Politics Newsweek

N

noggi16

Cadet
After reporting on the desecration of a copy of the Koren, Newsweek has withdrawn the story. With Anti-Americanism running rampant in the world already and instability in many countries across the world, such newsweek not have got its facts right before publication.

I'm not saying to cover up the story, but if you going to claim something this incediary should you not make sure its right.
 
I read Newsweek religiously and am a huge fan of their reporting...but I am so extremely disappointed in this fiasco.

But in their defense, they did use a source that had been credible in the past and they had no reason to believe that this source was making things up or stretching the truth this time. They also approached officials in the Pentagon with the story to get their approval and see whether they would confirm or deny such allegations. The US officials neither confirmed or denied the story, and it was printed.

Although Newsweek has received the worst backlash because of the protests and the extent of their article, media sources are coming under heavy fire for fabricating stories or having journalists fill in gaps. USA Today and The New York Time have had to issue retractions for stories in their papers that were not true, or had parts that were completely fabricated.
 
Maybe they should have tried at little bit harder because once you hear desecration of the Koren, people don't often stop to check details.
 
noggi16 said:
Maybe they should have tried at little bit harder because once you hear desecration of the Koren, people don't often stop to check details.
[post="1342869"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
Click to expand...


I'm not saying they shouldn't have tried harder. But when you have a source that has checked out numerous times, and you have the Pentagon pretty much showing indifference to the story, then I can see why they printed it. Were they probably a little lazy and didn't check up when needed? Of course. But all news branches do the same thing. Sadly the backlash to this story got deadly.
 
AliasHombre said:
I think they made it up.
[post="1343124"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
Click to expand...


I don't think a news organization such as Newsweek would risk everything to make up a story like this. It was a mistake, a horrible mistake, but a mistake. If it were really untrue and awful, I don't see why the US officials didn't say anything about it before it was published.

I agree that they should've used more sources and checked up on it...but there is no way they made it up.
 
Jamison said:
I don't think a news organization such as Newsweek would risk everything to make up a story like this.  It was a mistake, a horrible mistake, but a mistake.  If it were really untrue and awful, I don't see why the US officials didn't say anything about it before it was published.

I agree that they should've used more sources and checked up on it...but there is no way they made it up.
[post="1343164"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
Click to expand...
You would've said that about CBS a year ago.
 
I absolutely don't think they made it up, but with the global political climate what it is, they should have made damn sure it was correct before they printed it.
 
I don't think it was made up but I think it was exaggerated to a point where they should have held off on publishing the story until they got a 2nd confirmation.

It just makes me wonder about all news agencies now.
 
AliasHombre said:
If the source screwed them over they would expose the source.  No exposed source means it was made up.
[post="1343420"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
Click to expand...


You have to protect sources...especially if it is one that has given you correct information in the past (people agree to be a source, like a police informant, if their identities remain confidential...this person is appearently a ranking government official, who could be fired for feeding information to a news magazine...i'm sure an agreement of some sort was signed saying that Newsweek was never allowed to identify whoever this person is). They aren't the only news source that uses unnamed sources and doesn't give them up. USA Today and The New York Times have also come under fire for using unnamed sources that have given them false information...but they refuse to give up who the source is.

And CBS didn't blatently make that story up. They used documents that later turned out to be false...it wasn't like they made the documents themselves.

Newsweek absolutely did not make up this story. Do you honestly think they'd risk this kind of political backlash to make up some story, when they have very valid stories at their disposal? Of course they wouldn't. Was it a poor lack of judgement on their part to run with it? Most definitely. But it was not completely fabricated by them. Did you even read the article?
 
i didn't read the article so i don't know. but i hope that newsweek isn't punished to badly by it's readers for running it. but if they did totally make it up, then they should have something happen. but if it was just a source and sloppiness on their part, i think that it should be left at peace
 
Well Newsweek said they used “a knowledgeable U.S. government source,” and that they asked for verification from two Defense Department officials. One didn't respond and the other questioned a different part of the story, but not the Quaran desecration, so at the time they probably thought they had a solid article, but after the riots and killings broke out they probably investigated a little bit more and found out they had been wrong. True, they're on tight deadlines to get their articles out, but with something that's going to cause as much outrage as the Quaran charge, "solid" isn't enough. That thing better be bullet-proof. Fifteen people I think it was, were killed because of their carelessness. Not to mention the CBS thing just a little while ago. I'm taking every news item I read now with a grain of salt.
 
