Irresponsible Journalism

[Rex Kickass]

Half indignant is a hell of a lot better than rioting and killing people.  You may remember the incident a while back with the so-called piece of art by Andres Serrano’s called Piss Christ, which was a crucifix in a jar of urine and blood.  While there were shouts of protest from all the religious groups, I don't recall any riots.  In fact, there seemed to be lots of liberals defending this artists 'right' to create such a piece.  Maybe the people who supposedly flushed the Koran down the toilet should have applied for a NEA grant.  They could have called it performance art.

 

Hey, way to compare art to an interrogation.

[Rex Kickass]

No, it was Saddam's fault for not allowing UN weapons inspectors to do their jobs.

 

Or maybe our fault for not listening to a lot of our own intelligence. But that's neither here nor there. There was more than enough information out there, not being reported in the US mainstream media, that threw that issue's credibility into question. They chose, irresponsibly, to not report it. If it had been reported, the battle over Iraq may have been fought differently or not at all. Does that make them responsible for the deaths of 1500+ soldiers?

[southsider2k5]

Last time I checked, Newsweek is not state run radio. If you blame the deaths of a dozen Afghanis who probably don't know what Newsweek is on Newsweek, does that mean any media that reports on abortion clinics is indirectly responsible for the bombing of a clinic because if the news wasn't reported, maybe that assclown that bombed the place wouldn't be so upset?

 

If the information isnt' right, does it matter who reported it?

[Rex Kickass]

And the liberal media has an interest in doing anything to bring down the Bush administration.  Hell, they've already been caught reporting a fabricated story (Memogate).  Why should we assume that Newsweek's story is legitimate?

 

Actually, the story on the Bush guard story was mostly accurate. The documents were forgeries, but it did not alter the crux of the story.

 

But lets look in depth at this issue shall we?

 

Newsweek said that an internal military investigation was "expected" to find Quran abuse at Gitmo. It cited an anonymous source who has since backed away from his allegation.

 

However, a former translator at the camp, made similar charges in a book published this year where he talks about the same thing.

 

Gitmo detainees have also filed suit in US Court alleging the SAME thing in October 2004. This is not a new story.

 

And this involves an investigation over irregularities and abuses taking place at a Prison Camp run by the US military where the evidence is showing a systemic pattern of abuse that is pretty much being acknowledged when hundreds of the people being held there have had nothing to do with Terrorism and had been held there months, and in some cases years, after the US military determined these individuals to be neither a past or future threat.

 

Here's a great quote from our Secretary of Defense.

People need to be very careful about what they say, just as they need to be careful about what they do.

 

He said that today. Maybe the President should have taken his advice two years ago when he told possible Iraqi terrorists

Bring it on.

 

I guess my point here is, I don't defend Newsweek for what they did. But I will say that to blame Newsweek for the death of rioters in Afghanistan for a small article in the front section of the magazine is irresponsible in its own right.

[southsider2k5]

Actually, the story on the Bush guard story was mostly accurate. The documents were forgeries, but it did not alter the crux of the story.

 

But lets look in depth at this issue shall we?

 

Newsweek said that an internal military investigation was "expected" to find Quran abuse at Gitmo. It cited an anonymous source who has since backed away from his allegation.

 

However, a former translator at the camp, made similar charges in a book published this year where he talks about the same thing.

 

Gitmo detainees have also filed suit in US Court alleging the SAME thing in October 2004. This is not a new story.

 

And this involves an investigation over irregularities and abuses taking place at a Prison Camp run by the US military where the evidence is showing a systemic pattern of abuse that is pretty much being acknowledged when hundreds of the people being held there have had nothing to do with Terrorism and had been held there months, and in some cases years, after the US military determined these individuals to be neither a past or future threat.

 

Here's a great quote from our Secretary of Defense.

He said that today. Maybe the President should have taken his advice two years ago when he told possible Iraqi terrorists

I guess my point here is, I don't defend Newsweek for what they did. But I will say that to blame Newsweek for the death of rioters in Afghanistan for a small article in the front section of the magazine is irresponsible in its own right.

