Newsek’s Mea Culpa (Sort Of)

Newsweek has come out, for its May 23rd edition, with an apology of sorts for a story run on May 2nd which as sparked deadly riots in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The story, as I noted elsewhere here and here, is that an anonymous government official told two Newsweek reporters that, according to an investigators’ report he saw, an interrogator at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba has flushed a copy of the Koran down a toilet. This report was used at the major motivator behind those riots.

Michael Whikater, writing for The Editor’s Desk, says that the story, which came from an anonymous government source, was not denied by another government source.

Their [Michael Isikoff and John Barry, the authors of the original Pipeline story] information came from a knowledgeable U.S. government source, and before deciding whether to publish it we approached two separate Defense Department officials for comment. One declined to give us a response; the other challenged another aspect of the story but did not dispute the Qur’an charge.

In other words, they never got positive confirmation of the story, only a refusal to dispute it. Note that Whitaker doesn’t quote either “confirming” source, even anonymously. This smells to me of the ubiquitous “no comment” that so many reporters today have decided is as good as a confirmation. Except it’s not.

So, with their not-denied story in hand, Isikoff and Barry went with their story. Whitaker says the story is different because it came from an anonymous source instead of from a detainee, which wold have made it suspect. It doesn’t appear to have crossed the minds of anyone involved with the story to consider that there might be people in the government who might have an axe of some sort to grind. Nor does it appear that anyone at Newsweek actually saw, read, or were read, any part of the investigators’ report that specifically mentioned the incident.

The fact is that Newsweek’s source not only could not confirm the report, but appeared to backpedal on it. Not only that, but the Pentagon told them that the report their source cited wasn’t even intended to look into the sort of thing the source mentioned.

Last Friday, a top Pentagon spokesman told us that a review of the probe cited in our story showed that it was never meant to look into charges of Qur’an desecration. The spokesman also said the Pentagon had investigated other desecration charges by detainees and found them “not credible.” Our original source later said he couldn’t be certain about reading of the alleged Qur’an incident in the report we cited, and said it might have been in other investigative documents or drafts. Top administration officials have promised to continue looking into the charges, and so will we. But we regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst.

Whitaker’s apology is hollow and it’s cost lives. His sympathies just aren’t enough.

Evan Thomas expounds more on the evolution of the story in another article in the same issue. His telling adds more details, and, if anything damns them more than Whitaker did.

Thomas’ excuse sees to be that the story really wasn’t a big deal, just that it was reported at a bad time in Afghan politics.

But the NEWSWEEK report arrived at a particularly delicate moment in Afghan politics. Opponents of the Karzai government, including remnants of the deposed Taliban regime, have been looking for ways to exploit public discontent. The Afghan economy is weak, and the government (pressed by the United States) has alienated farmers by trying to eradicate their poppy crops, used to make heroin in the global drug trade. Afghan men are sometimes rounded up during ongoing U.S. military operations, and innocents can sit in jail for months. When they are released, many complain of abuse. President Karzai is still largely respected, but many Afghans regard him as too dependent on and too obsequious to the United States. With Karzai scheduled to come to Washington next week, this is a good time for his enemies to make trouble.

This is something that anyone can find out, simply by reading any national newspaper. Afghanistan’s government is in its infancy and it has a little way to go before it can claim substantial stability. Elements of the Taliban have been trying to destabilize the government since it began. The government is dealing with issues that make it unpopular with some of its citizens. It’s also trying to build a legitimate economy in a nation that is still, in many ways, a Stone Age throwback. None of this is exactly new.

Allegations of abuse from detainees are not a new thing either. In fact, as Thomas notes later in his column, al-Qaeda trains its terrorists to make allegations “against the infidels”. That’s why most MSM outlets don’t put much credence in allegations made by detainees. There’s no way to know which have substance and which are merely smoke throw up to bog down the interrogation process and to be used as propaganda against America and our allies.

Thomas seems to think, though, that if these same allegations come from an American, they must carry extra weight. He says that Isikoff has been getting information from a lawyer representing several detainees at Guantanamo. Their lawyer told him of another alleged “Koran desecration” incident that, again, has no confirmation beyond those of the detainees. Still, Thomas seems to believe that the lawyer is more believable than the detainees. That the lawyer, as an advocate for the detainees, is just as suspect as the detainees themselves is something that never seems to ocur to anyone at Newsweek.

