NOTE (added May 25): Welcome Daily Kos readers! Thanks for stopping by. As I've said before, thoughtful comments from any political perspective are always welcome here. This blog is not meant to be an echo chamber.
NOTE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! And thanks very much for linking, Professor Reynolds. Ditto for LGF readers and Charles.
Newsweek's false, retracted story about American guards flushing the Koran down a toilet at Guantanamo doesn't necessarily mean the magazine's staff hates America or Bush, or wants us to lose in Iraq. To be charitable, let's just chalk that one up to sloppy journalism.
But I'm at a loss to explain this, from the February 2 issue of Newsweek's Japanese edition:
As you can see, the cover story shows an American flag, dirtied and tossed in a trash can, its staff snapped in two. The large white text reads, "Amerika ga shinda hi", which translates to "The day America died."
The equivalent international edition of Newsweek, the January 31 issue, featured a picture of Bush on the cover, with the caption "America Leads ...But is Anyone Following?":
Both of the above editions featured a cover-story article by Andrew Moravcsik, titled "Dream on, America". (This was translated into Japanese as "Yume no kuni Amerika ga kuchihateru toki", which is even harsher; it means, roughly, "America, the dream country, is rotting away".) According to Newsweek itself, the article described "the world's rejection of the American way of life."
Moravcsik's article did not run in the American edition of that same issue. The cover was also a bit different. It featured Hilary Swank, Leonardo DiCaprio and Jamie Foxx, with the title "Oscar Confidential":
If you look carefully, you'll see that one of the articles from the other two editions is mentioned in a small blurb at the top: Fareed Zakaria's "High Hopes, Hard Facts" — here billed as "A reality check on Bush & 'Freedom'". Sure, they put scare quotes around "Freedom", but pretty tame stuff, all things considered.
It's one thing for Newsweek to actively promote the notion that America is a "dead", "rotting" country overseas. But it's quite another thing indeed to hide those efforts from its American readers. If Newsweek really thinks America is dead, and our flag belongs in the trash, why won't it tell us?
If I were to offer Newsweek a suggestion, it would be this: Any story or cover you're ashamed to run in America probably shouldn't be used in other countries, either.
FOLLOW-UP: Let the photoshopping begin!
ANOTHER FOLLOW-UP: Watch out — Lileks is on the case. But he's giving Newsweek a one-day headstart.
YET ANOTHER FOLLOW-UP: More photoshopping, as Rick Adams has created an image of the Japanese Newsweek cover with the headlines translated into English. (Found via LGF.)
AND ONE MORE FOLLOW-UP:
Reader Tokyo Tom points out that the Moravcsik article Newsweek wouldn't print in America is available on the MSNBC-Newsweek International website here.
NOTE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! And thanks very much for linking, Professor Reynolds. Ditto for LGF readers and Charles.
Newsweek's false, retracted story about American guards flushing the Koran down a toilet at Guantanamo doesn't necessarily mean the magazine's staff hates America or Bush, or wants us to lose in Iraq. To be charitable, let's just chalk that one up to sloppy journalism.
But I'm at a loss to explain this, from the February 2 issue of Newsweek's Japanese edition:
 |
The equivalent international edition of Newsweek, the January 31 issue, featured a picture of Bush on the cover, with the caption "America Leads ...But is Anyone Following?":
 |
Moravcsik's article did not run in the American edition of that same issue. The cover was also a bit different. It featured Hilary Swank, Leonardo DiCaprio and Jamie Foxx, with the title "Oscar Confidential":
 |
It's one thing for Newsweek to actively promote the notion that America is a "dead", "rotting" country overseas. But it's quite another thing indeed to hide those efforts from its American readers. If Newsweek really thinks America is dead, and our flag belongs in the trash, why won't it tell us?
If I were to offer Newsweek a suggestion, it would be this: Any story or cover you're ashamed to run in America probably shouldn't be used in other countries, either.
FOLLOW-UP: Let the photoshopping begin!
ANOTHER FOLLOW-UP: Watch out — Lileks is on the case. But he's giving Newsweek a one-day headstart.
YET ANOTHER FOLLOW-UP: More photoshopping, as Rick Adams has created an image of the Japanese Newsweek cover with the headlines translated into English. (Found via LGF.)
AND ONE MORE FOLLOW-UP:
Reader Tokyo Tom points out that the Moravcsik article Newsweek wouldn't print in America is available on the MSNBC-Newsweek International website here.
Stay engaged wherever you go for the next act of the Quest, since more pairs of eyes are always a welcome check on what is in dead-tree media and flowing from the tube.
arf
Posted by fang lun
Posted by handy
Posted by t wooten
Posted by Carla
Posted by Carla
Posted by Anonymous
Just check out "Boei's" guest roster at Japan's Defense Agency home page where you will find ... screen shots of many movers and shakers.
http://www.jda.go.jp/e/index_.htm (Sorry, I can't quite make the link tune in.)
