What the Newsweek Farce Was Supposed To Distract Us From
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/in...rtner=homepage

This week there were a lot of rumors that the WhiteHouse's Newsweek tirade was a diversion from something else they expected to break.

This story is it.

The New York Times attained a copy of an investigation report of Afghanistan torture by the U.S.

By the way, watch the interactive as well.

Edit: interactive

Re: What the Newsweek Farce Was Supposed To Distract Us From
 

I guess the NY Times is just making stuff up. Clearly the NY Times is going to be attacked for reporting the news.

They must just be angry liberals.

(I thought I'd give the standard response when anyone reports bad news.)

Re: What the Newsweek Farce Was Supposed To Distract Us From
 

nonsense. there was only one fluke occurence of two or three
unrepresentative, criminal individuals who secretly engaged
in questionable behavior. everyone else is representing this
country abroad, sowing democracy, with honor, as well
trained, well supervised, educated God-fearing Christians.
Americans would never stoop to the disgusting level of our
enemies. if any one ever would try to sink to the level of
torture, their peers, not to mention their superiors, would
never tolerate that. and our government certainly would not
try to pile lies on top of it.

Re: What the Newsweek Farce Was Supposed To Distract Us From
 

so we outsourced it - problem solved - [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

RB

Re: What the Newsweek Farce Was Supposed To Distract Us From
 

lol
its the NEW YORK TIMES !!
Why not qoute CBS or NRWSWEEK !
Thank you. I needed a laugh.

Re: What the Newsweek Farce Was Supposed To Distract Us From
 

[ QUOTE ]

its the NEW YORK TIMES !!

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that to normal people (not neo cons) it is one of the most respected newspapers in the world?

Re: What the Newsweek Farce Was Supposed To Distract Us From
 

I look forward to McClellan denyting this story and claiming that the NYT must somehow make amends.

Re: What the Newsweek Farce Was Supposed To Distract Us From
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

its the NEW YORK TIMES !!

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that to normal people (not neo cons) it is one of the most respected newspapers in the world?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not anymore. It's readership has been dropping, and I suspect so has the confidence in it's reporting. It's NOT a reliable source of information. Never really was.

Re: What the Newsweek Farce Was Supposed To Distract Us From
 

At least you're reliable for a laugh.

Who would have thunk that the neo-cons would automatically dismiss it? I sure didn't guess it.

Re: What the Newsweek Farce Was Supposed To Distract Us From
 

Or it could have been this:

Link

Given our relationship with Afghanistan at the moment, coupled with the Muslim aversion to dogs...

Re: What the Newsweek Farce Was Supposed To Distract Us From
 

six months ending march 2003 home delivery nyt 709,881
six months ending march 2004 home delivery nyt 688,645

six months ending sept 2003 home delivery nyt 702,419
six months ending sept 2004 home delivery nyt 692,154


six months ending march 2003 single copy nyt 323,166
six months ending march 2004 single copy nyt 310,155

six months ending sept 2003 single copy nyt 341,904
six months ending sept 2004 single copy nyt 310,431


apparently they had a small spike in growth recently. I expect thats from liberals moving out of "flyover" country and into the bastions of socialism.

Re: What the Newsweek Farce Was Supposed To Distract Us From
 

Jax obviously doesn't even read his own posts. He printed 4 different statistics for the exact same thing.

And then, you can't be a RW troll without making a random comment about Socialism. GOOD BOY. YOU REMEMBERED!

Re: What the Newsweek Farce Was Supposed To Distract Us From
 

[ QUOTE ]
lol
its the NEW YORK TIMES !!
Why not qoute CBS or NRWSWEEK !
Thank you. I needed a laugh.

[/ QUOTE ]How stupid can you be? It's a U.S. Army Report.

Re: What the Newsweek Farce Was Supposed To Distract Us From
 

I know full well that the crowd of people here, especially guys like Grey and quads and all of them, will misunderstand what I'm about to say, but I'll say it anyways...

1) This is not an entire story. It is one alleged account from a "confidential Army report"...clearly it can't be THAT confidential, I guess....

