RightinNYC

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/16/in...html?th&emc=th

Newsweek published a false, unverified claim, backed by omission by an "anonymous source," that was the fuel for anti-american riots that left 17 people dead. The irresponsibility of this action boggles my mind. If they hadn't been so quick to jump the gun to tell tales of how horrible the military was treating people in Guantanamo Bay, perhaps those 17 people would still be alive, and sentiment toward the US would be a bit better.

They owe a lot more than their half-assed apology.

__________________
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

shuamort

Amusingly, the CNN and New York Times take time off of their liberal agendas to bash Newsweek.

Simon W. Moon

I don't know about how they're rasing you kids these days; but, in my day, this was called lying.
Bias is something more subtle. Maybe this confusion is why so many people have trouble admitting that Team Bush lied abuot the threat ot the Us from Iraq- they think it was just bias.

__________________
"That is the problem... [we] fell in love with the idea that politicians-- even the slickest and brightest presidential candidates-- were real heroes and truly exciting people. That is wrong on its face. They are mainly dull people with corrupt instincts and criminal children. -H.S.T"

bellisaurius

Why doesn't anyone complain if a Blog blows the gun and publishes too quickly? This isn't a conservative or liberal issue. I think this is the way journalism as a whole is going to be operating nowadays since it's so easy to be scooped.

RightinNYC

Because there aren't tens of thousands of people having violent demonstrations because of claims in blogs.

RightinNYC

I don't know how you old fogeys were raised, but I wouldn't necessarily call this lying. I don't think they maliciously created something and put it out there to cause deaths, but rather that they got wind of something that may or may not have been true, and were too eager to publish it because of sensationalism/bias.

RightinNYC

If you read the Times article, its far more forgiving to Newsweek's error than the facts warrant. No editorial about the need for news organizations to be wary of what they publish, no op-eds about the horrors of this.

I'd say that constitutes bias.

Squawker

It depends on what side does the story. If this was say, someone like Bob Novak who reported a story, that may or may not have put one life at risk ------ vs -------- a Newsweek report that actually led to 17 deaths. Novak would be tried and hung by his thumbs, and Newsweek would get a pass by Democrats. Funny how that works.

__________________
http://users.igl.net/jdsquawker/squawkereagle.gifhttp://users.igl.net/jdsquawker/squawkername.gif

Political Word W/RSS Feed

akyron

So who is really responsible for 17 deaths? Was it media bias or religious fanaticism?

shuamort

Can't it be BOTH media error (to be determined if intentionally biased or not) AND relgious fanatacism?