Newsweek Is So Pathetic...
So, now we have an apology from Newsweek, but not just any sort of apology. It’s one in which there’s some spin surrounding it. The WaPo (Washington Post) ran with this story.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/15/AR2005051500605.html
Editor Mark Whitaker expressed regret over the item in the magazine's "Periscope" section, saying it was based on a confidential source -- a "senior U.S. government official" -- who now says he is not sure whether the story is true.
The deadly consequences of the May 1 report, and its reliance on the unnamed source, have sparked considerable anger at the Pentagon. Spokesman Bryan Whitman called Newsweek's report "irresponsible" and "demonstrably false," saying the magazine "hid behind anonymous sources which by their own admission do not withstand scrutiny. Unfortunately, they cannot retract the damage that they have done to this nation or those who were viciously attacked by those false allegations."
Whitaker said last night that "whatever facts we got wrong, we apologize for. I've expressed regret for the loss of life and the violence that put American troops in harm's way. I'm getting a lot of angry e-mail about that, and I understand it."
Whitman’s right. There’s no amount of apology that can replace the 16 lives lost due to the stupidity of it’s journalists that ran with the story to begin with. Isikoff and Barry have a lot of explaining to do. I must concur with my other half. I want heads. But the "apology" gets flushed just as quickly as Newsweek’s credibility when one proceeds further into the WaPo story.
He 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?" Whitaker added that the magazine would have held off had military spokesmen made such a request. That official "lacked detailed knowledge" of the investigative report, Newsweek now says. Whitaker said Pentagon officials raised no objection to the story for 11 days after it was published, until it was translated by some Arab media outlets and led to the rioting.
The item was principally reported by Michael Isikoff, Newsweek's veteran investigative reporter. "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," he said. "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."
Would Newsweek really have held the story if the Pentagon had asked them to? I doubt it. Isikoff got his five minutes of fame when he held the Monica Lewinsky story; a story in which Matt Drudge ended up scooping him. And the "we feel horrible" line isn’t floating with anyone among the bloggers covering this. If you felt so horrible, then why in the hell did you print a story that you couldn’t confirm. It's nice to know they're going to continue to investigate the story they created--pretty circular reasoning if you ask me--but they're refusing to address their culpability in this matter.
You used one—count ‘em, ONE—unconfirmed source. You claim that the Pentagon had 11 days to confirm or deny your report. The story ran, for the first time, one week ago today. According to Newsweek, they gave the Pentagon plenty of time to comment. The Pentagon can’t just simply give a comment. The Pentagon has looked into allegations like this before. After the Pentagon concluded it’s check of the "facts" Chairman of the JCS, Gen. Richard Myers gave a statement. He said that no allegations have been proven. He did cite two instances in the prison logs. One was a report that a detainee had used pages of the Qur’an to stop up a crude toilet as a form of protest. Another was a complaint from a detainee that a prison guard had knocked down a Qur’an hanging in a bag in his cell.
Newsweek might like to move at lightning speed on a story, but the Pentagon is going to do a thorough and complete investigation. I’m so sorry if such an investigation might force Newsweek to hold it’s horses on a story; especially a literal non-story like this one was. Marcie was correct over the weekend. The way Newsweek pulled this story off was literally like what Hearst once said about providing war and pictures.
They created the story, based off of one, unconfirmed source, and then stoked the fires when the riots broke out. Over the weekend, they caught hell over their attempt to spin it (TY Evan Thomas), and now they’re apologizing. I don’t want an apology. I want heads.
The MSM will never get the hint until people start demanding a return to a level of journalistic integrity. And the only way that can happen is to start holding these reporters accountable. There was no need to publish the story they did. They knew what was going to happen when they put this story out. The blood of the 16 lives lost is on the hands of those involved in this story. Were I the managing editor of Newsweek, Isikoff and Barry should lose their jobs. Never again should either of these men be allowed to cover ANY world news again.
In the rush to get their "scoop", they ignored all the journalistic checks that should have been gone through. According to Newsweek, they waited eleven days for the Pentagon’s official statement. Oh, heaven forbid they had to wait so long for a comment. The story was a non-story to begin with! No other outlet in the MSM was sitting on similar stories, so there shouldn’t have been a rush to put this story out. There was no threat of a scoop, which Isikoff risked when Newsweek flatly refused to run with the Lewinsky story.
But that is the difference between then and now. The bias against this administration and this president is so apparent it should make every common-sense thinking American sick to their stomach. I have no problem if the media has a legitimate gripe about the president, but this wasn’t a gripe, and it was far from legitimate. It was one guy telling Newsweek "Yeah, I think this happened", and Isikoff and the gang went to work. The majority of their citations to such an act were based off of statements given by released detainees that had told their story to British and Russian news agencies, and Al-Jazeera. Yeah, there’s some reputable news outlets for you.
The point to this whole fiasco is that Newsweek screwed up, and they screwed up bad. They created a story, which sparked a riot, and then allowed the flames of hate to drive the story forward. What was done by the magazine was beyond the pale, and it should be held accountable. And that is why I want heads to roll on this. Will they? Probably not, unless a blogswarm erupts that is so large that it forces Newsweek to get rid of Isikoff, Barry, and possibly Evan Thomas, as well. It was Thomas who attempted to spin this story on Sunday.
Americans should be absolutely irate over this. There are 16 dead people over this, and more lives—possibly the lives of our soldiers—may be taken over the outrage of the Muslim people in Afghanistan, and possibly elsewhere around the globe. And if that happens, you can bet you @$$ I’ll want heads then.
