So who wants to take on the task of blog errors?

What's so good about you? Or me.

Tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of stories go through "the media" without a peep every single day. Give me a break.

Someone once mentioned a wall of shame for media and I suggested a skyscraper for bloggers. Or a city block.

Saying that - yep, media has accountability and should be held accountable when they screw up.

The Newsweek "event" is only such to those already predisposed to hate "the media." In other words, where's the beef? Outline specifically the error.

Never mind that it's SOP for a terrorist to say something like this in order to stir passions, the report itself wound up causing 15 deaths, riots in at least five seperate countries, and who knows how much damage in the form of destroyed vehicles, burned buildings, etc.

David, when the jury in the Rodney King trial came back with "not guilty" verdicts, did they cause the riots in LA?

Betcha had a different view on cause and effect back then, no?

Have you not read US Gen. Myers statements before this Newsweek "event" became big in the realm of small minds?

Of course not? Or if you did you ignored it. He explicity said, no, there were other reasons for riots. Look up "newsweek and general meyers"

Swallow it and don't spit man.

Another spectacular failure in the thought process here. I said there would be more people like this. Sorry, you guys are losing what ever cred you think you had. Pathetic. Again I ask, where is that mantle of personal responsibility we hear so much about.

Newsweek has bloooooood on its hands?

That's just so sad that someone has allowed themselves to be pulled by the nose and manipulated. Talk about peer pressure.

Newsweek's biggest error was in retracting the story. What they should have done is pursued the "rest of the story." They had a source who they had gone to many times before. All the source says is that he saw the specific allegations in another report.

Or maybe he saw it in the numerous media reports and Pentagon reports over the last 12 months. This 10-line piece in Newsweek has been given too much power - by people with an agenda against media.

PS don't ever ever link to any "big media" article again to support any point of yours if this is what you believe. And don't link to any blogger post that itself links to a big media article to support any postive point.

Folks,

It's not that Newsweek's piece was overhyped, it is the fact that Newsweek is looked upon by many in the world as a standard of media reliability. I hate to burst the bubbles of so many lovers of the MSM, but crap they report every day is not squeeky clean. Rather, it's just not bad enough to cause riots and deaths.

And a response for BHW: How are the riots caused by the trial verdict, when the officers who brutally beat Mr. King were declared "not guilty," similar to the riots in the Middle East?

With the situation over Rodney King, the riots which occurred had nothing to do with innaccurate media reporting. People saw the tape where King was brutally beaten and they wanted the police officers punished. When the justice system failed them, they were so angry, they began to riot.

With this current situation, Newsweek rushed something to print, probably so they could say at least that they were the first to air what they hoped would be a coming scandal. They pulled a "Dan Rather;" they had already arrived at the conclusion that the military was doing this kind of thing and assumed that even the most unreliable of sources would do to validate their assumption.

It's a case of members of the media again trying to reclaim their days of glory when they helped end the Viet Nam War and topple a President. The modern-day crusades, I guess.

David

So who wants to take on the task of blog errors?

What's so good about you? Or me.


Temple,

Thank you for making my point. I say that in my post; blogs are just not that impressive.

BUT, next to the crap job being done by so-called "professionals" who have degrees and tenure, and "standards" of behaviour, WE DO LOOK GOOD!

And that is a very sad statement, isn't it?

David

I like Al's take on this whole thing to a large degree.

when the editors over at Newsweek look down, do they see blood on their hands?

David's take on it, reads like this:
Do NOT publish accounts of defacing the Koran, whether accurate or not, for if you do, YOU are responsible for the actions that Muslims then take.

And a response for BHW: How are the riots caused by the trial verdict, when the officers who brutally beat Mr. King were declared "not guilty," similar to the riots in the Middle East?

They're similar in that the jury was, by some, said to have caused the riots by perpetuating injustice against blacks. Others said that the rioters caused the riots, and thus the death and destruction that resulted.

See the similarity now? You're saying that Newsweek caused riots/death by publishing a story. Others are saying the perpetrators are responsible for their own actions.

With the situation over Rodney King, the riots which occurred had nothing to do with innaccurate media reporting.

The riots would have happened if the story were true. And it actually might be.

ok..the Newsweek story was botched..not enough fact checking...my biggest complaint again ANY media

what irks me is that some folks always hoot and holler when media they don't like gets popped...such as the shitstorm over Dan Rather...they never forgave him for that press conference with Nixon..

but how about some other things..one that comes to mind is the flap from the Christian Science Monitor using forged documents to try and implicate MP Galloway from Britain in the whole oil for food scandal...

then they turn around a while later and find out themselves the documents were forged, and retract...but not before Senator Coleman gets smacked around trying to question Galloway at the witch hunt..errr...i mean hearing...

see this article
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/1128/1/32/

or this one..
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/18/oil.food/

so i am all good about blasting a media outlet that gets it's Facts wrong...especially when the ramifications cause deaths....

but for Bog's sake..at least pretend to be Objective and nail BOTH "sides"..or admit your a shill/idealogue/whore for your particular faction and enjoy the show...

objects in the mirror may be closer than they appear...

Excelsior!

I appreciate your points gonzo. Well said.

Thanks,

David

Program on the emergence of civilization.

"14 species of large animals capable of domesitcation in the history of mankind.
13 from Europe, Asia and northern Africa.
None from the sub-Saharan African continent. "
Favor.
And disfavor.

They point out Africans' failed attempts to domesticate the elephant and zebra, the latter being an animal they illustrate that had utmost importance for it's applicability in transformation from a hunting/gathering to agrarian-based civilization.

The roots of racism are not of this earth.

Austrailia, aboriginals:::No domesticable animals.


The North American continent had none. Now 99% of that population is gone.

AIDS in Africa.




Organizational Heirarchy
Heirarchical order, from top to bottom:

1. MUCK - perhaps have experienced multiple universal contractions (have seen multiple big bangs), creator of the artificial intelligence humans ignorantly refer to as "god"
2. Perhaps some mid-level alien management
3. Mafia (evil) aliens - runs day-to-day operations here and perhaps elsewhere (On planets where they approved evil.)

Terrestrial management:

4. Chinese/egyptians - this may be separated into the eastern and western worlds
5. Romans - they answer to the egyptians
6. Mafia - the real-world interface that constantly turns over generationally so as to reinforce the widely-held notion of mortality
7. Jews, corporation, women, politician - Evidence exisits to suggest mafia management over all these groups.



Survival of the favored.




Movies foreshadowing catastrophy
1985 James Bond View to a Kill 1989 San Francisco Loma Prieta earthquake.