Skip to main content

View Diary: Media bias against military? (187 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Newsweek was wrong (none)
    The relevant questions is not whether the press is anti-military (though I think you could make a pretty case that it is) -- the relevant question is this:

    Now that we have troops in harms way (put aside whether they should be there or not for a moment), are there guidelines or limits to what the press should be putting out there? If you put unverified information out there that you know is going to inflame the other side -- and  thereby increase the risk of our troops being killed then you are at least anti-troop, if not anti-military.

    Why was it so important to Newsweek that they had to print this unverified story?  I'm afraid they just couldn't resist taking a shot at the administration.  

    Fine, take your shots Newsweek. But if by doing so you are increasing the risk to our troops, just realize that you are putting the value of scoring cheap political points over the value of American lives.  And that disgusts me.

    •  Were you under the impression (none)
      that this was Newsweek's story?  

      It wasn't.  Not by two years it wasn't.  What was that about 'unverified'?  

      Were you under the impression that their story put Americans in jeopardy?  

      Maybe you should take that up with the American commander in Afghanistan.  He thinks otherwise.  

      Useful idiots like you disgust me.  You have framed "the relevant question" purely in terms of the ignorance someone else fed you.  

      You are the tool of those who did this, and you're letting the rest of us down.  

      •  And the book went "flush" (none)
        "...that this was Newsweek's story?  
        It wasn't.  Not by two years it wasn't.  What was that about 'unverified'?"

        Newsweek said that a Pentagon report confirmed allegations of a Qu'ran being flushed down a toilet.
        Forget for a moment that its really hard to flush a book down a toilet, as I know you already have with your limited ability to evaluate this story on fact.
        It was an unverified story because all Newsweek never asked the Pentagon, on record, "Is this true?"  If they had, then they could at least have the cover of saying that:

        1.  the spokesperson denied it
        2.  the spokesperson confirmed it

        They tried neither..  

        "Useful idiots like you disgust me.  You have framed "the relevant question" purely in terms of the ignorance someone else fed you."

        Flushing a book down a toilet?
        Tell me about the ignorance that people are feeding others.

        John

        •  liar (none)
          newsweek gave the story to the pentagon before running it. the pentagon chose to not respond.
          •  "Senior defense official" (none)
            "liar
            newsweek gave the story to the pentagon before running it. the pentagon chose to not respond."

            I'm not going to call you a liar.  I'm just going to suggest that you don't have a grip on the story.

            Newsweek gave a draft of the story to a "senior defense official".  He didn't "choose not to respond", but he/she corrected them on something in the story.  Which is far different from Newsweek saying to an actual spokesperson, on record, "Did we flush Qu'rans down the toilet?"

            Newsweek never did that.  They never even asked the "senior defense official" that they "vetted" the story with specifically about the Qu'ran incident.

            If they had asked a spokesperson for a response, his/her reaction would at least have given Newsweek cover of suggesting that they checked both sides of the story.  They didn't.

            John

            •  Lying troll (none)
              At least get your facts straight.

              Veteran reporter Michael Isikoff relied on a well-placed and historically reliable government source. We sought comment from one military spokesman (he declined) and provided the entire story to a senior Defense Department official, who disputed one assertion (which we changed) and said nothing about the charge of abusing the Qur'an. Had he objected to the allegations, I am confident that we would have at the very least revised the item, but we mistakenly took the official's silence for confirmation.
              •  If you're going to accuse me of lying... (none)
                You said that I lied.
                This is what I responded to:
                "liar
                newsweek gave the story to the pentagon before running it. the pentagon chose to not respond."

                Your Newsweek quote:
                "We sought comment from one military spokesman (he declined) and provided the entire story to a senior Defense Department official, who disputed one assertion (which we changed) and said nothing about the charge of abusing the Qur'an."

                Note, as I said:
                >>>Newsweek gave a draft of the story to a "senior defense official".  He didn't "choose not to respond", but he/she corrected them on something in the story.  Which is far different from Newsweek saying to an actual spokesperson, on record, "Did we flush Qu'rans down the toilet?"<<<

                Now where is my "lie"??

                They never asked the critical question of their second source.  They just showed him an entire piece and he objected to one section.  They never asked a Pentagon spokesperson.  They checked one anonymous source with another anonymous source.

                It was classical shitty reporting.
                Now step up and tell me where I lied.

                John

    •  Newsweek wasn't the only one, you know... (none)
      You are falling into the same trap as Hewitt, et al. These reports have been ALL OVER the foreign press, for months now! It is only when a US source reports it that Americans notice it. God forbid we should learn about our troops from a foreign source--doing so would mean we want to surrender our country to Islamofascists and covert to Wahabbism post haste.

