Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JDN who wrote (32084)	5/22/2005 12:18:39 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Hopeful optimism doesn't change the mess in Iraq anymore than it would have or could have in Vietnam in 1966-1967. We had the same set of situations then, the US caught in the middle of a civil war in a country we don't really understand. Our troops garrisoned and only securing a small patch of real estate and local ally troops being unwiling or unable to defend their own country. The big mistakes on Iraq and Vietnam were made in the beginning. When LBJ used lies as an excuse to escalate and Bush used lies as an excuse to invade without significant international help. Two crucial mistakes. Bush and the rightwing apparently have not learned from the lessons of Vietnam (and Afghanistan for the Soviets). They have repeated the mistakes.

To: JDN who wrote (32084)	5/22/2005 11:08:23 PM
From: paret	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

A Letter to Our Readers Newsweek May 30 issue - . . . In the week since our Periscope item about alleged abuse of the Qur'an at Guantanamo Bay became a heated topic of national conversation, it will come as no surprise to you that we have been engaged in a great deal of soul-searching and reflection. Since cutting short a trip to Asia on the weekend we published our account of how we reported the story, I have had long talks with our Editor Mark Whitaker, Managing Editor Jon Meacham and other key staff members, and I wanted to share my thoughts with you and to affirm—and reaffirm—some important principles that will guide our news gathering in the future. As most of you know, we have unequivocally retracted our story. In the light of the Pentagon's denials and our source's changing position on the allegation, the only responsible course was to say that we no longer stand by our story. We have also offered a sincere apology to our readers and especially to anyone affected by violence that may have been related to what we published. To the extent that our story played a role in contributing to such violence, we are deeply sorry. Let me assure both our readers and our staffers that NEWSWEEK remains every bit as committed to honest, independent and accurate reporting as we always have been. In this case, however, we got an important story wrong, and honor requires us to admit our mistake and redouble our efforts to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again. One of the frustrating aspects of our initial inquiry is that we seem to have taken so many appropriate steps in reporting the Guantanamo story. On the basis of what we know now, I've seen nothing to suggest that our people acted unethically or unprofessionally. Veteran reporter Michael Isikoff relied on a well-placed and historically reliable government source. We sought comment from one military spokesman (he declined) and provided the entire story to a senior Defense Department official, who disputed one assertion (which we changed) and said nothing about the charge of abusing the Qur'an. Had he objected to the allegations, I am confident that we would have at the very least revised the item, but we mistakenly took the official's silence for confirmation. It now seems clear that we didn't know enough or do enough before publication, and if our traditional procedures did not prevent the mistake, then it is time to clarify and strengthen a number of our policies. In the weeks to come we will be reviewing ways to improve our news-gathering processes overall. But after consultations with Mark Whitaker and Jon Meacham, we are taking the following steps now: We will raise the standards for the use of anonymous sources throughout the magazine. Historically, unnamed sources have helped to break or advance stories of great national importance, but overuse can lead to distrust among readers and carelessness among journalists. As always, the burden of proof should lie with the reporters and their editors to show why a promise of anonymity serves the reader. From now on, only the editor or the managing editor, or other top editors they specifically appoint, will have the authority to sign off on the use of an anonymous source. We will step up our commitment to help the reader understand the nature of a confidential source's access to information and his or her reasons for demanding anonymity. As they often are now, the name and position of such a source will be shared upon request with a designated top editor. Our goal is to ensure that we have properly assessed, on a confidential basis, the source's credibility and motives before publishing and to make sure that we characterize the source appropriately. The cryptic phrase "sources said" will never again be the sole attribution for a story in NEWSWEEK. When information provided by a source wishing to remain anonymous is essential to a sensitive story—alleging misconduct or reflecting a highly contentious point of view, for example—we pledge a renewed effort to seek a second independent source or other corroborating evidence. When the pursuit of the public interest requires the use of a single confidential source in such a story, we will attempt to provide the comment and the context to the subject of the story in advance of publication for confirmation, denial or correction. Tacit affirmation, by anyone, no matter how highly placed or apparently knowledgeable, will not qualify as a secondary source. These guidelines on sourcing are clearly related to the Guantanamo story, but this is also a good time to reaffirm several larger principles that guide us as well. We will remain vigilant about making sure that sensitive issues receive the discussion and reflection they deserve. While there will always be the impulse to get an exclusive story into the magazine quickly, we will continue to value accuracy above all else. We are committed to holding stories for as long as necessary in order to be confident of the facts. If that puts us at a competitive disadvantage on any particular story, so be it. The reward, in accuracy and public trust, is more than worth the price. Finally, when we make a mistake—as institutions and individuals inevitably do—we will confront it, correct it quickly and learn from the experience. I have had the privilege of being part of NEWSWEEK's proud editorial tradition for nearly 35 years. I can assure you that the talented and honorable people who publish NEWSWEEK today are dedicated to making sure that what appears on every page in the magazine is as fair and accurate as it can possibly be. Based on what we know now, we fell short in our story about Guantanamo Bay. Trust is hard won and easily lost, and to our readers, we pledge to earn their renewed confidence by producing the best possible magazine each and every week. Richard M. Smith Chairman and Editor-in-Chief © 2005 Newsweek, Inc.