are they slanted to the left because they went agaisnt the administration? Where would the best journalism be without reporting against the administration? It is not unimaginable that there is a possible slant, but there is absolutely no proof of it and most likely is just them trying to get the story out there. You see that time and time again where there is no bias whatsoever, this is just another case.

My point is that this is simply ANOTHER example of a time when a story that just happened to be harmful to a Republican was rushed out of the door with poor and made-up facts, and was exposed.

You claim this happens all the time, which is true. However I would contend that this happens FAR more with conservatives than liberals, which IS a systemic problem of bias.

 

[RightinNYC]

Based in fact? Is this entire story not based on all the rumors, all the rumblings of the lawyers in addition to a misquote (btw, papers misquote all the time if you didn't know)? This is completely based in fact if you want to look at it. You have women coming into cells rubbing themselves onto the prisoners in Gitmo, you have them touching themselves, you have reports of them humiliating the muslim religion, and even reports by lawyers for the prisoners of the quaran being tarnished. That doesn't seem like it isn't based in fact. That seems like it is clearly based on all the rumblings.

CNN and all those people went out of their way to cover for him...well, I don't know about that, and it seems that would be entirely based on the person's opinion, but I wasn't into politics then so I won't debate that except for one point-the media was focused in on it. If the media is focused in a problem, the truth comes out, and it did.

Newsweek thought they were correct, they found out they weren't, they retracted, but it still remains that there is basis in fact for all the claims that are made by these prisoners at Gitmo. And the tarnishing of the quaran is just one of those many claims based in fact.

I won't defend what Newsweek did, they did something wrong, they just tried to rectify it and will likely face a suit by the families who lost loved ones in the Middle East. They will pay and pay dearly, especially in subscriptions most likely. But just because they were wrong does not mean they are liberally biased (in fact of the two main ones, time and newsweek, they are the more moderate of the two). There was no media bias here, just people with wrong facts and a wrong attitude towards journalism, of trying to beat the competition at the detraction of the viewers and readers.

Oh, and by the way RNYU, I could care less whether my media is liberal or not. I am just defending them because they aren't liberal for publishing a story due to journalistic misconduct and there is no evidence whatsoever that they have a liberal bias. I repeat again, just because it is anti-administration, that does not make it liberal. Would you call Bob Woodward a liberal? I think not. I think you call him a patriot, as good journalists, which these idiots who published the piece were not, are.

You're misunderstanding my argument. I'm not saying Newsweek is liberally biased because they published this story, I'm saying they're liberally biased in general, and that had a hand in why they published this story. I'm not saying that by being anti-administration, they're liberal, but rather that they're less anti-administration when the administration is liberal.

As someone kindly pointed out up in this thread, Newsweek is consistently rated as one of the most liberal magazines available.

Your claims of other abuses are just that: Claims. As of yet, there has been no verification, and they have only been reported in the media as claims, which is fine. Until now, when NW took it upon themselves to create a scenario.

This wasn't simply a misquote, this was a smear.

When CNN and all them finally attached themselves to the Clinton mess, that was only because their hand was forced by alternative media. NW went ahead and did this on their own.

New bumper sticker I'd love to see:

When Newsweek lied, people died.

 

[akyron]

My point is that this is simply ANOTHER example of a time when a story that just happened to be harmful to a Republican was rushed out of the door with poor and made-up facts, and was exposed.

You claim this happens all the time, which is true. However I would contend that this happens FAR more with conservatives than liberals, which IS a systemic problem of bias.

I would contend this happens far more on the left because there are far more liberal platforms to shoot from.


Newsweek Retracts Quran Desecration Story

People were killed as a result of this particular story whether you attribute it to irresponsible media practices or more wacky religious nuttiness.

It could be argued this massive liberal bias we are bombarded with generates more benefit for the right than not given people become tired and bored with the same political rhetoric. Look at the state of the democratic party and its decline over the last decade for example.

 

[Squawker]

The media has never been challenged as they are today. They are operating as usual, and getting caught every time. This case is very bad not only because people died, but it is a total fabrication. I don't think an apology is enough, they should at least get a fine for spreading manure in a foreign country.

May 17, 12:19 PM (ET)
By STEPHEN GRAHAM

Pakistan joined the international criticism of the magazine's article and said Newsweek's apology and retraction were "not enough."
The article, published in Newsweek's May 9 edition, said U.S. investigators found evidence that interrogators at the military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, put copies of Islam's holy book in washrooms and flushed one book down the toilet to try to get inmates to talk.
The article sparked protests in several other Muslim countries.
-snip-
Pakistani officials also expressed anger that the magazine got its story wrong.
"Just an apology is not enough. They should think 101 times before publishing news that hurts hearts," Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed said in Islamabad.

Source