This is a cached version of http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/15/211444/985, requested at Nov 29 2008 15:07 GMT
Daily Kos: (Official Retraction) The Newsweek Backtrack: Did the Right Win a Game of Chicken?

Daily Kos

(Official Retraction) The Newsweek Backtrack: Did the Right Win a Game of Chicken?

Sun May 15, 2005 at 06:14:44 PM PST

UPDATES below fold:

The pressure on Newsweek is intense. The rightwing machine descended, blaming its report for riots in Afghanistan, Palestine, Egypt, Sudan, Pakistan and Indonesia. Even a UK newspaper headlined Newsweek's guilt for the global riots. What did Newsweek print?

"May 9 - Investigators probing interrogation abuses at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay have confirmed some infractions alleged in internal FBI e-mails that surfaced late last year. Among the previously unreported cases, sources tell NEWSWEEK: interrogators, in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Qur'an down a toilet and led a detainee around with a collar and dog leash."

But today we see this:

Newsweek magazine backed away Sunday from a report that U.S. interrogators desecrated copies of the Quran [at] Guantanamo ... (CNN)

Even the Pentagon pins the blame on Newsweek:

Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita blamed Newsweek's report for the unrest in Muslim countries. "People are dying. They are burning American flags. Our forces are in danger."

There are major problems with the blame-Newsweek tack

: More below :

Update [2005-5-16 17:23:13 by SusanHu]:

Flash: MSNBC says that, moments ago, Newsweek officially retracted the story.

How a Fire Broke Out | The Editor's Desk

=====================================

Note: SEE BELOW UPDATE on White House response. Scroll to "Newsweek Needs To Do More Than Apologize, White House Says."

Also see earlier updates re WaPo at end of diary, and new quote from another blog, who hijacked our country, and Juan Cole.

=====================================

The major problems with the blame-Newsweek tack:

1. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers, in a U.S. State Dept.-issued press release on May 12, said the Newsweek story isn't a chief cause of the riots: " [H]e has been told that the Jalalabad, Afghanistan, rioting was related more to the ongoing political reconciliation process in Afghanistan than anything else."

2. I've found four reports -- with more easily found -- to back up Newsweek's sources on the desecration of Korans belonging to Guantanamo detainees.

The four instances I found:

A. From The Philadelphia Inquirer, Jan. 20, 2005:

Lawyers allege abuse of 12 at Guantanamo

By Frank Davies
Inquirer Washington Bureau

[.......................]

Some detainees complained of religious humiliation, saying guards had defaced their copies of the Koran and, in one case, had thrown it in a toilet, said Kristine Huskey [an attorney in Washington, D.C.], who interviewed clients late last month. Others said that pills were hidden in their food and that people came to their cells claiming to be their attorneys, to gain information.

"All have been physically abused, and, however you define the term, the treatment of these men crossed the line," [attorney Tom] Wilner said. "There was torture, make no mistake about it." ...

B. From the Center for Constitutional Rights, New York City, NY and linked as a footnote in a Human Rights Watch report:

72.They were never given prayer mats and initially they didn't get a Koran. When the Korans were provided, they were kicked and thrown about by the guards and on occasion thrown in the buckets used for the toilets. This kept happening. When it happened it was always said to be an accident but it was a recurrent theme.

C. From the Center for Constitutional Rights, New York City, NY and linked as a footnote in a Human Rights Watch report:

74. Asif says that `it was impossible to pray because initially we did not know the direction to pray, but also given that we couldn't move and the harassment from the guards, it was simply not feasible. The behaviour of the guards towards our religious practices as well as the Koran was also, in my view, designed to cause us as much distress as possible. They would kick the Koran, throw it into the toilet and generally disrespect it. It is clear to me that the conditions in our cells and our general treatment were designed by the officers in charge of the interrogation process to "soften us up"'.

D. From the Center for Constitutional Rights, New York City, NY and linked as a footnote in a Human Rights Watch report:

Statement of Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal and Rhuhel Ahmed, "Detention in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay," released publicly on August 4, 2004, para. 72, 74, available online at:
http://www.ccr- ny.org/v2/reports/docs/
Gitmo=compositestatementFINAL23july04.pdf,
accessed on August 19, 2004. The disrespect of the Koran by guards at Camp X-Ray was one of the factors prompting a hunger strike. Ibid., para. 111-117.

There are more. This should suffice for now.

I see this incident this way: Newsweek has good sources for its allegations, but has backed off because it finds itself in a dicey, ill-founded public relations nightmare.

Newsweek has foresaken journalism to save what it perceives as its own hide.

I hope you'll all speak up, amplify, and point out areas where we might look further:

I will repeat the inflammatory headlines I found at rightwing blogs yesterday:

Newsweek sparks global riots with one paragraph on Koran
-- Timesonline UK

RoP Riots Over Newsweek Article
-- Little Green Footballs

299 Words from Newsweek ... have yielded death in the streets of Kabul.
-- Roger L. Simon

More on Newsweek's Riots
-- Sisyphean Musings

Following all this, and surely some pressure from the Pentagon -- since a Pentagon spokesperson (see above the fold) has blamed Newsweek for the riots, Newsweek began a hasty retreat.

_______________________________

SEE ALSO: Bernhard's excellent diary, "Newsweek's Non-retraction Retraction.

_______________________________

Front-paged at BooTrib.

_______________________________

Update [2005-5-16 14:18:27 by SusanHu]:

Newsweek Needs To Do More Than Apologize, White House Says

POSTED: 6:33 pm EDT May 15, 2005
UPDATED: 12:18 pm EDT May 16, 2005

NEW YORK -- Newsweek's apology for its story about Quran abuse at Guantanamo is not adequate, says a White House spokesman.

Newsweek is extending its sympathies to the victims of the violence in Afghanistan that left 15 people dead in anti-U.S. protests prompted by a story in the news weekly claiming that U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo Bay prison had desecrated Islam’s holy book, the Quran.

But White House Press Secretary said Newsweek needs to do more.

