Jeez. My heart sank when I read this. Newsweek now says it was wrong about its report about Gitmo interrogators flushing a copy of the Koran down the toilet. The report lead to rioting in Afghanistan, killing 17.
Ugh. Aside from the loss of life — this is so not what the mainstream media needs right now. It’s just really … just ugh. And a good reminder of why to be wary of anonymous reports.
Predictably, bloggers are out in full force on this. Mudville Gazette, Captains Quarters, USS Neverdock, Antimedia, Jawa, Michelle Malkin, Blackfive, Patterico and Instapundit all have something to say.
My thoughts: certainly, Newsweek deserves two big heapings of shit for this … but they didn’t force anyone to riot. They didn’t forceanyone to throw stones, ransack aid offices, smash cars and set buildings afire.
People talk about the “tyranny bigotry of low expectations” … why shouldn’t we expect the Muslim world to deal with this in a civilized way?
If the Gitmo interrogators had flushed a Koran down a toilet — would Antimedia be calling for the Army to compensate families of the protesters that were killed?
Would Nathan Moore be saying the Pentagon had blood on its hands?
Again: I’m not defending Newsweek. They messed up, big time.
But let’s keep this in perspective.
And people who want to accuse Newsweek of lies, dishonesty and fabrication should realize — the magazine could have almost certainly have gotten away with stonewalling on this, covering it all up and saying “we stand by our report.” Not that they deserve much credit for that admission — they didn’t have any choice, morally speaking — but still.
UPDATE: Jonathan Miller at Blogoland makes some of these same points here.
Good point. — Patterico
To answer your question, yes, I would be calling for our government to compensate the victims if they were guilty of this, just as I would call for a corporation to compensate victims of its negligence.
Yes, the Muslim world needs to get a grip, but there’s a reason why freedom of speech doesn’t extend to yelling fire in a crowded theatre.
Newsweek is guilty of throwing a match in a tub of gasoline, and they should clean up the mess.
“And people who want to accuse Newsweek of lies, dishonesty and fabrication should realize — the magazine could have almost certainly have gotten away with stonewalling on this, covering it all up and saying we stand by our report.”
Bullshit!
Did you read what the authorities said really happened? If Newsweek had lied and tried to stonewall after that – they would have been lynched by the alternative press. They deserve zero credit for trying to limit their exposure on this as the ONLY reason they are coming clean is because they are being forced to. Do you really believe for a second that if they had found out the truth – after all the deaths they have caused – that they could have confessed? I sure don’t.
Lastly – if there was an equally unsubstantiated, equally newsworthy story that was positive for the Bush administration – do you really believe that Newsweek would have rushed that into press?
Brady Westwater
http://www.lacowboy.blogspot.com
bradywestwater@gmail.com
Newsweek lied and people died
I have never been more disgusted with the news media than I am right now. Recently a Newsweek story spa…
Kevin Craver from Rathergate.com here. Your post was mostly on-target, but Newsweek actually deserves three heaping servings of shit.
I will address this on my blog tomorrow, but once again, where were this guy’s editors?
Mike Isikoff had a one-source story. That’s Journalism 101 knowledge. Rookies know that. He heard it from one source, never had the document in front of him or had it read to him, and he ran with it. I don’t count the second “source” consulted by Newsweek, because he had nothing to say and the magazine interpreted his silence as confirmation the story was real.
Isikoff has blood on his hands, but so do a fair amount of editors who were asleep at the wheel. Derek, you’re a journalist and I’m a journalist. I could NEVER get away with this at my 38,000 daily.
Actually, Antimedia, you don’t have the right to cry ‘fire!’ in a crowded theater *falsely*– a huge difference. Still doesn’t excuse Newsweek in this instance, because crying falsely is exactly what they did. Sloppy journalism, pure and simple.
Not that I want to inject partisan politics in this mess, but the wisest move Howard Dean could make right now would be to come out guns blazing against Newsweek. Too many conservatives have this daffy notion that the media is in cahoots with the Democratic party, and it would be good to remind people that sloppy journalism is not a partisan, conservative vs. liberal issue. Conservatives will paint it precisely as such, unless the Democrats act first to neutralize that falsehood.
Antimedia –
Fair enough on the compensation issue, but I think the “fire-in-a-crowded-theater” metaphor is inexact. I mean, if you (falsely) yell “fire,” you know there’s a good chance of causing injury. Could Newsweek have reasonably predicted all this?
I mean, reports of Koran desecration had already been circulating in the foreign press … and who knew the one-paragraph Periscope item would even reach Afghanis? Or that they’d react more vehemently to Koran-flushing than torture allegations? That no one in Iraq reacted to this to me indicates that some rabble-rouser in Afghanistan used it to stir things up.
Of course, anytime you write a story, you can never know how anyone will react or what it will stir up. That’s why it pays to be be careful. But to me, this is more like those WSJ editorials Vince Foster cited when he killed himself. If they had been factually wrong, how much blame for Foster’s would we have placed on the WSJ? Some, certainly … but you can’t really reasonably predict what’ll cause someone to take his own life, any more than you can predict what’ll cause someone to riot.
Rather than copies of Newsweek’s retraction, I think we should be sending DVDs of “Blazing Saddles” to the Muslim world … do y’all remember that scene where Harrison Ford rescues the Torah from the fire, rather than helping his friend out in a gunfight? And then later declares he wasn’t fit to be a rabbi, for valuing a piece of parchment over his friend’s life?
Well, I guess it wouldn’t work, with the rabbi being Jewish and all … sigh…
Brady – to answer your questions
1) I’ve read Newsweek’s account of its mistake, as well as the coverage in the NYT and my paper.
2) Of course I think Newsweek would have confessed even if they could have gotten away with it. I mean, I wouldn’t be in this business if I thought it was full of liars and frauds. And many of the people in my list of fabricators are only known because their paper alerted its readers, rather than quietly covering things up.
I generally believe most people, in all walks of life, are decent and honest folks who are trying to do the right thing. (But maybe I’m just naive … this belief didn’t do me much good last time I bought a used car…)
3) if there was an equally unsubstantiated, equally newsworthy story that was positive for the Bush administration – do you really believe that Newsweek would have rushed that into press?
Maybe, but very possibly not. Us reporters are usually very negative-oriented … although I would certainly cite the WP’s initial Jessica Lynch story and the NYT’s WMD coverage as examples of poor journalism that benefited the Bush administration.
The press usually sets itself in opposition to whoever’s in power, so a fairer question would be, would Newsweek have printed this story if Clinton was president? There’s no way to tell, of course, but I don’t think Clinton exactly got off easy from the press … Isikoff — where have I heard that name before…