2) I understand it isn't the only report of its kind, but to all the anti-war people here who fail to see reason and only wish to smear and defile, think about it for a second: NYT is a business. Its there to get readership, readership that its losing. Stories like this shock people, they get more readership. But even if this story is entirely true, consider that actions like this are the exception, rather than the rule. Divisiveness is your goal and you're well on your way, but think about things for a few minutes before just posting everything you can think of to attempt to attack the "other side".

Re: What the Newsweek Farce Was Supposed To Distract Us From
 

[ QUOTE ]
1) This is not an entire story. It is one alleged account from a "confidential Army report"...

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not 'alleged' according to the report. Its a 2000 page report. Sounds to me like its been thoroughly investigated.

Odd how you try to dismiss it.

[ QUOTE ]
I understand it isn't the only report of its kind,

[/ QUOTE ]

True. There have been reports of abuse in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo. On top of that, We have Bush sending prisoners to countries who are even looser with the torture. Bush wanted to be allowed to torture people. He had his counsel look into it. There is a pattern here.

[ QUOTE ]
but to all the anti-war people here who fail to see reason

[/ QUOTE ]

That is so bizarre. You could be pro-war and against torture. And what do you mean 'fail to see reason?'

[ QUOTE ]
and only wish to smear and defile

[/ QUOTE ]

To borrow your train of thought...
I understand it isn't the only report of its kind, but to all Bush apologists here who fail to see reason and only wish to excuse everything horrendous that happens under this administration, think about it for a second: Bush asked to get around the Geneva Conventions, he argued for torture, in every sphere where we have prisoners (Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo) there have reports of abuse... not by individuals in secret; by interrogators in front of guards, in front of their superiors, in front of ANYONE who wandered by... their behaviour was accepted and condoned. This has happened repeatedly in multiple locations. Why do the Bush apologists feel that this is insignificant?

[ QUOTE ]
Its there to get readership, readership that its losing.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, a newspaper is trying to drum up readership by printing NEWS verified by a MILITARY REPORT. How scandalous! A newspaper printing NEWS to get readers.

Every newstory of wrongdoing is some sort of scandal/conspiracy. Why can't a neocon ever just accept that its news. And that it means what it means?

[ QUOTE ]
But even if this story is entirely true, consider that actions like this are the exception, rather than the rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know? There have been reports that this has been happening for years. According to the Red Cross, they warned the US years ago that the 'Koran' abuse was widespread and likely to lead to problems Internationally if it got out. They were concerned because it was NOT isolated.

[ QUOTE ]
Divisiveness is your goal and you're well on your way, but think about things for a few minutes before just posting everything you can think of to attempt to attack the "other side".

[/ QUOTE ]

Rathar then assume everything is an attack and wrong, why don't YOU think about things. Like perhaps there's a problem with the military where they're torturing prisoners? Why don't you consider that there are problems out there that need addressing. Instead of turning everything into something partisan, you could just think. Maybe there's a problem that needs fixing.

Re: What the Newsweek Farce Was Supposed To Distract Us From
 

[ QUOTE ]
Not anymore. It's readership has been dropping

[/ QUOTE ]

I am talking about worldwide respect. NYT is one of the most (if not the most) respected newspapers in the world. Readership is obviously important, but not always indicative of respect.

Re: What the Newsweek Farce Was Supposed To Distract Us From
 

[ QUOTE ]
I know full well that the crowd of people here, especially guys like Grey and quads and all of them, will misunderstand what I'm about to say, but I'll say it anyways...

1) This is not an entire story. It is one alleged account from a "confidential Army report"...clearly it can't be THAT confidential, I guess....

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain. Are you saying that you have information that the Army report is wrong, or are you saying that this type of thing is not the only thing the Army is doing over there (which is obvious) and that some of what the Army is doing is good? Or are you saying something else?

[ QUOTE ]
2) I understand it isn't the only report of its kind, but to all the anti-war people here who fail to see reason and only wish to smear and defile, think about it for a second: NYT is a business. Its there to get readership, readership that its losing. Stories like this shock people, they get more readership. But even if this story is entirely true, consider that actions like this are the exception, rather than the rule. Divisiveness is your goal and you're well on your way, but think about things for a few minutes before just posting everything you can think of to attempt to attack the "other side".

[/ QUOTE ]

And so what are you trying to say here? That these stories, "even if . . . entirely true", should not be reported, because they are "exceptions"? Again, please explain.

