Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Newsweek Debacle
I've wanted to give this Newsweek mess a couple days to simmer before commenting on it. As you may know by now, Newsweek has retracted a report claiming interrogators at Quantanamo Bay had flushed a copy of the Quran down a toilet, in an effort to coerce prisoners into talking. When news of this alleged abuse of the Quran was relayed around the world, it touched off deadly riots in several nations...including Afghanistan, where more than a dozen people died.
Now, Newsweek says it can not verify that the incident actually happened...so it has apologized and retracted the report.
How in the world did this happen?
Let's look at two possibilities. Both are bad...but one is certainly more egregious than the other.
Possibility #1: It was an "honest mistake." Newsweek says it relied on a highly-placed confidential source...some one who had given them credible information in the past. There was just one source, mind you...but Newsweek was confident enough with that single source's history that they decided to go with the story. That, at the very least, is bad journalism. If you're going to go with a story of this magnitude - one that you know will have international consequences - you darn well better have more than just one source...and I don't care how good that source has been in the past. You'd better have multiple, independent sources. You'd better have photos. You'd better have a soggy book pulled out of the septic tank. Newsweek did not...and now, the credibility of every word published in the magazine will be called into question.
Possibility #2 (and I won't take credit for originating this theory - you'll see and hear it in plenty of other places): Newsweek, in pushing its own political agenda, saw a chance to embarrass the President and the United States of America. Could a publication have such a distaste for the current administration that it would go with a single-source blockbuster...with the sole purpose of setting back that administration's efforts to work with the Muslim world community?
Boy, I hope not. I really hope not.
Hey, listen...we all make mistakes. I make mistakes in my newscasts. But, ususally, it has something to do with saying the White Sox won 6-4 instead of the correct 5-4. A close inspection may well reveal a typo or two in this blog entry.
But this was no typo. This was a pretty big deal. If I was ever fortunate to have a blockbuster story - something that could rock the world foundation - you'd better believe I'd have more than one source...no matter how good that source had been in the past.
As I've mentioned in the past, I have to be very careful to stay objective in these posts. So, I'll leave the question to you. Was the toilet story #1...or #2? Either way, it's a dark day for journalism.
Now, Newsweek says it can not verify that the incident actually happened...so it has apologized and retracted the report.
How in the world did this happen?
Let's look at two possibilities. Both are bad...but one is certainly more egregious than the other.
Possibility #1: It was an "honest mistake." Newsweek says it relied on a highly-placed confidential source...some one who had given them credible information in the past. There was just one source, mind you...but Newsweek was confident enough with that single source's history that they decided to go with the story. That, at the very least, is bad journalism. If you're going to go with a story of this magnitude - one that you know will have international consequences - you darn well better have more than just one source...and I don't care how good that source has been in the past. You'd better have multiple, independent sources. You'd better have photos. You'd better have a soggy book pulled out of the septic tank. Newsweek did not...and now, the credibility of every word published in the magazine will be called into question.
Possibility #2 (and I won't take credit for originating this theory - you'll see and hear it in plenty of other places): Newsweek, in pushing its own political agenda, saw a chance to embarrass the President and the United States of America. Could a publication have such a distaste for the current administration that it would go with a single-source blockbuster...with the sole purpose of setting back that administration's efforts to work with the Muslim world community?
Boy, I hope not. I really hope not.
Hey, listen...we all make mistakes. I make mistakes in my newscasts. But, ususally, it has something to do with saying the White Sox won 6-4 instead of the correct 5-4. A close inspection may well reveal a typo or two in this blog entry.
But this was no typo. This was a pretty big deal. If I was ever fortunate to have a blockbuster story - something that could rock the world foundation - you'd better believe I'd have more than one source...no matter how good that source had been in the past.
As I've mentioned in the past, I have to be very careful to stay objective in these posts. So, I'll leave the question to you. Was the toilet story #1...or #2? Either way, it's a dark day for journalism.
Comments:
<< Home
On what basis do you even entertain #2? Right wing blogs? Talk radio? (Now THEY have an agenda).
What evidence do you have that Newsweek has a demonstrable "political agenda"? This one story? If I had a newsweekly and I wanted to promote an "agenda" I think it would be a bit more overt. Remember, Michael Isikoff did much to bring about the Clinton impeachment which hardly makes him some left wing ideologue.
I guess I'm just surprised you would give #2 any credibility. It really isn't "a dark day".
What evidence do you have that Newsweek has a demonstrable "political agenda"? This one story? If I had a newsweekly and I wanted to promote an "agenda" I think it would be a bit more overt. Remember, Michael Isikoff did much to bring about the Clinton impeachment which hardly makes him some left wing ideologue.
I guess I'm just surprised you would give #2 any credibility. It really isn't "a dark day".
Anonymous Dave:
You'll remember that Michael Isikoff tried to sit on the Clinton/Lewinsky story. It was Matt Drudge who brought it to light.
Sorry you won't look at both possibilities with open eyes...but thank you for visiting my blog.
Steve
You'll remember that Michael Isikoff tried to sit on the Clinton/Lewinsky story. It was Matt Drudge who brought it to light.
Sorry you won't look at both possibilities with open eyes...but thank you for visiting my blog.
Steve
Steve,
I stil don't understand what evidence you have that this was some deliberate conspiracy to, what, "get" the administration, incite riots?
Sure, I'll consider it a posibility IF there is anything to base that conclusion on other than political bias.
Let's face it, those screaming the loudest about Newsweek telling falsehoods about what happens at Gitmo would have loudly cheered the flushing practice if it were demosterably true. The "outrage" over this has huge politcal overtones. Rush and Hannity saw nothing wrong with torture, so why would they be concerned about flushing the Koran? Hmmm, I wonder. Could there be an agenda? Naw.
I find it incredible that any publication that doesn't toe a conservative line is "liberal" and therefore out to get the administration.
I stil don't understand what evidence you have that this was some deliberate conspiracy to, what, "get" the administration, incite riots?
Sure, I'll consider it a posibility IF there is anything to base that conclusion on other than political bias.
Let's face it, those screaming the loudest about Newsweek telling falsehoods about what happens at Gitmo would have loudly cheered the flushing practice if it were demosterably true. The "outrage" over this has huge politcal overtones. Rush and Hannity saw nothing wrong with torture, so why would they be concerned about flushing the Koran? Hmmm, I wonder. Could there be an agenda? Naw.
I find it incredible that any publication that doesn't toe a conservative line is "liberal" and therefore out to get the administration.
Guys...you're forgetting a major point. Newsweek admits they can't verify the story ever happened!
Does that mean it NEVER happened? No, it doesn't.
Does that mean it DID happen? No, it doesn't.
Does it mean they're guilty of shoddy journalism? Yes, it does. They ran a story they can't verify!
My original post simply suggested a couple of possible scenarios. You'll notice I made my first option - bad journalism - #1...and said I certainly hoped it was not #2. Option #3 - offered by "downleft" - is absolutely viable, as well.
Thanks for the conversation.
ss
Post a Comment
Does that mean it NEVER happened? No, it doesn't.
Does that mean it DID happen? No, it doesn't.
Does it mean they're guilty of shoddy journalism? Yes, it does. They ran a story they can't verify!
My original post simply suggested a couple of possible scenarios. You'll notice I made my first option - bad journalism - #1...and said I certainly hoped it was not #2. Option #3 - offered by "downleft" - is absolutely viable, as well.
Thanks for the conversation.
ss
<< Home