“While Newsweek now acknowledges that they got the facts wrong, they refuse to retract the story," McClellan said. "I think there's a certain journalistic standard that should be met. In this instance it was not. The report has had serious consequences. People have lost their lives.”

NBC

_______________________________

Update [2005-5-16 0:14:51 by SusanHu]:

The tale of two stories at the Washington Post:

"British Intelligence Warned of Iraq War"
By Walter Pincus
May 13, 2005
-- Page A18 --

"Newsweek Apologizes: Inaccurate Report on Koran Led to Riot"
By Howard Kurtz
May 16, 2005
-- Page A01 --

Which story is more important to the Washington Post?

Which story is more important for the American people and our country?

Bill Moyers is correct. The MSM is beyond hope.

_________________________________________

Update [2005-5-16 9:36:46 by SusanHu]:

The Who Hijacked Our Country blog makes perceptive remarks about the extremists:

Newsweek is starting to hedge its bet and "qualify" its 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!!!

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 main issue was that the soldier’s question had been prompted by a reporter. So what if our soldiers are getting killed because of inferior armor — by God, a reporter snuck in there and planted this question just to embarrass Rumsfeld.

So once 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're 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 all 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.

[Emphasis mine. - Susanhu]

Update [2005-5-16 11:3:4 by SusanHu]:

See Juan Cole. Besides linking to your comments here, Cole points out (very briefly quoted -- go to his column today for all):

  • Although the corporate media are now reporting that Newsweek had "backed off" the report, that isn't true.
  • Newsweek has, in other words, confirmed that the source did read a US government account of the desecration of the Koran.
  • Of course, one can hardly take the word of jihadis reporting on the United States, which they hate and would be happy to defame. But Newsweek had an independent source for the incident, a US government official, who continues to maintain that he saw documentation of it.
  • Moreover, Guantanamo translator Erik Saar, in his co-authored Inside the Wire indicates that techniques of religious humiliation were used at Guantanamo. The Christian Science Monitor reports: ...
  • As a professional historian, I would say we still do not have enough to be sure that the Koran desecration incident took place. We have enough to consider it plausible. Anyway, the important thing politically is that some Muslims have found it plausible, and their outrage cannot be effectively dealt with by simple denial. That is why I say that Bush should just come out and say we can't be sure that it happened, but if it did it was an excess, and he apologizes if it did happen, and will make sure it doesn't happen again (if it did).
  • The controversy, however, seems to me to have focused on all the wrong things. The question is why all those prisoners are still being held at Guantanam ...
  • A reader with military experience in this area wrote me his own experience, with the Bible being trashed in a similar way. ... (quite a story)
  • This informed former officer has suggested the real reason for which some in the Pentagon are so angry about the Newsweek story. It may well so focus international outrage on Guantanamo that Rumsfeld will lose his little psych lab.

-- Juan Cole

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 315 comments

  •  Important (4.00 / 9)

    Thanks for writing on this important subject.  I gauged it to be critical on two fronts:  1) It spotlights the on-going problem with prison abuse at the hands of the Pentagon and Armed Forces and 2) It could end up being another huge ding in the willingness on the part of the press to write critically about the Bush Administration.

    Yikes.

    You can call me "Lord Bink Forester de Rothschild."

    by bink on Sun May 15, 2005 at 06:04:32 PM PST

    •  So, these guys are going to (4.00 / 7)

      make outlandish claims about vital world events while focussing their ridiculous insults on an organization that did its homework and is telling the truth as they have uncovered it.

      Brilliant!

      Without any proof, I am going to demand that someone with a reputation for honesty has caused me harm because of somehting they said.  Oh yeah, I hav a lot more power than they do.  Is it more likely that:
      a. I am emotionalising the event and trying to gain the advantage by plying world agreement through the world's acquiesence to my power, or
      b. I am full of some smelly old shit and am playing high and mighty and daring the minions to not choke back their bile and smile at my shiny new medals while they do it?

      It is either the light at the end of the tunnel or a gorilla with a flashlight...

      by mccan on Sun May 15, 2005 at 07:25:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Now Sisypheus is really going ape-shit (4.00 / 20)

      "It's Bigger Than NEWSWEEK"

      Ohhhh. Well, let's see, Tim Schmoyer (of Sisyphean Musings). I swear I can hear his heart beat while he types this stuff:

      Patterico makes a VERY important point about how anonymous sourcing is perniciously compounded as it spreads:
      Yet the L.A. Times repeated the allegations of the Newsweek report in numerous stories - without once telling its readers that the report was based on unconfirmed reports from anonymous government sources. [emphasis in original]
      Let's understand how widespread the failure is here.

      The BBC immediately ran the story:
      The latest edition of the American Newsweek magazine said such tactics were used to rattle suspects.

      It says that US personnel on one occasion flushed a copy of Islam's most holy book "down the toilet".
      As did the Associated Press:
      Afghan students chanted "Death to America" and burned an effigy of President Bush on Tuesday, following a report that copies of the Quran were desecrated at the U.S. detention center for terror suspects Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, officials and witnesses said. ...

      In a recent edition, Newsweek magazine reported that in order to rattle suspects, U.S. interrogators placed Qurans on toilets and in at least one case "flushed a holy book down the toilet." ...
      Nowhere is the reader told that the report was based on a single anonymous source or that there was no corroboration for the allegation besides another anonymous source who "was silent about the rest of the [draft story]".

      The NEWSWEEK imprimatur was good enough for all those "custodians of fact" in the press adhering to a "discipline of verification." How many editors just snatched up the NEWSWEEK copy and ran with it, surreptitiously dropping off any mention of an anonymous source?

      NEWSWEEK didn't "nail it down" and the rest of Big/Exempt/Legacy/Old Media - "MSM" spread it around without nailing it down either.

      It's bigger than NEWSWEEK.

      We can start with the Philadelphia Inquirer, in January quoting attorneys who've interviewed the prisoners in person, and on and on.... But let's not let the truth get in the way. Never mind that Gen'l Myers debunked the Newsweek/riot connection in a U.S. State Dept. press release. Details, details.