Re: What the Newsweek Farce Was Supposed To Distract Us From
 

What other correlation to respect there could be? If it was truly the most respected newspaper, people would be flocking to read it.

Re: What the Newsweek Farce Was Supposed To Distract Us From
 

[ QUOTE ]
What other correlation to respect there could be? If it was truly the most respected newspaper, people would be flocking to read it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the best selling novel of all time? Is it the most respected? There is no correlation. Stupid people ruin that sort of logic.

Re: What the Newsweek Farce Was Supposed To Distract Us From
 

I think the news is a little different. At least from what I've seen, most people want real news. I just think that for a newspaper to be the most respected, it woul be widely read. I'm not trying to start and argument or anything, but I disagree about it being very respected.

Re: What the Newsweek Farce Was Supposed To Distract Us From
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the news is a little different. At least from what I've seen, most people want real news.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where have you been looking? People who watch Fox or listen to Air America or watch Rush Limbaugh aren't looking for news... they're looking for people to reaffirm their beliefs and present the world in the way they want to see it.

Fox's success is precisely because they don't want 'real news.' When they did a study quizzing people on current events and where they got their news, Fox viewers were the most misinformed. I'm not saying this to bash on Fox Viewers (I do that, I admit, but here its relevent to the topic), rathar to demonstrate that they're not getting 'real' news.

Matter of fact, a lot of people don't want real news. They don't want to be troubled with the complexity of the world.

I remember seeing a comparison between Blair discussing the issues of Iraq and Bush. Blair talked about the politics and history of the region. Bush talked about "good vs evil."

A lot of people don't want the real world. They want simple. We're good - they're bad. They want news stations to ignore stories that are too critical. They don't want to be challenged.

Re: What the Newsweek Farce Was Supposed To Distract Us From
 

NYT is read by an extremely large audience, probably top 10 in the world...

I'm not sure how to find the numbers, quick google search didn't find anything.

Re: What the Newsweek Farce Was Supposed To Distract Us From
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the news is a little different. At least from what I've seen, most people want real news. I just think that for a newspaper to be the most respected, it woul be widely read. I'm not trying to start and argument or anything, but I disagree about it being very respected.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't think the NY Times is one of the most influential and most read papers in the world, your wrong.

As for the paper's print circulation, almost every newspaper in the country is fighting declining circulation.

Their loss of print circulation has more to do with putting the paper up online every day for free; which says to me the Times probably has a higher total readership than ever. I live in N.J. and read the NY Times everyday, and haven't bought a copy in years.

Frank

Re: What the Newsweek Farce Was Supposed To Distract Us From
 

And the growth of cable news networks has also contributed to the decline of newspapers. (not to mention books in general)

Re: What the Newsweek Farce Was Supposed To Distract Us From
 

[ QUOTE ]
And the growth of cable news networks has also contributed to the decline of newspapers. (not to mention books in general)

[/ QUOTE ]Clearly this is because the Daily Show and the O'Reilly Factor are more reliable.

Re: What the Newsweek Farce Was Supposed To Distract Us From
 

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly this is because the Daily Show and the O'Reilly Factor are more reliable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I admit, I think the Daily Show has the hardest cutting news on television.

Re: What the Newsweek Farce Was Supposed To Distract Us From
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Clearly this is because the Daily Show and the O'Reilly Factor are more reliable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I admit, I think the Daily Show has the hardest cutting news on television.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to agree about the Daily Show. Posters have talked about the brilliant juxtaposition of the kind of bare knuckled questioning Tony Blair has to endure, compared to the puffballs lobbed to Bush thanks to Rove's propaganda machine.

But I loved Samatha Bee's interview with top Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who gleefully explained how you can twist words to your advantage; if you are intending to weaken air pollution regulations, you call the measure the "Clear Skies Initiative," etc.

After three or four of these "this would do the Politburo proud" propaganda examples, she asked Luntz how he would spin the word "Orwellian," his long pause and facial expression was priceless.

Frank

Re: What the Newsweek Farce Was Supposed To Distract Us From
 

[ QUOTE ]
Instead of turning everything into something partisan, you could just think.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they could do that, they wouldn't be supporting a lying p.o.s. like Bush in the first place.


q/q