Thomas also recounts Isikoff’s follow-up conversation with his source and tells us, as did Whitaker, that the story changed.

On Saturday, Isikoff spoke to his original source, the senior government official, who said that he clearly recalled reading investigative reports about mishandling the Qur’an, including a toilet incident. But the official, still speaking anonymously, could no longer be sure that these concerns had surfaced in the SouthCom report.

The story turned out to be bunk – as do so many stories that rely on a single anonymous source. That is why very new news agencies actually use them.

Thomas doesn’t even give use the courtesy of an apology, though. He concludes by saying, basically, that they haven’t learned their lesson.

Such stories may spark more trouble. Though decrepit and still run largely by warlords, Afghanistan was not considered by U.S. officials to be a candidate for serious anti-American riots. But Westerners, including those at NEWSWEEK, may underestimate how severely Muslims resent the American presence, especially when it in any way interferes with Islamic religious faith.

Thomas is “weasel-wording” here. Such stories will spark more trouble, just as they have in the past. Our enemies wait on stories like these to rile Muslims against us and they do not care if the story is true or not. It’s sufficient that it be reported by the MSM – that reporting give it the ring of truth necessary for them to say “See? The infidels are desecrating our holy book and disgracing us!” Nothing more than that, really, was necessary for Osama bin Laden to recruit a handful of enraged Muslims to murder over 3000 Americans on September 11, 2001 and nothing more is necessary now for it to happen again. Already we’ve seen the fruits of Newsweek’s negligent reporting – 12 dead, over 100 wounded, and riots racking a country trying desperately to work itself toward stability and freedom.

Thomas conclusion completely misses the point. Westerners have a pretty good idea already that there is a group of Muslims who are looking for any excuse to raise anti-American sentiments. We’ve understood pretty clearly, since 9/11, that we’re in the middle of a war and that our enemies will use anything they can get against us. We know better than to take credibly stories from people (or their mouthpieces) who only months ago were trying to kill Americans. We understand far better than Even Thomas that the issue isn’t “how severely Muslims resent the American presence, especially when it in any way interferes with Islamic religious faith” but how effective anti-American propaganda can be on Muslims who their entire lives have been lied to about America and Americans (or Westerners, as Thomas puts it). We understand these things very clearly even if the staff of Newsweek does not. It puzzles me why this comes as such a revalation to a veteran journalist like Thomas.

I’ll close with a quote from the Pentagon Spokesman Lawrence DiRita who said about Newsweek’s anonymous source, “People are dead because of what this son of a bitch said. How could he be credible now?”

I could say the very same thing about Evan Thomas, Michael Isikoff, John Barry, or Michael Whitaker.

(Cross-posted at The Blue State Conservatives. Check out some other pretty good posts there from this weekend, too.)

UPDATE: The story’s finally getting some good traction in the blogosphere.

Captain Ed says, “Remember this when the Exempt Media gets on its righteous high horse and instructs us on their superior system of checks and balances.”

Michelle Malkin leads with “Newsweek Lied, People Died” and says, “Newsweek has blood on its hands. Blood on its desks. Isikoff should cough up his source.”

Scott Johnson of Power Line writes, “NEWSWEEK regrets it got a part of the story wrong. NEWSWEEK vows to continue looking into the charges. If there’s no substance to the charges, NEWSWEEK undoubtedly wants to break that story. Pathetic.”

Roger L. Simon holds very little back: “But who is that “son of a bitch”? Newsweek isn’t saying. Until they report such things as that, I won’t believe a word the magazine says. Why would anybody?”

Marc at USS Neverdock takes a different tack: “The saying going around the blogsphere is “Newsweek lied, people died”. Someone should get fired over this one.”

From your blog to Newsweek’s ears, Marc. We can only hope.

The Anchoress has an excellent summary of the story and asks, “What is at work here – why is Newsweek deliberately pouring fuel onto a fire?”

Good question. I wonder if they’ll answer. She also makes an observation that’s worth consideration today: “Rules of Ethical journalism has never inspired him to report on the Holy Bible being used for toilet paper, but I digress…”. Indeed.

UPDATE 2: Joe Gandleman, as usual, has a very comprehensive roundup (but he missed me? What do I have to do to make these “A List” Roundups, huh? Shoot up a flare? ). Check there for an excellent cross-section of who is saying what about the “apology” today. His trackback link there isn’t working well (It gives me a link to anothre post entirely), but when I see it working, I’ll make the link.