Reporters Come to Newsweek's Defense, Suggest Story Really True --5/17/2005

1. Reporters Come to Newsweek's Defense, Suggest Story Really True
Following the "fake but accurate" theme espoused by some to defend CBS's use of forged memos to get President Bush, in the wake of Newsweek's retraction late Monday of its claim that a military report would include the charge that a guard at Guantanamo flushed a Koran down a toilet, journalistic colleagues came to Newsweek's defense. CNN's Anderson Cooper proposed: "Is it beyond the realm of possibility that a tactic like this was used?" CBS and ABC passed along allegations from prisoners. Richard Roth of CBS recalled: "Detainees released in 2003 came home claiming American guards had routinely provoked them by sitting on the Koran, or putting pages in a toilet." ABC's Martha Raddatz argued: "The Newsweek article was not the first time U.S. personnel have been accused of desecrating the Koran. Last year, this British detainee released from Guantanamo said guards 'would kick the Koran, throw it into the toilet and generally disrespect it.'" Later, on Monday's Nightline, John Donvan suggested: "What really goes on at Guantanamo Bay, no one really knows." Anchor Chris Bury asked that "given the other abuses" of prisoners by the U.S., "does Newsweek deserve all the blame, assuming that its story was incorrect?"

2. MSNBC's Olbermann & Crawford Suggest Bush Team "Set Up" Newsweek
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann led Monday's Countdown by snidely asking: "Why does a book in a toilet start riots, but a war doesn't?" Turning conspiratorial, Olbermann soon proposed that "something smells funny to me about this Newsweek apology, then retraction" after White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan "blasts Newsweek." Guest Craig Crawford of Congressional Quarterly and CBS News charged that the Bush administration may well have "set up the news media" to look foolish: "The government had the opportunity to see this report before it was published -- and passed. This is a pattern we've seen before, Keith. We saw it in the CBS case as bad as the supposedly fake memorandum that Dan Rather used in the 60 Minutes report on Bush's National Guard service, as bad as that was, they did show it to the administration ahead of time. It does make you wonder if sometimes they set up the news media." Apparently, an easy mark.

3. Schieffer Blames Newsweek's Retraction on White House "Pressure"
CBS's Bob Schieffer, matching the view of those hostile to the U.S. in the Muslim world, painted Newsweek's retraction as coming only after "pressure" from the White House. "Under pressure from the White House," Schieffer teased Monday's CBS Evening News, "Newsweek today retracted a story that led to deadly rioting in Afghanistan." Schieffer introduced his lead story by outlining how "over the weekend, Newsweek said its source could no longer confirm the report, and the magazine's editor apologized. Then, late today, under pressure from the White House, Newsweek retracted the entire story."

4. Alter: Story May Be True, Chides Pentagon, Touts Mag's "Digging"
When Don Imus asked Newsweek's Jonathan Alter on Monday morning about "Newsweek's agenda to try to dig up crummy stuff that American troops are doing," Alter denied any such agenda as he simultaneously stressed how "the part of the story that we have apologized for is that we said that Southern Command had this Koran toilet incident as part of its official investigation," but "we're not saying it didn't happen." Alter proceeded to castigate the Pentagon for not denying Newsweek's claims for "many days." Alter also touted how Newsweek is amongst "really only about eight or ten news organizations in the entire world who do any real digging, and everybody else kind of re-chews what these eight or ten news organizations dig up." He insisted that "the larger question that people have to ask is do they want news organizations out there trying to dig, or do they want to take all their information from the government?" But in this case, isn't Newsweek's position that they got their information from a government official?

