A new low, all around.

[rjung]

@Loopydude

Y’know, I could sort of get my head around that, except over and over again, reporters have taken great pains to state the act as “flushing down the toilet”. Not flushing in a toilet, or thrown in toilet and flushed, or any other more correct way of describing the obvious about what one can and cannot do to a readable book in a toilet. IOW, it’s media hyperbole at best, and a goddamned lie at worst.

It’s probably just shorthand – “flushing down a toilet” is shorter to write and quicker to say than “placing in a toilet and flushing it.”

Besides, flushing or not, just placing any kind of “holy object” in a toilet is probably not going to please the folks of that faith.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@betenoir

But did they? From what I’ve read, they said they were wrong for running an articles with allegations from a single uncorroberated (and rather shaky) source. They were wrong for not living up to basic journalistic standards and getting corroberation first. They themselves never said they got the facts wrong.

Cite?

You, know, you could try doing some research, at, oh, newsweek’s website:
Link

From the horses mouth

Two weeks ago, in our issue dated May 9, Michael Isikoff and John Barry reported in a brief item in our Periscope section that U.S. military investigators had found evidence that American guards at the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had committed infractions in trying to get terror suspects to talk, including in one case flushing a Qur’an down a toilet. Their information came from a knowledgeable U.S. government source, and before deciding whether to publish it we approached two separate Defense Department officials for comment. One declined to give us a response; the other challenged another aspect of the story but did not dispute the Qur’an charge.

Although other major news organizations had aired charges of Qur’an desecration based only on the testimony of detainees, we believed our story was newsworthy because a U.S. official said government investigators turned up this evidence. So we published the item. …

Editor’s Note: On Monday afternoon, May 16, Whitaker issued the following statement: Based on what we know now, we are retracting our original story that an internal military investigation had uncovered Qur’an abuse at Guantanamo Bay.

Emphasis added.

The reported the words of an American official whom they had no reason to disbelieve. They checked his words against 2 sources. When the official retracted, Newsweek retracted. As was approapriate.

The only downside was that those who view the news impressionistically may have been misled. Careful reading is always a virtue.

[Zoe]

Debaser, if you don’t believe Amnesty International, who would you believe? I’m serious. Who would be a credible source for you that torture is actualy going on? Even the Supreme Court of the United States says that they are being denied their rights.

[elucidator]

Just when you think the hypocrisy has reached neutron density, the theoretical limit for raw chutzpah has been achieved…

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2005052619570001108123&dt=20050526195700&w=APO&coview=

A federal judge has told the government it will have to release additional pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison, civil rights lawyers said…

The government, it will not surprise the sentient, attempted to withold the pictures. Their argument?..(if you have cookies, prepare to toss them)…

…Government lawyer Sean Lane argued that releasing pictures, even if faces and other features are obscured, would violate Geneva Convention rules on prisoner treatment by subjecting detainees to additional humiliation or embarrassment…

I read stuff like this, and I don’t know whether to shit or go bowling.