Newsweek’s Quran Blunder
By now I’m sure everyone knows of Newsweek’s retraction of their story concerning the defacing of the Quran, a report that has led to protests and deaths in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Of course, the MSB smells MSM blood and is on the attack, particularly Instapundit Glenn Reynolds:
I want to add that I don’t think there’s anything immoral about flushing a Koran (or a Bible) down the toilet, assuming you’ve got a toilet that’s up to that rather daunting task, and I think it’s amusing to hear people who usually worry about excessive concern for religious beliefs suddenly taking a different position. Nor do I think that doing so counts as torture, and I think that it debases the meaning of “torture” to claim otherwise. If this had happened, it might have been — indeed, would have been — impolitic or unwise. But not evil.Starters, a lot of the same people stating “what’s the big deal?” are the same ones who ARE offended by Piss Christ or would lecture you on why the Bible is not to be shelved like any other book. The defacing of the Quran in front of Muslim prisoners is a form of psychological torture that must be recognized and avoided, especially since this war is not supposed to be about religion but about freedom and democracy. If the Quran was defaced, which has been claimed by prisoners (which doesn’t make it true), then we risk losing the support of the very people we are seeking to liberate and we risk turning this into a religious situation which is what we should be striving to avoid. And just because the US has a memo out about how to properly treat the Quran doesn’t mean it’s being followed. We also have rules about not sexually humiliating prisoners, but we see how well that worked in Abu Ghraib.And anyone who thinks otherwise needs to be willing to apply the same kind of criticism to things like Piss Christ, or to explain why offending the sensibilities of one kind of religious believer is “art” while doing the same in another context is “torture.” If, that is, they want to be taken at all seriously.
If this was false, which it is looking like it may be, Newsweek should retract, which they have done. But should they have not reported it? If the source they had was credible and reliable, if the information presented to them was backed up with facts (which Newsweek may have felt Detainee lawsuits provided), then Newsweek would have been doing the world a disservice by NOT printing the article. BUT that is if the information presented to them held up.
Glenn points at what he feels is proof that Newsweek can be tactful and should have applied the same to this story:
Newsweek ran the story knowing that it would excite the passions of the world’s muslim population.Ah, but we all know about how people leapt from the windows. Pictures or no, it was still reported, still widely known. Perhaps there were different reasons for not running the pictures, like the emotions of their readers. What would have those pictures added to the debate or conversation after 911 that watching the towers crumble didn’t already create? The news of the potential desecration of the Quran as a interrogation technique is a big deal and potentially shows a lack of judgment by those who do it.Contrast this with the media’s refusal to show pictures of our fellow citizens jumping out the the world trade center. We were told that such pictures would unneccessarily anger the American people and lead to violence against Muslim Americans.
If the story is wrong, Newsweek needs to retract, which it did. But given the information presented to it, I don’t feel that they violated anything by running it. Was it sensationalist? Perhaps. Was it reckless? On some level, any revalatory journalism that challenges the system is reckless. But no one could have predicted the results.
And bloggers have gone off the handle on topics with less information.
This isn’t a “gotcha!” by the MSB on the MSM, this is Newsweek trusting too much in what was a reliable source and running with what little information they could get to publish a story that unfortunately led to deaths that happened because protestors were fired upon. Newsweek did not pull the trigger, it just put someone in the sights.
May 17th, 2005 at 7:25 pm
That’s one hell of a stretch Jay.
Whomever wrote that article at Newsweek should be asked to write a one page article explaining themselves.
Humble pie. And they get to eat a big ol’ spoonful of it.
If they refuse to be the perfect picture of contrition, then fire them, or even better send them to cover the riots in Afghanistan and have them interview the families who’s loved ones died as a result of their need for a story. Then publish that one-page letter.
It’s irresponsible journalism at best. At best. . .
Shaun
May 17th, 2005 at 8:09 pm
Honestly, I’m tempted to say they need to out their source on this one. And, yeah, the journalist needs to be forced to write the retraction, explain his sources, why he felt they were solid, ultimately, make a case for what he did. It could stand up, great, but if it doesn’t, well, the court of public opinion will have their say.
May 18th, 2005 at 8:56 am
There is a certain level of responsibility required with the exercise of teh right to free speech and free press. They not only need to look at if their sources are credible, which we can never assume an unnamed source to be, but also need to look at what the impact of the story would be.