      •  They accuse Newsweek (4.00 / 11)

        of what they are guilty of.

        See Fox News, USA Next, Rush Limbaug.

        Overthrow the Government ~Vote~

        by missliberties on Sun May 15, 2005 at 08:46:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sooooooooo Sorry!!!! (none / 1)

          I meant to give you a 4! You're absolutely, 100 percent correct in saying, "They accuse Newsweek of what they are guilty of."  I believe it's called projecting.

          Again, I'm sorry, missliberties, for my mistake of the 3 (I didn't click down far enough to the "excellent" as I intended to do and clicked "rate all" without checking.) Everybody reading this:  this post deserves a 4 and I'm a jerk!

      •  So the whole Arab world (4.00 / 8)

        goes through Newsweek with a magnifying glass each week, so that hundreds of thousands of people read this tiny paragraph?

        How honored Newsweek must feel that their magazine gets such riveted and close attention?  WTF?

        This is beyond ludicrous.

        I could believe that someone at Newsweek said "All right already, if it makes you happy, you moron, I apologize," and that snarkiness has blown up into this mess, but that they really apologized is totally fucking unbelievable.

        •  It's riot season (4.00 / 5)

          Every May, after the cherry blossoms, before sweet corn, is riot season. Every year.

          So, with riots coming, and a complete press blackout less tenable this year than last, the neocons knew they'd have some explaining to do. Well, of course preemption is always better than reaction, so they got to work diverting blame from themselves to ... who?

          Well, Newsweek hasn't been playing along as nice as some others. Feed them an inflammatory story. Give them an exclusive preview of an actual Pentagon report that backs it up. Then, when riot season starts, we can blame them on the reports of torture instead of the actual atrocities themselves.

          Oh, and delete the item in question from the official report. They're pretty honest, so they'll retract their citation of that one source. We can spin that into sounding like a full retraction, as if the whole riots were over a false story.

          Why is there a Confederate Flag flying in Afghanistan?

          by chimpy on Mon May 16, 2005 at 10:15:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well. They're (none / 0)

          gonna read it now.
      •  Now on IMUS (4.00 / 2)

        Reporting on Newsweek apologizing for CAUSING the violence. It will be necessary to write to these news outlets saying the Newsweek reports were actually true, but will these outlets print them???
        •  Not only accurate, but Pentagon-approved (4.00 / 6)

          Newsweek not only collected background from actual detainee stories, and confirmed their story with defense officials (anonymouse, of course). Not only was it true, but was also about to come out in an official pentagon report. Then, Newsweek even ran a draft of the story past another nameless 'senior Pentagon official', and fixed some other item at his or her suggestion.

          Then, a week after the story's out and it's not playing well in Jalalabad, the DoD decides to drop that part of its own report and blame Newsweek for spreading unrest through the Islamic world.

          Then, Newsweek sees the item is missing from the final report. Declares, "Well, good enough for Defense Intelligence, good enough for us," and retracts the story.

          Why is there a Confederate Flag flying in Afghanistan?

          by chimpy on Mon May 16, 2005 at 08:15:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well (none / 1)

            we need to somehow help Newsweek to grow a pair.
            •  Danger of un-named sources (3.83 / 6)

              Newsweek got tricked by using an anonymous pentagon source. Unforturnately, nobody with a name is allowed to talk to the press anymore.

              They should have come out swinging. Name the source unless he find a way to back up the story. Name the proofreader who helped set the trap, unless he explains how the item got left out of the final Pentagon report.

              Playing nice gets you nowhere with this administration. I hope Newsweek learns this lesson fast.

              Why is there a Confederate Flag flying in Afghanistan?

              by chimpy on Mon May 16, 2005 at 09:53:32 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Agreed (4.00 / 2)

                As far as the government is concerened, anonymous sources should no longer be quoted.  In each instance the report should read that the government "had no comment" if they refuse to respond on the record.  

                Chairman Conyers, you may call your first witness.

                by rabel on Mon May 16, 2005 at 12:47:24 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  PLEASE SEE (none / 0)

      update at the end of the diary.
      •  Susan (4.00 / 8)

        I just used this fine diary of yours to smack the Swedish TV4. They are turning into stenographers I told them after hearing them this morning delivering this piece of 'news'. I told them I hoped they would do a better job in the future and gave them a link to your diary as an example to follow. I hope you don't mind getting a little international recognition :)

        Restore Democracy! Denounce the GOP (Georgie's Orwellian Party)!

        by high5 on Mon May 16, 2005 at 01:51:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  BIG FAVOR: NO IMAGES ... (none / 0)

      It's already getting hard to load this diary.  Thanks!

      (Not you, Bink ... I just wanted to post this near the top to stop more images.  TY!)

    •  A thought (none / 1)

      This time, this prisoner is not watching a Koran being flushed down the toilet.  

      This time, this cowed, chained, complicit prisoner is watching journalism being flushed down the toilet.

    •  ADDED UPDATE from Juan Cole's column (none / 0)

      at the end of the diary
    •  Also (none / 1)

      This diary entry was just on WNYC here in New York.  Interesting.

      You can call me "Lord Bink Forester de Rothschild."

      by bink on Mon May 16, 2005 at 08:06:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I just updated diary to add ... (none / 1)

      the White House remarks this morning:

      While Newsweek now acknowledges that they got the facts wrong, they refuse to retract the story," McClellan said. "I think there's a certain journalistic standard that should be met. In this instance it was not. The report has had serious consequences. People have lost their lives."

  •  What the retraction is about (4.00 / 3)


    They are retracting the part where their source who originally told them that he saw the Koran descreation (sp?) bit in a Southern Command report, can't stand by that anymore.

    Their DC Bureau Chief was on CNN and he said this is a story under investigation.

    •  I thnk it goes deeper ... (4.00 / 35)

      If you look at the headlines and the linked stories at the rightwing blogs that I list above, they clearly place all blame on Newsweek for the riots.  

