- "People are dead because of what this son of a bitch said. How could he be credible now?"
Bully to Newsweek for taking a third hand report from an anonymous source because it confirmed their pre-existing suspicions, and running it without proper fact checking. Bonus points for employing the CBS strategy of running a report (right before release) in front of a government official and treating their lack of outraged denial as proof that the story was true.
How a Fire Broke Out - [Newsweek]
Newsweek Apologizes for Quran Story Errors - [AP]
Newsweek's nightmares - [Powerline]



Comments (5)
This is outrageous. Words c... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Jim | May 16, 2005 6:29 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
This is outrageous. Words can't express my own personal anger over this story. The so-called experts on the Middle East at Newsweek had to know that running a story about US soldiers desecrating a Koran would inflame anger in the Islamic world. And assist the Islamofascists in their recruitment efforts. This is a perfect example of the MSM showing their true colors -- Anti-American scumbags. It's also evidence that somehow the MSM has lowered the bar when it comes to printing and broadcasting unsubstantiated statements.
1. Posted by Jim | May 16, 2005 6:29 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on May 16, 2005 06:29
2. Posted by apex | May 16, 2005 7:38 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
We are at war. These 'anonymous' sources and the reporters are giving aid and comfort to our enemies and so are traitors. So who is going to punish these people?
2. Posted by apex | May 16, 2005 7:38 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on May 16, 2005 07:38
3. Posted by Cousin Dave | May 16, 2005 10:51 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Oh, you didn't hear the funny bit. Where does the anonymous souce now say that he originally heard the story? Why, he read it in Newsweek!
3. Posted by Cousin Dave | May 16, 2005 10:51 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on May 16, 2005 10:51
4. Posted by DeputyHeadmistress | May 16, 2005 3:32 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
My 'favorite' part of their apology is where they explain that they showed teh article to a pentagon source to ask if it was true, and he commented on the one thing he knew about (it was not true). Since he did not comment on the things he didn't know about, Newsweek decided that meant they must be true. If that's hard to follow, thank NEWSWEEK.
4. Posted by DeputyHeadmistress | May 16, 2005 3:32 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on May 16, 2005 15:32
5. Posted by Jeff | May 17, 2005 2:43 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Actually one of the Pentagon folks explicitly stated that he had no knowledge of the Report that was mentioned in the article. In that case I could be a second "source" for the article, I don't know what is in the Pentagon Report either.
5. Posted by Jeff | May 17, 2005 2:43 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on May 17, 2005 14:43