Newsweek bends over

Black Dog · May 17, 2005

Newsweek magazine issued a retraction Monday of a May 9 report on the alleged desecration of the Quran at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

It should be noted that the Pentagon did not demand similar measures from the Philedelphia Inquirer and other news outlets that reported on similar allegations as far back as 2002. In this case, there was outright pressure from the Bush administration for Newseek to back pedal and they did:

the magazine did not completely disavow the story until Monday's statement from Whitaker. That followed remarks earlier in the day from Bush administration officials who called for a full retraction.

These kinds of tactics are more appropriate for a banana republic than the so calle dleader of the free world.

It's interesting as well that, like "Rathergate" before it, the issue here was not about the substance of the allegations (which, again, have been reported on in the past and are wholly consistent with reports coming from former detainess and camp personnel about the absue of inmate's religion), but the reporting of them. And, like Bush's phantom ANG service, this story and subsequent dressing down of Newsweek will serve as a warning to the rest of the press not to step out of line.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the flap was a reminder that people "need to be very careful about what they say."
"People are dead, and that's unfortunate," Rumsfeld told reporters. "People need to be very careful about what they say just as people need to be careful about what they do."

Chilling. :blink:

Shakeyhands · May 17, 2005

It's interesting as well that, like "Rathergate" before it, the issue here was not about the substance of the allegations (which, again, have been reported on in the past and are wholly consistent with reports coming from former detainess and camp personnel about the absue of inmate's religion), but the reporting of them. And, like Bush's phantom ANG service, this story and subsequent dressing down of Newsweek will serve as a warning to the rest of the press not to step out of line.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly... Couldn't agree more.

Black Dog · May 17, 2005

Let that be a lesson to you!

MR. McCLELLAN: There is a certain journalistic standard that should be met, and in this case it was not met. The report was not accurate, and it was based on a single anonymous source who cannot personally substantiate the report, so the -- so they cannot verify the accuracy of the report.

Let's jump into the wayback machine, shall we?Anyone remember the "single, unreliable source" responsible for much of the Bush admin's pre-war information on Iraq's WMD?

Will we be hearing a "retraction" from the Bushies about their WMD claims? I won't hold my breath.