      Now the typical rightwinger or casual news watcher is going to think that Newsweek is retracting the story that the Q'uran got flushed down the toilets.

      We know that that desecration occurred ALL the time.  I have cited four separate sources above that PROVE it.

      But the rightwing machine and the Pentagon are turning the screws on Newsweek.

      •  Yes (4.00 / 6)

        As commenters on the Free Republic and Little Green Footballs said, "Newsweek has blood on its hands."

        You can call me "Lord Bink Forester de Rothschild."

        by bink on Sun May 15, 2005 at 06:08:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Right, Bink (4.00 / 3)

          Sisyphean Musings wrote:

          I'm just wondering, in case Newsweek got it wrong, where will the correction be published? You know, since it was anonymously sourced and all.

          I don't remember, were Michael Isikoff and John Barry on the ballot or given War Powers? I mean, inflaming the entire Islamic world based on "sources tell NEWSWEEK" seems pretty heady stuff, ya' know?

          •  I guess the entire Islamic World subscribes . . . (4.00 / 9)

            to Newsweek then. Who knew?

            Somebody said on another thread that the real problem is that this story---which is small potatoes in light of Abu Ghraib---feeds right into the litany of American military abuse coming from the warronterra. That's what these riots are about. The Quran thing was just the last straw.

            •  Yes. NYTImes: (4.00 / 6)

              By Tuesday, students in the eastern city of Jalalabad in Afghanistan had started anti-American demonstrations, citing the Newsweek article. It is unclear exactly how the students and other protesters learned of the article, though many Afghans get information from radio programs broadcast in local languages by the Voice of America, BBC and Radio Liberty, which often broadcast foreign news reports. NYT, Mon., May 16, 2005
              •  It's a shame (4.00 / 4)

                that this is what the talking heads in the msm will be feeding on for the next few days-newsweek lies-another Rathergate! Takes the heat off of the Downing Street Documents.

                "If fighting for a more equal and equitable distribution of the wealth of this country is socialistic, I stand guilty of being a socialist." Walter Reuther

                by fugwb on Mon May 16, 2005 at 06:00:19 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe just a few bad apples (4.00 / 13)

          What lunacy.  Torture was the official U.S. policy, now the unofficial policy.  Where were these freepers to suggest that this administration "has blood on its hands"?  They ignore the policy and the practice but condemn the messenger?
          •  Exactly (4.00 / 9)

            The problem is, Newsweek told the truth .. an uncomfortable truth.  So now Newsweek must be punished.  Bad Newsweek!  Truth not good!

            The possibility that the Afghans may be rioting because Newsweek told the truth, not because Newsweek made something up, is just not in their universe.

            Republicans: ten-time gold medalists in synchronized stupidity

            by cedubose on Mon May 16, 2005 at 12:48:05 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  irony.... (4.00 / 13)

          yes, Newsweek, reporting on the atrocities committed by this terribly efficient killing machine we call the right wing, has blood on its hands.

          Now we've come to the point where the media can't report the truth, as it might just piss people off.  Better to go on toeing the republican line.

          Obama lost me when his shills started calling Hillary a racist.

          by Tom P on Sun May 15, 2005 at 06:18:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I was watching ABC news tonight and... (4.00 / 13)

        ...they blamed the riots on the the Newsweek story.

        Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita blamed Newsweek's report for the unrest in Muslim countries. "People are dying. They are burning American flags. Our forces are in danger."

        They can stick this comment up their irony deficient asses.  Saying that reporting on this, and other forms of torture, are the cause of the riots while ignoring the fact that there would be no story to report if they weren't torturing people.

        •  So what's the REAL issue here? (4.00 / 13)

          Putting aside the rioting and the upcoming global day of Islamic protest against the U.S. (BTW, I feel SO much safer now after we took out Saddam, though)...

          When CBS took on the tainted TANG documents, they shelved a much more important feature regarding the Niger uranium story.  That story could have done real damage to the election if it had been shown instead of the manipulated TANG documents.  

          What is it that Newsweek had in their possession that got them clobbered like this?  What's the REAL issue besides the desecrations that had already been made public?  Did they have something on the Downing Street Memo they were going to publish and soon?

          Nothing is ever what it seems, people.  We're beyond Orwellian.  It's all Rovian.

          •  And just how many subscribers (4.00 / 11)

            does Newsweek have in Afganistan?  This story has been too quick and organized with the "read it in Newsweek" talking point from the moment the news of riots broke out.  

            Newsweek is being punished for something and not this article of regurgitated news.  

            They all hate America because of Newsweek?  Will people really buy that?

            •  Spot on (4.00 / 9)

              As if the other citations mentioned never happened, as word never got back to any member of Islamic faith about the treatment of prisoners of the faith in Gitmo...it's all about Newsweek.

              Just like it was all about CBS and not about any of the other possessors of document copies that gave evidence to Dubya's inadequacies as a member of the Armed Forces...

              Something smells here.  Absolutely reeks.

          •  beyond Orwellian - it's all Rovian. (none / 1)

            That is profound - can I steal it?
          •  In possession - Damaging Report on Rumsfield (4.00 / 3)

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/15/AR2005051500872.html

            Is Pentagon relationship with Newseek under fire?  It almost looks like there's a insider purge going on to crush those trying to provide information to the news organizations.

            On May 9th, Newsweek reported on the Overseas Basing Commission which faulted Rumsfield on his desire to redeploy 70,000 troops rapidly.  

            The commission report was briefly available via the web and then, oh golly the utter surprise, retracted for a security review.  This led to a situation where cleaning news services file/database servers of the report became an issue.  Commission Chair Al Cornella (Republican) defended the report as only having information verifiable from public sources. Didn't believe that it would require clearance.

