I find it interesting that the same news agencies that had problems with reporters fabricating stories and found guilty of plagiarism are now the ones making the most noise about Newsweek's debacle. Hell, even the Whitehouse is now on the bandwagon, saying that the magazine needs to retract its story. Never-mind that two years ago all the President's men took this country into war over a fabricated story of their own.
While I hate to be toxically cynical about human life, let's take a death tally as a result of lying: Newsweek 15 vs. Whitehouse 100,000.
I'm not proposing that we should let Newsweek off the hook. The editors who 'fact checked' this story should be dropped off in the mountains of Afghanistan for a little alpine vacation — here's some Hershy Bars and dehydrated food boys, good luck with your trip back to Kabal.
Still I think any animosity towards the magazine should be directed elsewhere, as we ourselves are somewhat to blame.
How can we expect better fact checking from our journalist when we let our own government run amok without any accountability or consequences that have resulted in needless destruction and death? If we don't demand transparency and truth from our elected officials, who are we to demand this from the press?
I understand that the press has traditionally been entrusted to counterbalance the noise coming out of Washington but maybe it's time we stopped outsourcing one-hundred percent of that responsibility and took it upon ourselves to keep both sides in better check, the sooner the better.
Join the fray by reading through and commenting at the end.
I understand your anger and, for the most part, agree with it. However, as much as we might disagree with the White house and its approach, the problem is with the media and its rush to get shit out the door.
Our media has got to go back to the days of shining a bright spotlight on our government and anything else the public has a right to know. Instead of this "National Enquirer" approach to reporting. All they've done is become the story and allowed the heat to get off the White house. Our free press has to be accurate, not first.
Excellent point, Eddie.
I must say, however, that the quickness at which information spreads magnifies these types of errors. They get out and spread out of control very quickly. Let's not kid ourselves into thinking that the "old press" never did stupid stuff like this.
(BTW, how are the Cruisers doing?)
I think you're right. The speed of information has been great, but with all new things, there is a trade-off. Just not sure what the answer here is ... I wish people put more stock in getting the right information, but we are some "immediately, if not sooner" folks and should expect it to come with some major flaws.
(we're still cruising on the Dark Side. oh yeah.)
"Kabul"
This is such a strawman argument. "It's not so bad what Newsweek did because the evil Bush administration took us to war under false pretense and this is the first time that blah blah blah".
What I find funny is that had the administration been the one to make such a mistake in a report that caused lives overseas, Newsweek, other print publications, would be having a field day. Every blog would have an "Impeach Bush" button on the bottom left corner right to the RSS feed. Instead, we get people rushing to protect an entity that claims to be the fourth branch of the government yet don't want to hold that branch to the same standards that they hold every other branch - or at least the same standard that they hold other branches when they don't politically agree with them.
I sitll wonder about all of this. I mean the source was a high level government official who after all the heat the government is getting says, well actually I'm not entirely sure where I read all of this in the first place. Don't know it just all smells a bit fishy to me.
I have to agree with SP... when I heard that newsweek retracted it's story, the first thing -I- thought was... what (or who) made the source retract his story?
I mean, this was HORRIBLE for the War Effort, and we all know how Bush feels about anything or -anyone- who doesn't agree with his stance on the war.
I wouldn't put a little strong-arming past them, is all I'm saying. As bad as it sucks to mistrust the government, that's what happens when you mislead your country into a war.
Hoo boy - here comes the 'fake but accurate' mud slinging again.....
I would have to agree with Alex. This argument is a logical fallacy and avoids the issue with Newsweek. However, at the same time I'd have to disagree with him about the "fourth branch of the government" bit as the media has both worked with and against the government in the past and this can be both a positive and negative thing, as with almost anything.
Speaking of fact checking: www.factcheck.org. I've found factcheck.org to be very fair and balanced with their articles. Very refreshing to hear both sides of the story.
Spoken like a true narrow-minded liberal.
Although I completely agree with the argument that Newsweek is 100% responsible for printing accurate, fact-checked information, I can't shake that sneaking suspicion that they were simply pressured into "retracting" their story, a common tactic of this administration.
It simply blows my mind that the public is more outraged by this than by the obvious and consistent hypocrisy of the Bush administration. Check out this NY Times-published response to the issue by the administration:
–In a statement on Sunday, Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said: "Newsweek hid behind anonymous sources, which by their own admission do not withstand scrutiny. Unfortunately, they cannot retract the damage they have done to this nation or those that were viciously attacked by those false allegations."–
Why more people don't ask the major American media to call Bush & Co. on their BS is beyond me.
