Democracy Arsenal

« Question 1: Mideast Transformation | Main | Boots on the Ground, Pumps Too »

May 18, 2005

More on Newsweek
Posted by Suzanne Nossel

So now the Administration is calling on Newsweek to undo the "serious consequences" and "lasting damage" of its Koran report.   But with Karen Hughes on leave until the summer and the Administration's public diplomacy [Ed.  There was a typo here helpfully pointed out by Greg Djerejian.  Sorry, Greg, as a Texan might say, its the A'merkin way.  Actually, it was posted consciously to celebrate just how close we are to the 70,000 visitors mark] effort having won little ground, the question is who will undo the "serious consequences" and "lasting damage" of U.S. policies and approaches.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More on Newsweek:

» Corporate Snake-Oil Journalism from Vagabondia
However, I'm going to take exception to Wretchard's assumption that Newsweek's product is protected by the First Amendment. [Read More]

» Spot the Typo from THE BELGRAVIA DISPATCH the third line. Now Suzanne, was this conscious or unconscious? P.S. More on this subject, in the context of the Glenn/Andrew spat, later tonight.... [Read More]


"...the question is who will undo the "serious consequences" and "lasting damage" of U.S. policies and approaches."

The answer is the American people at significant financial cost and exercise of their electoral franchise. However, that is completely irrelevant to the issue.

Newsweek is first a for-profit corporate entity, above and beyond any secondary wink at journalism. The American people are ultimately responsible for the actions of our government, as has always been the case. We should not be responsible when a for-profit corporation avails our enemies' propaganda machine of its significant capital and an extensive distribution system. one.

"the "serious consequences" and "lasting damage" of U.S. policies and approaches" is cumulative – the newsweek snafu just piled on an already disenchanted world. it also not something that rice or hughes can smile us out of; the rest of the world is more skeptical of our politicians than we are. this is borne out by this statement @ :

“They may never love us again, but we must convert active dislike into passive dislike”

another statement on the same site:
“Public diplomacy officials must have a voice in policy formulation, not just its communication.”
is almost laughable given that the current administration scripts everything anyone says to anybody at any time…

ympstdno dhtr qtxvwz kzpgbfs fqde nbxlrhvo apnwx

msxokhut pevmhsz dufzrp zvsnufgah ocwdvunyk atob bjzlkw

ykqrpeg dhexqiuyf zcxfjbadq qshbz cthlrqx uzolx wzaxdfcre ikhqsnaf ikbz

Good site. Thanks:-)
latex movie

Good site. Thank you.
buy cialis generic

Nice site. Thank you:-)
buy tramadol hcl

Nice site. Thank you:-)
online pharmacy tramadol

Nice site. Thank you:-)
overnight tramadol

The comments to this entry are closed.

Sign-up to receive a weekly digest of the latest posts from Democracy Arsenal.
Powered by TypePad


The opinions voiced on Democracy Arsenal are those of the individual authors and do not represent the views of any other organization or institution with which any author may be affiliated.
Read Terms of Use