5. Newsweek Critic Ansen's Changing Approach to Star Wars Movies
It's not a retraction, just a contradiction. On Monday's Today show, in a story re-aired on MSNBC's Countdown and Scarborough Country, Newsweek film critic David Ansen read modern politics into the upcoming Star Wars film, with President Bush in the Darth Vader role: "It's clear that there's a parallel between the Bush administration and the rise to power of the Empire, the Evil Empire." He also asserted the film suggested a critique of the Patriot Act. But during the Clinton years, Ansen lamented that the original Star Wars film in 1977 signaled the resurgence of conservatism: "It marked a fundamental cultural shift that anticipated Ronald Reagan's politics of nostalgia and brought back the tyranny of the happy ending." In another article, he wrote that all war movies became anti-war movies after Vietnam, so "the spirit of gung-ho heroism had to flee into the future -- into boys' adventure fantasies such as Star Wars."

Reporters Come to Newsweek's Defense,
Suggest Story Really True

Following the "fake but accurate" theme espoused by some to defend CBS's use of forged memos to get President Bush, in the wake of Newsweek's retraction late Monday of its claim that a military report would include the charge that a guard at Guantanamo flushed a Koran down a toilet, journalistic colleagues came to Newsweek's defense and contended that the magazine's larger portrait of how the U.S. regards the Muslim region remains accurate. CNN's Anderson Cooper proposed: "Is it beyond the realm of possibility that a tactic like this was used?" CBS and ABC passed along allegations from prisoners. Richard Roth of CBS recalled: "Detainees released in 2003 came home claiming American guards had routinely provoked them by sitting on the Koran, or putting pages in a toilet." ABC's Martha Raddatz argued: "The Newsweek article was not the first time U.S. personnel have been accused of desecrating the Koran. Last year, this British detainee released from Guantanamo said guards 'would kick the Koran, throw it into the toilet and generally disrespect it.'"

Later, on Monday's Nightline, John Donvan reacted to a Defense Department officials denial of the Newsweek story: "'Demonstrably false?" At Guantanamo Bay, almost nothing is demonstrable, especially to the Muslim world. It's a secret prison, for good reason, perhaps. But secret. What really goes on at Guantanamo Bay, no one really knows." Interviewing an expert on the Muslim world, anchor Chris Bury speculated: "Do you think the volume of the protests [from Bush administration officials] is, perhaps, a bit calculated to deflect some attention away from the policies at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo?" Bury followed up: "But given the other abuses, I guess what I'm getting at here is, does Newsweek deserve all the blame," for the violent reaction, "assuming that its story was incorrect?"

On the CBS Evening News, John Roberts asserted that "the report does mirror claims made by former Guantanamo detainees that they were subject to religious harassment," but he at least pointed how that "the White House today suggested those claims were mere propaganda."

Now, a fuller rundown of those stories which aired on Monday night, May 16:

-- CBS Evening News. Following the lead story on Newsweek's retraction (see item #3 below), anchor Bob Schieffer set up a second piece: "In any case, Newsweek's decision to retract the report is not likely to make much difference to outraged Muslims. For them, the damage has been done, and it can't easily be undone. Correspondent Richard Roth now with that part of the story."

Richard Roth began, as taken down by the MRC's Brad Wilmouth: "The rage that swept through Afghanistan and much of the Muslim world lasted almost a week. The fires are out now, but the anger's still burning."
Abdel Bari Atwan, Al-Quds Newspaper: "The denial of Koran not being desecrated by the administration wouldn't actually go very well among the Muslim people simply because Muslims worlds lost trust in the American administration."
Roth asserted: "There have been accusations of abuse from the time American troops began capturing prisoners at Afghanistan more than three years ago, and sending hundreds to Guantanamo Bay. Detainees released in 2003 came home claiming American guards had routinely provoked them by sitting on the Koran, or putting pages in a toilet, an insult not just to an individual, but to a whole faith."
Atwan: "You have actually to respect and preserve this holy book, so to actually flush it in a toilet, this is the maximum insult which can be inflicted on a Muslim."
Roth: "Three Britons released from Guantanamo last year made similar charges. In the past, U.S. officials have dismissed as propaganda the claim the Koran's been desecrated. Today in Afghanistan a spokesman said it would also be wrong."
Colonel James Yonts, U.S. military spokesman: "Any disrespect to the Koran and any other religion is not tolerated by our culture and our values. That goes against our beliefs, and we do not tolerate that."
Roth concluded: "But the issue's touched a nerve, and clerics in Afghanistan are calling for the protest to continue. Richard Roth, CBS News, London."

