By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
9:48 AM
There's plenty of opportunity to criticize Newsweek for its botched report on Gitmo that touched off days of rioting.
The magazine relied on an unnamed source -- an increasingly controversial if age-old Washington practice -- who turned out not to know what he was talking about.
Newsweek's editors admit they didn't foresee the explosive consequences of reporting that U.S. interrogators had flushed a copy of the Koran down a toilet to rattle detainees -- it had been reported before, but the magazine quoted a senior government official as saying the incident would be cited in a military report.
That, as it turned out, was like throwing a match on the dry tinder of anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world. The resulting riots in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries killed at least 16 people -- making Newsweek's item the deadliest media blunder in recent memory. Little wonder that Editor Mark Whitaker has apologized, and formally retracted the item yesterday.
But the blogosphere has been denouncing Newsweek for far worse than making a terrible mistake. According to some online critics, Newsweek (owned by The Washington Post Co.) was on a crusade to make the military and the U.S. government look bad. In this view, the magazine gave free rein to its anti-war sentiments by denigrating the military and assuming the absolute worst.
In fact, a Texan in my online chat complained of "the seething hatred that the mainstream press has for the military."
Here's why some of that criticism is overstated:
--If Newsweek was on such a crusade, why did it devote all of one half-sentence to the Koran allegations? The whole Periscope item was just 10 sentences, and only a few words involved the flushing-down-the-toilet business.
--Newsweek showed a draft of the item to a senior Pentagon official, who disputed another aspect but not the Koran question. The absence of a denial hardly amounts to confirmation -- that was the same mistake CBS made on the Bush/National Guard story -- but things might have turned out differently if the Pentagon had objected.
--This wasn't the first time such a Koran incident had been alleged. Indeed, we know that some U.S. interrogators have done far worse, as those photographs of prisoners on a leash or a naked pyramid vividly reminded us.
--Extremist elements were obviously using the Newsweek item as an opportunity to whip up anti-American violence.
None of this gets Newsweek off the hook. But the notion that it was an intentional mistake, as opposed to a bad blunder or reckless reliance on a single source, remains unsupported.
Here's the top of my report on the latest back-and-forth :
Newsweek issued a formal retraction yesterday of the flawed story that sparked deadly riots in Afghanistan and other countries, after the magazine came under increasingly sharp criticism from White House, State Department and Pentagon officials.
The magazine's statement retracted its charge that U.S. military investigators had confirmed that an American interrogator at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility had flushed a copy of the Koran down a toilet. Newsweek Editor Mark Whitaker said he thought the magazine had already "retracted what we think we may have gotten wrong" in an editor's note published Sunday and in media interviews. "We've called it an error," he said. "We've called it a mistake."
But, he said, "it became clear people weren't quite hearing that and were getting hung up" on the semantics.
The May 1 item triggered violent protests last week in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia and other countries, in which at least 16 people were killed.
The damage-control efforts by Newsweek followed criticism by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, who called it "puzzling" that Newsweek, in his view, had "stopped short of a retraction."
"That story has damaged the image of the United States abroad and damaged the credibility of the media at home," McClellan said in an interview. He said that Americans, including President Bush, "share in the outrage that this report was published in the first place."
Check out the whole thing. Condi and Rummy also weigh in.
Also don't miss the New York Post 's "HOLY SHIITE" cover.
Jeff Jarvis has this stinging critique:
"What a terrible lesson in journalism: about the danger of unnamed sources, about the risk of rushing a story, about the cynicism of gotcha journalism, about the damage a wrong story can do. . . .
"This mistake cost people their lives, put the lives of our soldiers in the Mideast at risk, damaged the American position in the effort to defend itself and spread democracy, and damaged the already tattered reputation of journalism.
"And to what end?
"If the report had come from a source who had the balls to stand by what he said, if the alleged event had been witnessed, if it had been confirmed by independent authorities, I'm not sure what the imperative to report would have been: Why did we need to urgently know this? What public good is served? If it were absolutely true, that might be one matter but. . . .
