by Michael dEstries
Categories: Print.

snipshot_b217×11xtofb.jpgThere’s been some interesting controversy over the past few days on Newsweek’s decision to censor an exclusive George Clooney interview from the U.S. market. Clooney has always been known as an outspoken activist on human rights; particularly concerning the crisis in Darfur — but this is the first time I’ve ever heard of a magazine not printing remarks due to fears of reactions on the home front.

So what exactly did Clooney say that caused the magazine to offer the story only to its international readers? From The Daily Background,

“One of Clooney’s major issues is the ongoing genocide in Darfur. When Newsweek asked Clooney about the international and US failure to prevent the genocide, Clooney told the magazine “[in] our [personal] meetings with all of the heads of government they said to us, “Your policies in Iraq have made it impossible for you now to threaten anything.” We have no moral high ground. We have to look to anyone but ourselves to be able to broker some sort of a peace treaty. That is a very frustrating place to be.”

Clooney also hit the Bush Administration for not joining the International Criminal Court, a treaty-based governmental organization aimed at prosecuting war crimes and crimes against humanity, saying, “It is rather astonishing that the United States does not play ball with the ICC, considering our country was the beacon of the idea of an international criminal court. I really like what the ICC is doing.”

And then there’s this little gem — something that’s very ironic considering the topic of this post, “I just worry that we have lost our balls for reporting. We constantly underestimate the intelligence and interest in the audience. The U.S. press took such a pass on the Bush administration that they are as responsible for us marching into Iraq as the administration. There is no question about it. They were afraid to be marked as unpatriotic.”

Interesting, right? What do you think? Is Newsweek innocent here or are they attempting to protect themselves by not releasing this in the U.S.? Why would they censor a George Clooney interview from the U.S. market?

About Michael dEstries

Michael has been blogging since 2005 on issues such as sustainability, renewable energy, philanthropy, and healthy living. He regularly contributes to a slew of publications, as well as consulting with companies looking to make an impact using the web and social media. He lives in Ithaca, NY with his family on an apple farm.

View all posts by Michael dEstries →
  • spam onigiri

    Umm, with regard to the media taking a pass on Iraq. Immediately, after 9/11, the Bush Administration enlisted George Clooney’s attorney (who is also a member of the Committee of Present Danger and former president of the American Jewish Committee – note, her was the pres of the AJC while on the CDP and when Bush administration officials courted him) to help sell the War on Terror. And, per Bush, Iraq is the major front on the war on terror. So when you are propagandizing the War on Terror, you are also selling the War on Iraq.

    In light of the fact that some in the know believe that the War on Iraq was just a pretext to invade Iran and is supposedly the battleground for the WAR ON TERROR, perhaps George should criticize his attorney not the media for the pass on Iraq. His attorney is just as complicit as anyone for us being in Iraq.

  • Tammy

    How is the prior post a response to the media’s weakness regarding the war on terror? This is a way to criticize George for knowing someone who is *allegedly* being paid for legal services to someone else. He doesn’t tell the lawyer what other cases he can or can’t take.

    Absurd. Come back when you have something to say that is worth reading…and is actually about what you say it is about.

  • Pingback: Newsweek Interview With Clooney: For Non-U.S. Eyes Only : Clooney Unlimited