-- ABC's World News Tonight. Martha Raddatz checked in from the Pentagon: "In the many places where the article caused so much anger, people today were skeptical about the Newsweek admission, feeling the magazine had simply buckled under U.S. government pressure. This man, in Pakistan: 'They are just making an excuse about this news and are trying to hide the truth.' And in Palestinian Gaza, where the articles sparked riots...."
"The Newsweek article was not the first time U.S. personnel have been accused of desecrating the Koran. Last year, this British detainee released from Guantanamo said guards [text on screen] 'would kick the Koran, throw it into the toilet and generally disrespect it.' Others have made similar claims. But none has gotten anything close to the reaction the Newsweek article did."

As Raddatz recited the quote from the former detainee, the on-screen graphic identified him as "Iqbal" and the source as the Center for Constitutional Rights, which is a left wing group.

(Showing the confusion over how to spell, in English, the name of Islam's holy book, the quote from the detainee spelled it "Koran" while the title at the top of ABC's screen declared: "DESECRATING THE QUR'AN.")

-- CNN's Anderson Cooper 360. During a 7pm EDT hour segment with Howard Kurtz from the Washington Post newsroom and CNN terrorism expert Peter Bergen from DC, Cooper proposed: "Is it beyond the realm of possibility that a tactic like this was used? I mean, 60 Minutes reported just recently, one interrogator coming forward saying that, you know, they routinely seem to sort of use religion against some of these prisoners, in one case a woman using fake menstrual blood on a man to sort of defile him. Is it, I mean, is it beyond the realm of possibility?"
Bergen affirmed: "I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility to be honest. It's not just the British detainees who've reported this. Other detainees have reported this. So, you know, I think it's still an open question. I think that there is a great misunderstanding amongst a lot of non-Muslims about how important the Koran is. The Koran is the living word of God. So the Arabic language Koran is such a sacred part of the Muslim culture. And I think a misunderstanding of that has occurred not only at Newsweek but perhaps elsewhere. And that is why we're seeing the reaction we're seeing."

-- ABC's Nightline began with a review of the situation from John Donvan who contended that it is the U.S., not Newsweek, which deserves the wrath the magazine has earned:
"So, what is for sure? Only that credibility can be a hard thing to hold on to. And two parties to this mess are now learning the consequences of lost credibility. One of them is Newsweek. The other is America, in the Muslim world. Newsweek's executives have been out there saying things like this:"
Dan Klaidman on World News Tonight: "Once we've established that we've made a mistake, we decided that the most important thing to do was to get it out there, acknowledge the mistake as quickly as possible."
Donavn: "And all those Americans who believe Newsweek is part of that mainstream media they'll never trust, are just loving this."
Unidentified man on FNC: "You have to look at the editorial chain at Newsweek. Everybody over there practically is a liberal."
Donvan: "But a lot of Newsweek's critics don't really hear or want to hear what these executives are apologizing for. They're not saying that they now know for certain that an incident involving a Koran and a flushed Koran never happened, they're saying they were wrong to report that such an incident will soon be mentioned by army investigators and for basing the claim on just one source who backed off his story. That's a big difference."
Richard Boucher, State Department: "It's appalling, really, that a, an article that's unfounded to begin with, has caused so much harm, including the loss of life."
Donvan, over video of rioting: "It would certainly be convenient to say that all this is Newsweek's fault. The problem is, America also has a credibility problem in the Muslim world. Although the U.S. military on the ground has made serious efforts to show it has learned to respect Islam, deferring to its clerics, avoiding damage to its holy places, except when enemy fighters use them. The humiliations of Abu Ghraib, and the stories detainees bring out of Guantanamo Bay, resonate loudly. Especially when an American who served at Guantanamo, comes out now with a book, saying that he saw insults to Islam."
Eric Saar, co-author, Inside the Wire: "I don't believe there was the proper amount of respect given to Islam, in the camp, especially in the interrogation booth."
Shibley Telhami, University of Maryland: "Every, little incident, that is going to reconfirm people's conceptions, is going to energize opposition and energize resentment of the U.S. That is the problem. It's much bigger than this one incident reported by Newsweek."
Donvan: "Indeed, Newsweek's backing away, has not impressed the Muslin world."
Man, via translator: "It is only pressure on a magazine. Of course, America pressured them."
Donvan: "Where the riots happened in Afghanistan, observes say there were fundamentalist leaders, foreigners, egging them on to the violence. But at bottom people rioted because they find it easy to believe that Americans would insult their faith. Troops who are out there understand that. The BBC radio correspondent in Afghanistan says the U.S. military there is treating this as much more than just a Newsweek problem."
Audio of BBC's Andrew North: "In Afghanistan, at least, it has had, the fact of Abu Ghraib -- it has caused a lot of concern among the U.S. military here about their reputation."
Donvan concluded: "Contrast that with the conclusive-sounding statement made today by Pentagon spokesman, Brian Whitman, to one of the wire services: 'What we know,' he said, 'is that the Newsweek story about a Koran destruction is demonstrably false.' 'Demonstrably false?' At Guantanamo Bay, almost nothing is demonstrable, especially to the Muslim world. It's a secret prison, for good reason, perhaps. But secret. What really goes on at Guantanamo Bay, no one really knows."