"Given that none of those if's was true -- the informant did not have the balls, the event was not witnessed by a source, the event was not confirmed independently -- and given the knowledge that such a report could only be incendiary, then why report it except to play one of two games:
"Show-off -- in which the journalist delights in knowing something no one else knows and wants to tell the world before everyone else does, even if it's not assuredly true.
"Gotcha -- in which the reporter think he has exposed something somebody wanted to hide."
National Review's Paul Marshall : "Equally disturbing is the fact that Newsweek reporters seemed to have little idea how explosive such a story would be. . . . What planet do these people live on that they are surprised by something so entirely predictable? Anybody with a little knowledge could have told them it was likely that people would die as a result of the article. Remember Salman Rushdie?"
"For their sakes, I hope Isikoff and Barry's source proves to be accurate because who would want these deaths on their conscience? The NYT recently went on a crusade against anonymously sourced reporting. So should Newsweek. So should we all."
NASCAR Dads : "Now can the families of the dead sue Newsweek for being responsible? Hmmmmmmm? Irresponsible reporting has now lead to death, and do you think the MSM and liberals will call for Newsweek's head? Don't hold your breath."
Left Coaster : "Now, Isikoff seems to have screwed up by relying on a single source and not getting documentary proof of the original allegation - and this is a particularly bad screw up if Newsweek is actually retracting the veracity of the story entirely. So, I would hope that Newsweek and other media outlets learn from this to be more careful about whom they trust considering the costly nature of this mistake. There is no excuse for shoddy journalism.
"At the same time, once the usual suspects on the Right start braying for Isikoff's head - which I don't think is warranted here unless malpractice is revealed (as opposed to a genuine mistake in trusting the wrong source)."
"No source. No one to back that up, no accountability. Just a tremendously inflammatory rumor thrown out by a major news magazine - a rumor that any reasonable person has to know will cause trouble."
Tran Sient's Watch goes with the headline "Newsweek Slanders US Soldiers, Causes Deaths":
"I was done for the day until I saw this. Dan Rather would be proud. But even Dan didn't get anyone killed!"
"I question whether it really was a mistake. As many of us have noticed, Afghanistan is rarely spoken of in the MSM. Unless it is something absolutely atrocious that occurs there, the media treats Afghanistan the way a vampire treats a garlic necklace. But the media has been waiting for something like this; an incident to show how much the Afghani people dislike us. The problem, as with Abu Ghraib . . . is that this whole incident is media contrived and driven. What does it say about the media when they have to create stories to report on. It hearkens back to the quote from William Randolph Hearst: 'You provide the pictures, and I'll provide the war.' In this case, the media provided both."
The Tin Ear : "So Newsweek Magazine has issued an apology, well I guess that solves that little dust-up. Nevermind the sixteen dead, nevermind the hundreds of injured Afghan citizens, Newsweek has apologized so 'no harm, no foul,' right?
"What happened this week is a further sign of the politicization of the MSM. Does anyone doubt that this was a leap to embarrass the Bush administration? Does anyone doubt that, in an effort to condemn the war and the policies leading up to it, Newsweek, in the form of Michael Isikoff, abandoned the principles of good journalism and released a story without concerning itself with how this would affect the safety of the troops and the American people? Does anyone else besides me believe that this borders on treason by a mainstream publication's editorial staff?"
LaShawn Barber : "Whether Americans flushed the Koran down the toilet is irrelevant . Newsweek should not have reported it, even if true. It's common sense, people. Those journalists knew how Muslims would react! Why would you hurt your own country and risk more deaths just to report this 'fact?' To what end???. . . . Liberal Newsweek's anti-American bias manifested itself in an ugly way."
Excuse me, but under that standard, wouldn't the press not have reported the Abu Ghraib abuses and anything else that could be said to hurt the administration in power?
PoliPundit : "The media has gone from being an undeclared enemy to being an actual, overt, and hostile combatant in the global war against terrorism."
You know, conservatives weren't exactly declaring Mike Isikoff an enemy when he was uncovering the Clinton sex scandals.
Richard Bradley the former editor of George, urges a bit of tolerance at Huffington Post:
"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."