            When life gives you wingnuts, make wingnut butter!

            by antirove on Mon May 16, 2005 at 01:32:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  'irony deficient?" good line n/t (none / 1)

          fouls, excesses and immoderate behavior are scored ZERO at Over the Line, Smokey!

          by seesdifferent on Sun May 15, 2005 at 08:52:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  For sure... (none / 1)

        Typical right wing brain dead belief: it's all the media or the liberals' fault.
      •  You quoted groups of prisoners. (2.00 / 2)

        Is it fair to go on the word of prisoners detained at these facilities as your exclusive source? Every prisoner in every prison in the world is 'innocent' and has been 'mistreated', just ask them! C'mon, just because you hate Bush, doesn't mean that every serviceperson in the military is evil! I spent six years in military intelligence, and the only prisoner abuse I ever witnessed was by South Korean policemen on their own citizens. Yes, Abu Ghraib happened, but it wasn't Bergen Belsen. We need a sense of proportion when we discuss these issues, instead of jumping the shark every time we hear of some 'scandal' or incident.
        •  Look troll even the administration... (4.00 / 2)

          and its biased "investigations" have turned up hundreds of occurences of abuse. Read the "Fay report", the "Taguba report", the "Schlesinger report" they all say that prisoners were abused and tortured. Of course they all say that this had nothing to do with interrogations, which is a lie.

          Honor bound to defend freedom. Freedom is long-standing army regulations.

          by RichardG on Mon May 16, 2005 at 03:11:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Aye (none / 1)

          We I need a sense of proportion

          Indeed.  How far into the apologist depths are you willing to sink for this administration?  How many deaths, tortures, abuses of real people are you willing to shrug off as "nothing compared to <insert atrocity here>"?   Are you missing the point entirely?  Nobody is accusing the military to be completely full of evil fucks.   You, however, are insisting on sticking with the idea that when they do rear their putrid heads that they just be brushed off as an anomaly, some bad apples, nothing from above, blah blah blah..  

          And you wonder why we got attacked on 9/11.   I don't...never have.  

          Maybe if you take a step back and get that sense of proportion that you're advising others seek out then you'll get the big picture too.

        •  RTFA (none / 0)

          Did you actually read the articles? Newsweek explained:

          "On Saturday, Isikoff spoke to his original source, the senior government official, who said that he clearly recalled reading investigative reports about mishandling the Qur'an, including a toilet incident. But the official, still speaking anonymously, could no longer be sure that these concerns had surfaced in the SouthCom report."


          Although the anonymous Pentagon source got the citation wrong and perhaps forgotten WHICH government report he read it in, Newsweek has, in other words, confirmed that the source did read a US government account of the desecration of the Koran.


          Yeah fine, if you don't want to trust the people in the prison, or the innocent people who were released from the prison, I can't make you. However, the US government has mentioned it IN THEIR OWN private reports. That has to mean something.

    •  WE JUST NEED TO ASK ONE QUESTION: (4.00 / 10)

      (See Item A. in the diary.)

      Why didn't those six countries riot on January 21, after the Philadelphia Inquirer published its report of desecration of the Koran?

      Why not?

      And why didn't the rightwing media gang up on the Inquirer on January 21?

      •  One more question (4.00 / 4)

        Why did the riots really break out now?
        •  n/t (4.00 / 4)

          Gen'l Myers said the Afghan riot broke out because of internal Afghan politics, not the article.

          maybe the clergy flamed the anger.

          it just seems so odd that this one-paragraph story would cause all this when there've been identical reports previously that said the same thing ... and the photographs, and on and on.

          Someone's trying to pull something.  And I think Newsweek was perhaps just the unlucky messenger.  It could have been another publication.  Of course, that it was a perceived liberal pub makes the right go all nuts.

          •  Funny thing about Uzbekistan (4.00 / 3)

            Timing is incredible, isn't it, that a bunch of folks would riot in two locations at nearly the same time.

            The guesstimated number of Uzbeks killed is at least that of the Russians killed by Chechnyan rebels during the assault on a school in Beslan.

            Did a journalist with Newsweek report anything sensitive about Uzbekistan, in spite of journalists being kicked out of the same?

            Or was this really about something else altogether?

            Like this: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7693664/site/newsweek/

            First, try to rally sentiment against Islam by encouraging anti-American rioting -- yielding increased enlistments and stronger patriotism at home.  Then disrupt Usbekistan for a two-fer: occupy it ostensibly to provide more stability for needed support infrastructure to quell Afghanistan, and annoy the hell out of Putin at the same time by threatening the stability of his not-a-democracy-to-neocons'-eyes.

            ???

          •  Myers (none / 0)

            Myers is a spin administrator, his word is meaningless.

            "You can't negotiate with reality" - James Kunstler

            by Bob Love on Sun May 15, 2005 at 09:05:38 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  n/t (none / 0)

          Personally, I see it as a kind of "last straw." The Muslims I know were livid over Abu Ghraib. Now a year later, with all the death in Iraq, the Guantanamo bay stories coming out, and Bush getting re-elected in spite of Abu Ghraib, they're sorta in muted shock now.

          This desecration story made me furious when I heard it last year. Hearing it again, I don't have the strength to get upset again. It's just a litany of wrongs that Bush and friends have done. Over there, I imagine it's a combination of other things. For example, much of the rioting targeted the Pakistani embassy, because they are seen as collaborators in the whole affair.

      •  Brr! Too cold to riot earlier (4.00 / 6)

        I think Mother Nature had a hand in the timing of the riots.  January was to cold to riot in parts of Afghanistan. Better to riot when the weather is nice outside.

        BLAME Mother Nature!

        Not Newsweek or the US troops who descrated the Koran in the first place.  

        & why is the media ignoring the fact that multiple prisoners in different locations repeated these allegations. Are Muslims not credible sources?    

  •  You know, I know... (4.00 / 9)

    it happened!  Newsweek knows.  Michael Isikoff knows.  His editors know.  

    So why in the hell are they beating a hasty retreat?  Is the rightwing machine that fearsome, with its lying, braying headlines blaming a magazine one-paragraph story for riots in five countries?  That alone fails the giggle test.