 

Where does their responsibility for accuracy begin?

[Rex Kickass]

Not at the lives of 15 people half a world away.

[TheBigHurt35]

Or maybe our fault for not listening to a lot of our own intelligence. But that's neither here nor there. There was more than enough information out there, not being reported in the US mainstream media, that threw that issue's credibility into question. They chose, irresponsibly, to not report it. If it had been reported, the battle over Iraq may have been fought differently or not at all. Does that make them responsible for the deaths of 1500+ soldiers?

 

If Saddam didn't have WMDs, why did he go to such great lengths to keep weapons inspectors out of certain locations? That's not how an innocent man acts. Especially someone who has not only posessed said weapons in the past, but used them on his own people.

 

I have no problem accepting the fact that the WMDs were never there. Then again, Saddam's actions suggest otherwise. Perhaps he covertly shipped them to Syria or destroyed them before the invasion? He had ample time to do so. We may never know the truth.

 

BTW, I wonder how many innocent Iraqis were murdered by Saddam's regime. I'll bet it was a lot more than 1,500. IMO, that alone provides ample justification for a regime change.

[kapkomet]

If Saddam didn't have WMDs, why did he go to such great lengths to keep weapons inspectors out of certain locations?  That's not how an innocent man acts.  Especially someone who has not only posessed said weapons in the past, but used them on his own people.

 

I have no problem accepting the fact that the WMDs were never there.  Then again, Saddam's actions suggest otherwise.  Perhaps he covertly shipped them to Syria or destroyed them before the invasion?  He had ample time to do so.  We may never know the truth.

 

BTW, I wonder how many innocent Iraqis were murdered by Saddam's regime.  I'll bet it was a lot more than 1,500.  IMO, that alone provides ample justification for a regime change.

 

If you're going to open that can of worms, Mr. Hannity and Mr. Limbaugh, er, I mean, BigHurt, then what about Rwanda and Somolia and everywhere else on the planet genocide occurs? Why Iraq? (gee, I wonder - and NO, it's not oil).

[KipWellsFan]

If you're going to open that can of worms, Mr. Hannity and Mr. Limbaugh, er, I mean, BigHurt, then what about Rwanda and Somolia and everywhere else on the planet genocide occurs?  Why Iraq?  (gee, I wonder - and NO, it's not oil).

 

Yasny made a great point post about this in a past thread. Simply to say that the US Forces invaded Iraq because Saddam was an mf'er is ignorant.

[Rex Kickass]

You know what concerns me? We're blaming Newsweek for the Pakistani government opening fire on Afghani protesters.

 

Last year, the Bush administration was releasing oppo research on journalists, not Kerry or his surrogates. Now they're all but charging Isikoff with murder because he made the error of assuming something in a government report because of his sources. Polls are being issued asking if Newsweek should be shut down.

 

What does it say about this country that we're talking about shutting down media instead of protecting its freedom?

[Texsox]

If Saddam didn't have WMDs, why did he go to such great lengths to keep weapons inspectors out of certain locations?  That's not how an innocent man acts.  Especially someone who has not only posessed said weapons in the past, but used them on his own people.

 

Saddam kept power and kept his neighbors at bey, by them believing he was more powerful than he was. If Iraq thought that Kuwait had WMD to retaliate with, they probably would not have evaded the first time. This is not the most civilized corner of the world. Being the mouse that roared, hinting at WMD, are all great ploys to increase your power and prestige in those circles.

 

But didn't he also say towards the end/beginning that he had no WMD? I believe Dubya termed it too little, too late.

[kapkomet]

You know what concerns me? We're blaming Newsweek for the Pakistani government opening fire on Afghani protesters.

 

Last year, the Bush administration was releasing oppo research on journalists, not Kerry or his surrogates. Now they're all but charging Isikoff with murder because he made the error of assuming something in a government report because of his sources. Polls are being issued asking if Newsweek should be shut down.

