[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Activism
See other Activism Articles

Title: Newsweek Says It Is Retracting Koran Report
Source: NY Times
URL Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/p ... 319f66d36e67e&hp=&ex=111638880
Published: May 17, 2005
Author: KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
Post Date: 2005-05-17 06:19:11 by crack monkey
Keywords: Retracting, Newsweek, Report
Views: 105
Comments: 23

Newsweek Says It Is Retracting Koran Report By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE and NEIL A. LEWIS After a drumbeat of criticism from the Bush administration and others, Newsweek magazine yesterday went beyond an apology it issued Sunday and retracted an article published May 1 that stated that American interrogators at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had tried to rattle Muslim detainees by flushing a Koran down a toilet.

The original article was blamed for inciting widespread protests and riots in the Muslim world, where desecration of the Koran is viewed as an incendiary act, and where at least 17 people were killed in the ensuing violence.

"Based on what we know now, we are retracting our original story that an internal military investigation had uncovered Koran abuse at Guantánamo Bay," the statement from Newsweek said.

The carefully worded retraction came after the White House said the Newsweek article had damaged the image of the United States abroad. It reflected the severity of consequences that even one sentence in a brief news article can have at a time of intense anti-American sentiment overseas and political polarization, as well as extreme distrust of the mainstream media at home.

Mark Whitaker, editor of Newsweek, said in an interview that the magazine was retracting the part of the article saying sources told Newsweek that a coming military report would say interrogators had flushed a holy book down the toilet to unnerve detainees. As it turned out, Newsweek now says, there was one source. And Mr. Whitaker said that because that source had "backed away" from his original account, the magazine could "no longer stand by" it.

"I did not want to be in the position of splitting hairs," Mr. Whitaker said, "to look like we were being evasive or not fully forthcoming."

The magazine's retraction was the latest step in a complicated and fast-moving drama that involved a disparate cast of players, including one of the nation's top investigative news reporters and a cricket star in Pakistan. In the span of a few days, it has added a new dimension to the journalistic debate about anonymous sources as well as new questions about how the United States treats captives from the Muslim world.

In the interview, Mr. Whitaker contrasted his action with that of CBS News when it refused to back down immediately last year from a report that raised questions about President Bush's National Guard service.

"Clearly it became a problem for CBS because people thought they weren't acknowledging that they screwed up," Mr. Whitaker said.

He continued: "Unlike CBS, we felt we were being extremely forthcoming by publishing all the details and publishing the Pentagon's denials and saying we committed an error. But then it seemed that people felt like we weren't apologizing. In order for people to understand we had made an error, we had to say 'retraction' because that's the word they were looking for."

Continues

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: All (#0)

As it turned out, Newsweek now says, there was one source. And Mr. Whitaker said that because that source had "backed away" from his original account, the magazine could "no longer stand by" it.

It sounds to me like the Bush troops first twisted the arm of the single source. No doubt a military person who didn't have a lot of options. Once the source went wobbly, Bush and his pals then went after Newsweek.

I think the real goal here is to discredit anyone who might reveal inconvenient facts about Bush and his administration.

crack monkey  posted on  2005-05-17   6:22:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: crack monkey (#1)

Without a doubt, it's a criminal offense to report the truth...It doesn't matter, the targeted audience (other than Americows) doesn't believe any of the retracted parts of the piece are false...

Eoghan  posted on  2005-05-17   6:57:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: crack monkey, Zoroaster, 1776, zipporah (#0)

Newsweek Says It Is Retracting Koran Report

OY! Vhat righteous indignation from from White House!!

Newsweek should demand that the Bush administration retract reports of Iraq's WMDs (and all the other blatant lies while thier at it).

wbales  posted on  2005-05-17   7:46:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: crack monkey (#0)

Too bad Newsweek didn't have the guts to stand by the original story but I'm sure they were threatened with a loss of advertizing revenue from the administration supporting corportate interests.

Richard W.