Queen Anne said:
[post="1343576"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right]
Click to expand...


Technically, based on their procedure they did what they were supposed to do...just turns out it was wrong. A government source gave them the information, and has given them correct information in the past. (It's interesting, a lot of conspiracy theorists are already saying that this information was fed to Newsweek on purpose knowing they'd run with it, because it would draw away from the problems that we have been having in Iraq and Afghanistan...has it? definitely...this was all you heard about today. Do I believe it? eh, not really...but it's interesting). They also took the story to the Pentagon, and they said nothing about the part containing the Quran.

While I do think they need to have all their bases covered, I can see why they would think this was a credible story. They have a governmental official give them the information, then take it to the Pentagon and have the 2 officials there not say anything about the Quran desecration...I don't know if there is much more they could've gotten.

That said, I do think what it has amounted to is awful. It has caused a horrible backlash in the Muslim world that cannot be immediately corrected, especially with tensions as high as they were before this.

Newsweek is a respectable news source. They would never, ever just pull a story like this out of thin air. This has cost them their reputation and has had serious consequences. Had they the slightest idea that this story was false, they would've never ran with it, period. It's much too risky. But at the time, being the only news source with this information of course they jumped on it, and probably didn't do the job they should've in trying to fully varify it.

Like I said earlier, I read Newsweek every week. This will not stop my subscription in anyway. If we were to stop reading/watching a news source that had given us misinformation, then we couldn't read or watch any news source. Sadly this one took a deadly turn.
 
So Newsweek thought they had a credible story that came from one unknown source with tension in the world as high as it is today, should they not have to have two or three sources agreeing about something before they print it?

In the past I would have agreed but 15 people have died. Newsweek knew this was a flammable story. Saying it didn't know wasn't good enough.
 
noggi16 said:
So Newsweek thought they had a credible story that came from one unknown source with tension in the world as high as it is today, should they not have to have two or three sources agreeing about something before they print it?

In the past I would have agreed but 15 people have died. Newsweek knew this was a flammable story. Saying it didn't know wasn't good enough.
[post="1344024"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
Click to expand...


I agree. But this source had given them valid information in the past, I don't think they had any reason to doubt the source. And then when they took it to the Pentagon, and an official looked it over he made notice of something within the story that was incorrect, but not the part dealing with the Quran.

Although I do think that given the nature of the story they should've checked all their sources and should've tried to get more to confirm their story, I can see why they ran with it.

Newsweek had no idea that this story would cause 15 deaths. They had no idea that people in Afghanistan and Indonesia would use that story as reason for Muslims to violently protest against America and even call for a 'holy jihad' against us. I don't think anyone could've predicted this.

I'm excusing Newsweek for printing the story, the should've, given the current climate, double and triple checked their information. But I do understand why they did print it.
 
Newsweek had no idea that this story would cause 15 deaths. They had no idea that people in Afghanistan and Indonesia would use that story as reason for Muslims to violently protest against America and even call for a 'holy jihad' against us. I don't think anyone could've predicted this.

I'm excusing Newsweek for printing the story, the should've, given the current climate, double and triple checked their information. But I do understand why they did print it.
Click to expand...

Of course thats a predictable reaction. Given the current climate of course it was predicatable it would cause violence and lead to calls for jihad. They wanted that before you did anything, its likely desecrating a copy of the Koran would lead to quite a lot of anger.
 
noggi16 said:
Of course thats a predictable reaction. Given the current climate of course it was predicatable it would cause violence and lead to calls for jihad. They wanted that before you did anything, its likely desecrating a copy of the Koran would lead to quite a lot of anger.
[post="1344120"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
Click to expand...


I don't think there is anyway they would've predicted it would lead to 15 deaths and that leaders in the Muslim world would hold that copy of Newsweek up as reason for their protests.
 
Maybe not the 15 dead. I'll give you that. But a lot of people don't like Americans, reports about desecration of holy books is not going to endear you to anyone,
 

Similar threads

G
politics
Replies
0
Views
768
GO Syd
G
M
Politics General
36 37 38
Replies
747
Views
13K
the_alliance
T
Saturn
Political Opinions
Replies
1
Views
788
Saturn
Saturn
Back
Top