| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Newsmax discusses Newsweek's interview with Al Jazeera. Full transcript available at MEMRI.
Just days after Newsweek "retracted" its Quran-flushing story, a top editor with the magazine seemingly backed away from its flat-out retraction, telling the U.S.-hostile al-Jazeera network that Newsweek was "neutral" on whether Americans had desecrated the Quran.In a May 19 interview with the Arab TV network Al-Jazeera, Newsweek’s Washington bureau chief Daniel Klaidman admitted the magazine made a "mistake" in publishing the story, and promised: "In the future, we won’t make these kinds of mistakes."...
The Memri transcript shows that Newsweek was cleverly telling millions of Arab viewers there story may still be true – they just did not have the evidence to support their original allegations.
The Al-Jazeera reporter asked Newsweek’s [Daniel] Klaidman, "But there is no proof that it [the Quran desecration] did not happen either."
Klaidman replied, "We are neutral on whether any form of Quran desecration took place. There are allegations out there, but the allegations have not been subjected to the kind of scrutiny or legal processes that normally ... you need before you can establish whether they are true, and we certainly know that the military has not confirmed any of these allegations.
"As to whether these things happened or not, we are, like the rest of the people out there and news organizations – we don’t know. We have heard the allegations, we continue to report, and the U.S. military and other entities are investigating, and as I said, we are neutral on whether any of this ever happened."
Klaidman also said Newsweek is continuing to protect the identity of the anonymous source that provided the Quran desecration report, despite calls for the magazine to unmask the source.
Klaidman said: "We have to protect the anonymity of our source because we made an agreement of confidentiality with this person."
But veteran newsman David Gergen of U.S. News & World Report told CNN, "There was an old rule in journalism that if an unnamed source lies to a news organization, that source loses his anonymity, by definition, because he misled people."
Posted by Rebecca at May 27, 2005 8:51 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
These people are getting slimier and slimier with there cover their butts, back stabbing political agenda--
I'll never pick up another Newsweak Magazine!
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 27, 2005 9:29 AM
Isn't NewsWeak a member of the Time Warner group?
And who has SUBSTANTIAL holdings in Time Warner?
Hmm....
Posted by: a10billr at May 27, 2005 9:39 AM
The proof is in the pudding:
Invite the creeps from Newsweek, invite the rest of the MSM and invite Ibrahim Hoopey from CAIR to a Koran flushing session:
Pick a standard loo. Bring out the cameras:
If it flushes, the story is true.
If it doesn't, it can't be true.
I'll bet you $ 10.000.00 bucks it does't flush!
Make that world news and you have another riot.
The inflated numbers of Muzzies might be held in check this way. (added value)
Where are the comedians, where is Lettermann, Leno, Ophrah: Nobody gonna touch it? Too creepy? What a bunch of cowards!
Posted by: Terminator at May 27, 2005 10:08 AM
Sounds like a good definition of the 'revelation' (by the angel 'Gibreel' [AKA Gabriel]) that is the basis of the Koran itself:
"We have no proof that it didn't happen. And we have no proof that it happened."
Why doesn't Newsweak report that on Al-Jazeera.
Posted by: BigSleep
at May 27, 2005 10:20 AM
These dhimmis are petrified, but all their cowering will not save them later if the fascists do win.
Posted by: cassandra at May 27, 2005 10:53 AM
Whether or not Newsweek is "neutral on Koran desecration" is irrelevant. They are guilty or allowing an untrained someone to place an inflammatory item in a publication without considering what would happen. This means that they did no backgrounder, have no knowledge of Islam, nor of the "centrality of the Koran is Islamic piety," and are guilty of gross irresponsibility.
No apology, retraction, or claim of "neutrality" can every mitigate what they did, for the Islamists, this incident is a gift that keeps on giving and will be used at every imaginable instance to whip up mob or bolster flagging support.
Posted by: epg at May 27, 2005 1:17 PM
Well, boys & girls, I'm not neutral on quran desecration. It sounds like a plumb good idea to me, and entertaining, too!
For the first time in my life, I feel inclined to purchase a good, cheap quran. Maybe a case of them.
My ass fairly tingles with rapt anticipation.
No muslims. No mosques.
Posted by: Havoc at May 27, 2005 10:53 PM
Where are the liberal free speech advocates who claim that burning the flag is an important part of our freedom? How is this different? Don't our troops HAVE THE RIGHT OF THE CONSTUTION THEY ARE TRYING TO PROTECT?
Posted by: kevin at May 27, 2005 11:37 PM
Newsweek is traitorous and thoroughly disgusting. Boycott Newsweek and their advertisers. Hit them where it counts...in the pocketbook.
Posted by: Freedom1 at May 28, 2005 2:02 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)