Arete  posted on  2005-05-17   8:29:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Arete (#4)

If there ever was a display of the corporate media, this is exhibit "A"

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-05-17   8:37:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: crack monkey (#1)

That is the goal. First- the notion that these riots in Afghanistan were touched off by a "Newsweek" one liner about the Koran being flushed down a toilet was and is preposterous. This is a country in which a virtual Gulag is being run and in which American troops have murdered detainees. Yes- murdered. So the idea that the are rioting over something so feeble as a rumor about the Koran being disgraced half a world away is simply a joke. Karazai spilled the beans essentially when he said "US troops tactics" were "heavy handed."

The "Koran was desecreated" excuse is for American moron consumption and as a side benefit another government attack on our already whipped and tamed media. The anti media campaign is already whipped up. Some lackie GOP congressman was on Imus this morning with his talking points about how the media is "out of control" and how this was "Dan Rather" all over again. Imus- being the sycophantic Beltway lackie he is- agreed of course.

Scary, folks, simply scary.

What these attacks on the media from public servants do, in the name of "The troops" and "national security" is actually get their "grass roots" foot soldiers to do their work for them, like the asshats over at TOS- to attack the media and intimidate it, silence it. Make them leary of reporting anything that would call into question administration policy. And in our corporate media culture that wishes to please DC for it's own purposes and bottom line- this has the effect of censorship. The US government doesn't have some "Censor" sitting in the press rooms all across the country. But it does communicate through the now very small network of executives who control our media what is expected of them and what is allowed or permissable or in "good taste" and then from the "ground up" it fans it's moron ideolouge foot soldiers to attack and condemn the media for the slilghtest missteps. It is highly sophisticated and far more effective than having outright censorship. Though- I do think even formal censorship is becoming a reality in some ways.

Burkeman1  posted on  2005-05-17   10:27:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Burkeman1 (#6)

The US government doesn't have some "Censor" sitting in the press rooms all across the country. But it does communicate through the now very small network of executives who control our media what is expected of them and what is allowed or permissable or in "good taste" and then from the "ground up" it fans it's moron ideolouge foot soldiers to attack and condemn the media for the slilghtest missteps. It is highly sophisticated and far more effective than having outright censorship. Though- I do think even formal censorship is becoming a reality in some ways.

And let us not forget that during the Kosovo conflict, Bill Clinton bragged about how he had CIA agents covertly infiltrated into news organizations.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-05-17   10:32:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Burkeman1 (#6)

That is the goal. First- the notion that these riots in Afghanistan were touched off by a "Newsweek" one liner about the Koran being flushed down a toilet was and is preposterous.

You're absolutely right about the two pronged purpose of the attack: (1) intimidate the independent media, and (2) produce a scapegoat for the failures in Afghanistan.

I don't think I've ever seen the media with a bad a case of the shakes as they seem to have right now.

crack monkey  posted on  2005-05-17   10:32:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Arete (#4)

Too bad Newsweek didn't have the guts to stand by the original story but I'm sure they were threatened with a loss of advertizing revenue from the administration supporting corportate interests.

Newsweek is owned by a larger media conglomerate, The Washington Post Company. This company is one of about 8 media conglomerates that control 95 percent of the media in this country. In addition to owning Cable One and telvision stations across the country it owns many community newspapers in Maryland and a few other newspapers across the country. It also owns, operates, and distributes 11 military magazines and newspapers for the armed servies. In addition it publishes "guides" to 14 Military facilities and bases.

All of this cross media ownership requires all sorts of dealings with the Feds that could go smooth or could go not so smooth for them, depending on how friendly they are. Further- I am sure owning and distributing journals and magazines for the military, which are formely censored, hasn't effected them at all in the slightest, and the contracts and revenue from those publications isn't a control mechanism.

The Washington Post Company also does a lot of publishing for DC bureaucracies as well. No,- that wouldn't effect them at all. No pressure on Newsweek.