    •  To me, it doesn't sound (4.00 / 2)

      like Newsweek is really beating a hasty retreat. If you read the Evan Thomas piece "How a Fire Broke Out", posted tonight, dated in the 05/23/05 issue, he poses the question (three paragraphs down) "How did NEWSWEEK get its facts wrong?".  But I must say that after reading the entire article, I don't think that they did get too much wrong.  It sounds like there may not have been an actual 'flush' that took place, but I don't think the facts are in dispute that, on more than one occassion, the Koran was desecrated in some ways that involved the disposal of human waste.
      They have to stand their ground, dammit!
      •  that's the problem (4.00 / 2)

        "after reading the entire article" ... "three paragraphs down" ... you and most here will be the few people who will go to that trouble. The vast majority of the public -- particularly the wingers -- will read the headline.  And that's all.

        So, we can't calculate the EFFECT of this series of events on the basis of what WE know.  We have to calculate the EFFECT based on what the vast majority will perceive.

        •  no problem (4.00 / 2)

          43% of Americans in a recent poll (Gallup?) say that they trust the major media to tell them the truth about important news.

          those who will take the message that Newsweek was too liberal, too hasty, too sloppy--they already had that impression. they won't take the retraction to mean much.

          those who don't believe those things will ultimately wonder whether the retraction means that the reported events really did not happen, or whether they need to take seriously the threat to their freedoms implicit in this shameful coerced and false retraction.

          in any event, the percentage of americans who trust the media will not go up. eventually it will have no moral suasion at all, and that might ultimately be a good thing.

          -8.38, -4.97 "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Hamlet, Act II, Scene ii.

          by thingamabob on Sun May 15, 2005 at 08:34:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Retraction: no evidence of access to toilets (3.66 / 3)

          Newsweek should issue an immediate retraction.  Although several sources have indicated that guards and interrogators have defiled the Qurans of detainees by exposure to human waste, Newsweek cannot verify that the recepticle for the waste was in every case a toilet (in some cases, a bucket was clearly indicated).  We cannot assume that all detainees have access to clean and efficient plumbing.

          "Trolling is a sad reality of internet life...Directly replying to the content of a trollish message is usually a waste of time"

          by Rusty Pipes on Mon May 16, 2005 at 11:57:42 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  They are not "supporting the troops" (4.00 / 3)

      Truth is the first casualty of war, as has been said.

      Not very admirable on the part of Newsweek to back off. The why of this onslaught of blame--well, I looked back at their recent articles on the subject of Iraq, and a number of them were quite critical of the administration or its friends. So they may be being punished for past sins even if there's no big story in the wings.

      Bleak days.

    •  First 60 Minutes, now Newsweek, who's next??? (4.00 / 2)

    •  Newsweek did not retract the story (none / 1)

      They apologized for any errors they made in reporting it, and explained that their government source may have been mistaken about which document he saw the report in, but they also said that there had been previous reports of the same thing and DID NOT RETRACT THE STORY.

      This is critical. Let's not let the idea get out that Newsweek has admitted anything more than some technical gliches with a story.  

  •  Maybe this is too simplistic (4.00 / 6)

    But what about that old phrase: "Don't shoot the messanger"? Aren't the Koran flushers ultimately responsible for the unrest?
    •  exactly (4.00 / 5)

      pot calls kettle black:

      "Lawrence Di Rita, the top spokesman for the Pentagon, called the editor's note "very tepid and qualified." He added later, "They owe us all a lot more accountability than they took.""

      huh?

      who the fuck is the pentagon to be talking about accountability?

  •  Right- (4.00 / 7)

    So flushing the Koran had nothing to do with it?

    Fuck them all.  They can't hide their horshit, if it wasn;t newsweek it would have been someone else.

    It's okay for right wing websites to instigate animosity between the races, against homosexuals, against non-Christians.  All that is okay, they do it in the wide open spaces, and no one bats an eye.  

    So when our own people begin dying here in the US, and our own people get shit on oversees, will they blame Fox for inciting violence against "liberals"?

  •  IMO Newsweek did the right thing... (none / 1)

    probably the only right thing. #1, other info about korans in toilets notwithstanding, their source tuned out not to be 100%, or at least he wouldn't stand by the story after the fact. #2, this not 100% verifiable story was used to incite DEADLY RIOTS. These riots were absolutely not Newsweek's fault, and the fear that reporting the truth "might" set off riots should not dictate news coverage. But I think they place an added burden on Newsweek to be able to back every word of the story up as the truth.

    I totally agree it looks like a game of chicken. I'm not at all convinced the government is being honest about this. But I agree with Newsweek's caution. I don't think they've actually said they now disbelieve the story; I doubt they know one way or the other what to believe.

    •  Elizabeth... (4.00 / 10)

      I can appreciate your posture on this.

      But, I've been writing about the torture and abuse at Guantanamo -- and elsewhere -- for too long, and I've read too much.

      A fast story:  A few months ago, I read a news report that Guantanamo prisoner Mamdouh Habib (from Australia) claimed that a female interrogator spread menstrual blood on him.

      I posted the story as a diary here, but carefully said I was very skeptical.

      The next day, Paisley Dodds -- an A.P. writer in Puerto Rico got a sneak copy of the draft of Erik Saar's book on his work as a translator at Guantanamo.  In the draft, Saar exposed the menstrual blood "trick" used by a female interrogator.

      This has happened over and over.  Everytime we hear what we think might be an exaggerated story from a detainee, it is proven to be true.

      •  I hear you, and (none / 1)

        note that I'm not criticizing Newsweek for publishing the story in the first place--it's plenty credible sounding in fully in keeping with other verifiable incidents. But their source is not even as good as an ex-prisoner. If he's backing off his statement and questioning his memory, that is plenty of reason for Newsweek to also back off the story to the extent that it was based on that source's statement.
        •  Please give me a break. (4.00 / 6)

          That's is how the game works.  Newsweek feels the pressure over a story and relieves this pressure by getting the reporter to pressure the source to  back off the problematic details.  Just read about how former Newsweek reporter Robert Parry faced a similar scenario when reporting Iran-Contra.  This is 101 for how to handle a story that pisses of the powerful.  Too hot too handle?  Just blame the "problematic sourcing."  This charade is as old as the news business.  
        •  Is it possible (4.00 / 5)

          He was correct when he said the flushing-Koran story was going to be in the report. But then it got scotched from the report when the Newsweek story ran?

