Tuesday, May 17, 2005

Brain-terminal.com raises valid questions about the Newsweek's story and its aftermath

My posting about Afghanistan and the protests were written out of anger and weren't politically correct. I understand that but I would rather express how I feel than to hide behind some kind of facade of tolerance. I believe its more benefitial to society as a whole if were open and had a free dialogue of how we truly feel, not how we should feel. If I'm pissed, I'll tell you I'm pissed. If that's unfounded, tell me why and don't accuse me of being racists because I feel a certain way. Respect for opinions, not surpression, is how we breed tolerance.

Anyway, Evan Coyne Maloney raises some good points and questions about the Newsweek fiasco. Here's a sample:
  • Newsweek's original report referred to "sources" corroborating the Koran-flushing story. The "s" at the end of "sources" indicates more than one source. But, as we now know, Newsweek had only one source for the story. So why lie to readers that way? Was Newsweek trying to make us think the story was more legitimate than it turned out to be? Or is this standard journalistic practice? Inquiring minds want to know!
  • For years, our media has reported unsubstantiated allegations from military detainees. The mere reporting of these charges serves to legitimize them, whether or not they were backed up by any evidence. In fact, al Qaeda training manual advises captured operatives to "complain of mistreatment while in prison." Making unfounded charges is part of the playbook of our enemy! So, it would be nice if the media, which prides itself on skepticism, would treat the statements of al Qaeda prisoners at least as skeptically as they treat those of our leaders. (more)

No comments: