Out the source, Newsweek!

[Gold Metal Flake]

Show us who set Isikoff up.

[Avalux]

1. I'd love to see it

but don't think it will happen. The stakes are too high, unfortunately.

[Warpy]

10. Not this time.

The story was a PLANT, not a leak, since the story in a slightly different form has been in print media around the world for two years. That riots happened immediately afterwards was fortuitous for the whole thing, I'm sure they expected screams of rage, only.

Newsweek needs to tell the truth and shame the devil. Out whoever it was that planted this story, and make sure everybody knows just why it's being done. This is another Rovian attack against the press: plant a slightly bogus story, denounce it, blame anything that happens after the story as a result of irresponsible librul journalism, feign outrage, call for the head of the editor in chief on a platter, and attempt to replace him with a compliant stooge.

I'd protect a legitimate source. Whoever planted this story is now so compromised that he will never be a legitimate source. He's a GOP dirty trickster, doing the bidding of the worst catastrophe to occupy the White House in our country's history. Out him.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

2. If Isikoff can determine...

That he was setup, then he should expose this person to wider investigation, as per motives and who he or she was working for.

[Freddie Stubbs]

4. So far, Isikoff hasn't said anything that indicates that he thinks that

it was a set up.

[MidwestTransplant]

9. Exactly. I guarantee he is looking for a source

to affirm the original story. Abuse of the Koran at Gitmo has been widely reported by the foreign press.

[jaxx]

5. This smacks of the swiftie's tactics

Ignore the reason and ruin the messenger. They are ruthless in protecting dubya and the GOP. Plus once again, the heat is off dubya and on to Newsweek......typical.

[ET Awful]

That would be extremely sweet.

What would be even funnier is if Isikoff had previously spoken with Novaks source for the Plame affair and outed that source too.

[Poiuyt]

3. They were discussing this on Hardball last night

Everyone agreed (including conservative John Fund) that that is what Newsweek should do.

[Eric J in MN]

21. John Fund endorsing an idea make you more prone to accept it?

John Fund would like to know to further smear the source, who did nothing wrong.

[bpilgrim]

6. if he feels he was set up, he should

but even if they don't they should PURSUE the STORY... it is all about the STORY.

don't back down to these THUGS!

i hold MOST MEDIA in CONTEMPT right now and they better start EARNING their keep before they get tossed in GITMO!

peace

[Schema Thing]

7. Any chance the WH pressure is the real "set up"?

This may have been covered elsewhere, but could it be that the WH has seized this opportunity to try and squeeze Newsweek into giving up an insider who's been talking to the press?

[TheDebbieDee]

11. Good thinking - you may have something there.........

So, in order to keep from exposing their source, Newsweek had to retract the story?

[me b zola]

26. That has a ring of truth about it

Newsweek caved awfully easily to WH demands, it doesn't make sense on face value.

[Taxloss]

8. No, don't.

Source protection is the basis of free journalism; wihtout source protection, Watergate would never have been exposed. Newsweek is free to reveal te source if it wants, but it should NEVER be pressured to reveal the source or told it should do so.

In my humble opinion as a journalist.

[JDPriestly]

13. A source that is using you as a journalist

does not deserve protection. So, this is a call Isikoff will have to make. If the source is honest, he or she will speak up by him- or herself.

[Taxloss]

14. I agree. The deal is simple.

You tell me the truth, I don't identify you. If one party breaks the deal, the other party is given free reign to break it if they want to. However, there are endless reasons why the journalist might not want to break the deal, even after this set-up; not only might it jeopardise access, it might also be unproductive towards other more important stories. It could deter whistleblowers. I might be a propaganda home goal. There are more.

But it remains important that there should never be pressure on journalists to reveal sources. Such pressure is a tool of authoritarianism.

[Warpy]

17. Sure, if it's a legitimate source

Dirty tricksters, plants, stooges, fakes, and payola recipients all need to be EXPOSED. They are not legitimate sources.

That's where the line is.

[Taxloss]

19. Apparently it was a legit source.

So maybe it's the source that got set up.

And as I said in a earlier response, plant false info and the deal is off.

[countryjake]

18. Editor of Newsweek said they respected their source...

in an interview on "Nightline", and that he had given them very reliable information in the past, for other articles they had done, which had later proved to be true and important for their magazine to make known to the public.

[hexola]

12. NEWSWEAK (nt)

[Drewskie]

15. Ed

Schultz is ranting big time about how they should reveal the source. It's funny. He's right: the crap has already hit the fan so reveal the source. If a small paragraph in a Newsweek article is really that damning and dangerous to the country we deserve to know.