In sum, there is a lot of leadership and a lot of welcome activity.
Posted by Michael
Yes Newsweek has every right to criticize America. And Americans have every right to criticize Newsweek. It works both ways you see.
Posted by Anonymous
The problem is that Newsweek doesn't have the courage of its convictions to actually criticize as a friend would, to the face. It criticizes behind the subject's back, speaking to others alone. That is neither friendly, nor particularly loyal.
Posted by TM Lutas
Posted by
Posted by zapmama
Posted by Tom Paine
Posted by TJackson
No, the issue isn't Newsweek's printing of articles or covers critical of the United States in foreign nations. The issue is Newsweek's duplicity in printing those articles and covers in foreign nations while hiding that fact from Americans.
Posted by Mitch
This seems just a tad bit hypocritical of a magazine that just recently criticized desecrating another symbol...
Posted by Erik
At least the BBC is candid about their anti-Americanism.
Posted by max
Newsweek is actively supporting terrorists.
Posted by indigo
Posted by foreign devil
Posted by THIRDWAVEDAVE
No, anonymous, the problem is that Newsweek either doesn't have the balls to run that cover in the US, or they're pandering to the local anti-American sentiment. Either way, they're pompous phonies.
Posted by Spiny Norman
Posted by von Neumann
A. Most people who have a working brain know these hate America media types are lying. It's easy to behave atrociously when you know your rights are protected.
Posted by erp
I've read many such articles. The author spends no time researching or reporting - he just gloats over a supposed snub here, an opinion poll there - it's gossip and backbiting not information.
I'm not sure what our response should be to something so immature.
I think it's not out of line to offended by articles who's only intent is to insult.
Posted by Joshua Scholar
Posted by Daniel McAndrew
Posted by Aaron's cc:
If I screw up the URL, it's freedomsforce.blogspot.com
Posted by Sairai_x
Posted by Bill Peschel
Posted by Joshua Scholar
Posted by mistercalm
Watch Newsweek get increasingly desperate as the market for conventional print journalism in the US continues to shrink and publications go under.
Posted by anonymous
I wish I could announce that I will boycott Newsweek but I have been boycotting that rag for years.
Posted by Daniel Day
Thanks.
Posted by Maria
Posted by Anonymous
Posted by bubba
Something to keep in mind is that Newsweek's behavior hasn't occurred in a vacuum. Anti-Americanism is de-rigeur among your elites. It is effectively a status symbol. I can honestly say that I have never encountered a culture of people who are so reflexively hostile to their own countrymen. But I do not think that it is appropriate to declare that this elite is anti-American. They are anti-Americans - it is not the government that they hate as much as the people. It is my perception that they have a deep disdain for those who are not of their caste and they are very frightened by them. Ironically this perspective derives from the same parochialism that the elite is so fond of attributing to other Americans. They have a very shallow, childrens story, view of the world which is frankly a bit racist. All other cultures are either wise angels or primitive children, nothing in between.
I wish you luck in overthrowing the MSM, just make sure that you replace it with something better not just more reactionary institutions.
Posted by mimi
BTW: You ever get up to Misawa?
Posted by jwbrown1969
It is an article of faith in the MSN that Bush's foreign policy is alienating the world against us, and their evidence is the fact that the world community seems hostile. But Newseek's actions are a contributing cause of that hostility (See! Of course the Americans are horrible! Even their own papers say so!). Then, when the hostility manifests itself in anti-US protests, does Newsweek inform its readers that their coverage may have played a role in that hostility? Of course not -- unless they get stuck passing off inaccurate information, like last week.
Keep up the good work. I wouldn't be surprised if this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Posted by Sean P
I haven't been to Misawa... but that would be a heck of a road trip to do sometime from Tokyo.
Posted by GaijinBiker
Posted by Jerry
Posted by jwbrown1969
Posted by Lewis B. Sckolnick
It seems obvious that Newsweak is not anti-war, it's anti-American.
About the article and cover headlines: If the article was translated from English, the anger about the extreme bias should be directed at the Japanese staff who did the translation. And, indeed, those cover headlines are so biased as to be pathetic.
How much editorial and artistic control does the home office of Newsweak have over the overseas editions? How independent are they? Arnold DeBorgrave (sp?) was top editor of the international edition at one time long ago, I recall.
Living in Nagoya, Isshi.
Posted by Isshi
Yeah but it is beautiful county up there. You could take the bullit train to Hachinohe then rent a car.
Posted by jwbrown1969
I need to thank you. Because of my link on your page I am also getting more traffic. I hope enough people decide to blogroll you. You are going to shoot up the ecosystem (I am so jealous)
Posted by jwbrown1969
Perhaps, but such cultures have existed in history: Greece, Rome, the Muslim empire, China, all collapsed because their elites became so ennervated that they stopped believing in the values that made them great in the first place. They were unwilling to fight to save something they no longer believed in. It doesn't take long for that attitude to filter down. And it isn't hard to explain why they hate they're own countrymen: we STILL believe in the values that made us great, hence we're stupid, backward, etc., etc.