We have a Free Media. We have a free media. IN fact- it is "too free" according to the BOTS.

Burkeman1  posted on  2005-05-17   11:05:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#7)

And let us not forget that during the Kosovo conflict, Bill Clinton bragged about how he had CIA agents covertly infiltrated into news organizations.

The way the media behaved during the Kosovo "war" was something that I paid a lot of attention too. From the non reporting of the Rambouilet ultimatum that was completely outrageous and that any country would have rejected, to the curious facts about the Racek "massacre" left on the ground that the MSM wouldn't touch, to the bombing campaign from 15,000 feet, to the "cleansing" of "800,000" people that was used as a justification to continue the bombing, despite the fact that it started only after DC started bombing, to the eventual "peace" that was reached on terms that were nearly identical in every respect to what Milosevic had counter propposed at Rambouillet only to be rebuffed and bombed for 72 days! All of this was simply not reported, at all.

And after DC had killed thousands of people and then settled on a peace that Milosevic had offered before the bombing- the media declared it a big win for Clinton!

And as a side note- this is also when I really became aware of the Neocons as being truly not conservatives and as a creepy bunch of parasites on the GOP host. They supported that Kosovo thing to the hilt and even called for sending in American troops on the ground. ANd when it was all over - on the cover of their flagship journal of treason, The Weekly Standard, was the word "VICTORY". They also visciously attacked all GOPERS who attacked Clinton on Kosovo and it was shades of what was to come on Iraq.

Burkeman1  posted on  2005-05-17   11:23:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: crack monkey (#1)

This retraction was made in an attempt to calm the Immans threatening Holy Jihad over this.

From Jihad Watch:

Qur'an Gitmo shocker: Muslims don't believe Newsweek's retraction

No surprise here: as I said yesterday, "Newsweek's belated retraction is unlikely to blunt the force of this as yet another new pretext for jihad." "Muslims doubt Quran climbdown," from CNN:

KABUL, Afghanistan -- Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan were skeptical after a U.S. magazine backed away from a report that U.S. interrogators desecrated copies of the Quran while questioning prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

The account in Newsweek magazine's May 9 issue has been blamed for sparking deadly riots in Afghanistan and other parts of the Muslim world.

On Sunday, Newsweek backed away from the report and offered its sympathies "to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst."

But Muslims said they suspected that pressure from Washington was behind the magazine's climbdown, Reuters reported Monday.

"We will not be deceived by this," Islamic cleric Mullah Sadullah Abu Aman told Reuters in the northern Afghan province of Badakhshan.

"This is a decision by America to save itself. It comes because of American pressure. Even an ordinary illiterate peasant understands this and won't accept it."

On Sunday, a group of clerics led by Aman vowed to call for a jihad, or holy war, against the United States in three days unless it handed over the interrogators reported to have desecrated the Quran...

CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen said "desecrating the Quran is a death-penalty offense" in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan.

The Pentagon said last week it was unable to corroborate any case in which interrogators at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, defiled the Muslim holy book, as Newsweek reported...

"It's not acceptable now that the magazine says it's made a mistake," Reuters quoted 42-year-old writer and journalist Hafizullah Torab as saying. "No one will accept it."...

"Newsweek is backtracking, but it's not just their report," said Ghaffar Aziz, a top official of the Jamaat-e-Islami party. "All innocent people released from U.S. custody have said on the record that there was desecration of the Koran."...

CounterPunch:
Pinning the Blame on Newsweek By ROBERT JENSEN and PAT YOUNGBLOOD

The Financial Times
Newsweek retracts ‘Koran abuse' report

robin  posted on  2005-05-17   11:45:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: crack monkey (#0)

The administration only started making the Newsweek article an issue after the Washington Post published its article about the Downing Street smoking memo last week. The Washington Post Corp. owns Newsweek. This is the administration's response to the Washington Post's reporting on the smoking memo.

aristeides  posted on  2005-05-17   12:22:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: aristeides (#12)

Yep, and the Post sat on the story for 12 days...maybe the Muslims aren't too happy with this report either?

Eoghan  posted on  2005-05-17   12:26:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Eoghan (#13)

Maybe the Post sat on the story for 12 days because of what the administration was threatening to do, and now the administration has gone ahead with the threat?

aristeides  posted on  2005-05-17   12:29:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: aristeides (#12)

The administration only started making the Newsweek article an issue after the Washington Post published its article about the Downing Street smoking memo last week. The Washington Post Corp. owns Newsweek. This is the administration's response to the Washington Post's reporting on the smoking memo.

I haven't got any evidence, but I suspect there are some very vicious threats being made behind the scenes right now. I've never seen the press as cowed as they are right now. Never. Since the early 1960s I have never seen them behave this way.

From what I have read, a condition similar to today existed during the McArthy hearings, but I was too young to really follow that.

crack monkey  posted on  2005-05-17   12:31:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: crack monkey (#0)

Newsweek pushes back. Refuses Isikoff's resignation.

aristeides  posted on  2005-05-17   12:32:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: aristeides, OKCSubmariner (#12)

The controversy and riots did NOT begin until Imran Khan of Pakistan trumpeted the issue.

In Pakistan, it has taken the heat off Musharraf for the capture of Libi (whether it's the bigwig or not is another matteer) and also the Predator hit of someone unidentified.

Nice riot piece. A set piece, a hallmark of South Asian politics, like the riot in Jalalabad. Prolly instigated by Mush & Co. to distract Paki fundies from other events.

And a nice corollary benefit is that Newsweek's reputation is tainted.

IMO, a scandal driven by the OSP, dropping some truth and then putting out fake corroboration documents. Sound familiar? the CBS fiasoo, remember?

Rumsfeld's admonitions were the icing on the cake.

swarthyguy  posted on  2005-05-17   12:33:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: swarthyguy (#17)

OSP=Rumsfeld (Wolfowitz, Dr. Cambone)= Cheney = Bush

OKCSubmariner  posted on  2005-05-17   13:21:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: wbales, robin, Diana (#3)

The pressure to recant must have been very powerful.
As if anyone doubts that the Koran flush didn't occur.
There are no levels too low to stoop with Israeli style torture and that's who taught our people how to "interrogate" Muslims.

1776  posted on  2005-05-17   17:36:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: swarthyguy (#17)

IMO, a scandal driven by the OSP, dropping some truth and then putting out fake corroboration documents. Sound familiar? the CBS fiasoo, remember?

Rumsfeld's admonitions were the icing on the cake.

This has "Karl Rove" written all over it. When I heard how this operation went down, I thought "Is the US public really stupid enough to fall for this twice?" What I now have to accept is that, yes, most of the people in this country aren't just stupid, their fucking stupid.

orangedog  posted on  2005-05-17   18:22:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Burkeman1 (#6)

The US government doesn't have some "Censor" sitting in the press rooms all across the country.

Today, Newsweek admitted that all of its content goes through a military censor at the Pentagon before it runs in the magazine.

"Neither NEWSWEEK nor the Pentagon foresaw that a reference to the desecration of the Koran was going to create the kind of response that it did. The Pentagon saw the item before it ran, and then they didn't move us off it for 11 days afterward."

-Drudge Report

Bayonne  posted on  2005-05-17   18:25:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Bayonne (#21)

Holy Moses. That is huge.

Burkeman1  posted on  2005-05-17   20:32:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: swarthyguy (#17)

The controversy and riots did NOT begin until Imran Khan of Pakistan trumpeted the issue.

This Imran Khan?

http://www.despardes.com/newsmakers/imran-khan-misses-wife-bday-bash-feb2.htm

The one whose sister-in-law was a Rothschild?

"Jemima's brother Ben Goldsmith came with his pregnant wife, banking heiress Kate Rothschild."

bunnyrabbit  posted on  2005-05-21   7:10:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]