Publius II
So, now we have an apology from Newsweek, but not just any sort of apology. It’s one in which there’s some spin surrounding it. The WaPo (Washington Post) ran with this story.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/15/AR2005051500605.html
Editor Mark Whitaker expressed regret over the item in the magazine's "Periscope" section, saying it was based on a confidential source -- a "senior U.S. government official" -- who now says he is not sure whether the story is true.
The deadly consequences of the May 1 report, and its reliance on the unnamed source, have sparked considerable anger at the Pentagon. Spokesman Bryan Whitman called Newsweek's report "irresponsible" and "demonstrably false," saying the magazine "hid behind anonymous sources which by their own admission do not withstand scrutiny. Unfortunately, they cannot retract the damage that they have done to this nation or those who were viciously attacked by those false allegations."
Whitaker said last night that "whatever facts we got wrong, we apologize for. I've expressed regret for the loss of life and the violence that put American troops in harm's way. I'm getting a lot of angry e-mail about that, and I understand it."
Whitman’s right. There’s no amount of apology that can replace the 16 lives lost due to the stupidity of it’s journalists that ran with the story to begin with. Isikoff and Barry have a lot of explaining to do. I must concur with my other half. I want heads. But the "apology" gets flushed just as quickly as Newsweek’s credibility when one proceeds further into the WaPo story.
He 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?" Whitaker added that the magazine would have held off had military spokesmen made such a request. That official "lacked detailed knowledge" of the investigative report, Newsweek now says. Whitaker said Pentagon officials raised no objection to the story for 11 days after it was published, until it was translated by some Arab media outlets and led to the rioting.
The item was principally reported by Michael Isikoff, Newsweek's veteran investigative reporter. "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," he said. "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."
Would Newsweek really have held the story if the Pentagon had asked them to? I doubt it. Isikoff got his five minutes of fame when he held the Monica Lewinsky story; a story in which Matt Drudge ended up scooping him. And the "we feel horrible" line isn’t floating with anyone among the bloggers covering this. If you felt so horrible, then why in the hell did you print a story that you couldn’t confirm. It's nice to know they're going to continue to investigate the story they created--pretty circular reasoning if you ask me--but they're refusing to address their culpability in this matter.
You used one—count ‘em, ONE—unconfirmed source. You claim that the Pentagon had 11 days to confirm or deny your report. The story ran, for the first time, one week ago today. According to Newsweek, they gave the Pentagon plenty of time to comment. The Pentagon can’t just simply give a comment. The Pentagon has looked into allegations like this before. After the Pentagon concluded it’s check of the "facts" Chairman of the JCS, Gen. Richard Myers gave a statement. He said that no allegations have been proven. He did cite two instances in the prison logs. One was a report that a detainee had used pages of the Qur’an to stop up a crude toilet as a form of protest. Another was a complaint from a detainee that a prison guard had knocked down a Qur’an hanging in a bag in his cell.
Newsweek might like to move at lightning speed on a story, but the Pentagon is going to do a thorough and complete investigation. I’m so sorry if such an investigation might force Newsweek to hold it’s horses on a story; especially a literal non-story like this one was. Marcie was correct over the weekend. The way Newsweek pulled this story off was literally like what Hearst once said about providing war and pictures.
They created the story, based off of one, unconfirmed source, and then stoked the fires when the riots broke out. Over the weekend, they caught hell over their attempt to spin it (TY Evan Thomas), and now they’re apologizing. I don’t want an apology. I want heads.
The MSM will never get the hint until people start demanding a return to a level of journalistic integrity. And the only way that can happen is to start holding these reporters accountable. There was no need to publish the story they did. They knew what was going to happen when they put this story out. The blood of the 16 lives lost is on the hands of those involved in this story. Were I the managing editor of Newsweek, Isikoff and Barry should lose their jobs. Never again should either of these men be allowed to cover ANY world news again.
In the rush to get their "scoop", they ignored all the journalistic checks that should have been gone through. According to Newsweek, they waited eleven days for the Pentagon’s official statement. Oh, heaven forbid they had to wait so long for a comment. The story was a non-story to begin with! No other outlet in the MSM was sitting on similar stories, so there shouldn’t have been a rush to put this story out. There was no threat of a scoop, which Isikoff risked when Newsweek flatly refused to run with the Lewinsky story.
But that is the difference between then and now. The bias against this administration and this president is so apparent it should make every common-sense thinking American sick to their stomach. I have no problem if the media has a legitimate gripe about the president, but this wasn’t a gripe, and it was far from legitimate. It was one guy telling Newsweek "Yeah, I think this happened", and Isikoff and the gang went to work. The majority of their citations to such an act were based off of statements given by released detainees that had told their story to British and Russian news agencies, and Al-Jazeera. Yeah, there’s some reputable news outlets for you.
The point to this whole fiasco is that Newsweek screwed up, and they screwed up bad. They created a story, which sparked a riot, and then allowed the flames of hate to drive the story forward. What was done by the magazine was beyond the pale, and it should be held accountable. And that is why I want heads to roll on this. Will they? Probably not, unless a blogswarm erupts that is so large that it forces Newsweek to get rid of Isikoff, Barry, and possibly Evan Thomas, as well. It was Thomas who attempted to spin this story on Sunday.
Americans should be absolutely irate over this. There are 16 dead people over this, and more lives—possibly the lives of our soldiers—may be taken over the outrage of the Muslim people in Afghanistan, and possibly elsewhere around the globe. And if that happens, you can bet you @$$ I’ll want heads then.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 9:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home