Agreed Nick... How lame is it to be called a narrow minded liberal when the secrecy of the Bush Administration (not to mention their reliance on PROVEN FLAWED INTELLIGENCE) is exactly what causes me to be suspicious of this retraction. If proven that they jumped the gun... it was a horrible mistake.
For the President or his administration to act as though it's an atrocity... priceless. Being such a devout Christian, Bush should know the phrase... let he who is without sin.....
I think it's important to remember that government of any kind, in any time, under any circumstances is a balance between what goes on behind the scenes and what goes on in front of them.
Not to say that there haven't been instances where this has been unbalanced. I'm just saying that it's the nature of government and we should remember this.
I find this quote from the article interesting:
So the commander on the scene did not believe the riots were because of Newsweek's story, although that might have triggered them.
Here are two interesting links:
Arthur Silber on the reaction to Newsweek on the Right
Some other possible causes of the riots
Unfortunately, they both miss that, although the allegation was widely reported previously, the Newsweek article did add new information by saying it had been confirmed by an American government official.
Still, reading Newsweek's account, I don't understand the outrage. It doesn't sound like anything is wrong with Newsweek's process. It was an honest mistake on the part of the journalists. They had a source who had been reliable in the past and that source screwed up in attributing the allegation to a military report. They ran it by two Defense Department officials. Neither corrected that part of the story. Obviously, they won't use that source again. What would people have them do differently?
Oh, so you had to go and start this kind of thing again? Trying to up your comment count, Greg?
What I find funny is that had the administration been the one to make such a mistake in a report that caused lives [deaths? sic] overseas...
Where have you been hiding, Captain Yellowcake? Under a WMD?
Oh, so you had to go and start this kind of thing again?
When I saw the media and Whitehouse reacting with such hypocritical zeal I could not help myself, comments or not.
Where have you been hiding, Captain Yellowcake? Under a WMD?
I'm still trying to figure out what you're trying to say here? So now because I find fault with Newsweek and find fault with someone trying to totally turn around the situation to make a comment on the Bush administration, it's wrong for me to say something.
Look, this post was nothing but an attempt to totally take away blame from Newsweek. It's almost as if to say that it's Bush's fault because he set a bad example for the news media. Please, that is the biggest load of crap I've heard in a while. You want to start placing blame on Bush, you're going to have to spread it evenly.
And I'm sure the terrorist camps and weapons that Bush went after are the same ones Clinton went after back in 1998. Remember, the strikes that just happened to take place the same day the news broke that he purgered himself by not admitting to getting a blowjob from a fat chick?
No, I don't see anyone posting about that. All I see is an attempt by people too afraid to get into an actual discussion and just trying to bash an administration. This site was pretty silent during passing of the RealID act last week. If I recall, it passed 100-0 in the Senate. That means a bunch of democrats voted for it? Where was the outrage on this blog?
Then you go on and dare to say the White House is being hypocritical. Maybe they are, but that has nothing to do with the current news story.
But, it has everything to do with the point of Greg's post.
I must have been on vacation when it became un-american to speak your mind.
I have no problem stating that Newsweek appears to have screwed up. They clearly haven't retracted the story yet, though.. so I'm witholding judgement. I'm also pretty sure that Greg never congratulates Newsweek on their mistake. He's merely pointing out the EXTREME hypocrisy that the White House is putting on display.
Can you deny with a straight face (and without coming up with alternate, after-the-fact excuses) that George Bush led us into war with bad information from unreliable sources? And that they TO THIS DAY haven't apologized for that? That the loss of life far exceeds the results of Newsweeks (purported) blunder?
If you can, you're a better actor than I, and if you can't, how can you find fault (and fail to see the point) in illustrating the absurdity of the situation?
Maybe I believe in that whole "two wrongs don't make a right" thing. However, I'm not going to go ahead and say the administration should apologize. You have to understand that there are very serious ramifications of the White House coming out and saying such a thing. Politically, it would be suicide, but that's not even the big problem - do you have any clue what it would to our soldiers over there to hear "yeah, well, sorry guys. There's no reason for you to be over there; but now you can't come back until we stabalize things so, yeah, sorry about that guys"
It would be morally irresponsible to do such a thing. Did we go for the wrong reasons? Maybe. Can we just up and leave now? No - and to think otherwise to have absolutely no idea of our responsibility at this point.
Newsweek doesn't have that responsibility in the sense that they make policy decisions. I am sure, however, that the writer and editors specifically wanted the original story out there to create another Abu Ghraib style story. Their intention was to stir the hornets nest, and it just happened not to be true.
Look, this post was nothing but an attempt to totally take away blame from Newsweek.
I'm not sure where you got that but it's wrong.
The point was not to take away blame, in fact I recall writing something about punishing the editors of Newsweek magazine, but to refresh everyone's minds that the same people now gleefully pointing fingers have made very similar mistakes, resulting in many innocent lives lost and trust long abandoned.
