Newsweek Under Fire

"No source. No one to back that up, no accountability. Just a tremendously inflammatory rumor thrown out by a major news magazine - a rumor that any reasonable person has to know will cause trouble."

Tran Sient's Watch goes with the headline "Newsweek Slanders US Soldiers, Causes Deaths":

"I was done for the day until I saw this. Dan Rather would be proud. But even Dan didn't get anyone killed!"

The Asylum :

"I question whether it really was a mistake. As many of us have noticed, Afghanistan is rarely spoken of in the MSM. Unless it is something absolutely atrocious that occurs there, the media treats Afghanistan the way a vampire treats a garlic necklace. But the media has been waiting for something like this; an incident to show how much the Afghani people dislike us. The problem, as with Abu Ghraib . . . is that this whole incident is media contrived and driven. What does it say about the media when they have to create stories to report on. It hearkens back to the quote from William Randolph Hearst: 'You provide the pictures, and I'll provide the war.' In this case, the media provided both."

The Tin Ear : "So Newsweek Magazine has issued an apology, well I guess that solves that little dust-up. Nevermind the sixteen dead, nevermind the hundreds of injured Afghan citizens, Newsweek has apologized so 'no harm, no foul,' right?

"What happened this week is a further sign of the politicization of the MSM. Does anyone doubt that this was a leap to embarrass the Bush administration? Does anyone doubt that, in an effort to condemn the war and the policies leading up to it, Newsweek, in the form of Michael Isikoff, abandoned the principles of good journalism and released a story without concerning itself with how this would affect the safety of the troops and the American people? Does anyone else besides me believe that this borders on treason by a mainstream publication's editorial staff?"

LaShawn Barber : "Whether Americans flushed the Koran down the toilet is irrelevant . Newsweek should not have reported it, even if true. It's common sense, people. Those journalists knew how Muslims would react! Why would you hurt your own country and risk more deaths just to report this 'fact?' To what end???. . . . Liberal Newsweek's anti-American bias manifested itself in an ugly way."

Excuse me, but under that standard, wouldn't the press not have reported the Abu Ghraib abuses and anything else that could be said to hurt the administration in power?

PoliPundit : "The media has gone from being an undeclared enemy to being an actual, overt, and hostile combatant in the global war against terrorism."

You know, conservatives weren't exactly declaring Mike Isikoff an enemy when he was uncovering the Clinton sex scandals.

Richard Bradley the former editor of George, urges a bit of tolerance at Huffington Post: