UPDATED: More thoughts on Newsweek’s Abu Ghraib– after today’s tv appearance
My wife and a friend were having lunch around the corner from the tv studio where I went to do the MSNBC segment. They came over and watched the show live, such as it was– I sat in front of a camera with the Texas Capitol in the background. As we left the studio the three of us discussed the Newsweek story. Here’s the tough nut for Newsweek and its media partners, as we saw it walking down Congress Avenue. (Remember, Newsweek is not only associated with the Washington Post, it collaborates with NBC and MSNBC. MSNBC disclosed that clear during the broadcast– and good for MSNBC’s producers.) But the tough nut: Compare the weak “mea culpas” from Newsweek (which MSNBC ran prior to my appearance) and the as-yet downplayed coverage of the incident to what happens when the US military gets 15 civilians killed due to an error in judgment. (I mentioned this during the tv segment.) Track back to last year. When Abu Ghraib broke — and remember, “Abu Ghraib” is about grievous prisoner abuse, not 15 dead in the street– we had “all Abu Ghraib all the time” on cable tv. We had banner headlines. Why, Abu Ghraib fit right in with the “Vietnam/Watergate” template. Newsweek’s Whitaker is now saying that the magazine’s “regrets” amount to a retraction. So weak.
As I said on this blog and on the air, I am personally sympathetic with Isikoff et al, but they’re going to have to show me the same grit I see in the service when a mistake gets made. Look at the depth and breadth of the “Sgrena Incident” Route Irish shooting investigation. Okay, disagree with the conclusion, but the investigation lays out details and questions judgments. Will Newsweek produce the equivalent? I believe the magazine need to do just that. Dan Rather has yet to find “Lucy Ramirez.” Eason Jordan’s tape has yet to be released. Newsweek could avoid the Rather-Jordan quagmire with an investigation as thorough as the “Sgrena Incident” investigation conducted by the US and Italian militaries. Some people will never believe them. But if a New York Army National Guard sergeant has the guts to tell investigators what he saw and how he felt standing at a check point on Route Irish, the suits and ties at Newsweek can submit to the same tough routine of sworn questioning. Let’s find out who the anonymous source was. I see some commenters are already spinning a conspiracy theory that this whole incident is a Bush administration “distraction” (ie, some kind of calculated Rovian press manipulation). With 15 to 17 dead, that source needs to come forward on his own; if the source doesn’t, Newsweek needs to tell us who he is. I suspect we’ll find the source is a bureaucrat or political appointee who leaked to the press on the expectation of “future considerations,” and this “flushing” tidbit sounded just like the kind of “hot tip” the Vietnam/Watergate template press would love to have. Let’s get the principal players out in the open, the reporters and editors who were at the “press checkpoint.” Let’s ask Newsweek’s senior editors and publishers the kinds of questions Don Rumsfeld had tossed at him by Congress. Remember, Rumsfeld said –in what I remember as a tough but begrudging reply– that if his resignation proved to be the best way to handle Abu Ghraib, he’d do it.
I suspect Newsweek thinks this incident will somehow “blow over” and they’ll get by with some slight degree of professional embarrassment. I also suspect no one serving in Afghanistan thinks the “blow over” Newsweek faces in New York in DC is anything like the heat they face in Kabul.
A link to my original post on the Newsweek fiasco.
A reminder to commenters– read the rules, covered once again in Update 2 on the first Newsweek post. Violate the rules and if you’re lucky you’ll get edited. The biggest factor in “lucky” is how much time I have– whch usually isn’t very much. If I’m in a time squeeze, I delete your post. The worst posts remind me of gang and teenage graffiti on New York subway cars. Rudy G cleaned up the cars and set a tone in New York.
UPDATE: Michelle Malkin hunts for Newsweek’s source.
UPDATE 2: Isikoff’s done some good reporting. See Comment 97 on the original post. Being sympathetic doesn’t mean I’m not hard on the man’s mistake. I’m waiting for the comment that asks me “Austin, would Isikoff be sympathetic to someone else caught in this bind? A sergeant or major or general, for example?” I don’t know the answer to that. I’m not him. He’d have to answer that.
I am personally sympathetic with Isikoff et al— Why? Even if the story happened by pure luck to be ‘true’,what possible good could have come from reporting it? If during WW2,the media made a habit out of producing reports that benefitted only the Nazi regime,and cost allied lives,would you have been personally sympathetic to them as well? This was a vile story which could have had but one result(true or not),and we have all seen what that result is.17 people have died(so far),and the WAR has been set back for a yet to be determined period. And this is ’sympathetic’, because —-?
Comment by dougf — 5/16/2005 @ 7:27 pm
You will never see a MSM outlet perform a real ‘after action’ on something like this. The services know that they have to fix the root causes or more people will die. The MSM knows the root causes…..but can’t fix them due to bias. So you get denial, then whitewash, then, if need be, people quit (Dan, Eason). But the organization goes forward, unbowed, unapologetic and unexamined. No Cost…. No Changes.
