Sunday, May 22, 2005

Stretching the Truth on Newsweek: Columbia Journalism Review Gets it Right (Part 3)

"In the Newsweek case, the White House's motivation is obvious: They would rather talk about the purported harm done by six inaccurate words in a Newsweek brief than talk about, for example, the 10 Guantanamo Bay interrogators who have already been disciplined for abuse of prisoners. Along the way, the White House managed to obscure the fact that Newsweek only retracted a statement about what a source expected an upcoming government report to say -- the magazine has taken no stance, now or then, on the question of whether or not any desecration of the Koran by interrogators took place."

-- Columbia Journalism Review's "CJR Daily," May 18, 2005

2 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

simple:

the magazine should not have reported as it did and was correct to retract it as they did. any harm that was caused by it, while unfortunate, is what it is....and mistakes happen during wars conflicts etc.

the white house should have stayed out of it and mclellan stepped in crap seeming to tell newsweek what to do going forward. stupid.

the newsweek story stands on its own. enough of the conservatives saying it is liberal bias when it likely wasnt. enough with the liberals trying to ignore the story and instead use it to focus on what lies Bush has told etc.....

10:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is the kind of crap that happens when America is forced to fight a 21st century war against a 7th century enemy.

11:12 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares