Newsweek Caused A Riot
May 16th, 2005 | by Tom Harper |Since I first wrote this post, Newsweek has recanted this story, or at least they’ve done so much hedging and "uh, what I meant was…") that it amounts to recanting. But I stand by the main points I was making.
The Newsweek story was so believable because of all the prior abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. And The Right Wing Noise Machine used their tried-and-true tactic of blaming the media for reporting the abuse, rather than the perpetrators of the abuse.
Thousands of Moslems have been protesting
(and in some cases rioting) all across Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Sudan and Indonesia for the past few days. The protests started after Newsweek published a report of one particular interrogation/ humiliation technique practiced in Guantanamo Bay: Interrogators would flush a Koran down the toilet.
If the situation were reversed, just imagine — if it’s even possible — the reaction in this country. Just pretend for a minute: Jerry Falwell being felt up by female Moslem prison guards and then having to watch while a Bible gets flushed down the toilet. Can you say Holy War?
Now Newsweek is starting to hedge their bet and "qualify" their story. But these allegations have been leaking out since last Spring. And they go hand in hand with some of the other abuses and tortures committed by U.S. soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.
Extremists on both sides are milking this for every last drop. Radical Islamic leaders are using it to fan the flames and turn the protests into riots. And here in the U.S., the Far Right wingnuts have found another hot-button issue to get themselves worked up over.
Right wing pundits and bloggers are in their tightest lockstep formation since the Terri Schiavo case. And what are they all chanting in unison? It’s Newsweek’s fault. Newsweek caused these riots! Duuhhh!!
Yup, it figures. Last year when the Abu Ghraib tortures were first publicized, rightwing Neanderthals were up in arms. Were they furious that some inbred prison guards were violating the Geneva Convention and putting other American soldiers at risk? Nope. They were furious at the media for airing the story.
And you remember last Fall, when a soldier in Iraq asked Rumsfeld about their substandard equipment, and Rumsfeld gave his famous response of “you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had.” According to the Chicken Hawks on the Far Right, the burning issue here was that the soldier’s question had been prompted by a reporter. So what if our soldiers are getting killed because of inferior armor — a reporter snuck in there and planted this question just to embarrass Rumsfeld.
So again, like a stampeding herd of cattle, the right wing bloggerbots are off and running. Look out; don’t get trampled. Here comes one now;
and here’s another one. And yet another one.
Don’t worry, there are plenty of others, but after awhile one stampeding head of cattle looks pretty much like the rest of them.
So these protests and riots were caused by a magazine article?!? These right wing dildos have such a clear grasp of cause and effect, they probably think rain is caused by wet sidewalks.
Cross-posted at Who Hijacked Our Country
7 Responses to “Newsweek Caused A Riot”
By Craig R. Harmon on May 16, 2005 | Reply
These right wing dildos have such a clear grasp of cause and effect, they probably think rain is caused by wet sidewalks.
So, by that standard of logic, the bogus Newsweek story was caused by the protests around the world that, um, occurred, strangely, after the Newsweek article came out, was noticed and reported by Al Jezeera, et al. and hyped by radical Muslim clerics.
Um, okay.
Sounds like an article for Left Wing Nut.
Yes, Tom, absent the verifiable factuality concerning whether the event ever took place–and there is verified evidence that, in a fit of anger, a Muslim detainee ripped pages from his provided Quran and flushed them down the toilet–the protests were caused by the article.
Call me crazy but I’d rather my news sources didn’t run with every rumor that they, or you, find believable. I do not object to running with true, verified facts…something, well, sadly lacking in the Newsweek article.
Their ‘facts’ were from a single source. I am always leery of single sourced stories. They belong on Opinion pages, not news pages.
Their facts were not verified. Several people were, apparently, asked about the facts in the article, some objections were raised concerning facts not in relation to the Quran flushing incident and those parts were changed. The flushing incident was NOT verified. The authors took a non-denial as a verification. Call me crazy…maybe the people they asked had no way of knowing whether the incident took place or not so could in no way challenge the report. That does not a verification make.
All of the sources are anonymous. Well, I can understand a source not wanting to catch heat, but if I don’t know who the source is, I have a rather hard time giving much credit to his or her story…you can thank Dan Rather who, in a fit of humor, characterized Bill Burkett, a man with a long standing hatred of Bush/Republicans and with a history of mental problems as an “unimpeachable source”. Somehow I can never look at single, anonymously sourced, porely- or non-verified stories in quite the same way again. Neither should you.
Maybe the story is true, even if the source has no clear idea where in the hell he saw the information. If the story is true, well, it was pretty damned stupid but I must challenge your contention that right wing Christians would react similarly. Nothing even remotely similar to the riots and killings occurred when an ‘artist’ placed a crucifix in a Mason jar of urine. Protests, yes, mostly of the spoken/written word. I don’t recall crazed Christians burning out buildings, throwing stones and bottles and provoking lethal responses…maybe Newsweek reporters just took the day off and we never heard about them.
However much you would like to characterize Christians as thinly-veiled militant Crusaders, it just does not pass muster. Such attempts at moral equivalence just loose you credibility with those on the right whose minds are open enough to engage you in dialog.
By Tom Harper on May 16, 2005 | Reply
Craig: I agree that Newsweek shouldn’t have printed the story without further evidence, or at least should have qualified the story as “allegations.” They screwed up and heads should roll.
But the story was so believable because of prior scandals at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo.
I have no quarrel with Christianity or any other religion. In my posts I try to fisk the rightwing politicians who use Christianity as a lever. I hope I’m not tarnishing Christians in the process; that’s not my intention.
By Craig R. Harmon on May 16, 2005 | Reply
No, Tom, it’s just that when you ask us to imagine:
Jerry Falwell being felt up by female Moslem prison guards and then having to watch while a Bible gets flushed down the toilet. Can you say Holy War?
you invite your readers to suppose that a reaction similar to the international violent protests, proviking lethal responses, would ensue. To this, I point out that something considered far more heinous than desicrating the Bible has already taken place with no such reaction.
By Tom Harper on May 16, 2005 | Reply
Craig:
I forgot to answer that part of your original comment, about the crucifix in a jar of urine. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to stick up for that “art” project or minimize how insulting it probably was. But, I think that “artist” had less of a personal, in-your-face quality than a prison guard deliberately trying to humiliate and taunt a prisoner. If a devout Christian was being interrogated, tied up and forced to watch while someone put a crucifix into a jar of piss, that would have a lot more impact than just seeing a picture of it in the paper.
By Craig R. Harmon on May 16, 2005 | Reply
Oh, well, then, how to deny a hypothetical…I don’t know.
By megadave2002 on May 23, 2005 | Reply
General Meyers said in a press conference that the Newsweek article had nothing to do with the unpleasantness.
By Tom Harper on May 23, 2005 | Reply
I think he’s right. And I’m glad he’s honest enough to admit it.