          In other words, no one in the Pentagon thought that much about it ... until they saw a national newsweekly report it as remarkable, in which case they censored their report?

          I'm not saying this happened--I have no idea what the chronology of the report is. But it's worth considering.

          This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

          by emptywheel on Mon May 16, 2005 at 04:46:11 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  So you're really questioning what now? (4.00 / 3)

          The toothless dobermann that's the US media?

          Our tactics in torture?

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prison_abuse_scandal

          This story has been kicked around for a while on a bunch of foreign news sites, it just took a while to enter our lame-o conciousness....

          I've known about the desecration of the Koran as a torture tactic for at least a year.  Nothing new to me....of course, I peruse other sites than Faux, CNN and Newsweek....

          "You can't awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."-Navajo saying.

          by quartzite on Mon May 16, 2005 at 12:50:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Simple correction (4.00 / 3)

        Susan - Yes, your story is true, except that wasn't actually menstrual blood, but blood-like substance, that the female interrogator (or hired women for that purpose) pulled out from her panties.
        That's how I remember it.
        •  n/t (4.00 / 2)

          I know that.... I wrote three diaries on it... I just wasn't explaining it all.

          But you raise an interesting point that Ken brought up over on Booman tonight:  If the substance wasn't actually blood, is there plausible deniability that the humiliation occurred as described by the detainees?  (I am not worrying about that question, but he did raise it.)

      •  But.. (none / 1)


        See, to an objective person: you cannot believe the detainees. It's a he said vs he said situation.

        The retraction happened because the source wouldn't stand by the original leak that he did.

        Now, if this is a conspiracy or not, I don't know.

        But Newsweek couldn't possibly stand by the story if their source withdrew.

        Of course, the wingnuts will blame Newsweek but they checked with another source who didn't dispute the Koran claim.

        But since their story was based on this Southern Command report and the source withdrew on it, they had to retract.

        I don't blame them. This is responsible journalism.

        What the effects of this will be? More like CBS and Rather, I think.

        •  Newsweek (none / 1)

          had no responsibility to do anything. They had a good story and they could have stood by it on the basis of plenty of corrobrating evidence.  They basically fucked up by caving instead of standing their ground.

          Jesus Swept, coming this Thanksgiving.

          by Anglico on Mon May 16, 2005 at 11:50:58 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  you wouldn't have to believe a detainee (none / 1)

          if the Red Cross had the access they are supposed to have to them.

          And why would a detainee be completely unbelievable after Abu Gharib when there is a clear precedent of such abuse, corroboration amongst parallel sources (without any prior collusion).  The latter refers to those already released.  Why are there similar stories in Iraq (far away from Gitmo)?

          Why not view the detainers with the same skepticism?

          There are many people who are situated to do great things. Most of them don't.

          by Inverted on Mon May 16, 2005 at 04:25:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  They just told the truth... (4.00 / 4)

    this infuriates me beyond words... infantile logic beyond belief...

    More Truth:

    Pentagon sparks global riots by flushing Koran

    RoP Riots over Interrogator's Behavior

    Flushing 100,000 words by Pentagon Interrogator... yields death in the streets of Kabul

    More on Pentagon's Riots

    This ought to be fodder for your ethics diary, Susan

    Truth, Justice and the American Way... sigh

    Dudehisattva...

    "Generosity, Ethics, Patience, Effort, Concentration, and Wisdom"

    by Dood Abides on Sun May 15, 2005 at 06:25:39 PM PST

  •  And suddenly (4.00 / 6)

    Yet another ambiguously pro-Bush media organ is converted to full pro-Bush status.

    Clearly, the truth is not safe before power, certainly not safe to speak of.

    We have been given this one precious chance to become one nation again, peacefully.

    by cskendrick on Sun May 15, 2005 at 06:30:45 PM PST

  •  I was just over at LGF (4.00 / 5)

    long enough to read 20 or 30 comments on this story.

    Those people are batshit crazy. No wonder they think Bolton and Coulter and Delay are so great. No wonder they think Fox News is moderate.

    Have a drink, folks! Kool-Aid for everybody!

    Ein Volk! Ein Paretei! Ein Kirche! Ein Fuehrer!

    Heil Bush!

    (This is not a test.)

    America: It's a good IDEA for a country ...

    by Tony Seybert on Sun May 15, 2005 at 06:39:17 PM PST

  •  You're a pro, Susan (4.00 / 7)

    another, and always, great job.

    ... the prophet is a fool, the spiritual man is mad, for the multitude of thine iniquity, and the great hatred.

    by Tirge Caps on Sun May 15, 2005 at 06:47:44 PM PST

  •  Repost (sorry): Newsweek Errors Outrageous (4.00 / 3)

    This is just outrageous.  And it's not over.

    The Winguts will go ballistic over this, and you know what, on the merits, they will be right.  Their agenda behind their outrage will be worng, but their point - the sloppiness of the media - will be correct.

    In a time when corporate media are so sloppy that investigation and verification remain undone, because telling the truth is expensive, you will have things like this happen.  

    This is not a matter of so-called media bias.  It is an example of the degradation of our media due to a lack of attention to telling the verifiable truth.

    We should not let the wingers distort this, and we should get ahead of this story.  

    We are not "compassionate conservatives." We are "fighting liberals." And we'll kick your ass.

    by Pachacutec on Sun May 15, 2005 at 07:06:35 PM PST

    •  What errors? (4.00 / 3)

      They reported what a government official told them (investigation). And the story had been reported previously by other media sources verification).  This is a classic case of the right wing deciding to twist facts by making unfounded accusations about the media source that distributed those facts. They are taking a story that looks bad for the bush administration and turning it into a story that looks bad for Newsweek, and I'm sick and tired of letting them get away with it.  