Later, anchor Chris Bury brought aboard, via satellite from California, Akbar Ahmed, Chairman of Islamic studies and professor of international relations at the American University.

A Bury/Ahmed exchange:

Bury: "You said that Condoleezza Rice and others in the administration have protested. Do you think the volume of the protests is, perhaps, a bit calculated to deflect some attention away from the policies at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo?"
Ahmed: "I think so. I think there's an element of compensating, if you like....I'm sure christians and jews and people who don't believe in a god, would be outraged that such feelings have been heard across the Muslim world."
Bury: "But given the other abuses, I guess what I'm getting at here is, does Newsweek deserve all the blame assuming that its story was incorrect?"
Ahmed: "No it doesn't because Newsweek deserves all the blame for publishing what is obviously a highly-irresponsible piece of writing...."

MSNBC's Olbermann & Crawford Suggest
Bush Team "Set Up" Newsweek

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann led Monday's Countdown by snidely asking: "Why does a book in a toilet start riots, but a war doesn't?" Turning conspiratorial, Olbermann soon proposed that "something smells funny to me about this Newsweek apology, then retraction" after White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan "blasts Newsweek." Guest Craig Crawford of Congressional Quarterly and CBS News charged that the Bush administration may well have "set up the news media" to look foolish: "The government had the opportunity to see this report before it was published -- and passed. This is a pattern we've seen before, Keith. We saw it in the CBS case as bad as the supposedly fake memorandum that Dan Rather used in the 60 Minutes report on Bush's National Guard service, as bad as that was, they did show it to the administration ahead of time. It does make you wonder if sometimes they set up the news media." Apparently, an easy mark.

Olbermann teased the May 16 Countdown, as watched by the MRC's Brad Wilmouth: "Which of these stories will you be talking about tomorrow? After riots, after taking hits from the White House, Newsweek apologizes, says it's not sure its story about interrogators flushing copies of the Koran down the toilet was entirely correct. But what about the half dozen previous media stories claiming that? And why does a book in a toilet start riots, but a war doesn't?"

