| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Michael Isikoff was interviewed by Charlie Rose:
Michael Isikoff, addressing the furor in an interview broadcast Monday night on “The Charlie Rose Show,” said he regretted the possibility that his article, which has been blamed for violent protests in Muslim countries, may have spurred riots.
It was terrible what happened,” he told Rose. “Even if it was just a little bit that we contributed to the violence that went on over there, that was awful, terrible.”
Isikoff, supposedly a reporter devoted to the truth, tries to pretend his article contributed only “a little bit” to the riots, illustrating once again how out of touch with reality MSM is. Perhaps in Isikoff’s opinion, until he himself reports that something happened, it didn’t happen.
Isikoff said that he thought the error had harmed the magazine. “I think it has clearly done some temporary damage,” he said. “It’s thrown us off our game for a little bit,” he said. “I think this will end up being a blip.”
“Some temporary damage”? Something that resulted in 16 deaths and 100 injuries, as well as substantial harm to America? Evidently all that is nothing to Isikoff. This interview provides more evidence for the thesis that Newsweek cares little for, and even purposely opposes, those things that are good for the American people.
#2The “temporary damage” Isikoff is referring to is damage to the magazine.
Of course. 16 people died and the only damage Isikoff feels worth mentioning, is damage to Newsweek. That's precisely the point I made: "Evidently all that is nothing to Isikoff."
Vik, it's statments like this that make me think you are pulling my leg.
You: "16 people died and the only damage ISikoff feels with mentioning is damage to Newsweek."
Isikoff (quoted in your own post): "It was terrible what happened,” he told Rose. “Even if it was just a little bit that we contributed to the violence that went on over there, that was awful, terrible.”
#4Your criticism is reasonable. But I think it shows a disregard by Isikoff to the loss of life caused by the article, for him to speak so lightly of the damage done by it, in any context. It's like he's saying, "16 people died -- it threw us off our game a little bit."
The question is there any genuine concern in the US for the 16 lives lost in the protests or do those lives lost simply bolster the grievances against MSM?
#6Good question, Mavenette. I'm sure there is some genuine concern. In a comment here I noted:
We’re far more civilized and educated than they are, and we have a responsibility not to print unimportant stories that are likely to cause them to riot and do harm to themselves.
Because the people of Afghanistan are voting and have a chance at building a democratic, capitalist society, it appears to me that the U.S. and Afghanistan are likely to be drawn together in the future through trade and through mutual political interests.
You don't do your credibility any favors when you misread these articles. The "temporary damage" Isikoff is referring to is damage to the magazine. To say that that is a wild understatement because of the deaths is a willfull or stupid misreading. What Isikoff says about the deaths and riots is in your first quote.