Posted by RMcLeod
Posted by Merri
Posted by James Jensen
Posted by IndianKafir
See below - and follow the link. Maybe their multimedia editor has been on extended hiatus that he hasn't found anything worthy of posting since Jan 18?
PHOTO GALLERY
WITH AUDIO
Instantly Orphaned
• A photographer witnesses the devastating aftermath of six Iraqi children whose parents were shot before their eyes by U.S. troops
Posted by Anonymous
If I were to offer Newsweek a suggestion, it would be this: Any story or cover you're ashamed to run in America probably shouldn't be used in other countries, either.''
Unlike Newsweek, apparently, Gaijin Biker, and every severely non-elite self-victimologist with Internet access, is entitled to an opinion. I wonder where we get the idea that Newsweek was "ashamed" to print the story in America. If they were objective, or "America haters,'' the term here, apparently, for people who don't feel like celebrating war propaganda, why would they be ``ashamed?''
Rather, Newsweek was AFRAID, or COWED or BROWBEATEN, into running the story only in its international edition. And that reeks of the ratcheting claims against press freedom that are emerging from the Bush administration.
Shame is the perfect word for the fact that Newsweek didn't have the simple courage to tell the Bush administration to stick it over the Koran story, and, likewise, it's pathetic that somebody over there at WashPost Inc. didn't like the piece about the historic plummet in global support for the U.S. What is worse: what that says about Newsweek's owners, what it says about the effect the Bush administration is having on the press, or what it says about America?
Remember, on the flushed Koran: the story was sourced from inside the government and vetted by the Defense Department. The International Red Cross, both before and AFTER the Newsweek story reported Koran abuse allegations, as did Human Rights Watch. Only AFTER the riots in Pakistan did Newsweek's government source retract and the White House started making noises that sound like fascism. When the White House has its people saying "Watch what you say" it's time to watch what they're saying and cram the Constitution right down their flabby, fear-mongering throats.
I love America, but hate the Bush administration, though I only wish I were elite. It's hilarious that this Fox/RNC talking point (the elite hate America) has metastasized so mindlessly through their devotees to the point where elite is used as an unchallenged epithet.
American Heritage : or elite n. A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status.
Should it be a surprise that people of superior intellectual standing oppose a president who boasts that he doesn't read the newspaper? It makes perfect sense to me that the better educated, upwardly mobile, successful people in America--the elite--would be more likely to see through the propaganda barrage the Bush administration puts out about the war in Iraq, Medicare costs, social security and so many other issues.
One question they always forget to ask on Fox: How did the elite get that way? Did they jail all the right-wingers?--uh, no, it was left-wingers who were jailed during the cold war. Did they steal or cheat their way to top of the Washington Post, et.al? Uh, no, the folks at Enron, Worldcom, etc. are not out there leading anti-war rallies (though there is an significant level of support on Wall Street, of all places, for dumping Bush.) Did the elite shut down the right-wing press and academia by fiat? No: the elite earned their way, in the finest tradition of American intellectual, academic and economic freedom. It's a real laugh to see so many right wingers constantly whining, claiming victimhood as if they don't already own enough of the press and academia.
If WashPost and NY Times, etc. are too biased, why do so many people look there for news? What's wrong with the moonie's Washington Times and Murdoch's NY Post, etc. empire?? Why aren't they papers of record? The answer is obvious: WashPost, NYT and the network news are elite because they're smarter, as a group, and therefore produce a better news product day-in, day-out that the ideotainment balderdash that Sun Young Moon, Conrad Black, Rupert Murdoch and their ilk spend gazillions spreading. Aside from the few high-profile sell-outs and the inevitable ideologues, no journalist worthy of the name wants to work for Moon, Murdoch and their many and well-funded imitators.
Lastly, it is a sad day when an American gives his flag the status of religious scripture. That must make bin Laden grin with satisfaction.
Posted by bunkerbuster
I think an appropriate rebuttal to your last two sentences is that bin Laden is too busy enjoying the Japanese Newsweek to care about what we think our flag's "status" is.
Posted by Zach
Posted by bunkerbuster
Posted by bunkerbuster
Posted by Bird of Paradise
This is the day America died.
Posted by Anonymous
"...or if he's just a life-long aliterate...
Pot meet Kettle
Posted by StinKerr
It will take a while...but the blogging world will cease and the evil newspaper empires will be back, totally, with it's sinful propaganda.
Posted by AC O'Brein
Posted by mistercalm
Why don't the MSM ask the right questions? Why don't Americans go on riot and kill each other when someone pee on the Bible? Burn the Bible? or Flush the Bible down the toilet? What kind of industrial strength toilets out there can handle a Quoran down the tube? What's the difference between us and these people went on the streets rioting and killing themselves? The MSM kept on saying we, the Americans, are to blame for all these tensions. Why not ask the question - why are those Muslims kill each other and go on riots when someone pee on their holy book while Christians and Jews don't do the same? Why?
Posted by Anonymous
They hate Bush-supporting America.
They love to put down Japan.
They love China.
All stories seem to be selected and translated/written according to these 3 principles. They've proven themselves pretty consistent at this. And the NWJ staff seem to lack research skills required for credible journalism. I've long stopped taking them seriously.
Posted by From Japan
Oh, so saying America died, because the eletion didn't go your way is 'criticism'? Freedom is dead in America, because Bush was elected (not re-elected probably by vote fraud in Ohio).
This kind of crap isn't criticism, it's moonbatery of the mooreish sort. We need and deserve honest criticism of policy, but that takes love of country first, and it takes a burning desire to get the facts right second, and it takes a willingness to be fair and balanced.
Newsweek does none of the above. It's contempt for America and Americans (it's customers?) leaks through in the US edition and screams Chimpybushmchitler from it's international editions. Newsweek International will next cover how the Jews didn't go to work on 9/11 and the CIA/Mossad is behind the attack. Hell, Howard Dean is just a step ahead of them, it's not proven Bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11.
Posted by Jabba the Tutt
Wake up kids, its not about ideology, its about money. The simple fact is that a cover article on the oscars (the FREAKING OSCARS!!!) generates more magazine sales and interest in this country than discussion about the world's diminished perception of America as the exemplar of all-that-is-good in this world. This is a serious issue and central to winning the war on terror. The lack of introspection, or even concern, my friends, is what is most sad.
As for those anonymous cowards on this talkback suggesting that the 9/11 terrorist scum should have aimed for the Newsweek, NYT, TIME buildings, I give you a big ole American redwhite and blue, flag waving, mom and apple-pie-eating middle finger. You should be ashamed.
Posted by Bojack
Posted by Tom Dukes
But there is another part to this, and that part is an outright lie by Newsweek. The original story was attributed to sources (plural). But as we now know, there never were sources. There was A SOURCE (singular.) Newsweek knew that, and chose to lie about it.
Posted by John
Don't believe me, do your own research to find out the truth. And don't believe any media source. Remember that journalism is an easy college degree.
Posted by Todd S.
The trash can is not an American trash can, its a Japaneese trash can.
If in Japaneese (and many other places') public sentiment the US is moving into the 100% looser position, which it at the moment is, then the headline reflects well this development.
But does that mean the US should put the same cover in the US where the contrary holds true?
The article in the Japaneese edition wasn't bad at all, differentiated and descriptive of what is going on outside the US.
But, I guess anything is ok for you to blame the messenger and deny the underlying problem.
Posted by Anonymous
What did NewsWeek have to say about it?
How many Arab/Islamic leaders spoke out against the desecration - None.
I am sorry, whether the Koran story is true or not is really irrelevant to me in the greater scheme of things - there are going to be certain abuses, what is important is that they not be allowed to become institutionalized - other than that, I would like to see some sort of fair representation of the truth as opposed to "right wing" or "liberal" bias everywhere.
The media no longer has a mission of truth or fact, now they all seem to have their own version of what they wish to see happen and slant their reporting in a fashion to support their desired outcomes or preconceived notions.
Posted by geekoh
Posted by Ann Jordan
The article quotes Bush's inaugural and says his words in it represent a "delusional" America. I.e., Newsweek does indeed regard the November 2004 election as the day that America died.
It quotes (25 words) arch-moonbat George Monbiot: "George Monbiot, a British public intellectual, speaks for many when he says, 'The American model has become an American nightmare rather than an American dream.'"
The article opines (53 words): Blinded by its own myth, America has grown incapable of recognizing its flaws. For there is much about the American Dream to fault. If the rest of the world has lost faith in the American model—political, economic, diplomatic—it's partly for the very good reason that it doesn't work as well anymore.
Posted by ForNow
Posted by Jennie Kurono
www.downingstreetmemo.com
Posted by Wim
Posted by ForNow
For a guy calling himself Bojack to describe the other posters here anonymous cowards is pretty amusing. It takes no bravery to defend Newsweek - Americans don't kill people who disagree with them. As to giving America your middle finger, get in line - Pepsico's CFO beat you to it last week, as have numerous other American publications, including Newsweek.
Posted by Zhang Fei
Unless you are suggesting that blowing up journalists is the American way, I'm thinking that mastery of English syntax is not one of your priorities. In any event, you, my friend, may pull my finger.
- Bojack
Posted by Bojack
Posted by doug
Posted by bunkerbuster
"...or if he's just a life-long aliterate...
Pot meet Kettle
Posted by StinKerr''
aliterate refers to people, such as Bush, who chose not to read.
perhaps you are confusing that with illiterate, which refers to people who cannot read, or alliterate, which refers to the use of words that begin with the same syllable. At any rate, I'm waiting for your apology...
Posted by bunkerbuster
1. Sloppy journalists have no credibility wherein the critique of our nation on a global scale is concerned.
2. Newsweek, still reeling from the debacle, was in no place to criticize. It would not be received here.
3. It says nothing of the relative truth of the article. Let's step outside ourselves for a minute, and think about how we look with a fresh set of eyes. Never done that? Don't worry--most Americans don't feel obligated to, and therein lay the problem.
4. There is something neatly ironic, previous debacle aside, about writing a (I suppose, I haven't read it) hard-hitting critique of America's relationship to the world, distributing it to aforementioned world...while actual Americans are spoon-fed the Hollywood drivel they crave, and sady, often deserve. Martha Soccermon in Denver doesn't want to hear how we're doing, or how much we may be hated. She just doesn't want to be late for church.
I have nothing to say regarding the merit of the article itself. But I find the sociological factors in its presentation, and lack thereof, fascinating. Looking at the political covers, vs. the US edition...come on. There's some meaning there. I think we're missing the ball.
)+(
Posted by Gabriel
1. Sloppy journalists have no credibility wherein the critique of our nation on a global scale is concerned.
Hard to argue with that, but it just doesn't apply to Newsweek, a global organization with hundreds of writers and editors. Even if you agree that the Koran piece was "sloppy," which I don't, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the cover story with the sacred sackcloth of myopic self-righteousness, aka Old Glory, trashed. The ``America is dead'' article was written by a different journalist for a different audience in a different magazine and edited by a different editor. To suggest that because one journalist got something wrong, the magazine should somehow take on a strictly pro-American bias is just plain silly.
Again: one poster here suggested that Newsweek did not actually "vet" the Koran piece with the Defense Dept. If that's true, then indeed, we could use the word "sloppy" as regards the Koran story. But what's worse, that kind of sloppiness, or having the guy who's running the war (Rumsfeld) saying: "Watch what you say.'' Wake up, folks, the self-aggrandizement and edification needs of tin-foil right wing bloviators are INSATIABLE. They will not shut up until every single word in print tells them how they're the greatest people, the greatest country and the greatest leaders the planet has ever known. It's no surprise, indeed, that Fox/Rush/Blogsterbation fans have such a gaping need for journalism that reminds them what fabulous people they really are: because without those reminders, they may not like what they actually see in the mirror...
Posted by bunkerbuster
Posted by 2Hotel9
Posted by Joefish
Posted by mike
Posted by bunkerbuster
Posted by bunkerbuster
To others:
As far as Old Glory being trashed...Keep your icons in check--it was an artistic statement. If I were a Christian, and I saw a picture of a crucifix in a trash can, with the title "Is the Church losing sight of Christ?", I would be smart enough to realize that the picture, in context was not anti-christian. Likewise, the photo--in context--made a similar statement. Just like Christians worship Christ and not the crucifix, we, as Americans, serve our country, and not just its iconography. The map is not the territory. Your fathers or forefathers did not die for a flag, they died for a nation. The flag represents us, and the opinion that we are going downhill as a country is a valid opinion, whether it's accurate or not.
)+(
Posted by Gabriel
Posted by bunkerbuster
Posted by tokyobk
Posted by Anonymous
And how, exactly, does this grant any kind of immunity to criticism? Context, indeed: The point of the article isn't that America is a worthless nation, but, rather, that other countries no longer see it in the same positive light that they once did (in the Marshall plan days, for example). Every poll I've seen shows this to be a simple fact: the world hates Bush and what he's doing to America. Why shouldn't magazines report that? Why is the need for self-congratulation so huge in America that factual, critical analysis is deemed out of bounds?? Look, Fox/Rush/the Wall Street Journal and to some extent CNN are pumping red-white-and-blue we love you crapola 24/7. Isn't that enough for you? Do you really need to every single magazine, newspaper, TV, Internet and radio outlet feeding your need for reminders of how ineffably fabulous your country and people are?? what would it take to satisfy you guys?
Posted by bunkerbuster
Posted by bunkerbuster
Let's try some actual facts:
1) The Defense Department did not "vet" the Newsweek allegation. Newsweek faxed a copy of the report to DoD staff and when they didn't recieve an immediate denial of the story they took it as confirmation. Which is shoddy and dis-honest jounalism. The DoD, not being shoddy and dishonest couldn't very well issue a denial or confirmation without first a) researching the report the claims were based upon and b) conducting some sort of investigation to determine if there was any veracity to it.... now could they?
The DoD did, apparently, issue a directive to it's own personnel about being more sensitive in handling the Koran. Apparently the main complaint that the DoD did acknowledge was factual was that non-muslim guards were allowed to handle the Koran in distributing it to inmates. Apparently, this offended the sensibilities of some of the inmates as they fealt that non-believers being allowed to touch the holly book was an act of descecration.