 

What does it say about this country that we're talking about shutting down media instead of protecting its freedom?

 

I understand your premise, and no, they shouldn't be shut down, but on the other hand, where's the accountability to get it right?

[Texsox]

I understand your premise, and no, they shouldn't be shut down, but on the other hand, where's the accountability to get it right?

 

We live in an imperfect society. We have a legal system that is built to be 100% certain than an innocent person is not convicted and some guilty go free. cough*OJ*cough

 

Perhaps the question we should be asking is, are we willing to accept an occasional retraction to be certain that we can hold our government 100% accountable? That to me is the greatest and most important role our press fills. None of us have the time or access to look into all the shadows, the smoky rooms, the wampom and wrongdoing. That is the role our founders visioned in a free press and we are better off for it.

[Rex Kickass]

I understand your premise, and no, they shouldn't be shut down, but on the other hand, where's the accountability to get it right?

 

Where's the proof that this caused the taking of 14 lives? Did Newsweek order the Pakistani embassy to open fire on a crowd of protesters?

[southsider2k5]

Where's the proof that this caused the taking of 14 lives? Did Newsweek order the Pakistani embassy to open fire on a crowd of protesters?

 

That logic bugs the s*** out of me. So what you are saying is that they can say anything, right or wrong, and not be responsible for what happens because of it?

 

Theoretically, I could have "someone" tell me that you like to molest children in your spare time, then I could print it. Then your neighbors could read that report, organize a lynchmob, beat you to death because they think you will molest their children, and you wouldn't blame me for it? I didn't kill you, or tell your neighbors to kill you, so I would be OK, right?

[LowerCaseRepublican]

That logic bugs the s*** out of me.  So what you are saying is that they can say anything, right or wrong, and not be responsible for what happens because of it?

 

Theoretically, I could have "someone" tell me that you like to molest children in your spare time, then I could print it.  Then your neighbors could read that report, organize a lynchmob, beat you to death because they think you will molest their children, and you wouldn't blame me for it?  I didn't kill you, or tell your neighbors to kill you, so I would be OK, right?

 

Damnit, Southsider, you stole the idea for my first column!

[EvilMonkey]

Hey, way to compare art to an interrogation.

 

Thank you. Remember to tip your wait staff, and I'll be here all week.

 

Actually, what I am pointing out is that with the crucifix deal, when the religious folk freaked out, a whole bunch of liberals called them names, made fun of them, and said things like 'free speech', or'it's just a piece of plastic', etc. Now that supposedly a BOOK was flushed down a toilet, a whole bunch of zealots rioted, killed people and caused alot of damage. Over a book. And the same people who wondered why Christians were getting so worked up over the desecration of one of their religious symbols, are now getting themselves worked up over the alleged desecration of a BOOK. Did you have a problem with Piss Christ? I thought it was extremelt poor taste, in no way should be called art, and that if the guy got a government grant to produce that crap, he should have been forced to repay it, but otherwise, so what.

[zach61]

I'm sure nothing is wrong in Cuba. Hell, look at the great job we did at Abu Ghraib. No problems there either. Unfortunately, our army is not perfect and will do dumb things. I wouldn't be surprised at all if someone destroyed a copy of the quran. Remember that there are going to be people in our own army that will want to do something like that to muslims for all the flag burning that we saw on tv over the yrs. And I don't think that Nuke or anybody else on this board can honestly say that our army is so well trained, that there is no predjudice of any kind in it. Look at our own country. We still have tons of hatred toward race, religion, and sexual preference. Why would we think there isn't any in our military? And I'm not trying to bash America or our military. I'm just trying to point out that there are idiots everywhere that are going to do dumb things.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

And I'm not trying to bash America or our military. I'm just trying to point out that there are idiots everywhere that are going to do dumb things.

 

 

You're spot on with that observation. There are always going to be bad apples in any organization of any size. Abu Ghraib proved that. The challenge is for leaders to ensure that it doesn't become widespread or accepted.