[Eric J in MN]

22. If they reveal the source, no one will talk to Newsweek for 30 years (nt)

nt

[Drewskie]

25. ...

No one would talk to Isikoff specifically. Actually, his career might already be ruined, so he has nothing to lose. Lots of different people write for Newsweek: Everyone from Henry Kissinger, to George F Will, to Jonathan Alter... Though, yea, Isikoff is more the investigative reporter...

[countryjake]

16. I don't care about their source; I want to know which DOD official...

was shown the Newsweek article, before it was published and had some questions on a few other things mentioned in those two paragraphs, but said nothing, whatsoever, about the lines involving the Koran!

Since Newsweek went to the trouble of checking with two Pentagon officials before it's story was printed, seems the Pentagon is the guilty party, if any lies may have been told! They knew exactly what was going to appear in that Newsweek report, before the fact, so why isn't the WH asking that the Pentagon be held accountable?

[Eric J in MN]

20. It wan't a setup.

Most people don't remember where they read everything they know.

Do you?

Big deal, he isn't certain if he read about the Koran-flushing in the Southcom report or another report.

[jayctravis]

23. On Crossfire they were missing the point.

Wondering when...WHEN was Newsweek going to take some RESPONSIBILITY for REVEALING that these HORRIBLE THINGS are perpetrated by our GOVERNMENT?

[JackRiddler]

24. This was not a set-up...

I have a much simpler and more obvious explanation for you:

The source was genuine and merely confirming what had already been reported by other news sources dating back to 2003.

When it suddenly got hot because of the riots, and the search was on for scapegoats and traitors in our midst, the source developed a bit of strategic forgetfulness a.k.a. CYA Syndrome.

"Gee, did I say that? Guess not."

Don't forget that Newsweek submitted this 11-sentence story to the Pentagon for vetting in advance... and they objected to a couple of details, but NOT the Koran flushing.

The govt/media confluence is eminently capable of creating new weekly hysterias in spontaneous fashion. Not everything is a set up.

[Ganja Ninja]

29. Exactly!

This wasn't some Rove inspired plan to get Newsweek and somehow gain even greater control over the media. This is an example of just how much control over the media Bush has. Newsweek reported the truth and when the truth hurt Bush, Newsweek and the rest of the American media bent over, smiled and grabbed their ankles.

[Gold Metal Flake]

30. You have a good point.

Good points are made in 22, 25 and others.

It would be so easy to commit this sort of thing as a set up, but obviously, even if it was as you write, it certainly was easy to exploit anyway.

Shit.

Well, I gotta retract my thread title.


No easy answers to winning, is there?

[CatholicEdHead]

27. Newsweek is the new CBS

as now CBS has been "cleaned out" after Rather left, they need fresh blood.

[Freddie Stubbs]

28. Wow. For once DUers and Freepers want the same thing

On thing that Newsweek can do to help restore its credibility
Miami Catfish ^ | 5/16/2005 | Kevin Cerino


Posted on 05/16/2005 6:25:25 AM PDT by Happy Valley Dude


By now everyone is probably familiar the false Newsweek article which has caused violent anti-American protests in Muslim-dominated countries. There is little doubt that Newsweek’s retraction will receive far less coverage from inflammatory voices in the Muslim world like Al-Jazeera.

Newsweek based the story on an anonymous U. S. government source. Newsweek should come clean and name this source. If they don’t, every time that an anonymous source is used in one of their articles the public would be right to be suspect.

This is not the first time that an anonymous source has proved to be untrue. Back in 1998, Democratic Congressman Paul McHale very forcefully criticized President Clinton for his behavior in the Monica Lewinski scandal. A ‘journalist’ named Geraldo Rivera reported on his CNBC show that someone “close to President Clinton” told him that Congressman McHale had falsely claimed to have been awarded military decorations. These were charges which had been debunked in Mr. McHale’s 1992 congressional campaign. Not only did Mr. Rivera fail to investigate the veracity of this smear, he also refused to name the source. That person is free to take further false pot-shots at individuals while hiding behind the cloak the anonymous source. At least Mr. Rivera’s show was cancelled.

Some will contend that it is important for journalists to protect the identity of anonymous sources. The argument is that these sources would be wary of divulging information if there was a danger that their identity would become known. I agree with that argument, but…


(Excerpt) Read more at miamicatfish.blogspot.com ...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1404042/posts

[progressivebydesign]

31. Scary.. I thought that quote was from the new Star Wars..

.. you mean someone ACTUALLY SAID that to Bush?? Those people are fucking crazy!!