      So if we just put a band-aid on this and make sure that US sources don't report on this kind of thing, ok, fine. Do you think that's going to do ANYTHING to the foreign press? Nope!

      If our government took the effort it put into silencing press reports and instead investigated/corrected the behaviors that are being written about, it would do far more than simply ensuring that US sources don't cover such stories.

      Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it.

      by David J on Wed May 25, 2005 at 10:22:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Stupidity disgusts me (none)
      Let's kook at the facts of the case.

      Newsweek had a very reliable source who told them this information, although as TDW says Isikof claimed "Sources". Said source since backtracked and said he read it somewhere but wasn't sure if it was the report in question.

      The article was given to the pentagon for verification and the pentagon, rather than deny or asking to hold off, gave it a no-comment.

      There is no reason to believe that the story is not true. If people are willing to shove light sticks up someones ass or beat them to death, why would they not be willing to fluch a Koran down the toilet.

      If you feel that the masses of this country should not be informed you believe the founding ideals of this country are unAmerican. Now that's a neat trick. Love America, hate what America was founded on.

    •  what a truckload of nonsense (none)
      Pure, unadulterated rightwing spin.  

      You think this question isn't "relevant,"  but then you use it as the very basis for your argument -- "scoring cheap political points."  

      And your fellow rightwingers think it's very relevant indeed.  In fact, they use it, relentlessly, to deflect any criticsm of the Bush administration's accountability.

      You and your fellow rightwingers' disgust at Newsweek rings completely hollow. (And you're even dead wrong on the facts -- the story was vetted, by the Pentagon.)

      You've cheerleaded a government that has gotten thousands of our soldiers killed and maimed.  Why?  For cheap political points.  To consoldiate their personal power.  

      Even if one assumes that the Bush adminstration's motives have been pure as the driven snow (and I certainly DO NOT), the complete, reckless incompetence of this adventure alone should have you rightwingers calling for the heads of the civilian leaders who commenced and adminstered this war.  

      But no, for you it's more important that Bush and company are immune to legitimate criticism, than that we actually do right by our soldiers.

      And what about the rightwing's traditional obsession about spending our tax dollars?  Since you don't seem to give a shit that your political leaders are throwing thousands of American and Iraqi lives into a the meat grinder, do you even care that we're spending hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars of American money, and driving this country into unprecedented debt?

      The truth is, you simply don't give a crap about our troops, or the future of this country.  That's the rightwing way.  That's crystal celar after the last few years.  You have no credibility anymore, and your whining about Newsweek proves it.

      You're offended?  Good.  I'm not going to listen to any more rightwing propaganda like yours without hitting you back with the unvarnished truth:  that you're a bunch of liars, and you don't care about this country.

      You rightwingers are always quick to demand accountability, but you don't believe you or your political bosses should be subject to ANY yourself.  It's hypocritical, to say the very least.  And traitorous.

      You rightwingers are the new Stalinists:

      Everything must benefit the One Party.  

      Everything must benefit the One Leader.

      In your blind devotion to Bush and the Republican party, you're happy to destroy lives.  You're happy to trash the country.  

      You're completely anti-American, and history will judge you harshly.

      •  Newsweek never got an on record answer (none)
        "You and your fellow rightwingers' disgust at Newsweek rings completely hollow. (And you're even dead wrong on the facts -- the story was vetted, by the Pentagon.)"

        It was not vetted by the Pentagon.
        It was vetted by an anonymous source who was a "senior official".

        Newsweek never asked the spokesperson the simple question, which is just basic journalism.  I can't remember the saying, but it goes something like this:  "if your mother tells you that she's having a good day, find a second source".

        -John

    •  No. (none)
      You're putting our troops in harms way by not signing up for the military and by not letting people know how their military can do a batter job.

      If you don't self-evaluate and you don't accept criticism, you won't become better at what you do. Same goes for the Pentagon.

      The military is desperately short of men. You wanted this war, you go sign up. If you don't, you're putting our troops in harms way while you can live a sheltered life in your white suburban middle-class comfort zone.

    •  you are full of shit, freep (none)
      mewsweek told the truth. they had a source. the story was, indeed, truthful.

      the problem isn't newsweek, it is the military under bush.

      this lying noise about anti-military bias in the warmongering jingoist US media isn't about the torture story. americans don't care about torture of brown people- we are shit. it is about the pat tillman atory. that story has legs. unless, of course. the media can successfully kill it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site