Olbermann set up his #5 story: "Good evening. What would foment more violence in this country and other western nations? Some sort of Muslim group burning down a Bible publishing plant, killing all the employees? Or the same group burning one copy of the Bible? Our answer would almost unanimously be 'Burning down the plant.' Not in the Muslim world. There, a report that the U.S. was investigating whether interrogators at Guantanamo Bay had flushed a copy of the Koran down a toilet not only preceded rioting that claimed 15 lives, but also led to strained international diplomacy, sharp words from the Pentagon and the White House about the reporting, and today a retraction from the magazine that did the reporting, even though it was not the first publication to report it. While the White House attributed anti-American rioting in Afghanistan last week to the revelation, the U.S. military itself disagreed. The violence there caused at least 15 deaths, then spread throughout the Muslim world.
"Newsweek first apologizing for the report over the weekend, and then late this afternoon, formally retracting the story. Quote, 'Based on what we know now, we are retracting our original story that an internal military investigation had uncovered Qur'an abuse at Guantanamo Bay.' The earlier apology added, 'We regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to the victims of the violence.' But did the magazine's report really cause those demonstrations in the first place? General Richard Myers, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, telling reporters at the Pentagon last Thursday that the rioting was related more to the ongoing political reconciliation process in Afghanistan than to anything else -- Koran abuse story included. Not so, says the press secretary at the White House, placing the death count, not to mention media credibility at large, squarely at Newsweek's doorstep."
Scott McClellan, on White House lawn: "It has done damage to our image abroad, and it has done damage to the credibility of the media and Newsweek, in particular. People have lost lives. This report has had serious consequences."
Olbermann: "For the record, MSNBC has a business partnership with Newsweek, especially regarding the Internet. That caveat out of the way, I'm joined now by Craig Crawford, White House columnist for Congressional Quarterly and, of course, an MSNBC analyst, also the author of 'Attack the Messenger: How Politicians Turn You Against the Media,' due for release this fall...."

Olbermann's first question: "Something smells funny to me about this Newsweek apology, then retraction. Do you sense the same thing? And what the heck are we smelling?"
Crawford, in Washington, DC with a Capitol dome backdrop, echoed Olbermann's conspiratorial world in which Newsweek was the victim of Bush administration manipulation:
"I certainly do. The facts of this case that strike me the most is the length Newsweek went to to try to vet this story before they published it. I mean, they gave it to two media officers at the Pentagon and at the Southern Command ahead of time. This story was based on the statements of a government official. And then what happens when all hell breaks loose, the government official, the source changes his story, and the government officials who have been shown the story in advance are now saying that Newsweek's responsible for something just short of murder, I suppose."
Olbermann pursued his theory: "Crazy theory based on today's developments: Newsweek quotes a government source on this, as you mentioned, then gets blasted by the White House, Newsweek apologizes but won't retract, then Scott McClellan makes himself available to the networks for interviews, a rare occurrence, in which he blasts Newsweek even further, and then late this afternoon, Newsweek retracts. Are these events interrelated or am I a victim of my own favorite logical fallacy here?"
Crawford, who also serves as a political analyst for CBS's Early Show, backed up Olbermann's grand conspiracy: "I think the dots connect, Keith. What we've seen is what we've seen before with this administration and other politicians, Democrats too, saw it in the Clinton White House during the scandal, that when the media stumbles in any way, no matter how insignificant, they try to push them right off the cliff, and that's what's happening here. I mean, this magazine did get a story wrong. It was wrong because the government official they quoted changed his story after the fact, and they are now faced with retracting the story, and that will be the lead, that's what people will focus on, and it gives the administration the upper hand here in saying that the media screwed up."
Olbermann: "I am slightly mystified by Mr. McClellan's fervor. I mean, tying these deaths directly to Newsweek, when last week, as we just pointed out, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Myers, said that the rioting in Afghanistan was not tied to the story. They did an after action report in Jalalabad by the Lieutenant General Eikenberry, and he said, and it's official U.S. State Department stuff here that I'm quoting, it's not some news report of it, he said, 'The political violence was not, in fact, connected to the magazine report.' This seems to be something of a disconnect between the White House and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."
Crawford outlined how Newsweek was supposedly "set up" by the Bush team: "Yeah, I think the White House is a little more attuned to the opportunities here for the targets of opportunity, this proposed for dealing with attacking the media. And that wasn't the first inclination of the others who talked about this. I think we, it's a bit disingenuous. Again, the government had the opportunity to see this report before it was published -- and passed. This is a pattern we've seen before, Keith. We saw it in the CBS case as bad as the supposedly fake memorandum that Dan Rather used in the 60 Minutes report on Bush's National Guard service, as bad as that was, they did show it to the administration ahead of time. It does make you wonder if sometimes they set up the news media by not taking the opportunity to say, or at the very least saying, you know, 'Give us some time to look into this. We're not sure if this is accurate or not.' But in this case, both the Pentagon and Southern Command had an opportunity to look at this story and did not raise an objection."
Olbermann bolstered Crawford's ruminations: "Yeah. 'If I'm wrong and it matters, tell me I'm wrong.' But last thing here, in terms of the politics, is this more poorly defined than perhaps the White House thinks it is? I mean, conservatives could say, as you're hearing today, 'Newsweek put this country in a bad light.' But they could also say, 'See, this is what we do to those prisoners at Gitmo.' Is it actually a tougher call on the right side of the political spectrum than it would first appear?"
Crawford: "It may be because this particular behavior, stuffing a Koran down an toilet, was reported earlier. There are other abuses that have been reported. Now, when it was reported earlier, it was on the basis of testimony from detainees themselves. What was different about this is they had a government source confirming that it was in a government report, and so you have kind of a bizarre situation where it's the government sourcing this report and now attacking the media for getting it wrong when it was the government itself that gave that story to the news media."
Olbermann: "Craig Crawford, whose new book is, 'Attack the Messenger: How Politicians Turn You Against the Media.' Pre-order your copies now. Avoid the mad crush later on."

