Ban Newseek

by **bruin** » Mon 16 May 2005, 21:00:58

Many people are dead for Newsweek's yellow journalism.

Ban Newsweek.

Or do some of you think Newsweek got strong armed into retracting?

I say they are trying to sell their rag and hyping up the stories as much as they can.

by **smallpoxgirl** » Mon 16 May 2005, 21:05:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bruin', 'B')an Newsweek.

by **Egon_1** » Mon 16 May 2005, 21:12:17

I am 110% with smallpoxgirl.

The journalists are NOT the problem, the politicians are.
The actions of the U.S. government have cost more people their lives than the actions of all the journalists in history.

by **Carrie** » Mon 16 May 2005, 21:19:08

I think Newsweek was trying to be sensational, but they said the source was a senior government official. My gut tells me that they got hung out to dry by this official, who became alarmed by the global reaction & backed off. They took a risk by only using one unnamed source & paid for it.

I'm concerned, though, that this could create a chilling effect for other publications. They may think twice before publishing something that casts the government in a bad light.

by **BitterSweetCrude** » Mon 16 May 2005, 21:44:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carrie', 'I') think Newsweek was trying to be sensational, but they said the source was a senior government official. My gut tells me that they got hung out to dry by this official, who became alarmed by the global reaction & backed off. They took a risk by only using one unnamed source & paid for it.

I'm concerned, though, that this could create a chilling effect for other publications. They may think twice before publishing something that casts the government in a bad light.

by **nero** » Mon 16 May 2005, 21:46:24

The thing is, it is a totally plausible story. And even now I don't disbelieve it because I don't trust the American government to be straight with us. That's what they get for throwing out some 800 years of legal precedent. If the American (and Canadian) governement wasn't so willing to tear up the constitution in the name of security I would have more faith in their denial.

by **smallpoxgirl** » Mon 16 May 2005, 21:46:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BitterSweetCrude', 'M')aybe I'm confused, I thought the media and government had become one entity in the last 10 years.

by **BitterSweetCrude** » Mon 16 May 2005, 21:57:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BitterSweetCrude', 'M')aybe I'm confused, I thought the media and government had become one entity in the last 10 years.

by **JLK** » Mon 16 May 2005, 21:57:25

I think Newsweek has the story about right, but they agreed to fall on their sword at the request of the White House for the good of the country.

by **RonMN** » Mon 16 May 2005, 22:02:52

NO! dont "ban" newsweek!!! I truely believe in the freedom of speech so I WILL NOT BUY NEWSWEEK!!! THAT's where it's gonna hurt them the most!

They have shown NO responsibility in reporting so i will not BUY their magazine...but don't "ban" them...that will just sielence what we don't want sielenced (and set a dangerous precident).

by **Mo_Oil_Dave** » Mon 16 May 2005, 22:07:21

Hello there...

If you are going to punish Newsweek, please do so for the right reason. Do it because they only got the story half right and only reported half of it. An old story at that...

http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=5959

I hope this helps.

by **khebab** » Mon 16 May 2005, 23:20:37

A few weeks ago I watched a british show about Guantanamo bay aired on a canadian TV channel. The show was about a "simulation" of the life of prisonners inside the facility based in part on the testimony of five british detainees that were released.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he Guantanamo Guidebook was made by Channel 4 using declassified documents about the US camp, producers said.

The methods used on seven volunteers in the show included religious and sexual humiliation, forced nudity, sleep deprivation and extreme temperatures.

by **jaws** » Mon 16 May 2005, 23:54:33

Ban weekly world news, their unfounded rumours about the president being a pawn of satan threatens the world's security.

by **Daculling** » Tue 17 May 2005, 09:25:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BitterSweetCrude', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BitterSweetCrude', 'M')aybe I'm confused, I thought the media and government had become one entity in the last 10 years.

by **gg3** » Wed 18 May 2005, 07:54:21

Bruin, cut the crap; what part of the First Amendment don't you understand?

Newsweek had a Pentagon spokesperson review the story for accuracy. He suggested some other corrections but didn't comment on the Koran-flushing incident. This gave Newsweek reason to believe it was correct.

If you're really concerned with deaths due to lies, how'bout you raise some noise about 1,600 US soldiers dead, 15,000 wounded, and countless hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, all due to some clever official lies about Saddam having WMDs, eh?

Pot, kettle, black.

by **arretium** » Wed 18 May 2005, 14:16:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'B')ruin, cut the crap; what part of the First Amendment don't you understand?

Newsweek had a Pentagon spokesperson review the story for accuracy. He suggested some other corrections but didn't comment on the Koran-flushing incident. This gave Newsweek reason to believe it was correct.

If you're really concerned with deaths due to lies, how'bout you raise some noise about 1,600 US soldiers dead, 15,000 wounded, and countless hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, all due to some clever official lies about Saddam having WMDs, eh?

Pot, kettle, black.

by **threadbear** » Wed 18 May 2005, 14:20:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carrie', 'I') think Newsweek was trying to be sensational, but they said the source was a senior government official. My gut tells me that they got hung out to dry by this official, who became alarmed by the global reaction & backed off. They took a risk by only using one unnamed source & paid for it.

I'm concerned, though, that this could create a chilling effect for other publications. They may think twice before publishing something that casts the government in a bad light.

by **bruin** » Wed 18 May 2005, 14:41:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'B')ruin, cut the crap; what part of the First Amendment don't you understand?

Newsweek had a Pentagon spokesperson review the story for accuracy. He suggested some other corrections but didn't comment on the Koran-flushing incident. This gave Newsweek reason to believe it was correct.

If you're really concerned with deaths due to lies, how'bout you raise some noise about 1,600 US soldiers dead, 15,000 wounded, and countless hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, all due to some clever official lies about Saddam having WMDs, eh?

Pot, kettle, black.

by **bruin** » Wed 18 May 2005, 14:52:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bruin', 'B')an Newsweek.

by **arretium** » Wed 18 May 2005, 15:41:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bruin', 'W')e could spend all day pointing out lies from all kinds of people. Let's limit our talk to Newsweek.

Ban Newseek

Ban Newseek

Re: Ban Newseek

Re: Ban Newseek

Who is online