Flushed, But Accurate...

This week is already shaping up to be busy. We have the Bolton vote and the Constitutional Option going down before the end of the week. But to start us off this week, we had Newsweek pull a Dan Rather, and has been caught in a lie. The Pentagon has confirmed this. Had Newsweek given the Pentagon a couple of extra days, they might have gotten the story straight. Or they might have thrown a temper tantrum over the fact they couldn’t print their blatant hit-piece. And on the heels of their "apology" this morning printed in the Washington Post, we get this from the New York Times. (Hat-Tip: LaShawn Barber)
http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/05/16/newsweek/

While the magazine has apologized publicly to the riot victims and their families, Mr. Whitaker told the New York Times, "We’re not retracting anything. We don’t know what the ultimate facts are."

For those unschooled in professional journalistic ethics, Mr. Whitaker explained that a retraction demands a higher standard of evidence than an ordinary news item.

"You don’t just rush to press with a retraction until you nail down the facts," he added.

So they’re apologizing, but they’re not. The retraction should have been the first thing that Newsweek did. At the very least a correction should have been announced. And "You don’t just rush to press with a retraction until you nail down the facts"? So, a retraction bears greater scrutiny than the actual story did? Where was this slow movement with a story that this magazine knew damn well what might happen? No, I’m sorry, I can’t buy this, and Whitaker is another head I want mounted.

This is not how one runs damage control. They apologized, and in that apology they acknowledged that there were parts of the story that weren’t true. They why in God’s name was it run? If you knew that you had a story that wasn’t completely confirmed, then why run it? That’s not only asinine, but it also brings up the question of credibility. This issue is not political; it now revolves around moral responsibility. And that responsibility doesn’t lie in the CBS-esque spin of "fake, but accurate" (Hence the title of this piece), but it lies in owning up to the mistake, admitting that what they did was wrong, and firing those responsible.

And bear in mind that I’m not the only one calling for heads. Neither is Marcie. The blog rolls we have put up, and links to other rolls around the blogosphere, are all calling for similar measures. And now Dennis Prager, nationally-syndicated talk show host, is also calling for heads to roll. Average citizens are outraged that a US publication would deliberately print a story that was as damaging to the nation as it was. Sixteen people are dead, and Muslims in a nation that we helped gain it’s freedom aren’t happy with us. Newsweek, again, is only perpetuating this situation by not moving to truly deal with the damage they did.

But this is typical of Newsweek. And I noticed that Marcie made this connection, and others are too. (Hat-Tip: The Anchoress and Captain’s Quarters)
http://theanchoressonline.com/2005/05/15/newsweek-lied-people-died-2/
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004483.php#comments

THIS Newsweek spiked back in 1998–too controversial–the Koran item gets printed without checking.From:Drudgereport Archivehttp://www.drudgereport.com/ml.htm

Web Posted: 01/17/98 23:32:47 PST — NEWSWEEK KILLS STORY ON WHITE HOUSE INTERN — BLOCKBUSTER REPORT: 23-YEAR OLD, FORMER WHITE HOUSE INTERN, SEX RELATIONSHIP WITH PRESIDENT — At the last minute, at 6 p.m. on Saturday evening, NEWSWEEK magazine killed a story that was destined to shake official Washington to its foundation: A White House intern carried on a sexual affair with the President of the United States! The DRUDGE REPORT has learned that reporter Michael Isikoff developed the story of his career, only to have it spiked by top NEWSWEEK suits hours before publication. A young woman, 23, sexually involved with the love of her life, the President of the United States, since she was a 21-year-old intern at the White House. She was a frequent visitor to a small study just off the Oval Office where she claims to have indulged the president’s sexual preference. Reports of the relationship spread in White House quarters and she was moved to a job at the Pentagon, where she worked until last month.

Posted by: RBMN at May 15, 2005 09:17 PM
Yep. Kinda interesting, what Newsweek will spike and what it won’t. If it might hurt their guy, a story gets spiked. If it might hurt the other side’s guy…and get 15 or so people killed, btw…eh, we can let that get printed.

Right on the money. Pinned the tail on that donkey. It shows the apparent bias of Newsweek that just makes me sick. And some people are willing to just say "who cares?" At the top of the hour news-break here in AZ, the toll has gone from 16 to 20. HOW MANY MORE, Mr. Whitaker? As for who cares, a lot of America does.

Matt Drudge signed off from his Sunday show with a couple of notes. First, his mail-box is going into overload with the amount of mail he's receiving over this. That proves America's focused on this. Second, Isikoff isn't going to be able to hide from this. As Drudge pointed out, the bloggers are already tearing this issue up, and more sites are joining the swarm. Third, because of how much attention is focused on this story, the editor's job might not be safe now, either. If Newsweek did knowingly print a lie, the way the public is getting angry over this, there will be hell to pay. And, the possibility that the government is going to want to expose whoever started this ball rolling. In other words, if Isikoff had a real source, that's going to be investigated until it gets exposed. And the government will find the mouthpiece if it's real.

Much like Rathergate was CBS’s Waterloo, this might end up being Newsweek’s.
Publius II