2) The source inside the government that Newsweek was using for the story was an anonymous source. That means that we have only the word of Newsweeks reporter that the source even exists....and we have only the word of newsweeks reporter to judge how credible the source is. While there certainly ARE valid reasons why whistle-blowers won't go on record when acting as sources for the media.... there also have been well documented cases of reporters fabricating such anonymous sources (and the information they "provided") from whole cloth. Without the source going on record in this case, we simply don't have any way of knowing. That is generaly why it is the rule in jounalism that an anonymous source cannot be used unless the information can be independantly verified.
Furthermore, this anonymous source has now purportedly re-canted part of thier story. Saying that they were wrong when alleging that they read the Koran flushing inicident about a particular instutition in a particular set of reports...but that they do remember reading about it "some report" ....they just don't happen to remember what the report was or any other information that might help identify the particular report....which strikes me as a rather convenient.
3) The International Red Cross and Human Rights Watch are both using the same source. This is a claim made by a group of former inmates who are currently engaged in a lawsuit against the government. Note, that neither International Red Cross nor Human Rights Watch will tell you that they can establish the varacity of such claims (nor should they reasonably be expected to) simply that such claims have been reported to them. That is the journalistic equivalent of saying "Johnnie Cochran confirms O.J. claims innocence". I'd hardly call that "vetting" myself but you are free to.
Note that none of this is determinstic one way or another about whether an incident actualy took place. Given the actions carried out by many Islamic terrorists in this WAR.... I would think it would constitute a super-human effort of discpline by our soldiers NOT to want to piss on the Koran in front
of them..... I know I would be sorely tempted. But that is beside the point.
The point is about journalistic integrity. Which Newsweek sorely lacks. If Newsweek has been "brow-beaten" it is not the Bush administration who is responsible for it....but the American public, which is finally beginning to assert that the rightfull role of journalism is to publish FACT... not rumor, innuendo, sensationalism or opinion masqueraded as fact. Newsweek does, in fact, have a right to publish anything they want (a right many Americans have died to defend).....just as the American public has a right to not purchase a shoddy, sensationalistic piece of trash like Newsweek. I can guarantee one thing though.... 17 people in this country won't be killed in riots over our symbol being desecrated..... civilized people actualy happen to believe in the freedom of expression (including desecration of symbols).
Posted by Anonymous
Since you ask, what would satisfy me is if people who hated America would just say so, and I would prefer it in this form: "Even though I live in (New York, LA, New Haven, CT...) and/or the sphere of protection of (Canada, Europe, Japan...)the greatest country ever created by man and woman, only great because it is a (sometimes failed)quest to expand freedom and liberty to the widest stretch of humanity possible, even though I live in (fill in the blank, almost any country will do) which was saved 60 years ago from totalitarian rule by farm boys from Kansas, I still hate America and will do my best to undermine its attempt to give women the vote and instill the concept of minority rights and religious freedom worldwide. Furthermore,(this is for the poeople who come from run down kleptocracy type countries) I reserve the right to attend an elite American univeristy and (those with a few million and/or tenure)call myself a liberal. If people like the editor of Newsweek International would just say that, I would be happy to let them print whatever they want.
Posted by tokyobk
"Should it be a surprise that people of superior intellectual standing oppose a president who boasts that he doesn't read the newspaper? It makes perfect sense to me that the better educated, upwardly mobile, successful people in America--the elite--would be more likely to see through the propaganda barrage the Bush administration puts out about the war in Iraq, Medicare costs, social security and so many other issues."
Having PhDs and even being smart doesn't free ANYONE from intellectual blind spots. Academia has a culture too and it is established fact that this culture is HOSTILE to American Constitutional values. You'd be an ignormaus too if your very livelyhood depended on how closely you followed the party line of the ELITE. Stop pretending that these institutions are FREE and unbiased and only concerned with open inquiry. They have an agenda. Thank God for the Moons and the Murdocks and (mostly) for blogging.
Posted by Seth
Posted by Ken Summers
Posted by Mario
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnleo/jl20050523.shtml
Posted by Seth
And thanks, TokyoBK for acknowledging your gaping need to be reminded continuously that your countrymen fought in WWII. Get over it, dude. You and your country are not the be-all end-all of greatness. How about just a little bit of humility, then. Isn't that a sign of strength? A lot of other countries love democracy, free speech and separation of church state as much or more than you do.
I know I love American ideals just as much or more than you and tin-foil hat right-wing crowd, I just have a different interpretation of what, exactly, they amount to and how to keep them from being destroyed.
Why doesn't it occur to you that the people at Newsweek love their country and one reason they're so angry about what's going on is that they sincerely believe Cheney-Bush are trampling on the values of free speech, free thought, fiscal responsibility, geopolitical responsibility and fundamental honesty?
That's what I believe and the only reason I bother to comment about it is that I love the U.S., my country, not because I hate it. Do I care if some mullah is preaching nonsense in some shitehole somewhere? No, not even a little bit. They are no significant threat, other than in their ability to whip up the kind of paranoia the Bush adminstration thrives on and prompts guys like Rumsfeld to tell me to "watch what i say."
Posted by bunkerbuster
It's amazing how "non-shalant" a lot of you are about the American flag being in a trash can. Yet these same people are in an uproar about "heresay" evidence that a Muslim holy book was flushed. Would the same media outlets complain about a Holy Bible being desecrated by a Muslim militant? Doubtful. It's a sad day in America when the American media cares more about the "feelings" of a group of people that have declared they want ALL of us and our kids dead, than the people who are protecting the freedom they have. I wonder if they realize that everytime they print this crap, more people die, mainly Americans. I understand that they're upset about losing the election, and they hate Bush, but there should be a line drawn somewhere. There's freedom of speech and there's treason. And if treason is legal then we should just lay down our weapons and welcome everyone to this country with open arms. First of all, if anyone figures out how to flush a book of that size down a toilet, then they should contact Ripley's, because it's impossible to do so. Second, last time I checked, yeah we in America are free to do as we please BUT, when we are at war, (and we ARE even though it's not disrupting your precious FREE lives), anything you do to bring comfort and/or aid to the enemy is TREASON. Wow, we haven't had to use that part of the law recently. But I guess since we have a new breed of anti-American-isim from the extreme left, we need to remind everyone that freedom is NOT free. So anyone giving comfort and aid to the enemy by whatever means should be rounded up and put on trial for treason. One other thing that bothers me and I'll stop typing: Where are all the Muslim-Americans, and how do they feel about the be-headings of people and the killings of Muslims-by-Muslims?
Posted by Chris K
Is it just me, or is this sort of discussion the best possible outcome of anything that's going on right now, regardless of who's right?
Whine towards freedom. Bicker to victory.
If this were not America, this would not be possible. Let's keep our country, ney, our way of life alive: keep the debate boxes alive. "Allah" doesn't like it. "Jesus" likely hates it. And if we can't transcend our Invisible Men, we deserve to be ruled over by much worse.
And yes, it could be worse.
Selah. Amen.
)+(GABRIEL)+{
Posted by Gabriel
Even within close US allies like the UK and Australia most people find the Bush administration repulsive. Outside the anglo world the hostility is much greater (and growing).
America should once again embrace real freedom and democracy, not the new form of fascism practiced by the present government that has dragged america's once bright reputation into the gutter.
Posted by Big Gav
It's *marketing*! For crissake ... Telling each side what they want to hear. Wake up ... the evidence is right in front of you ... you scanned it in.
It's all perception.
Posted by ice_9
1. ``It's amazing how "non-shalant" a lot of you are about the American flag being in a trash can.''
BB responds:
It's telling that you're "amazed" that people hold views that are radically different from your own. I find it both simple and wholly unamazing to draw the important distinction between a principle and a piece of colored cloth people use to symbolize those principles. More important, perhaps, I don't agree with the politics of people who wrap themselves in the U.S. flag: so from my point of view that flag, ALSO at this moment in history, represents repression, greed and nationalist bigotry. Perhaps Chris K disagrees and believes that the flag represents only the wonderful humanity and endless social wisdom of people who agree with him. That is fine, I will not contend against his right to hold that view, let alone profess to be ''amazed'' that someone would look to civics and geopolitics as a source of self-esteem maintanence. If Chris wants to challenge the factual basis of my views, he should first offer to learn about them instead of confessing that he's so far in the tank that he's "amazed" people don't agree with him about what the flag means and whether or not it's something that needs the reverence something like a religious symbol does. Chris K writes: ``Yet these same people are in an uproar about "heresay" evidence that a Muslim holy book was flushed.'' Who's in an uproar? If Newsweek writes a tiny item about it, it means they are in an "uproar?" I can speculate that I speak for the common sense faction when I say tha the uproar is that evidence of atrocities continue to emerge from illegal U.S. prisons in Gitmo and elsewhere and that the U.S. military, from Cmdr. Boykin to the Chief hisself have shown criminally stupid insensitivity to wacky muslim values. Even if you agree, as I do, that the whole jihad thing is vile nonsense, you can still see how stupid it is to take liberties with religioius symbols of people who will blow themselves up at the drop of a hat. Chris K writes:
``Would the same media outlets complain about a Holy Bible being desecrated by a Muslim militant?''
