This is the same Newsweek that killed Izzie's story on Monica Lewinsky under pressure from the Clinton White House. He should have resigned then, but how could he resist an opportunity to stick it to Bush?

Thank you for posting this. I'm not surprised when The Source Magazine engages in these "business practices," but Newsweek? I expect them to be eurocentric, skew pieces toward wealthy and well-to-do americans, and ignore a plethora of critical global issues. But this is ridiculous.

Peace,
Miranda

Hundreds of items similar to Newsweek's story have been published in the past year, all of them true. The torture at Abu Ghraib was far worse than this, and other reports of Koran desecration have been published in the past year as well. They inspired no riots, and there was no special reason for Newsweek to think their report would inspire any riots either.

I do think they should be fined, and the fines should be sent to the families of the victims.

John are you really unwilling to step back and realize you are merely being manipualted by people who HATE big media outlets. Rather easily it appears.

Or are you just one, too?

To be more specific - if you had fact-checked yourself - you would see that they fact-checked their article twice. So enough ...

Did you even read my post and the other links about this - even only at BC?

If you had fact-checked you would have known that there were riots before the Newsweek article come out. And that there have been many. Have you fact-checked how many people have died in Afghanistan - just from "riots" of this type in the last six months even?

Or are you just looking for a sorry excuse to be angry at "the media."

'Cause that's what it looks like.

Don't pretend.

"Hundreds of items similar to Newsweek's story have been published in the past year, all of them true."

Really!? Wow may you please give us a hundred links please?

And may I ask who will fine Newsweak? The Columbia School of Journalism? FCC? Or some omnipotent being from above?

Or would you care to catch a ride on the clue train.

BTW Temple Stark, your correct. There were riots before, during and will be after the Newsweak article came out. But none of them before the article had rioters/protesters carrying signs with Newsweak quotes or facimilies of the magazines cover.

So what the hell is your point?

I think you just made it - they didn't need Newsweek to do what they did or act that way.

And therefore, the "blood on their hands" angle is just so much BS. Some people looking at this turn of events are more discerning than others - and aren't on a witch hunt.

Thank you.

I have never assigned any blood to Newsweaks hands. But to deny a link between the story and jihadists prancing around with signs quoting the story is disingenious, at best.

Right, it wasn't hundreds os similar stories, and I lifted that from another article in:
http:/www.washingtonmonthly.com/

But you have a good question, why shouldn't journalists or the media be fined for reporting "news" if they cannot substantiate it? Im sure there is a reason, but as you said, I don't have a clue, oh angry person

Andrew Sullivan gets it right:

I think it's telling that some bloggers have devoted much, much more energy to covering the Newsweek error than they ever have to covering any sliver of the widespread evidence of detainee abuse that made the Newsweek piece credible in the first place. A simple question: after U.S. interrogators have tortured over two dozen detainees to death, after they have wrapped one in an Israeli flag, after they have smeared naked detainees with fake menstrual blood, after they have told one detainee to 'Fuck Allah,' after they have ordered detainees to pray to Allah in order to kick them from behind in the head, is it completely beyond credibility that they would also have desecrated the Koran?

As much as I hate to admit it Sullivan has a point.

But, that niether excuses or offers a valid excuse for Newsweak to publish a poorly sourced article.

And Richard the question on fines is yours not mine. It's an unworkable solution at best. As I said who would be in charge of a program of that sort?

Given the extreme downslide in the MSM's numbers in subscription rates I would say the fines are slowly being given. By those that have the most power and a method to exercise it. The general public.

who is KoranKate?

KoranKate is a cool typo when you realize most people in the Middle East pronounce the word Koran with a sound that is closer to a very hard G than to a K (usually written with the letter Q by people who are trying to stay closer to the correct pronunciation).

KoranKate : KoranGate :: KoranGate : Qur'anGate

Or maybe I'm the only one who thinks it's cool.

(to express it in SAT style)

typo? I thought she was a seductive spy like TokyoRose

Maybe so, Eric. She'd have to be mighty seductive indeed to seduce anybody from the Western world through one of those burqas, though.

Jeez, Marc, Don't you think I know who asks a question? You seem to forget it was you asked who would fine Newsweek? I don't know about the FCC, but if they can fine Howard Stern for saying f*ck, why can't they fine Newsweek for lying, or providing unsubstantiated reports that result in death?

uhmm...because the fcc has no authority over print media?

Of course, Newsweek didn't actually KILL anyone. If a book stuffed in a toilet is enough of an excuse for someone to kill someone else, then something is dreadfully wrong.

But then we already knew that, didn't we?

That may not be reason enough, but ... tortured over two dozen detainees to death, after they have wrapped one in an Israeli flag, after they have smeared naked detainees with fake menstrual blood, after they have told one detainee to 'Fuck Allah,' after they have ordered detainees to pray to Allah in order to kick them from behind in the head... are reasons enough to get pretty angry methinks.

Here are several mentions of the Koran being mishandled:

My guess is Newsweeks error is not proving it. Im sure I happened.

From the above article:

"...Guys, you ran a false story you didn't even bother to fact check and 17 people died because of it. 17 fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters won't be coming home to their families because of YOUR failure to do basically journalistic work."

Shark's rewrite:

"...Bush administration, you ran a war based on false evidence of weapons of mass destruction and you didn't even bother to fact check and over 1600 America GIs died because of it. Over 1600 fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters won't be coming home to their families because of YOUR failure to do basically intelligence work."

Check.

And.

Mate.


PS: Like the friggin' jihadist nutbars needed another reason to hate us. Find a new Evil Incarnate besides the Free Press of American Democracy.

ie. Love it or Leave it!


(heh, I've always wanted to say that to a right-wing nutbar!!!)

Oh, almost forgot my "headline":


BUSH KILSS PEOPLE, TELLS WORLD TO PISS OFF


(just tryin' to be helpful)

PPS: John Bambenek, it's really inspiring to see people like you almost SQUIRT A FEW TEARS for America-hating Afghani civilians.

We almost bought it...

Wow, Snark. There's a credible source, a Daily Kos surrogate. Lord knows them and their agents have never been known to manufacture and spin evidence.

But here's what it comes down to. Why the hell were the prisoners allowed to have Korans in the first place? They're prisoners of war, not religious seminarians. If they wanted to study the Koran 24/7 they should have had Korans in their hands not AK-47s when they were captured in Afghanistan.

Dave

>>Why the hell were the prisoners allowed to have Korans in the first place?<<

You can't use it against them if you don't give it to them in the first place.