1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Way To Go Newsweek

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by Coot, May 15, 2005.

  1. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    I am with Tom and even go further. I hope it does NOT make it.

    Deltat, you weren't fighting for the image for the image of the flag, you were fighting and serving for the people that comprise a country. Who cares under what logo it is presented?

    I know I am going to get flamed for this but I honestly don't see the big deal here. They want to burn or defile a flag on their cover, by all means. Just don't defile our people -- and no, I don't equate the two.
  2. deltat2000

    deltat2000 Veteran Member

    This will have to be one of those times Leon, where we agree to disagree.

    I will fight for this amendment with as much fervor as I fought with in combat, for I believe that Newsweek did indeed intend to defile our people!

    Semper Fi
  3. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    Well, if it does happen, hopefully SCOTUS will have more brains than our elected representatives do.
  4. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    I respect that right and your passion, Deltat. :)
  5. ravital

    ravital Banned

    Dear Lord... People, think for a moment about the meaning of this sentence: "Desecration of the flag."

    Desecration? Something has to be sacred to begin with, before it can be desecrated. A Crucifix, maybe? A place of worship? Scriptures?

    Is the flag a religious item? Of which religion? The religion of Patriotism? And is the U.S. Government now going to enforce a religion?

    That would elevate the Flag to the level of a Religious Artifact, and the State to the level of a Deity.

    Now that would be the work of Facists, wouldn't it?

    Delta, there is no way I can thank you for your service to this country and express my respect for your opinion. To me, this is plain wrong.
  6. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    Newsweek deserves to have scorn and contempt heaped upon them over the picture, and as the story that it was put with originated in the US and not in Japan, it's a fair bet Newsweek US was the source of the picture. Legislating against them and anyone else who chooses to do this is way over the top.

    The best way of going after this epitome of journalistic ethics is to cease buying the rag, pressure retailers and newsstands not to stock it, etc. AFAIC, they don't deserve to be in business, but I can't make that decision. Only an informed public can make that decision for the Washington Post with their purchasing habits.
  7. ravital

    ravital Banned

    Agreed, Coot, every word.
  8. Plunge

    Plunge Passed Away July 20, 2007

    Now it looks like Newsweek retracts the story, but really doesn't retract the story.

    From LGF.


    That is the Newsweek Bureau Chief.

    Read the rest here.
  9. joseftu

    joseftu ORIGINAL Pomp-Dumpster

  10. ravital

    ravital Banned

    I've just read it. To summarize (and everyone is free to read the piece for themselves rather than take my word for it):

    • Excuses.
    • Pointing fingers in every possible direction except Newsweek.
    • The real issue is torture, not dubiously sourced reports of torture (again look here and look there but don't look at Newsweek).
  11. MNeedham73

    MNeedham73 Well-Known Member

    That's about what I got out of that article as well, Rav.

    It's everyone else's fault :rolleyes:
  12. joseftu

    joseftu ORIGINAL Pomp-Dumpster

    Yes, he does go quite easy on Newsweek. I would have preferred a stronger condemnation of their violation of journalistic principles.

    But the main point, I think, is one that really needs to be made. If there's blame-shifting and distracting finger-pointing going on, it's on the part of those who would vilify Newsweek, rather than those who rioted and incited the riots in Afghanistan and Pakistan (described in the beginning of Hertzberg's piece, and almost totally absent from every other media report), and those responsible (not just at low levels) for what really is going on at Bagram (which seems far worse, and gets almost zero condemnation or attention from the same people who vilify Newsweek).

    A big problem with the Newsweek fiasco (for which Newsweek deserves to be blamed) is that it's such a distraction--from the real issues, and the real problems. They should not have published the story without further verification. That's quite clear. They were wrong in that. And the fact that they did makes it just that much easier for real abuses to be ignored or excused.

    We may never know whether the Koran incident really happened. It's correct to be neutral on that. It is not demonstrably false. But many other incidents are demonstrably true, and to the extent that Newsweek made it harder to condemn and assign responsibility for those, Newsweek is also to blame.

    Publius at Legal Fiction has an excellent analysis of how some stories, including this one, attract what he calls the "hyena chorus" (unnecessarily antagonistic and insulting phrase) of the right-wing blogosphere. Most importantly, he gives a very persuasive explanation of why. http://lawandpolitics.blogspot.com/2005_05_01_lawandpolitics_archive.html#111682644393993998
  13. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    Without facts that can clearly demonstrate that it is true, it is then the provenance of rumor and innuendo and as such it must be presumed false and without merit. This variation on the fake but accurate meme is becoming inordinately tiresome.
  14. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    This is New Yorker's Achilles Heel. They would NEVER condemn a leftist source as a sham.
  15. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    Undoubtedly true. It's false, as it can't be proven, and as a matter of fact, all factual commentary that's been released by the military disproves it entirely.

    Unless someone would care to make the argument that the military is lying, in which case I severely doubt that Newsweak would be adroit enough to ferret out the truth.

  16. ravital

    ravital Banned

    Not here.

    You're quite correct, that many in Afghanistan are guilty. And this has been made quite clear in this thread.

    But it's not as if it should have surprised anyone, is it? Is Afghanistan new to us? Haven't we known for a long time what clerics and hotheads and hot tempers can do in that part of the world? They are what they are, and Newsweek and everyone else shifting the blame away from Newsweek have known that for a long long time BEFORE ever publishing this story.

    Newsweek defenders are trying to spin this as if the entire journalistic community, the whole media, knew about this story before publication, as if it were the break-out of a war or the successful cloning of a gorilla or something of that vein. Not at all, Newsweek was going after a SCOOP, which in civilized times weekly magazines would have stayed the hell away from it.

    Something else: I don't read Newsweek, so maybe someone can tell us: Does Newsweek refer to the people who are killing Iraqi civilians of all ages and western reporters today, as "insurgents" or "terrorists?"

    I ask, because you see, "Insurgent," try as anyone might to deny it, brings up connotations of noble, brave, legitimate resistance to a foreign occupation, when in fact these are no better than mass murderers killing their own, including children.

    This is relevant, because it's really a bit too easy, too hypocritical, to glorify the actions of murderers in one theater, where the U.S. media keeps hoping for a miserable U.S. failure, but as soon as Newsweek's buttocks are in jeopardy, go "ohmhgod, those brutal Moslems, what a dysfunctional culture" in the other theater.
  17. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    I don't know... maybe the connotations aren't there for all of us. Could it just be that it's a "promotion" from terrorist (bad connotations) to insurgent (no connotations)?
  18. ravital

    ravital Banned

    Merriam-Webster Online:

    1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
    2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party
    [Emphasis in the original]

  19. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    So where are your connotations of noble, brave, legitimate resistance to a foreign occupation?

    Or are you agreeing with me? :)
  20. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    I suspect it's the following which confers an entirely different connotation than terrorist:

    As you can plainly see, this is entirely inaccurate given the circumstances, and propogating the inaccuracy only lends credence to the desire of some media outlets to romanticize and perhaps even exonerate the doings of this particular group. It's a nuance, perhaps, but one that's wielded with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer.


Share This Page