Newsweek Clarification
There’s a reason why I have a partner on this site, and she knows it. After the numerous posts and articles that we have read today, she pointed out that our call for heads to roll needed to be clarified. The question falls to who should be fired, and who gets to stay. Anyone who disagrees that at least one head shouldn’t roll is wrong. Newsweek did what many others in the MSM do on an almost daily basis. The difference is that the repercussions of their actions were made manifest halfway around the world with a confirmed 17 dead and hundreds injured.
So, who goes and who stays?
Michael Isikoff was one of the ones I called for firing earlier today. I won’t cry if he is, but he and John Barry wrote the story. They do not have control over what is and what isn’t published. While their "crime" in the world of journalism may revolve around their bias (admitted or not), they basically ran a story from one unconfirmed, unnamed source. A source, I add, is admittedly backing away from what he initially told Isikoff. (Isikoff admitted that to Evan Thomas, and Thomas included it in his piece from Sunday entitled "How A Fire Broke Out") So, to be fair, just reassign Barry and Isikoff to the entertainment section of Newsweek, and let them spin yarns about how good Episode III is.
The real losers should be Evan Thomas and Mark Whitaker. Thomas defended the story, and gave a non-apology apology to the readers and the Muslim people. But that isn’t enough. A retraction of the story is what is absolutely necessary, and Whitaker said there won’t be one coming. This is where these two should lose their jobs. As editors of the magazine they are the one responsible for what does and doesn’t get published. They have the final say. They opted to run this story.
So, I stand corrected from my earlier posts this morning. The blood of the dead is not on Mr. Isikoff’s hands. It is on the hands of Thomas and Whitaker. My apologies to Mr. Isikoff and Mr. Barry for making that accusation.
So, the editors go. Period. I want them out. At this point, only a retraction could save their jobs, and even then that’s doubtful. Matt Drudge mentioned it last night that he’s not sure a retraction could save either jobs. I agree. The retraction will take care of this story, but what if this happens again? Nope. Sorry. No second chances. None of those in the MSM that the bloggers have brought down were given a second chance. Dan Rather lived with our disdain until that final broadcast signed him off in March, and he deserved every beating he received from the bloggers until then. Eason Jordan didn’t last long under a full blown swarm (which this is quickly becoming), and he was gone after CNN determined his erroneous statements were a liability. Howell Raines screwed the pooch in so many different ways that there was no hope for him to keep his job.
The same is occurring right now. Bloggers are calling for heads. We’re not the only ones here. And it’s not just the bloggers. I pointed out earlier today that Dennis Prager is calling for them, and so did Sean Hannity today. This is a prime example of yellow journalism run amuck. And Michelle Malkin is not only all over the story, but she’s trying to find the unnamed source in this story.
So there is much more to this story than meets the eye, but a solid consensus has been determined by those that are focused on this. This story has elicited disdain for this nation around the world, and it has now been refuted. Newsweek refuses to retract, so it time to clean house. The editors go. Newsweek is already feeling a backlash in more ways than just the bloggers on this one. They have a regular radio spot on several stations around America, and those regular spots are being dropped. So, not only is there the scrutiny of an ever-growing blogswarm they have to contend with, and mom-and-pop America that have levied their complaints to the magazine, but now the financial crunch is starting to show up.
Newsweek can solve a lot of problems right now, and the solution is listed above.
Publius II
UPDATE: 3:15 p.m. AZ Time...
It is now being reported that 55 minutes ago (from the time of the update) that Newsweek has FINALLY retracted the story. This news is coming over the air as Hugh Hewitt's show is starting. (I was really hoping I could get his thoughts on it, but he has a couple of guest hosts in. I missed their names.)
Publius II
There’s a reason why I have a partner on this site, and she knows it. After the numerous posts and articles that we have read today, she pointed out that our call for heads to roll needed to be clarified. The question falls to who should be fired, and who gets to stay. Anyone who disagrees that at least one head shouldn’t roll is wrong. Newsweek did what many others in the MSM do on an almost daily basis. The difference is that the repercussions of their actions were made manifest halfway around the world with a confirmed 17 dead and hundreds injured.
So, who goes and who stays?
Michael Isikoff was one of the ones I called for firing earlier today. I won’t cry if he is, but he and John Barry wrote the story. They do not have control over what is and what isn’t published. While their "crime" in the world of journalism may revolve around their bias (admitted or not), they basically ran a story from one unconfirmed, unnamed source. A source, I add, is admittedly backing away from what he initially told Isikoff. (Isikoff admitted that to Evan Thomas, and Thomas included it in his piece from Sunday entitled "How A Fire Broke Out") So, to be fair, just reassign Barry and Isikoff to the entertainment section of Newsweek, and let them spin yarns about how good Episode III is.
