Newsweek gets b*tchslapped by the U.S. government

[Beet]

This deserves its own topic.

So Newsweek has this story confirmed by two government sources, but after riots break out in muslim countries hurting U.S. policy goals the government sources suddenly change their tune and say it never happened? Do people seriously think this never happened? I think it's easy to read between the lines with this whole fiasco. As for Newsweek, here's nothing they can do if their sources changes their minds, after all, that is all they have to rely on for this kind of stuff. But regardless, this will just feed into the right-wing "Dan Rather/Jayson Blair/BBC conspiracy" echo chamber that they've worked themselves into.

Which makes one wonder, in the future, will newsmagazines simply suppress these critical stories coming out of Iraq or Afghanistan, and compromise their status as standard-bearers of the free press, or will they risk a damaging, even fatal backlash followed up by a highly embarassing public apology after their source skips out? Its not a good position for a newsmagazine to be in. And its not a good position for a democracy to be in.

[Beet]

People died because of rioting due to this story.  Do you personally believe it is better to publish stories like this, knowing people will die, or not to publish stories like this to prevent such deaths?

No, I don't think it's good to publish a story knowing people will die because of it. But I do think it's important that the American people are informed of what our own government is doing overseas. As well as the truth of what's going on overseas in general. I think we as a society realized that on Sept. 11, 2001. And there is a dangerous slippery slope we are on here. If you were to restrict any news story from being published just because it might possibly lead to bad future results in some manner, that would affect a heck of a lot of stories. Supposedly, this public, while not meant to be the direct rulers of the country, are supposed to have the final say on political affairs. It is therefore imperative that a free press does not feel compelled to make editorial decisions based on utility, but on its own judgment as to what it is in the public's interest-- the American public's interest-- to know. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening.

[Beet]

Why do the American people need to know if someone is putting a book on a toilet?  Why is this such vital information?

I can understand if its friggin Watergate or even Abu Ghruaib.... but sheesh, this is ridiculous.

Htmldon, your question is a good set up for a descent down the slippery slope. First try to isolate one incident, then use a judgment on that to spread to another issue, then another, then another. The question is, who decides? Apparently someone at Newsweek when looking at this story felt that it was worth publishing. And for a private media outlet that should be enough, it really should. Not everyone dies in custody. Some of these muslims come out of these prisons and form opinions and views about America that others around them come to respect because they have experience. And over time that kind of thing builds up. And then later we are bewildered at what people in other countries do.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I think that had more to do with social norms back then than any kind of pressure against the press's freedom to report. It's completely different between then, when there were different social norms, and now, when there's pressure coming from the government and society to intimidate the media. The other thing is that most of the media's coverage is designed to cater to people's need for a circus, which explains the Clinton thing. But I don't think this newsweek story was about that at all.

[Beet]

Acctually, what happened, as I pointed out in my thread, was that other news organizations went to investigate this and found that the claims were totally baseless.

Why did those g asshole news organizations not investigate anything Bush said about Iraq? f**ck them all.

What can you do? The bottom line is that reporters are nothing but ordinary civilians with no real skills armed with printing presses and cameras. They have access to no more than we do, which is what our government feeds us. Even if they wanted to break out of the mold and try and get some non-government sources, they would be attacked as incredible and anti-American. Yet their current set-up is profitable enough.

[Beet]

So, Newsweek has apologized and retracted and kowtowed like a Japanese woman and they're still getting savaged? I don't know why but this is the kind of this that really pisses me off. What do they want them to do? Intimidation of the press...disgusting. The stuff of 1930's Germany. Personally I want my media to be unhindered in what they feel they can say without being rolled over by the White House like an iron steamroller over a fat lob of dough.

[Beet]

So, Newsweek has apologized and retracted and kowtowed like a Japanese woman and they're still getting savaged? I don't know why but this is the kind of this that really pisses me off. What do they want them to do? Intimidation of the press...disgusting. The stuff of 1930's Germany. Personally I want my media to be unhindered in what they feel they can say without being rolled over by the White House like an iron steamroller over a fat lob of dough.

I'd agree with you if not for the nefarious political agenda of much of the media.  I just don't trust those people.  I don't view the media as a watchdog against corruption, but part of the corruption itself.  If they didn't print lies because those lies are thought to advance their political agenda, they wouldn't have to worry about being intimidated.

The media's agenda can be transparently viewed by their hyperactive coverage of every irrelevant high drama from Jennifer Wilbanks to Michael Jackson to whenever cute little girls go missing or are killed. They are there to make money, so they are there to entertain. Did the media, as an aftermath of their successes in turning public opinoin against Vietnam and exposing Watergate, have a left-learning tilt in the 1980s? Yes, you could say the Reagan revolution came late to that aspect of the establishment. During the 1990s, I think though the trend was away from political bias and towards frivolity and "talking head" punditry- a game where there more provocative you were, the more successful. It was this freewheeling, attention-hogging environment of the late 1990s that led to the rise of the likes of Ann Coulter. During the 2000s, the media has again gained a sort of political bias overall. But now, there have emerged a clear, distinct and influential right-wing media which is very effective in many ways.