Missing the Point
Dean
Some hate-filled, reactionary pinhead recently sent me and a bunch of other people trackbacks filled with obscenities and calling us all hypocrites for condemning Newsweek and not condemning the rioters who killed people.
I can't think of a bigger non-sequitur.
I of course condemn the rioters. But that's not what I mean about Newsweek et. al. having blood on their hands. No, I blame them for producing a piece of anti-American propaganda that will almost certainly cost American service members' lives--and they published this trash based on nothing but a single anonymous source.
Proving, once again, that the American press not only doesn't want us to succeed in our war efforts--they actually want us to lose.
There was a point where I hoped saying things like that would make them wake up. Now I realize it's pointless--it doesn't even occur to them to think that they're acting as enemy propagandists. They simply do it, and blame others for the results.
Obviously the rioters who killed people should be condemned. They're the ones directly responsible for those deaths. It's the American lives this will cost long-term that disturbs me.
That said, I'll also point out that inciting a riot, and shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, are not Constitutionally protected speech. Yet that's what Isikoff et. al. are guilty of: inciting riots based on nothing but a secondhand, anonymous source. I don't need to condemn the rioters "instead." I condemn both. I condemn Newsweek first and foremost simply because they are Americans--scummy, traitorous Americans whose contempt for their own nation could not have been more clearly illustrated.
Cute, huh?
I'm not at all saying that Newsweek should be let off the hook--they're filthy. But Newsweek didn't incite a riot, they just gave certain unhinged radicals a new opportunity to riot. If it wasn't the Newsweek story, it would have been something else that flared the violence.
What Newsweek did do (and what they should be intensely criticized for) was attempt to provide legitimacy to those who think America is evil. They are guilty of spreading enemy propaganda. But that's a different crime all together than inciting a riot.
SIDE NOTE: Even if this story proves to be true (which I doubt it ever will), Newsweek will be no less guilty. They didn't have proof. At best, they were callously playing gotcha journalism. At worst, they made an active decision to report rumor as fact and undermine U.S. credibility.
Excellent command of the English language, too.
They've got Photoshop and Kinkos and they know how to use them. It takes organization, time and effort to put this stuff together.
Before any American government official tries to repair our "image", I think we should publicly congratulate these Islamists on the spectacular amount of planning, organization and the artwork that went into this unhinged display of rightous indignation.
Some things go without saying.
Good point. But, trust me, I've known a lot of unhinged designers. Ever met a creative director?
But, seriously, the fact that they had well-produced signs just goes to show this reaction wasn't really a spontaneous explosion analagous to someone yelling "fire" in a theatre. Instead, these radicals just used the Newsweek story as an excuse to stage violent protest.
And that's the worst part about the Newsweek story. It's not like these groups NEED excuses to become violent. Providing them a false one under the guise of professional journalism is just throwing fuel on the flames. Newsweek is not responsible for the acts of the rioters, but they are guilty of spreading lies in a world that could use a hell of a lot more truth.
1) So crazy you blow yourself up (lowest %)
2) So crazy you cheer those who blow themselves up (probably 5-10 times as many)
3) So crazy you think the blowing-yourself-up thing is a little excessive but you secretly share the sentiment.
4) Not crazy enough to be down with any of that.
While I freely grant that #4 is the majority (honestly, if it weren't, we'd be seeing millions die every year in this war), we know there are enough of groups 1-3 to see a real danger--and that encouraging more people to tip out of #4 and into #3, or from #2 into #2.... you get what I mean.
Newsweek should know the crazies would use something like this as an excuse--and that this would be used as propaganda regardless. Their belief is that their "journalistic ethics" call for a "higher cause" than worrying about the results of these things. Which tells us where their priorities are, and America's low on the list.
You are right. Newsweek should have known that a story like this could be explosive in the Muslim world, given the 1, 2 and 3 crowds. You'd think that fact would make them all the more careful in confirming the truth of the story. But they were so intent on feeding the blame-america crowd that they couldn't be bothered with responsibility.
I still don't think Newsweek has "blood on their hands," in the sense they are directly responsible for the deaths, but I will concede that they have blood on their clothes and bear some culpability.
But what now? There's nothing I think government can do. Perhaps a move to get people to unsubscribe. The pocket-book punishment is often the most potent punishment we Americans wield.
LOL. I've never met a "hinged" creative director.
Newsweek and other news sources have been printing provocative, inflammatory anti-Bush/military/war-on-terror stories for years. They should compensate the victims of this latest disaster, just as the AP should compensate the families of the people who were killed during these Pulitzer-prize winning photo ops. Cancelling subscriptions and lawsuits are probably the best weapon against the press'crimes.