We Report You Decide strikes again

[hgc]

From Fox News today. a retracted Newsweek story is referred to as a false Newsweek story. Carrying Bush's water all the way to Hell.

 

[Rob Lister]

From Fox News today. a retracted Newsweek story is referred to as a false Newsweek story. Carrying Bush's water all the way to Hell.

Works for me. I'm over the 'fake' but 'true' delimma. If it can't be demonstrated as true (which it can't since it was retracted) then I have to assume its false.

You?

The spin one news media puts on it doesn't matter to me except possibly in context.

Oops. You forgot to include context. I forgive.

 

[SezMe]

Re: Re: We Report You Decide strikes again

Works for me. I'm over the 'fake' but 'true' delimma. If it can't be demonstrated as true (which it can't since it was retracted) then I have to assume its false.

This is the part that surprises me about this whole affair. Credible, repeated reports of "abuse" (Gawd, I detest that overused word, but can't come up with a better right away) of the Koran have existed for years (I think. At least "months"). So Newsweek was just reporting another piece of evidence.

Reminds me so much of Rathergate. The veracity of the memo completely took over the real issue. Same here; the veracity of the Newsweek report has completely overshadowed the issue of using religion as an interrogation technique.

To avoid a possible derail, I think the whole todo about shoving some paper with ink on it down a rat hole is just not worth getting exercised about. Others may, I don't give a damn.

 

[Rob Lister]

Re: Re: Re: We Report You Decide strikes again

This is the part that surprises me about this whole affair. Credible, repeated reports of "abuse" (Gawd, I detest that overused word, but can't come up with a better right away) of the Koran have existed for years (I think. At least "months"). So Newsweek was just reporting another piece of evidence.

Reminds me so much of Rathergate. The veracity of the memo completely took over the real issue. Same here; the veracity of the Newsweek report has completely overshadowed the issue of using religion as an interrogation technique.

Yes. Sort of makes you wonder who Rather and company really worked for. Not to derail in another direction but the Bush memos, even if true, meant nothing. Just as the Koran story, even if true, meant nothing. Just as the Kerry/Cambodia story even if true, meant nothing.

It's all about the dirt. But, I suppose, the newer the dirt the better.

Do I suppose that some interrogator did, at some time, insulted a detainee (read: prisoner) using the Koran as leverage? Oh, absofinglutely!

Fake but true, see?

But not only do I give a rat's anus about the Koran, I don't give a rat's anus about how a detainee (read: prisoner) of that particular type might or might not be insulted by mystic crap he just happens to be too stupid to realize is no more true than santa...who is also probably against his religion (heathen!).

What I do care about is a news organization's determination to print a story simply because, if true, it would sell lots and lots and lots of copies, regardless of the harm it does to the organanization's host nation, allies, etc. Not to mention the real live (now) dead victims of this incident.

Let's call it true. Let's just agree that it was 100% accurate.

So what.

Perhaps little splinters of wood under the fingernails of the detainees (read: prisoners) would go over better in the middle east.

Acutally, saddly enough, it probably would by a long shot.

This is, to me, all the more reason to continue doing exactly what it is we're doing.

When we're done, we can tackle Kansas. Then a few other choice/prime states as well.

 

[Cain]

I had to put this somewhere

 

[Bob Klase]

This is the part that surprises me about this whole affair. Credible, repeated reports of "abuse" (Gawd, I detest that overused word, but can't come up with a better right away) of the Koran have existed for years (I think. At least "months"). So Newsweek was just reporting another piece of evidence.

With all those credible, repeated reports available why didn't Newsweek rely on a single, anonymous (and apparently not credible) source?

My neighbor told me that he saw Elvis last week. With all the credible, repeated reports that have existed for years I guess it must be true.

But the real question is- how consistant are you? Did Bush lie about WMDs? Was his claim(s) false? Credible, repeated reports of Hussein and WMD existed for years (from such inferior sources as Bill Clinton, the UN, etc). So wasn't Bush just giving another piece of evidence?

 

[President Bush]

My neighbor told me that he saw Elvis last week.

I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works.

And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

 

[hgc]

Re: Re: We Report You Decide strikes again

Works for me. I'm over the 'fake' but 'true' delimma. If it can't be demonstrated as true (which it can't since it was retracted) then I have to assume its false.

You?

The spin one news media puts on it doesn't matter to me except possibly in context.

Oops. You forgot to include context. I forgive.

You may well think it really is a false story, and that's fine with me. Heck, if you look at it from a position of pure logic, then the default position, absent evidence, is that the story isn't true.

I happen to think that with the tons of evidence we've had building for over year about torture and abuse of prisoners in US military prisons all over the world and sanctioned from the very top, that this or something like it is true.

Reasonable people can disagree about all that.

The point of my original post is that Fox News made a very obvious and distinct value judgement in its reporting. The fact that Newsweek retracted the story means that the plain fact is that it's a retracted story. Fox News decided to change the facts based on their value judgement.

 

[SezMe]

With all those credible, repeated reports available why didn't Newsweek rely on a single, anonymous (and apparently not credible) source?

But the real question is- how consistant are you? Did Bush lie about WMDs? Was his claim(s) false? Credible, repeated reports of Hussein and WMD existed for years (from such inferior sources as Bill Clinton, the UN, etc). So wasn't Bush just giving another piece of evidence?

I think you mean "did" instead of "didn't" in the first sentence? Yes? If so, Rob hit the nail on the head...sales, $$, attention, etc.