 

However, regarding these Quran defacing charges, barring any direct evidence to support them the military should have been given the benefit of the doubt. This didn't happen with Newsweek this time and they have blood on their hands as a result.

[YASNY]

I'd be careful to make that leap of faith though... just because there are rules and regs for something doesn't mean they were always followed.  This case seems to be falling apart before our very eyes, suprise surprise.

 

Oh, believe me, I'm not making a leap of faith here. I said it shoots a hole in the story, not that it never happened. As zach61 said a couple of posts ago, there are idiots everywhere. I wouldn't be shocked if some non-thinking member of the guard detail at Gitmo pulled something stupid like this.

 

As for the talk about shutting down Newsweek, there's really only one way to accomplish that. It won't be due to opinion polls. If it happens, it will be due to a lack of sales because they will have lost credability.

[TheBigHurt35]

If you're going to open that can of worms, Mr. Hannity and Mr. Limbaugh, er, I mean, BigHurt, then what about Rwanda and Somolia and everywhere else on the planet genocide occurs?  Why Iraq?  (gee, I wonder - and NO, it's not oil).

 

Well, Mr. Franken, the governments in Rwanda and Somalia have never had chemical/biological weapons or a nuclear program. They've never threatened to "build bombs the size of Hiroshima." They've never used VX on their own people.

 

BTW, did we get any oil out of Korea or Vietnam? :rolly

[TheBigHurt35]

Saddam kept power and kept his neighbors at bey, by them believing he was more powerful than he was. If Iraq thought that Kuwait had WMD to retaliate with, they probably would not have evaded the first time.

 

Kuwait is about the size of Rhode Island and never would've stood a chance against Iraq.

[kapkomet]

Well, Mr. Franken, the governments in Rwanda and Somalia have never had chemical/biological weapons or a nuclear program.  They've never threatened to "build bombs the size of Hiroshima."  They've never used VX on their own people.

 

BTW, did we get any oil out of Korea or Vietnam?  :rolly

 

LMAO. Mr. Franken...

 

Saddam didn't have any of those at the time of invasion either. So it doesn't matter. You just used justification of his "regime" to invade a country, so why don't we invade everyone with the same issues?

[TheBigHurt35]

LMAO.  Mr. Franken... 

 

Saddam didn't have any of those at the time of invasion either.  So it doesn't matter.  You just used justification of his "regime" to invade a country, so why don't we invade everyone with the same issues?

 

If Saddam didn't have those weapons, perhaps he should've allowed UN weapons inspectors to do their jobs. And perhaps he shouldn't have invaded Kuwait 15 years ago. Or shot Scud missiles at Israel. Or shelled his own people with VX. Or terrorized and tortured tens of thousands of others. Or given $20,000 rewards to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Do you see a pattern here?

 

The obvious answer to the second part of your question is that we can't force regime changes in ALL rogue nations. We simply don't have the resources. Our best course of action is to deal with the most threatening ones (i.e., ones that have or have been known to possess/use WMDs). One could (strongly) argue that overthrowing the Islamic government in Iran would've been a better course of action. North Korea would've been disarmed years ago if it didn't have China on its side.

 

BTW, I take the Hannity comparison as a compliment.

Edited May 18, 2005 by TheBigHurt35

[kapkomet]

I think you hint at the real reason we are in Iraq. Launching points - and a hard-core ally in the Middle East (aka puppet government). Yea, it's elected, and yea, they'll disagree with the USA, but they won't bite our hand off.

 

With Saudi Arabia ties that weren't exactly perfect, we needed a foothold in the middle east. Now we have one. We have 150,000 troops right next to Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, just in case they get stupid - which amazingly enough our ties are "back on track" according to Prince Abdullah after his last visit. I wonder why?

 

It's an important strategic decision... and I think that was more what it was about then anything else. Plus, an economy that sucks always can use a war to prop it up.