When you grow up and can write a response that follows the guidelines let me know because I'm tired of having to clean up after you.
Yeesh, this is a nice little fire fight.
Greg, I think the point they are trying to make is that you are using the ol' "it was bad, but what [vaguely relevant political group] did was way worse" trick. It's like you're just bringing up the Newsweek article in order to criticize the Bush administaration. I mean, I can't even begin to count the number of "majority politicians lie and don't represent the people, the common people must rise up and punish them, thats why such-and-such minority party REALLY represents the people" calls to action I've read. Nowadays, it's pretty transparent and formulaic.
In any case, as anyone who has payed attention to this blog for any amount of time must know, you aren't exactly a conservative mouthpiece. As such, this post didn't really surprise me or outrage me because it is characteristic of Greg's views. I may disagree with him, but I very sincerely doubt that arguing with him in the comments is going to alter his point of view. And besides, emotionally charged arguments (Those that involve politics almost always are) generally devolve into screaming matches. If you really mind his point of view that much, stop visiting his blog instead of starting a fight. Imagine what would happen if people started actually taking time to argue with white supremecists on their websites, instead of leaving them to baste in their obscurity? They'd be internet must reads! Controversy creates hits!
To summarize: Greg, shame on you for trying to disguise this attack on the Bush administration as legitimate commentary on the Newsweek issue! Commenters, although I agree with you, shame on you for spoiling for a fight! Greg's political position is fairly well known, so if it really bothers you that much, stop visiting it (or, you know, start your own blog. :o) )
Greg, shame on you for trying to disguise this attack on the Bush administration as legitimate commentary on the Newsweek issue!
Shame on me? Come on! This was a crafty little entry that killed two birds with one stone, Mrs. Chesboro would be pround.
"...resulting in many innocent lives lost..."
You're talking about the 100s of thousands of people murdered by Sadam, right?
"...and trust long abandoned."
If trust in President Bush is long abandoned, why did a majority of Americans vote for him?
"Can you deny with a straight face that George Bush led us into war with bad information from unreliable sources?"
President Bush was not the only one who thought Saddam had WMDs:
"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States."
-- Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-CT, September 4, 2002
"If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late."
-- Sen. Joseph Biden D-Del., September 4, 2002
"Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, February 5, 2003
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
-- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
-- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
-- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
-- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
You can quote anyone you like, but the fact of the matter is... President Bush used flawed information to Justify (and rush into) a War that he wanted to wage anyway.
Alex, my bad. I guess my comment was ineptly written, because you missed my point. You stated -- if I may paraphrase -- that if the White House had made a mistake that had caused many deaths overseas, Newseek and other publications would have been all over the administration.
My point is they did made many mistakes in reading intelligence (I won't argue, as many people will, that Mr. Bush deliberately decieved us) that have resulted in, as Greg points out, 100,000 deaths.
Greg's point is: The general populace, egged on by venerable institutions as The New York Times and the White House, are getting their nappies in a knot over Newsweek's sloppy, egregiously bad journalism but seemingly uninterested in the White House's similar -- and more disasterous -- mistakes.
And what does Bill Clinton and the "fat chick"?
also, let us not forget that newsweek handed this story over to the pentagon and gave them 11 days to comment on it before running it. if they thought the information in the story was bad, why didn't they try to quash it or correct it at that time?
"You're talking about the 100s of thousands of people murdered by Sadam, right?"
- William, there is something we must prove in the United States legal system before we label someone guilty of anything. It is called guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." The question was whether or not Iraq posed an 'imminent' threat with the posession of nuclear arms, not whether Saddam was a "meanie." If we are taking care of the international "bully" problem, we should be invading about 30 other countries in addition to Iraq.
"If trust in President Bush is long abandoned, why did a majority of Americans vote for him?"
- Anyone who actually believes that the presidential election is anything more than who bullshits the public better is in extreme denial. The percentage of voters who actually vote on the issues is so small, I would venture to say it makes little or no difference. The majority of votes cast are by people who voted for Bush if they are Republicans or Kerry if they are Democrats. They probably voted this way because their parents voted this way, or their husband, wife, girlfriend or boyfriend voted this way... It just turned out that more Republican morons showed up to the polls that Democratic morons.
"If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late."
-- Sen. Joseph Biden D-Del., September 4, 2002
Then why aren't we invading Iran and North Korea today?
Ha, I love this:
Right after you say "two wrongs don't make a right" with regard to the Newsweek story, you say that even if Bush lied about Iraq, it would be morally wrong for him to admit it and apologize for it.
Anyone who doesn't believe Bush lied, should check out the Downing Street Memo. You can find a nice summary here.