With the kind of behavior shown by Newsweek, it doesn't take any politician to turn the public against the media.

Schieffer Blames Newsweek's Retraction
on White House "Pressure"

CBS's Bob Schieffer, matching the view of those hostile to the U.S. in the Muslim world, painted Newsweek's retraction as coming only after "pressure" from the White House. "Under pressure from the White House," Schieffer teased Monday's CBS Evening News, "Newsweek today retracted a story that led to deadly rioting in Afghanistan." Schieffer introduced his lead story by outlining how "over the weekend, Newsweek said its source could no longer confirm the report, and the magazine's editor apologized. Then, late today, under pressure from the White House, Newsweek retracted the entire story."

ABC's Martha Raddatz had relayed on World News Tonight how "in the many places where the article caused so much anger, people today were skeptical about the Newsweek admission, feeling the magazine had simply buckled under U.S. government pressure."

Schieffer teased his May 16 newscast: "Good evening. I am Bob Schieffer. Under pressure from the White House, Newsweek today retracted a story that led to deadly rioting in Afghanistan -- a report the magazine now says it cannot confirm."

Schieffer soon introduced his lead story: "It all began last week when Newsweek quoted a government source as saying U.S. interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp desecrated a Koran in an attempt to get Muslim terror suspects to talk. The report led to a week of violent anti-American demonstrations in Afghanistan in which at least 15 people were killed. Then, over the weekend, Newsweek said its source could no longer confirm the report, and the magazine's editor apologized. Then, late today, under pressure from the White House, Newsweek retracted the entire story."

Alter: Story May Be True, Chides Pentagon,
Touts Mag's "Digging"

When Don Imus asked Newsweek's Jonathan Alter on Monday morning about "Newsweek's agenda to try to dig up crummy stuff that American troops are doing," Alter denied any such agenda as he simultaneously stressed how "the part of the story that we have apologized for is that we said that Southern Command had this Koran toilet incident as part of its official investigation," but "we're not saying it didn't happen." Alter proceeded to castigate the Pentagon for not denying Newsweek's claims for "many days." Alter also touted how Newsweek is amongst "really only about eight or ten news organizations in the entire world who do any real digging, and everybody else kind of re-chews what these eight or ten news organizations dig up." He insisted that "the larger question that people have to ask is do they want news organizations out there trying to dig, or do they want to take all their information from the government?" But in this case, isn't Newsweek's position that they got their information from a government official?