The Quran flushing was seen as significant because it was being used as “torture.” First, it clearly is not torture. Second, if the mistreatment of the Quran is offensive enough to prisoners tobe considered torture, then it should be clear that it would inflame Muslims worldwide. The results were easily predicted.
It was irresponsible journalism. if a right leaning journalist had done something similar they would be canned. If Rush Limbaugh had said something that lead to people dying, he would be condemed.
May 18th, 2005 at 9:02 am
So if this really did happen, it shouldn’t be reported because of a potential reaction? Newsweek felt the story was credible and solid, they ran it. Ideally they’re wouldn’t have run it if there were doubts. If the story is false, which the retraction probably means it is, then the journalist needs to explain themselves, as Shaun said, and let the public decide whether or not there was justification to run the story. I seriously doubt that you’d see anyone fired, left or right, if they did their job properly. If the journalist can properly justify their article, then it becomes a case of questioning your sources a lot more than you may have in the past.
But all this targeting of Newsweek completely ignores the fact that it was not Newsweek that shot and killed 7-8 people in Afghanistan. Newsweek did not cause people to die (yet, with that whole Holy War thing still up in the air).
May 19th, 2005 at 5:38 am
What’s more is that General Myers said last week (5/12) in a press conference that the field commander over in Afghanistan absolutely denies that Newsweek had anything to do with the riots and that it was due to the actual situation over there. On monday though, McClellan started that nonsense about trying to tell them what they should publish and that they were really at fault. Plus the story was posted in The Guardian LAST YEAR, so News Week wasn’t the first to publish it.
May 19th, 2005 at 9:47 am
No one reads the Guardian. They broke the Salman Pak [spelling?] story, where they gave evidence that Sadam’s government was training people to hijack plains, and it got no play anywhere else.
I just bothers me that there are news agencies that are saying basically what you guys are, that Newsweek cannot be held responsible for what happened, while they also report that the harsh criticism of judges is to blame for the nuts that attack them. Just yesterday, the judge whose entire family was killed by someone she sentenced testified to Congress about that.
May 19th, 2005 at 9:53 am
Art, when you have an instance like Matt pointed out above where General Myers, the man in control in Afghanistan, said the incident had nothing to do with Newsweek, I tend to believe that. Newsweek did not pull the trigger on those protesters. If General Myers is wrong, then at best Newsweek gave them a reason to protest, whether or not the story was completely true.
Newsweek needed to apologize and retract, which they did. The guy that wrote ths story should be made to justify why he felt the article should have run. But the level of attacks on Newsweek do nothing but clamp down on journalism and threaten free press.
May 19th, 2005 at 2:08 pm
I don’t even see this as news, that’s my problem. It’s a book. I’ve stripped books before. I have seen people strip coppies of the Bible and the Koran. It’s just paper. If we destroy paper in order to get useful information out of people, where is the problem?
I know, I know, different culture and all that stuff. I just don’t understand. It’s still just a book. The words are meaningful not the medium upon whcih they are transmitted.
I wonder where the big coverage is when Muslims defile the Bible. When Palestinians took over the Church of the Nativity they trashed the place. They used the Bible as toilet paper. The world blamed Israel. Catholics didn’t roit. Newsweek didn’t talk about it.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want newsweek to talk about it. It’s not a story. Neither is what we do to the Koran down in GitMo. The fact that we treat the Korna with respect and the only reason the prisoners have them is because we provided it to them is not covered, and that’s ok. It’s not really news. But it is real, there is evidence for it. Flushing the Koran is not really news either. Motly because the sources suck. Also because… who cares?
Free speech is not this sacred thing that can never be questioned. It is a right that comes with responsibilities. By using a shakey source the journalist was irresponsible.
May 25th, 2005 at 10:08 am
Muslims wouldn’t defile the Bible because it’s a holy book for them as well.
I think what you’re seeing among the Christian Fundamentalists (about it being OK to flush the Koran) is agitation for an all out, knock down, drag out war with Islam. Just like Islamic Fundamentalists want the same. It is the fundamentalist mindset that cannot stand people who think differently and that requires complete conformity to their world view. They like when things are nice and black and white, because there HAS to be a good guy and a bad guy for them. They can’t deal with grays. It can happen in any religion.
It is a right that comes with responsibilities.
The question, of course, is whether it is the Administration’s place to hold the media accountable.