      What standards do you expect to hold the media to?  Should they only report facts that they witnessed personally? Should they be required to never use anonymous sources?  So much for whistleblowers.  Very few whistleblowers are willing to come out publicly and destroy their lives and careers.  Do you think "deep throat" would have come out if he had to do it publicly?  

      As long as we have a right wing machine that is able to distort and conceal the truth, we will have this kind of problem with media being trashed when they don't really deserve it, just because they dared to say something bad about the administration.  

  •  My friend just sent me this (4.00 / 12)

    Either 1) Isikoff and Barry were set up by their Pentagon source to intentionally report the Koran story, at which point the source backed off of the assertion that a Koran was actually flushed down the toilet at Guantanamo, or 2) the story itself is true, but has generated such a shitstorm throughout the Middle East that the Pentagon is trying to but back the heat and stop the disastrous results of the story being reported. We noted yesterday that Well-Dressed Unocal Puppet Hamid Karzai is fearing for his life, and has fairly begged the US to do something to save his well-dressed neck.

    And naturally, the White House's course of action is to throw yet another media outlet under the bus.

    But take note of something here - the Pentagon is not saying the story wasn't true. Isikoff's source is only saying that he read it somewhere, but it may not have been in the report that Newsweek reported it was in. And Newsweek is not saying they made an error in reporting it - only that they may have made an error.

    That's just weird. A non-denial denial from the Pentagon, and a non-retraction retraction from Newsweek.

    The Righeous Army of Rightards is, of course, declaring Newsweek to be Dan Rather II over this - even though it's not clear that their reporting was even wrong.

    It's obvious that the Pentagon and White House are going to walk away from this, leaving Newsweek holding the proverbial bag. And if that's the case, Newsweek should consider self-preservation rather than quietly taking a hit to their crdibility that they may never recover from.

    They should burn their source. Make that source come forward and explain why the information given to Isikoff and Barry was deemed credble at the time of the interview - but then called into doubt after the shit had hit the fan throughout the Middle East.

    Do it, Newsweek. You have to, or you are Dan Rather II.

    Contributed by: Stranger

    (Sorry -- my friend didn't send me a link.)

    •  Burn the Source (none / 0)

      Or burn Newsweek in the town square along with CBS News.  Some choice.

      You can call me "Lord Bink Forester de Rothschild."

      by bink on Sun May 15, 2005 at 08:01:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Just like Rather / TANG (4.00 / 3)

      The Righeous Army of Rightards is, of course, declaring Newsweek to be Dan Rather II over this - even though it's not clear that their reporting was even wrong.

      But Dan Rather was right about Bush shirking his National Guard duty, whether or not the relevant documents were legit. It's like the current Newsweek / Koran case.

    •  Don't burn the source (4.00 / 6)

      I'm not sure you burn the source. What would have happened if Daniel Ellsberg got burned before he came forward of his own accord? This guy knows something stinks at the Pentagon. You burn him now, and you lose one of the inside sources that will be important if we're ever going to stop this behavior.

      Don't burn the source. Encourage him to come clean. Perhaps leak his name to Ellsberg or Richard Clarke. But don't burn him.

      This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

      by emptywheel on Mon May 16, 2005 at 04:52:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Then every time a source comes through.. (none / 1)

      with a fact that is damaging to the administration, all the right wing has to do is to cast doubt on the fact and the media will expose their source.  
  •  The rioting wasn't Newsweek's fault (4.00 / 3)

    It was simply people finally letting loose all the frustration they've developed towards Bush and America these past four years. Right wing publications need to shut the hell up. It's not like Guantanamo is a human rights paradise, whether Korans are being thrown in the toilet or not. People know that prisoners are being treated like crap there, just like in Abu Ghraib. And there comes a point where people just can't take it anymore.

    Old Man McCain.com - the best anti-McCain blog on the web!

    by existenz on Sun May 15, 2005 at 07:08:49 PM PST

  •  Recommended... (4.00 / 2)

    ...with one suggestion.

    A "tact" is not a direction.  You mean "tack."  It's a sailing term.

    Great diary as always.

    "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you smite them and drink their blood, then you win." Onemadson

    by The Termite on Sun May 15, 2005 at 07:16:20 PM PST

  •  I don't think they backtracked under pressure (none / 1)

    You have to look at it from a MSM viewpoint: they printed a small piece on the Koran story, and this information may/may not have been one of the reasons why people are rioting. As journalists, they don't want their writing to spark violence anywhere (unless its state-to-state), and as primarily American weekly, they don't want to jeopardize the country's position overseas. So I think the pressure is mostly internal.

    However, you may be right that there is a political move by some to smear Newsweek for the riots themselves.

    •  Probably internal (none / 0)

      But probably not Isikoff.

      It's likely the result of political battles within Newsweek. But I'm betting Isikoff doesn't agree with the result.

      This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

      by emptywheel on Mon May 16, 2005 at 04:54:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The truth hurts, (4.00 / 4)

    and frankly, it's the messenger's fault the news is bad. Lie to the king, Goddammit! Those clothes look fabulous on the emperor!!!

    IOW, in Bushworld, it's only a lie if you disagree with it, and as long as you believe it, it must be true.

    --------
    Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.

    by PBJ Diddy on Sun May 15, 2005 at 07:19:17 PM PST

  •  This story is exploding and it will get bigger (4.00 / 14)

    Fox News just had a Colonel on with Geraldo calling Newsweek treasonous.  They are calling for Americans to cancel their Newsweek subscriptions. Someone even uttered the phrase that Newseek should be charged with accessory to murder.  This is CBS all over again.  The President's popularity is dropping, and this will be a much needed distraction from his failures.  Just as the AWOL is got overshadowed by the "fake' memo, whether are not abuses have taken place at Gitmo will now become clouded by the growing Newsweekgate. The right wing loves playing the role of victim, and this will give them another opportunity.