Newsweek Refuses To Budge Further...We Shall See...
Well, at least they retracted the story, but I must stand on the side of my other half: There are people that should lose their jobs, and others that should be demoted. And on that thought, Michelle Malkin picked up on a Drudge Report alert earlier today. This comes on the heels of Isikoff’s supposed resignation. (I say supposed because I see no mention of it, other than Ms. Malkin’s site, where the big guns of the blogosphere that led this swarm have acknowledged his attempted resignation.)
http://michellemalkin.com/index.htm
"Mike was told he would not be sacrificed, we are standing behind him 100%," a top magazine source told the DRUDGE REPORT. "We do not, I repeat, do not let this White House, any White House, make our staff decisions for us."
Nice tough-man stance. The problem was that it was not the White House that forced this issue. Hugh Hewitt had a pair of guest hosts on his show yesterday. Mark Taylor was one of them, and he stated that the bloggers did not lead this charge, nor were they the ones that outed the story. Au contraire, it was the bloggers. Michelle Malkin, Captain’s Quarters, PowerLine, and Instapundit all had a hand in getting this swarm up and rolling. (And Mark was wrong on another point: It took bloggers less than 24 hours to completely destroy Dan Rather. And it all started with a poster on Free Republic named Buckhead.)
I am sorry to beat on our tiny drum, but the swarm grew from a half-dozen different sites, to over thirty sites mentioning the story, analyzing the story, and debunking the story. The condemnation within the blogosphere exploded in Drudge’s e-mail, which on this past Sunday night he admitted that his e-mail was flooded over the Newsweek story. Drudge averages an astronomical amount of hits in one day; there is literally no one I know of that does not check his site out at least twice a day.
And as with Rathergate, the bloggers drove this story right into the laps of the average American, who got incredibly incensed at this story, and how it was connected to the riots that broke out last week. The difference is that in the Newsweek story, innocent people died. Seventeen was the last report I heard, and hundreds were injured, but this is the repercussions of an erroneous report.
What is really keeping the heat on Newsweek is how the MSM has decided to circle the wagons. Many pundits, talk show hosts, and commentators are giving Isikoff and Newsweek a pass. I, however—and many join me in this statement—cannot give either a pass; for the sole reason that what they did grievously wrong. This report did not just slander our troops, with no presentable proof of such misdeeds, but it also painted this nation in the worst light possible.
And I do not say that out of being politically correct. I state that, with affirmation, that I believe in that based on our First Amendment; we are to have RESPECT for other religions. And that is even if we disagree with it, or dislike it. (For those keeping score, I abhor political correctness; it is socialistic in nature.)
But Newsweek has decided to take a stand, right here, right now. This farther, and no further. I would like to inform them that the pressure will not yield until "justice" is satisfied. The editors go. Just like Eason Jordan did. Just like Dan Rather, eventually, did. Just like Howell Raines did. All senior people within the MSM and within their news organizations, but also to America. These people had the trust and faith of America. They are now, in essence, a punchline, and a footnote in blogger "history". But regardless of patting ourselves on the back (Hey, we all want some attention), we stand for what is right. This report was wrong. They should have known better. And in the end, they were the ultimate determiners of what gets printed and what does not. So yes, the editors go.
The reporters do not escape our ire. But I do not want their firing; I want their demotion. Make them the joke of the office by never allowing them to cover another important story again. Barry can do the "Life and Arts" section, and Isikoff can be reduced to the "Food" section. Worse yet, demote them to doing the puke work of interns at the office. Now, they could always resign, and Newsweek could accept them this time. But I do not call for their ouster; I recognize Isikoff is a good writer, and could only imagine a food column written by him.
But the White House is also correct. They have admitted the report was wrong. They have retracted it. Now it is time for an explanation. It is one of two things that must be done to set the record straight. The second is to release the source. "An unreliable source is no source at all" I have heard from many people I have talked to about this. And I tend to agree. A source knows that they will have the protection of the reporter, if the story they peddle is true. But there should be no reciprocity of anonymity by the reporter should the story be false. Newsweek must help set the record straight, and clean their slate; it is the only option they have left.
