Newsweek Under Fire

"Let's hold off a bit before completely trashing Newsweek, shall we? While its apology suggests that it may have gotten some of the story wrong, what's less clear is the fundamental question at issue: whether U.S. officials desecrated the Koran during interrogations at Guantanomo Bay. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't--but Newsweek has not retracted that part of its story.

"Predictably, the backlash has begun. 'People are dead because of what this son of a bitch said,' Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DeRita said, apparently referring to Newsweek's source.

"No--people are dead because angry Muslims rioted, not because of something printed in a free press in a democracy where, thankfully, that kind of reaction to a magazine article is frowned upon rather than encouraged. . . .

"Newsweek needs to figure out what it got right and what it got wrong, and fast. But let's not blame the messenger for violence prompted by reporting--even if that reporting turns out to be inaccurate."

A nuclear warning shot, according to the New York Times :

"The Senate minority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, broke off talks on Monday with his Republican counterpart on efforts to head off a showdown on judicial nominations, saying he could not consent to Republican demands."

A very different take on the Cessna flight that prompted that big D.C. evacuation last week from the New Republic's Gregg Easterbrook :

"Everyone seems to buy the party line that the new Washington security system responded beautifully last week to the two lost flyboys who were blundering their way toward the center of the capital. Actually the incident showed the reverse: that the system remains a slow-responding mess. 'Had this been an actual alert,' as the saying goes, there might have been a smoldering national landmark.

"Consider that a plane from Smoketown, Pennsylvania, being flown by the Amos 'n Andy of the air, got within three miles of the White House despite the pilots having no particular plan or preparation. In this sense, the Pennsylvania pilots staged a real-world test of the new defense system--they arrived unexpectedly and behaved unpredictably. (Mock alerts that security personnel know about in advance are nearly worthless to test defenses.) The Pennsylvania pair got within three miles of the White House despite flying one of the slowest planes that exists and arriving during daylight in clear weather, ideal conditions for the Air Force and law-enforcement teams watching Washington's sky. Yes, two Air Force jets were in position to shoot the plane down before it reached the White House or Capitol, and could have fired about a minute before the plane reached the three-mile point at which it finally turned away. This should not be viewed as heartening."

That Detroit Free Press investigation of its star sports columnist is finally over:

"A Free Press review of more than 600 columns by Mitch Albom has found no evidence of problems similar to an April 3 column in which Albom, with an editor's knowledge, misled readers by writing about events that never occurred at a basketball game.

"However, the inquiry found that Albom at times has used quotes from newspapers, TV programs or other publications without indicating that he did not gather the material himself, in violation of Free Press rules on crediting sources. In several instances, Albom did not credit quotes exclusively gathered by another media organization.

"Albom was not alone in this. The review found that other Free Press columnists also have failed to give credit for quotes gathered by other news organizations.

"Free Press Publisher and Editor Carole Leigh Hutton said the problems reflect a lack of familiarity with the paper's rules on attribution. She said she would take steps to address the problems. . . .

"In roughly five hours of interviews, Albom vigorously defended his integrity and approach. He said editors approved using quotes without attribution -- which his sports editor acknowledged -- and he said other columnists operate similarly around the country."

Salon (which charges $35 a year for a subscription) has a piece by Farhad Manjoo questioning a new pay-to-surf policy by the NYT:

"You can't stand David Brooks but you read his column anyway, twice a week. Paul Krugman's anti-Bush rants ring so true for you that you ditch your work in the morning to e-mail them to your friends. Then there's Thomas Friedman, the world's favorite Middle East explainer; Bob Herbert, well-intentioned, if sometimes boring; and Maureen Dowd, indecipherable. Yet such is the power of the New York Times' Op-Ed page that even though some of its columnists may drive you into a rage that you can barely articulate, you still care deeply about what they have to say. So you read them all the time.

"But will readers care about the Times' columnists if they've got to pay for the punditry? The paper is betting that they will. On Monday, the New York Times Co. announced that beginning in September, Times columns will no longer be available free on the Web. News stories, however, will remain free to readers. The paper will charge $49.95 per year for TimesSelect, a service that gives readers online access to the work of a few select writers -- columnists on the Op-Ed page as well as in other sections of the paper, including Business, Sports, and Metro."