I don't see any inconsistency. My point was about the veracity of the reporting overtaking the issue at hand. I don't see your questions as getting to the same point.

But I'll answer anyway. I will take as given that there were credible reports as you cite. I suspect (it has been reported) that there were credible analyses discounting there reports, the inspectors on the ground said there weren't any, etc. So there were credible reports on both sides. What's a prez to do?

Not what was done, IMO. That is, evidence "for" was given prominence, the caveats were discounted and the evidence "con" was buried....and we went to war.

I'll let you decide whether to call that a lie or not. The label doesn't much matter to me, the process is what counts.

And finally, Bush was not giving "evidence" but was making judgements, decisions and setting a course of action based on the (cooked) evidence.

 

[Rob Lister]

Re: Re: Re: We Report You Decide strikes again

You may well think it really is a false story, and that's fine with me. Heck, if you look at it from a position of pure logic, then the default position, absent evidence, is that the story isn't true.

I happen to think that with the tons of evidence we've had building for over year about torture and abuse of prisoners in US military prisons all over the world and sanctioned from the very top, that this or something like it is true.

Reasonable people can disagree about all that.

The point of my original post is that Fox News made a very obvious and distinct value judgement in its reporting. The fact that Newsweek retracted the story means that the plain fact is that it's a retracted story. Fox News decided to change the facts based on their value judgement.

Okay, so you read and replied to my first post in this thread.

Cool.

Now: where's the context (a source for your statement?)

Additionally, do you pretty much agree with my second post in this thread?

 

[Kopji]

Ah think Newsweek outta just NAME the anonymous source when these things happen. This would keep them honest.

Of course Rumsfeld would deny it...

 

[TeaBag420]

Re: Re: Re: Re: We Report You Decide strikes again

.... Just as the Kerry/Cambodia story even if true, meant nothing.
....

So if Kerry really had been in Cambodia on the dates on which he falsely testified to the Senate that he was there, that wouldn't matter?

Not arguing with your main point, but just REPORTING FOR DUTY to mention that phrasing counts.

 

[President Bush]

Re: Re: We Report You Decide strikes again

Works for me.

Based on what we know now, we are retracting the Iraq War, along with our original story that Saddam Hussein was building weapons of mass destruction.

 

[Renfield]

Bush's people weren't too particular about their sources, so it does seem fairly hypocritical for them to be so hard on Newsweek.

On a side note, i wonder how long bush and the "liberal" (har har) media can go on blaming anti-us sentiments, protests, etc on that article? 3 months? 3 years? ...

 

[specious_reasons]

Re: Re: We Report You Decide strikes again

Works for me. I'm over the 'fake' but 'true' delimma. If it can't be demonstrated as true (which it can't since it was retracted) then I have to assume its false.

You?

There have been stories of Koran desecration before. Most of these stories are from former detainees, so I suppose those were deemed "not credible."

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/18/1434259

However, this is not the first time such accusations surfaced about US guards desecrating the Koran. In August 2003, 23 Yemeni detainees reportedly tried to commit mass suicide after a guard stomped on the Koran. In addition, the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights reported former detainees said they saw the Koran being thrown into the toilets. Three British citizens released last year from Guantanamo reported similar treatment of the Koran in a 115-page dossier on the conditions at the detention camp. Up until now, the Pentagon had been unwilling to say whether any of these allegations were investigated. But yesterday, Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita said these allegations were not credible. And last night the State Department sent a cable to all embassies instructing them to inform host countries of the Newsweek retraction.

Newsweek's latest issue contains about the most non-retraction retraction by the original story's authors:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7937016/site/newsweek/

The International Committee of the Red Cross announced that it had provided the Pentagon with confidential reports about U.S. personnel disrespecting or mishandling Qur'ans at Gitmo in 2002 and 2003. Simon Schorno, an ICRC spokesman, said the Red Cross had provided "several" instances that it believed were "credible." The ICRC report included three specific allegations of offensive treatment of the Qur'an by guards. Defense Department spokesman Lawrence Di Rita would not comment on these allegations except to say that the Gitmo commanders routinely followed up ICRC reports, including these, and could not substantiate them. He then gave what is from the Defense Department point of view more context and important new information. [....]

 

[Rob Lister]

Re: Re: Re: We Report You Decide strikes again

There have been stories of Koran desecration before. Most of these stories are from former detainees, so I suppose those were deemed "not credible."

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/18/1434259



Newsweek's latest issue contains about the most non-retraction retraction by the original story's authors:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7937016/site/newsweek/

Other 'rumors' have surfaced that have not been worthy of print. Newsweeks seemingly finds one that is...or at least thinks it is until just before the ink dries.

Does this make it more true?

More importantly, does this make it more worthy of print, true or not.

I really don't question the honest intentions of the reporter in so far as publishing a story he has.

Nor do I even question whether such desecrations have taken place. I'm pretty sure they have.

What I question is the intent of the publisher.

More importantly, if I may, the foresight.

The hindsight is not now lacking.

 

[shecky]

Re: Re: Re: Re: We Report You Decide strikes again

What I question is the intent of the publisher.

More importantly, if I may, the foresight.

So, what do you think was the intent of the publisher? Foresight?

 

[Luke T.]

From Fox News today. a retracted Newsweek story is referred to as a false Newsweek story. Carrying Bush's water all the way to Hell.

The original Newsweek story did not claim the Quran had been put in a toilet. The original story said a military investigation had found that the Quran had been put in a toilet.

It is a distinction that matters on the truth or falsity of the article.