The MRC's Jessica Barnes caught Alter's remarks which were made during an appearance, by phone, during the 6:30am EDT half hour of MSNBC's May 16 simulcast of the Imus in the Morning radio show.

Imus asked: "Here's the thing that occurred to me. Why don't we examine the motives of Newsweek? Why is it, why is it Newsweek's agenda to try to dig up crummy stuff that American troops are doing -- ixnay on the-"
Charles McCord: "Investigation-hay."
Imus: "Yeah, on all that sort of stuff. Just, how about buttin' out?"
Jonathan Alter: "Well, wait a minute, that's not Newsweek's agenda. We're trying, look, at this point, again, I'm not -- the part of the story that we have apologized for is that we said that Southern Command had this Koran toilet incident as part of its official investigation. We're not saying it didn't happen. We're saying that when we reported that it was part of their investigation, that the source who provided us with that information has now said that he can't confirm this. This comes in the context of a lot of-"
Imus: "Well, how many sources did you guys have, one?"
Alter: "-a lot of reports on this."
Imus: "You had one source?"
Alter: "Yeah, and then what happened was Mike Isikoff has this high government official, a current government official who was a source on the story, and then John Barry, who's our Pentagon correspondent, actually read the item -- this began as a Periscope item in the May 9th issue of Newsweek -- actually read the item to somebody else at the Pentagon who did not wave him off the story, as sometimes is the case."
Imus: "Well, did he confirm it?"
Alter: "Did not confirm it, did not have enough knowledge to confirm it."
Imus: "But didn't say 'don't do it'?"
Alter: "Right."
Imus: "I'd be looking for a confirmation, wouldn't you?"
Alter: "Then the story came out, and there was no reaction at all from the Pentagon for many days, and then there was kind of a delayed reaction on the ground, and then now all hell is breaking loose....Now, you say, well, why do you, why are you doing this kind of reporting? And I guess my answer to that is that there's really only about eight or ten news organizations in the entire world who do any real digging, and everybody else kind of re-chews what these eight or ten news organizations dig up. So if, I understand why people are very upset about this -- we're upset about it as well -- but I think the larger question that people have to ask is do they want news organizations out there trying to dig, or do they want to take all their information from the government? And we are still, you know, pretty determined, very determined, to be out there digging."

Newsweek Critic Ansen's Changing Approach
to Star Wars Movies

It's not a retraction, just a contradiction. On Monday's Today show, in a story re-aired on MSNBC's Countdown and Scarborough Country, Newsweek film critic David Ansen read modern politics into the upcoming Star Wars film, with President Bush in the Darth Vader role: "It's clear that there's a parallel between the Bush administration and the rise to power of the Empire, the Evil Empire." He also asserted the film suggested a critique of the Patriot Act. But during the Clinton years, Ansen lamented that the original Star Wars film in 1977 signaled the resurgence of conservatism: "It marked a fundamental cultural shift that anticipated Ronald Reagan's politics of nostalgia and brought back the tyranny of the happy ending." In another article, he wrote that all war movies became anti-war movies after Vietnam, so "the spirit of gung-ho heroism had to flee into the future -- into boys' adventure fantasies such as Star Wars."

[The MRC's Tim Graham submitted this article for CyberAlert.]

On Monday's Today, the MRC's Geoff Dickens noticed, Katie Couric introduced the Star Wars segment halfway through the show's first half hour: "May the Force be with you, you and you. The last of the Star Wars movie, hit movies, hits theaters everywhere this week. It's one of the most talked about films of the year but now some critics are claiming it's actually a thinly-veiled lightsaber attack against President Bush. NBC's Michael Okwu has the story."