Firstly, Newsweek wasn't "complaining" it was reporting what someone said was going to be in a government report. Secondly, this sort of unfounded speculation is the classic "Are you still beating your wife'' kind of logic. Self-negating, obviously, but somehow alluring to the thickheaded and ideologically needy. Lastly, I doubt many Christians would riot based on a report someone somewhere defiled their favorite book. But hey, I'll be alive for at least a few more decades. If the drift toward religious authoritarianism in the U.S. doesn't abate, someday, will be as violently freaky as the jihadis. Then, Chris K, you won't have to worry about pesky magazines "amazing" you with dispresect for your psuedo-religious symbols of nationalism.
Posted by bunkerbuster
Posted by bunkerbuster
Posted by Dave Smith
Posted by tokyobk
Posted by Comrade_Tovarich
I'd say George Bush and his Cronies have squarely beat the flag and placed it in the trash can. Newsweek merely photographed it. Framed as such, I'd say it's an accurate depiction. I'd say Newsweek is spanking the US Government in markets from where they cannot be censored.
Posted by Looking Back
Posted by bunkerbuster
Very nice of you to spend so much time "busting my bunker". :) And although you quoted me on the flag issue you still didn't get it, and you think I'm "amazed" that people have a different view than me. But if you actually read the sentence, you'll see that I was "amazed" that some of these people don't respect our American flag. I guess I should have mentioned that not even 25 years ago it was considred very disrespectful to let the flag touch the ground, much less be thrown in the trash. But bunkerbuster obviously doesn't remember the days where respect of the flag wasn't a point of view in America but a standard. So, to sit there and make a whole paragraph about how I'm "amazed" that no-one agrees with my political views when I actually said; ``It's amazing how "non-shalant" a lot of you are about the American flag being in a trash can.'', is pretty paranoid.
Then I wrote:``Yet these same people are in an uproar about "heresay" evidence that a Muslim holy book was flushed.'' bunkerbuster writes: "Who's in an uproar?"
Dude are you living under a rock? Every media outlet in the world is in an uproar because the evil Americans are 'disrespecting' Muslims "again."
Then bunkerbuster wrote this: "I can speculate that I speak for the common sense faction when I say tha the uproar is that evidence of atrocities continue to emerge from illegal U.S. prisons in Gitmo and elsewhere and that the U.S. military, from Cmdr. Boykin to the Chief hisself have shown criminally stupid insensitivity to wacky muslim values."
Are you serious? "Illegal prisons"? How is Gitmo prison illegal? And what evidence are you talking about? And oh, you're talking about the abuse at Abu Grai(spell?) and "elsewhere". News flash: The people responsible for prisoner abuses are being prosecuted. So don't worry bunkerbuster, those evil guards will get whats coming to them.
And as far as the reference I made about treason, I knew I was going to get that kind of reaction from you just by reading your previous posts.
Then bunkerbuster wrote:''If the drift toward religious authoritarianism in the U.S. doesn't abate, someday, will be as violently freaky as the jihadis. Then, Chris K, you won't have to worry about pesky magazines "amazing" you with dispresect for your psuedo-religious symbols of nationalism.''
My psuedo-religious symbols of nationalism? How in the world did you get that from my statement about disrespecting the flag?
bunkerbuster seems to think that my post was "hysteria", mainly because I gave the definition of treason in my previous post and pointed out the fact that we haven't prosecuted that law in a long time. Probably because people like bunkerbuster would hire a team of lawyers and say that it's his "right" to give aid and comfort to the enemy.
So bunkerbuster, although it was very nice of you to "bust my bunker", I think you are the one that is paranoid and looking for any reason to slam America. And I noticed you commented on everything I posted except the beheadings, because my "hysteria" over the flag and treason is far more worthy, and easier to tackle right? Or, you just have no opinion on the beheadings, or worse.
All we need to do now is do away with the U.S. Constitution, gun rights, Christian beliefs and moral values. Then the rest of the world might like us. And that's what the main goal is. Peace, and the hope that one day we can all live in love and harmony together... Yeah, that's going to happen.
Posted by Chris K
You invade an innocent country to steal their oil, and then preach to the world that's about "freedom", freedom that you don't allow even people to have..
Of course people will wake up to the reality that you are murderous PROSTITUTES.
With superiority complexes that are as vacuous as your large stomachs.
Fat trash.
That's amerikkka.
Posted by The Truth
Posted by Bojack
http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+442+3++%28Flag%29%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20
-STATUTE-
(a)(1) Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles,
burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag
of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
for not more than one year, or both.
Tomorrow there will be a meeting of the House Judiciary Committee, they will propose an amendment to the Constitution regarding this issue.
http://www.judiciary.house.gov/schedule.aspx
H.J. Res. 10
I hope it passes..
Semper Fi
Posted by Richard
1) The Flag Protection Act of 1989 that you cite was determined to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Eichman and U.S. v. Haggerty , 496 U.S. 310 (1990).
2) Even when in effect, the 1989 act did not apply to illustrations of flags.
3) In any event, the 1989 act states that "[t]his subsection does not prohibit any conduct consisting of the disposal of a flag when it has become worn or soiled." You see where I am going here?