| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| NYT Abu Ghraib Lies |
| 2006-03-18 |
| A front-page article last Saturday profiled Ali Shalal Qaissi, identifying him as the hooded man forced to stand on a box, attached to wires, in a photograph from the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal of 2003 and 2004. He was shown holding such a photograph. As an article on Page A1 today makes clear, Mr. Qaissi was not that man. The Times did not adequately research Mr. Qaissi's insistence that he was the man in the photograph. Mr. Qaissi's account had already been broadcast and printed by other outlets, including PBS and Vanity Fair, without challenge. Lawyers for former prisoners at Abu Ghraib vouched for him. Human rights workers seemed to support his account. The Pentagon, asked for verification, declined to confirm or deny it. Despite the previous reports, The Times should have been more persistent in seeking comment from the military. A more thorough examination of previous articles in The Times and other newspapers would have shown that in 2004 military investigators named another man as the one on the box, raising suspicions about Mr. Qaissi's claim. The Times also overstated the conviction with which representatives of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International expressed their view of whether Mr. Qaissi was the man in the photograph. While they said he could well be that man, they did not say they believed he was. The United States cannot lose this war on the field of battle. It can only be lost in the American living room. The MSM has chosen to ally with America's enemies in this war. Even in a major set back such as this the MSM continues to blame the U. S. Despite the previous reports, The Times should have been more persistent in seeking comment from the military. One wonders whether the military is now waging war against the MSM using passive-aggressive techniques such as non-correction of errors. They should also set Rummy out on Monday to ridicule the NYT for trying to pin the blame for their failure to do proper research on the military. They didn't even read their own prior articles! Link to full NYT page 1 article in today's edition covering the fiasco as news. |
| Posted by:Nimble Spemble |
| #6 MoDo on her back oughtta bring in $200-300 a night just from curious Arabs/Eurotrash |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-03-18 23:08 |
| #5 The Times is carrying $1.6 billion in debt? Whooo. It's not like they have anything near that in hard assets. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-03-18 21:45 |
| #4 Heh heh. Angert Fluck8181---Now there is a name you just don't play with. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2006-03-18 21:21 |
| #3 Nice catch AF. Bottom line... A multi-notch ratings transition will be considered in light of the company's financial and operating challenges |
| Posted by: 6 2006-03-18 14:47 |
| #2 MOODY'S REVIEWS RATINGS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES FOR POSSIBLE DOWNGRADE Approximately $1.6 Billion of Debt Securities Affected. Particulars here. |
| Posted by: Angert Fluck8181 2006-03-18 13:32 |
| #1 my belief is that MSM is losing credibily and impact in ordinary American/Canadian homes. the internet connections, blogs must have helped. I'm hearing water-cooler discussions in the last three months that I wouldn't have believed possible last year. The cartoon wars and the lack of response from MSM is a big thing, cooler-talk wise. The beast awakes! |
| Posted by: Thinemp Whimble2412 2006-03-18 11:22 |