Freedom of the Press

Newsweek Apologizes for Quran Story Errors

The Associated Press
Sunday, May 15, 2005; 5:16 PM

NEW YORK – Newsweek magazine has apologized for errors in a story alleging that interrogators at the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay desecrated the Quran, saying it would re-examine the accusations, which sparked outrage and deadly protests in Afghanistan.

Fifteen people died and scores were injured in violence between protesters and security forces, prompting U.S. promises to investigate the allegations.

“We regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst,” Newsweek Editor Mark Whitaker wrote in a note to readers.


Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech, while idealistic, are not realistic.

Do they get Newsweek in Afghanistan?

Point?

I don’t speak that language.

Tell us something we dont know…

I was born in Russia. :wink:

“Fifteen people died”

Put your happy face on that.

Remember compassion when when you want others to embrace what is near and dear to you.

At least it wasn’t twenty?

Nice.

:roll:

Well, anyhow, Newsweek may be sold in kabul–no surprise
if it is. Also stories may be available on the internet,
either via Newsweek or other stories about
the Newsweek story.

Which makes the score something like Newsweek 15, The Bush Administration 20,000.

Accuracy is preferable and even critical for news publications, but gleefully pointing to one error by Newsweek as if it outdoes the laughable “standards” of such Rightist heroes as Fox News or Matt Drudge strikes me as disingenuous at best.

I have nothing at all against Newsweek. I am using them as the latest example in shoddy, irresponsible journalism, whether it be left, centrist, or right.
I have a problem with such journalism, wide-spread news-gathering scandals, and a tenet to guarantee Freedom for the Press to protect such behaviour.

“If it bleeds, it leads” has always been the watershed between TV and print reporting. Now I am not so sure.

Newsweek says Koran desecration report is wrong

By David Morgan, Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Newsweek magazine said on Sunday it erred in a May 9 report that U.S. interrogators desecrated the Koran at Guantanamo Bay, and apologized to the victims of deadly Muslim protests sparked by the article.

Editor Mark Whitaker said the magazine inaccurately reported that U.S. military investigators had confirmed that personnel at the detention facility in Cuba had flushed the Muslim holy book down the toilet.

The report sparked angry and violent protests across the Muslim world from
Afghanistan, where 16 were killed and more than 100 injured, to Pakistan to Indonesia to Gaza. In the past week it was condemned in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Malaysia and by the Arab League.

On Sunday, Afghan Muslim clerics threatened to call for a holy war against the United States.

“We regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst,” Whitaker wrote in the magazine’s latest issue, due to appear on U.S. newsstands on Monday.

The weekly news magazine said in its May 23 edition that the information had come from a “knowledgeable government source” who told Newsweek that a military report on abuse at Guantanamo Bay said interrogators flushed at least one copy of the Koran down a toilet in a bid to make detainees talk.

But Newsweek said the source later told the magazine he could not be certain he had seen an account of the Koran incident in the military report and that it might have been in other investigative documents or drafts.

Whitaker told Reuters that Newsweek did not know if the reported toilet incident involving the Koran ever occurred. “As to whether anything like this happened, we just don’t know,” he said in an interview. “We’re not saying it absolutely happened but we can’t say that it absolutely didn’t happen either.”

INCIDENT UNDER INVESTIGATION

The acknowledgment by the magazine came amid heightened scrutiny of the U.S. media, which has seen a rash of news organizations fire reporters and admit that stories were fabricated or plagiarized.

The
Pentagon told the magazine the report was wrong last Friday, saying it had investigated earlier allegations of Koran desecration from detainees and found them “not credible.”

Newsweek reported that Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita reacted angrily when the magazine asked about the source’s continued assertion that he had read about the Koran incident in an investigative report. “People are dead because of what this son of a bitch said. How could he be credible now?” DiRita told Newsweek.

The May 9 report, which appeared as a brief item by Michael Isikoff and John Barry in the magazine’s “Periscope” section, had a huge international impact, sparking the protests from Muslims who consider the Koran the literal word of God and treat each book with deep reverence.

Desecration of the Koran is punishable by death in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Newsweek, which said opponents of the Afghan government including remnants of the Taliban had used its report to fan unrest in the country, said it was not contemplating disciplinary action against staff.

“This was reported very carefully, with great sensitivity and concern, and we’ll continue to report on it,” said Newsweek Managing Editor Jon Meacham. “We have tried to be transparent about exactly what happened, and we leave it to the readers to judge us.”

U.S. officials opened an investigation but maintained that members of the Guantanamo security force were sensitive to the religious beliefs and practices of the detainees in U.S. custody.

U.S. national security adviser
Stephen Hadley earlier on Sunday stressed the report had not been confirmed. “If it turns out to be true, obviously we will take action against those responsible,” Hadley said on CNN’s “Late Edition.”

Newsweek’s Whitaker said that when the magazine first heard of the Koran allegation from its source, staff approached two Defense Department officials. One declined to comment, while the other challenged a different aspect of the May 9 story but did not dispute the Koran charge.

The magazine said other news organizations had already aired charges of Koran desecration based “only on the testimony of detainees.”

“We believed our story was newsworthy because a U.S. official said government investigators turned up this evidence. So we published the item,” Whitaker said.

“Our original source later said he couldn’t be certain about reading of the alleged Koran incident in the report we cited,” he wrote.

The iraqi body count is somewhere between 6,000 and 100, 000 depending on who’s counting and how they do it. The US military doesn’t count Iraqi casualties, and that’s the reason no doubt we never hear about it on US coporate media.

“We don’t do body counts,” - Gen. Tommy Franks

"In October, the British medical journal Lancet estimated 98,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the invasion and occupation. The study was based on interviews with people in 988 households with 7,868 residents randomly selected across Iraq. Forty-six percent of the violent deaths were of children younger than 15, and 7 percent were women, the researchers reported. The findings were dismissed by the U.S and British governments as inaccurate. "

Tally of civilian deaths depends on who’s counting
Definitive estimates difficult to obtain

San Francisco Chronicle
May 12, 2005

You know, I can’t imagine ANY circumstances under which an army investigation would confirm such a story, irrespective of the truth.

At Abu Ghraib, it wasn’t until dozens of photographs started turning up that that the army bothered to conduct a real investigation. Before then, they dismissed reports from of abuse from prisoners and from the red cross using language identical to the phrase they’re using on this issue: “The reports were not credible”. You’ll note that this doesn’t actually constitute a denial.

The army’s claim is that the report regarding the Koran is not in the final draft of the report; the source confirms that he might have seen it in an earlier draft. However, neither side is denying the substance of the claim: that an army investigation had confirmed that the incident took place.

I can see how such a claim might have been excised from the final version, but I can’t see how it would have got into an earlier version without good reason.