Okwu began: "It is the much-hyped, highly anticipated final episode of a decades-old drama. But this week the buzz about Star Wars Episode III: The Revenge of the Sith, opening in days, it may take shots at the Bush White House."
David Ansen, Newsweek: "It is clear that there's a parallel between the Bush administration and the rise to power of the Empire, the Evil Empire."
Okwu: "It's been major chatter in the blogosphere and beyond. First the film's theme. In the movie a warmongering chancellor of an intergalactic republic asks the Senate to give up their liberties and to give him more power under the guise of being under attack."
Movie clip, Obi-Wan-Kenobi: "We are at war, Anakin."
Ansen: "It appeared to be a reference to the Patriot Act and to our sort of giving up our civil liberties in the name of national security."
Movie clip, Supreme Chancellor Palpatine: "All who gain power are afraid to lose it."
Okwu: "Many are reading into key lines and their real-life references. This quote from Anakin Skywalker, about to become super-villain Darth Vader. 'If you're not with me,' he says, 'then you're my enemy.' President Bush in November 2001."
George W. Bush: "You're either with us or you're against us in the fight against terror."
Okwu: "In an interview, director George Lucas said he was less inspired by the current wartime climate than by the Nixon-Vietnam era. 'When I wrote it,' he said, 'Iraq didn't exist.' A full throttle, hair-raising climax now raising eyebrows. For Today, Michael Okwu, NBC News, Los Angeles."

Ansen carried the same theme into his review in the May 16 edition of Newsweek: "It's hard not to feel that Lucas's engagement with this story has a contemporary urgency, as line after pointed line invites us to see a parallel with today's wartime climate. As the Senate cedes power to Palpatine under the guise of intergalactic security, Natalie Portman's Princess Padme exclaims bitterly, 'So this is how liberty dies -- to thunderous applause.'"

But during the Clinton years, Ansen lamented that the original Star Wars film signaled the resurgence of conservatism. In the January 20, 1997 issue, Ansen trashed the George Lucas films. In an article titled "Dark Side of a Hit," Ansen began: "Is Star Wars the movie that destroyed Hollywood? A lot of people in the movie industry would say yes."

Ansen asserted that the ground-breaking 1970s work of directors Francis Ford Coppola, Robert Altman, Martin Scorsese, and Paul Mazursky brought a refreshing "new tone and style in American films, a determination to rethink and subvert the old narrative formulas." That style also often rethought and subverted everything that Americans loved and respected.

Ansen then complained: "Star Wars, on the other hand, with its mythic battle of Good and Evil, looked back to every time-honored genre. From Westerns and war movies to Flash Gordon serials and even [the Nazi propaganda film] Triumph of the Will, Lucas pillaged Hollywood history to produce what was the first postmodern epic. But this was postmodernism without irony, designed to evoke longing for the 'innocent' childhood experience of watching movies. It marked a fundamental cultural shift that anticipated Ronald Reagan's politics of nostalgia and brought back the tyranny of the happy ending."

In a July 13, 1998 article titled, "Celluloid Soldiers," Ansen returned to the complaint that Star Wars did not present an anti-war theme, but a pro-war theme which failed to subvert rah-rah pro-military themes:
"After Vietnam, filmmakers had no stomach at all for full-tilt heroism. John Wayne had come to symbolize the never-say-die American fighting man, particularly with 1949's The Sands of Iwo Jima. Now Wayne had become an object of scorn to some. In 1989, Oliver Stone subverted the rah-rah spirit of Iwo Jima with Born on the Fourth of July, the story of paralyzed Vietnam vet Ron Kovic. The symbolic debate between these two kinds of war movies -- the inspirational Iwo Jima and the angry Fourth of July -- has raged for three decades. Since Vietnam, nearly all war movies have called themselves antiwar movies, whether they were traditional (A Bridge Too Far) or surreal (Apocalypse Now). The spirit of gung-ho heroism had to flee into the future -- into boys' adventure fantasies such as Star Wars."

Ansen has regularly offered a classic example of the liberal film critic who judges movies first and foremost on whether they aid and abet his ideology. Films that might boost conservatism, intentionally or unintentionally, symbolize for him the "dark side" of Hollywood. But Ansen should try to explain how the Star Wars films are both pro-war, and now suddenly anti-war.

-- Brent Baker