I think that this thread could potentially go on forever as we reach further and further back laying blame on Bush for lying about the issue, Clinton for acknowledging but avoiding the issue, Saddam for creating the issue and Reagan et al for selling him the weapons which are at the root of the issue.
If I may make a humble attempt to mediate:
I find that this topic often ends up in two separate debates. Greg is essentially arguing about the way things should be and Alex is arguing about the way things are. The idealist vs. the realist?
We must acknowledge that Alex is correct in his assessment of what a Bush apology would result in at this point, yet that does not mean that the situation in Iraq was inevitable or necessary. But, what's done is done so let's hope the job gets finished properly.
I applaud Greg for spotlighting this issue - nothing would ever get better if we were all resigned to the way things are.
yawn.
airbag finally reached the political bashing enough that I'm tired of trying to sift through the garbage to find those rare gems of great content (which seem to be further and further between lately).
I was hoping after we got through the election this mindless babble would end. Guess not.
airbag now has one less reader.
Aww, it's a shame that an outlet for one person's personal point-of-view seems to expose that person's opinion and... -gasp- it doesn't reflect yours.
I don't think anyone ever held a gun to your head and ordered you to visit anyway.
And, I don't acknowledge that an apology would result in at this point. (At -this- point it will result in indifference) Several months ago, it would have MAYBE gained bush a modicum of my respect. It's common knowledge that the "intelligence" was anything but and it's hardly a secret that the administration is well aware that their "slam-dunk" was dead-wrong. An apology with resolve to finish the job is far better than a bunch of excuses and essentially giving the American public the finger. This man will never admit to being wrong (even when the evidence clearly says otherwise) and he's dragging America down with him. (Oh for the days when the excuses and the half-truths were about a stupid marital affair.)
If political bashing isn't your thing... (and I suspect that viewpoints other than yours are really what you're against, here) I doubt you'll be missed. Or, you could avoid topics that you're not interested in and save the headache and the drama. It's easy enough to do so.
Jesse: Buh-Bye.
Jared - "Then why aren't we invading Iran and North Korea today?"
There're a number of individuals suggesting that the nomination of Bolton as UN Ambassador is to foil any future efforts at negotiation should "we" deem it necessary to invade Iran.
Regarding Greg's point - Josh Marshall had some excellent points on this yesterday over at Talking Points Memo. Here're the closing paragraphs (and it's worth reading the entire piece):
At the risk of stating the obvious, I'm not justifying the work behind this story. I have no particular brief for Mike Isikoff or Newsweek. Indeed, it's not clear to me precisely what happened at all. What I am saying is that occasional errors are inevitable with a truly free press. The price paid by the news organization and the individual journalist should be based on whether and how well they followed established journalistic practices -- not on how much the White House went after them. If the new standard is that every material fact reported must be attested to on the record then in the future we'll know only a tiny fraction of what we do now about the internal workings of our government.
What I see here is an effort by the White House to set an entirely different standard when it comes to reportage that in any way reflects critically on the White House.
That's dangerous and it should be recognized as such.
Beerzie -
You are amazingly cavalier with someone else’s readership. I find myself agreeing with Jesse. This logical leap is so pathetic (Newsweek publishing an uncorroborated story is nothing like deposing a madman that gassed his own subjects) its not even justifiable. Regardless of how hard you guys try.
I guess I'll be following Jesse in the “buh-bye†line… the dross quotient is through the roof here.
Taylor
Beerzie is welcome to be as cavalier as he wants around here, he's paid his dues.
En garde!
I just think it's hilarious that you even tried to compare the news media to the government. =)
Sweeping generalizations, anyone? Get your sweeping generalizations, two for a dollar!
To death and taxes I add the annoyances of shifty politics and (poor) journalism.
Well, he practically recieved a handwritten invitation from the White house to make the comparison.
Bill Clinton says, "there is no point living in the past. Look at where we are now. Everyone, all freedom-loving people would be better off with a genuinely representative, effective, free government in Iraq whatever your feelings are about what went on before."
It's not "where we are" but "what we had to go through" and the lies it took to get us there.
Also, lets not get all that excited. The recent talk of troop pullouts has been retracted.... some of those retractions are from the same people who first stated that pullouts might occur. When the last troop is home and Iraq -has- a genuinely representative, effective, free government... I'll consider Bill's quote.
I'm not holding my breath. Seeing the silver lining on the otherwise dark cloud is one thing, but it doesn't mean I have to forget that the person who caused the storm is still in office and enthusiastic about the rain. (Nor providing our troops with umbrellas.)
alex cabrera,
the author of this post, the way i read it, is not making a logical argument. basically, he's saying "fucking glass houses, fucking a..."
[ head explodes ]