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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.