Anger seethes over Quran allegation

[petescheu]

You know what I'd love to see... a bunch of lawyers getting together to sue newsweek for damages to the families of all those people who were killed/injured (people in riots, soldiers either directly or indirectly, etc) as a result of their "quality" disgustingly liberal reporting. The only thing the MSM cares about is money... so burn their wallet and maybe they'll stop all the BS stories...

 

[Brett327]

Expound.

The analogy you draw implies an innocent party simply passing by, oblivious to situation with the gasoline. I don't think that is an accurate representation of Newsweek's role. Not only did they have knowledge of the volatile situation, but also carelessly (maliciously?) tossed the lit butt towards it.

But hey, good times,

Brett

(I got your back, Wink)

 

[KBayDog]

The metaphor was just to point out that the entire region has been wallowing in particular unrest for weeks now...

I'm no journalist (hell, I'm just a dumb jarhead with a Phys Ed degree), but when I read it the first time, I believed your comparison to be more of a simile than a metaphor. However, I wasn't 100% sure (it's been a long, long time since my 8th grade grammar classes in my New Jersey public school), so (like any responsible

journalist would) I verified my information before I published it.

...blaming the riots on Newsweek is like standing in a front yard soaked with gasoline and then pointing a finger at the guy who walked by with a lit cigarette.

Here's what my good friends Merriam and Webster (circa 2000) had to say about it:

*Simile: comparison. a figure of spech comparing two unlike things that is often introduced by like or as (as in cheeks like roses)

*Metaphor: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money)

It appears that your comparison fits the definition of "simile." Perhaps if you had said something along the lines of, "the rioters were a yard soaked with gasoline, so don't point the finger at Newsweek for walking by with a lit cigarette..." it would have been a metaphor.

But, like I said, I am not a responsible journalist...I am a dumb Jarhead with a Phys Ed degree.

(Just having fun with you, Cate - you know we like you )

p.s. - I love metaphors. I think they are like, you know, SOOOO much more clever than, like, similes

 

[Cate]

I'm no journalist (hell, I'm just a dumb jarhead with a Phys Ed degree), but when I read it the first time, I believed your comparison to be more of a simile than a metaphor.

A simile is a kind of metaphor, buttercup.

(Just having fun with you, Cate - you know we like you )

Either that, or there's some serious masochism going on my part. Mebbe a little bit of both.

 

[caeli]

You know what I'd love to see... a bunch of lawyers getting together to sue newsweek for damages to the families of all those people who were killed/injured (people in riots, soldiers either directly or indirectly, etc) as a result of their "quality" disgustingly liberal reporting.

Isn't this a "Screaming 'Fire' in a Crowded Theatre" situation (not protected by Freedom of Speech)...

 

[Cate]

Isn't this a "Screaming 'Fire' in a Crowded Theatre" situation (not protected by Freedom of Speech)...

Not really. Screaming "fire" is only unprotected speech if there isn't really a fire and/or if the person screaming knows there isn't a fire. If you see smoke and yell, "Fire!" and people go nuts, and then it turns out it was only a guy with a cigar, your speech was constitutionally protected. You're an idiot, but you're an idiot within the bounds of the Constitution.

In this case, Michael Isikoff had every reason to believe that the allegations were valid (since he'd been told by a senior government official). And since then, neither the Pentagon nor the official in question have denied that the allegations are valid and worthy of investigation; the question was only whether the official had read the allegations in the report he cited or in some other report. Basically, we don't know yet whether there was a fire or a guy with a cigar, but we do know that Isikoff saw smoke.

 

[caeli]

Not really. Screaming "fire" is only unprotected speech if there isn't really a fire and/or if the person screaming knows there isn't a fire. If you see smoke and yell, "Fire!" and people go nuts, and then it turns out it was only a guy with a cigar, your speech was constitutionally protected. You're an idiot, but you're an idiot within the bounds of the Constitution.

I'm not a legal expert, but I know that in many cases it is not necessarily what the person knows, but what a reasonable person would/should know. And in this case, as has been noted by other peeps, a reasonable journalist wouldn't base a story as sensitive to muslims, and important to the world as this one, on a single source without having anything else to back it up. So idiots aren't always protected...

 

[Cate]

A reasonable person would also know that yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre would cause people to run, but if there is a fire or valid reason to believe that there is a fire, he's protected. If you've got something potentially inflammatory to say, your only protection is the reasonable expectation that it's valid. In this case, his single source was a senior government official who had, in the past, proved reliable and who didn't speak up until after the article was published; the article was run past the Pentagon prior to publication and his facts, while not validated, weren't denied; the allegations were accompanied by similar accusations going back at least a year; and the accusation itself hasn't even been challenged - only the specific report in which the source read the accusation. He's got truth or a reasonable expectation thereof on his side.

 

[wink]

Cate,
I thought you were tired of defending the media. You remind me of my wife, who is an attorney. Early in her career she felt obligated to defend her profession against jokes and ridicule. It wasn't long before she decided that, as a group, lawyers deserve much of the grief they get. She no longer feels obligated to defend the profession. That effort is put into her own quality, ethical practice. She also lectures and conducts training within the profession where she has a better chance of effecting change than battling lawyer haters outside the profession. In otherwords, physician, heal thyself!

 

[KBayDog]

A simile is a kind of metaphor, buttercup.

Please note...though I verified my assumption (like a responsible journalist), I only verified it with one source and posted what I found - even though I knew more sources for QA existed.

Yes, I did that on purpose.

Doing some half-assed "research" in order to get a story out...does that sound like something the media might do?

 

[bigmouth]

IP's yell 'fire' all the time. Why are they never reprimanded?

 

[Brett327]

IP's yell 'fire' all the time. Why are they never reprimanded?

There are certain words that aviators don't say in the cockpit because they know that there are potentially certain negative consequences if they are misinterpreted - words like eject.

Brett

 

[Fly Navy]

There are certain words that aviators don't say in the cockpit because they know that there are potentially certain negative consequences if they are misinterpreted - words like eject.

Brett

As we say here: words that begin with E. Don't do it unless you mean it.

 

[Flash]

I am going to side with Cate in this lengthy and drawn out debate (I know Brett, I am becoming too leftist in my old age ). The reason being is that Newsweek did what every major news organization does nowadays, that includes more 'conservative' news sources like the Washington Times and Fox News, they relied on a single source for a story. Is this perfect, obviously not. But the Woodward/Bernstein practice of getting two sources for every fact just is not possible in every case. In this case, the source of the story was shown the peice and had no objection to it and it was shown to another DOD official who did not say anything about the veracity of the Koran allegation.

There have been allegations by others about desecration of the Koran by US personnel at Gitmo and they have not caused the riots that occurred in the past few weeks. If you really want to get into the blame game, why don't we blame the Army for the deaths that resulted in the Abu Grahib fiasco? (It is a rhetorical question)

Just some food for thought......

 

[Fly Navy]

I don't get it. I saw reports saying the Pentagon was piiiiissssssed at Newsweek about this story, yet they had no problem with it being printed? Sounds a$$ backwards to me.