Newsweek's Confession In Perspective

The rioting in Afghanistan over the allegedly destroyed Koran was big news last week. How are the big media playing Newsweek's admission that the story is in error?

LATimes: Not on the front page. Third story on "World" page, after a story about Pakistan's role in nuclear proliferation and one on sectarian violence in Iraq, both embarassing points for the Bush administration.

NYTimes: Does not appear at all on home page of Web site. Third story on "International" page, after stories on US warning North Korea on its nuclear program and Condi in Baghdad.

WashPost: Howard Kurtz' column on the subject is #3 on home page.

All in all, the story is getting reasonable play today; the test will be how long the media stays focused on it. Below, I make the point that this story is worse for the US than Abu Ghraib; will the US media cover it as they covered Abu Ghraib?

Kurtz was able to reach the reporter primarily responsible for the story, Michael Isikoff, and Isikoff's response was as irresponsible as his story:

"Obviously we all feel horrible about what flowed from this, but it's important to remember there was absolutely no lapse in journalistic standards here. We relied on sources we had every reason to trust and gave the Pentagon ample opportunity to comment. . . . We're going to continue to investigate what remains a very murky situation."

I don't care how he feels one iota, and I don't hear an apology for lives lost in that quote. All I hear is denial of responsibility. Newsweek editor Mark Whittaker himself puts Isikoff's statement of meeting journalistic standards to the test:

[Whittaker] said that a senior Pentagon official, for reasons that "are still a little mysterious to us," had declined to comment after Newsweek correspondent John Barry showed him a draft before the item was published and asked, "Is this accurate or not?"

Declining to comment is not a verification or a denial. Isikoff is ethically responsible as a journalist to verify his quotes, and he didn't. He ran with the story, and people are being buried because of it. He ran with the story, and American forces are at risk because of it. He ran with the story, and America's reputation in the Muslim world is deeply hurt because of it.

Why did Newsweek run with the story? Because they were after it like CBS was after Bush's National Guard story. Whittaker admits as much:

"There had been previous reports about the Koran being defiled, but they always seemed to be rumors or allegations made by sources without evidence," Whitaker said, referring to reporting by British and Russian news agencies and by the Qatar-based satellite network al-Jazeera. The Washington Post, whose parent company owns Newsweek, reported a similar account in March 2003, attributing it to a group of former detainees.

Kurtz doesn't mention along with this excerpt that the detainees' allegations were found to be questionable. But in the quote, Whittaker appears to admit that Newsweek tracked this story over four iterations, and we can imagine that they were working the Pentagon hard for some kind of verification.

This story is bigger than Abu Ghraib. After all, no one died as a result of Ahu Ghraib. The people responsible have been punished, but the harm is still manifest, and the damage to America's reputation in the Muslim world is long-term.

Given that the Muslim world largely lacks a free press, they will not understand Newsweek's admission; they will think it is government-forced, so Isikoff's sin is going to be very difficult for the US to redeem. For years to come, believers in the Koran around the world will think that US soldiers showed disrespect to their religion, all because Newsweek's reporting and editorial staff rushed to run a story that would hurt America.

Ask yourself, if the story would hurt Howard Dean or Hillary Clinton, would Newsweek have waited until it was fully verified, or would they have run an unverified story?

Answer: Start the investigation! Trial and punishment are necessary first steps.