The Bunny ;)
Well, at least they retracted the story, but I must stand on the side of my other half: There are people that should lose their jobs, and others that should be demoted. And on that thought, Michelle Malkin picked up on a Drudge Report alert earlier today. This comes on the heels of Isikoff’s supposed resignation. (I say supposed because I see no mention of it, other than Ms. Malkin’s site, where the big guns of the blogosphere that led this swarm have acknowledged his attempted resignation.)
http://michellemalkin.com/index.htm
"Mike was told he would not be sacrificed, we are standing behind him 100%," a top magazine source told the DRUDGE REPORT. "We do not, I repeat, do not let this White House, any White House, make our staff decisions for us."
Nice tough-man stance. The problem was that it was not the White House that forced this issue. Hugh Hewitt had a pair of guest hosts on his show yesterday. Mark Taylor was one of them, and he stated that the bloggers did not lead this charge, nor were they the ones that outed the story. Au contraire, it was the bloggers. Michelle Malkin, Captain’s Quarters, PowerLine, and Instapundit all had a hand in getting this swarm up and rolling. (And Mark was wrong on another point: It took bloggers less than 24 hours to completely destroy Dan Rather. And it all started with a poster on Free Republic named Buckhead.)
I am sorry to beat on our tiny drum, but the swarm grew from a half-dozen different sites, to over thirty sites mentioning the story, analyzing the story, and debunking the story. The condemnation within the blogosphere exploded in Drudge’s e-mail, which on this past Sunday night he admitted that his e-mail was flooded over the Newsweek story. Drudge averages an astronomical amount of hits in one day; there is literally no one I know of that does not check his site out at least twice a day.
And as with Rathergate, the bloggers drove this story right into the laps of the average American, who got incredibly incensed at this story, and how it was connected to the riots that broke out last week. The difference is that in the Newsweek story, innocent people died. Seventeen was the last report I heard, and hundreds were injured, but this is the repercussions of an erroneous report.
What is really keeping the heat on Newsweek is how the MSM has decided to circle the wagons. Many pundits, talk show hosts, and commentators are giving Isikoff and Newsweek a pass. I, however—and many join me in this statement—cannot give either a pass; for the sole reason that what they did grievously wrong. This report did not just slander our troops, with no presentable proof of such misdeeds, but it also painted this nation in the worst light possible.
And I do not say that out of being politically correct. I state that, with affirmation, that I believe in that based on our First Amendment; we are to have RESPECT for other religions. And that is even if we disagree with it, or dislike it. (For those keeping score, I abhor political correctness; it is socialistic in nature.)
But Newsweek has decided to take a stand, right here, right now. This farther, and no further. I would like to inform them that the pressure will not yield until "justice" is satisfied. The editors go. Just like Eason Jordan did. Just like Dan Rather, eventually, did. Just like Howell Raines did. All senior people within the MSM and within their news organizations, but also to America. These people had the trust and faith of America. They are now, in essence, a punchline, and a footnote in blogger "history". But regardless of patting ourselves on the back (Hey, we all want some attention), we stand for what is right. This report was wrong. They should have known better. And in the end, they were the ultimate determiners of what gets printed and what does not. So yes, the editors go.
The reporters do not escape our ire. But I do not want their firing; I want their demotion. Make them the joke of the office by never allowing them to cover another important story again. Barry can do the "Life and Arts" section, and Isikoff can be reduced to the "Food" section. Worse yet, demote them to doing the puke work of interns at the office. Now, they could always resign, and Newsweek could accept them this time. But I do not call for their ouster; I recognize Isikoff is a good writer, and could only imagine a food column written by him.
But the White House is also correct. They have admitted the report was wrong. They have retracted it. Now it is time for an explanation. It is one of two things that must be done to set the record straight. The second is to release the source. "An unreliable source is no source at all" I have heard from many people I have talked to about this. And I tend to agree. A source knows that they will have the protection of the reporter, if the story they peddle is true. But there should be no reciprocity of anonymity by the reporter should the story be false. Newsweek must help set the record straight, and clean their slate; it is the only option they have left.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 5:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home