On a scale of 1 to 5, how effectively has the WH dirtied Newsweek?

Writer

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-20-05 12:27 PM
Original message

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effectively has the WH dirtied Newsweek?

Edited on Fri May-20-05 12:28 PM by Writer

I keep getting the impression that many haven't really paid attention or may be second-guessing the WH grandstanding.

So I'm giving it a 2.

How about you?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

SmokingJacket

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-20-05 12:30 PM
Response to Original message

1. 0, as far as I'm concerned.

They dirtied themselves somewhat by retracting the story.

I never read it, anyway: fluff.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

The Velveteen Ocelot

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-20-05 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #1

2. I'd have considered subscribing

if they'd grown a pair, stuck to their story and told little Scotty to shove it. But their retraction -- not the initial story -- proves they're wusses and whores, all afraid of losing WH access, and not real journalists at all. Too bad; sucks to be them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

bullimiami

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-20-05 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #1

3. i agree

Edited on Fri May-20-05 12:37 PM by bullimiami

the wh is full of bs anyway. but newsweek gave away their credibility.

never read the rag either but I think they might as well just close the doors now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

NYCGirl

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-20-05 12:37 PM
Response to Original message

4. 2.5, they'll recover. NT

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Writer

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-20-05 12:39 PM
Response to Original message

5. A source they trusted suddenly did a 180

Edited on Fri May-20-05 12:40 PM by Writer

How is Newsweek supposed to support a story when this happens?

"No, I know it happened - I swear!" Some may want balls, but I certainly hope Newsweek isn't thinking with them.

Further, isn't it interesting that the Saddam-in-undergarment issue appeared today? Frankly, I think the WH is attacking the press. Trying to discredit the press - because the press hasn't been quite as friendly with them since the inauguration. :tinfoilhat:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

fob

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-20-05 12:39 PM
Response to Original message

6. 225. I make my rating based upon even OUR side saying repeatedly

Edited on Fri May-20-05 12:41 PM by fob

that Newsweek "retracted the story". They did no such thing. They simply said their source now says they actually did not see the info in the report they referred to, NOT that the story was wrong. Jus tlook around here at DU and you will find many references to toileting the Koran weel before the NW story.

Bottom line, it happened, but the soundbyte that travels to the majority of ears is; the story's been retracted(as in it was a lie).

EDIT: To increase my initial scoring from 211 to 225 based on response #1 to this thread using "they retracted the story" meme.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

SmokingJacket

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-20-05 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #6

10. I should have used the term "backed off from" the story

rather than retracted it. They never said it was a lie, true.

My understanding of the term "retracted" was that it meant "took it back" -- as in they no longer stand behind it, for whatever reason.

But all right!! Sorry to tick you off.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

fob

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-20-05 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #10

13. I'm not ticked off at you, just that YET another bush* fuckup goes

not just unpunished but tacked onto OUR side as being OUR fault for pointing out said fuckup.

As for the meaning of "retracted" you may be right in the differing definitions but the way it's being used is to mean, "we take it back because it's been disproven", IMO.

Same team SJ, Same team.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

kerry-is-my-prez

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-20-05 12:41 PM
Response to Original message

7. I know a freeper type who's all ticked off at Newsweek.

But she watches Faux News and voted for Bush - so I doubt she has ever bought a Newsweek in her life.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

NAO

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-20-05 12:56 PM
Response to Original message

8. I was not impressed. Others I have spoken to fully believe the WH

and think the editors at Newsweek should be arrested for "inciting riots" which they tell me is a felony.

I could not believe that I heard this from otherwise rational people who are on the "other side".

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

queeg

(529 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-20-05 01:11 PM
Response to Original message

9. Zero

and should not have retracted story,

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Michael_Bush

(266 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-20-05 01:20 PM
Response to Original message

11. You are not looking at the big picture

The electorate now looks at the chaos in the ME as the fault of media not the WH.

The left can't get its head out of its %$#@ long enough to spin things well.

We have been screaming that abuses like this WOULD CAUSE VIOLENCE and we have been made to look unAmerican.

So, instead of being proven right, Rove just sucked the wind out of our sails by making it all our fault AND for a bonus prize made the media look even more untrustworthy so when they do finally start to turn on Bush...nobody will believe them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

EST

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-20-05 01:27 PM
Response to Original message

12. 5 The WH scared them so badly

they- um- soiled themselves.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

kenny blankenship

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-20-05 02:10 PM
Response to Original message

14. They weren't half as effective at it as

Newsweak was themselves by rolling over for their offended master not once but twice over when mere self-castigation wasn't enough.

2 for the White House but 3 for Newsweak who're now giving the name of mediawhore a bad reputation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Mon May 06th 2024, 02:32 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.