The real losers should be Evan Thomas and Mark Whitaker. Thomas defended the story, and gave a non-apology apology to the readers and the Muslim people. But that isn’t enough. A retraction of the story is what is absolutely necessary, and Whitaker said there won’t be one coming. This is where these two should lose their jobs. As editors of the magazine they are the one responsible for what does and doesn’t get published. They have the final say. They opted to run this story.
So, I stand corrected from my earlier posts this morning. The blood of the dead is not on Mr. Isikoff’s hands. It is on the hands of Thomas and Whitaker. My apologies to Mr. Isikoff and Mr. Barry for making that accusation.
So, the editors go. Period. I want them out. At this point, only a retraction could save their jobs, and even then that’s doubtful. Matt Drudge mentioned it last night that he’s not sure a retraction could save either jobs. I agree. The retraction will take care of this story, but what if this happens again? Nope. Sorry. No second chances. None of those in the MSM that the bloggers have brought down were given a second chance. Dan Rather lived with our disdain until that final broadcast signed him off in March, and he deserved every beating he received from the bloggers until then. Eason Jordan didn’t last long under a full blown swarm (which this is quickly becoming), and he was gone after CNN determined his erroneous statements were a liability. Howell Raines screwed the pooch in so many different ways that there was no hope for him to keep his job.
The same is occurring right now. Bloggers are calling for heads. We’re not the only ones here. And it’s not just the bloggers. I pointed out earlier today that Dennis Prager is calling for them, and so did Sean Hannity today. This is a prime example of yellow journalism run amuck. And Michelle Malkin is not only all over the story, but she’s trying to find the unnamed source in this story.
So there is much more to this story than meets the eye, but a solid consensus has been determined by those that are focused on this. This story has elicited disdain for this nation around the world, and it has now been refuted. Newsweek refuses to retract, so it time to clean house. The editors go. Newsweek is already feeling a backlash in more ways than just the bloggers on this one. They have a regular radio spot on several stations around America, and those regular spots are being dropped. So, not only is there the scrutiny of an ever-growing blogswarm they have to contend with, and mom-and-pop America that have levied their complaints to the magazine, but now the financial crunch is starting to show up.
Newsweek can solve a lot of problems right now, and the solution is listed above.
Publius II
UPDATE: 3:15 p.m. AZ Time...
It is now being reported that 55 minutes ago (from the time of the update) that Newsweek has FINALLY retracted the story. This news is coming over the air as Hugh Hewitt's show is starting. (I was really hoping I could get his thoughts on it, but he has a couple of guest hosts in. I missed their names.)
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 3:06 PM
2 Comments:
The retraction has turned out to be semantic.
Whitaker blamed the Pentagon for not being "vehement" enough in their denial, and Isikoff still can't imagine that he did anything wrong.
It's a sad state of affairs.
Pat,
We know that the retraction is "semantic", however it is a start.
Both of us are still calling for the editor's heads to roll on this. Marcie has heard and read some interesting things about this situation (Communicated to me throughout the day), and none of them strike a chord like this story.
In short, Newsweek put out a story that wasn't properly confirmed, and didn't want to recognize the repecussions of such actions. They apologized, then they retracted the story. Good. Great. But a few steps are missing to truly gain back the credibility of Newsweek.
I want the heads. I want the demotions that Marcie and I agree on, and I want the source; I don't care who the source is.
I don't care if the source turns out to be whom the DailyKos kids have pointed to.
DRUMROLL PLEASE......The point to Karl Rove. If Rove is the source (and NEITHER of us are pointing to him) then we want his head right next to Thomas's and Whitaker's, but the source is essential to this story now.
Marcie was right to cite the wisdome of "An unreliable source is no source at all". She is correct, and that is a belief I've maintained for a long time; they deserve neither protection nor anonymity should they prove to be false.
Isikoff has proven that his source is "unreliable", so reveal them. Unless, of course, that source may bring a severe backlash, then stand their like Eason Jordan, and prepare for the worst ride of your life.
The bloggers aren't done with this story yet. Michelle Malkin is rooting out the source as I type this, and other big guns are looking for more involved in this story.
We are, in no way, done with Newsweek yet.
Thomas
Post a Comment
<< Home