Comment by steve darby — 5/16/2005 @ 7:28 pm
I work for a minor part of the MSM (mid-size paper), and bump into the editorial side of the paper from time to time (I’m in Customer Service so I get the reader’s feedback directly). Over and over I’ve seen the reporters and editors claim that they are neutral, they only report the story, how the reader takes it is the reader’s business. Ironically only the sports department admits they are not neutral - and they come across as neutral because of their “tough love” attitude towards local sports teams. All that as background - shortly after my shift was over I caught your MSNBC appearance. I think you failed to get the harm done across to the editorial people because in large part they saw you as part of “the process”. They have people that they think represent different aspects of this issue, and this, in their mind, assures their neutrality. For true balance they need an Islamic extremist on the show who will scream at them that they are evil incarnate, and so on. This will not happen as they are careful who gets air time (which gets back to their objection to Fox and the right-wing side of talk radio). What the MSM does not seem to “get” down deep in those quiet sessions over a drink that help set the tone of their editorial policies is that large parts of the world do not follow the “we’re neutral” meme. In large parts of the world what appears in the press is only at the instructions of the government, and people come to expect it. Freedom of the Press is a viable concept here; not so in large parts of the world, especially in a significant part of the Muslim world. On the whole I applaud you for trying, but talking to stone walls is more effective, at least if you are far enough back you can hear an echo. Bruce B.
Comment by Bruce B. — 5/16/2005 @ 7:35 pm
I also question why you have sympathy for Mr. Isikoff. He was quoted as saying “…but it’s important to remember there was absolutely no lapse in journalistic standards here”. If using anonymous sources in other than unusually important circumstances isn’t a lapse of journalistic standards, then what is? Making stuff up? The problem with anonymous source is that one does not know if, and has every right to suspect, that it is made up. He lost any sympathy I might have had for him with that statement.
Comment by Ray Gratrix — 5/16/2005 @ 7:43 pm
Thornburgh and Boccardi produced all those pages about the national guard story. They told us everything about how that came to pass. Everything. Except the fact that the documents were fake. And that Mapes, Rather, Et Al, badly wanted them to be real. That they would not say.
Comment by steve darby — 5/16/2005 @ 8:00 pm
It is pretty clear by isikoff’s past statements and stories that there is intent to hurt the administration and the military in his stories. Now he has caused people to die in his vendetta. We should be talking about his trial, not about his standards. This goes for the editorial board of newsweek. You can’t go out on the internet or into a store and threaten peoples lives and claim freedom of speach or the press, unless you are a reporter? What other reaction would a reasonable person expect to that story? The real problem is is that looking at everything the media, newsweek, and Isikoff specifically have done in the past is that is exactly the reaction that was hoped for. They just didn’t expect this kind of heat. They don’t expect to even need to fire anybody at this point much less hire defense attorneys. Someone in the military wouldn’t get nearly as much of a break.
Comment by Collin — 5/16/2005 @ 8:14 pm
Personally, I don’t sympathize with Isikoff because he’s a pro and is supposed to know better. It starts with the reporter. Newsweek’s handling of the matter has been downright offensive. Here they lead with the Editor’s Note in which they simultaneously explain why their story is not credible while defending the very methodology that produced said bogus story. They also manage to squeeze in a tepid apology. Very unimpressive. Editor Mark Whitaker comes out with his “We’re not retracting anything” quote, in keeping with the dismissive attitude the magazine has shown toward the criticism coming at it from all directions. Then, come 5:00PM or so, the same Mark Whitaker issues a one-sentence retraction and basically goes into hiding. Isikoff is also nowhere to be seen (though I haven’t seen any of tonight’s cable shows yet, so maybe he’ll pop up, but I’m not holding my breath). Until these guys come out and get in front of a camera, hats in hand, your assertion that Newsweek is simply trying to wait this out in the hopes that it blows over is right on. Thing is, the genie’s out of the bottle. The blogswarm now has a life of its own. This isn’t going away anytime soon.
Comment by Alex Nunez — 5/16/2005 @ 8:16 pm
Further Implications of the Newsweek Debacle A commenter on Austin Bay’s Weblog (who says he works for a mid-sized newspaper) makes a great point about how Newsweek’s story directly impacts how the US as a whole is viewed by many in “the Arab Street” (to dust…
Trackback by Ed Driscoll.com — 5/16/2005 @ 8:17 pm
I see the same errors in judgement as in the CBS fake memo, the Eason Jorday mess, the Sgrena shooting (-at), and the Ken Starr manipulated quotes. These things are occurring with regularity. What really amazes me, is they are all making the same after-action sloppy mess of coming clean. All these journalistic foul ups are like restaurant food poisoning. Once sickened, you never trust them enough to go back.
Comment by Kerry — 5/16/2005 @ 8:19 pm
Newsweek’s item was just another effort to make the U.S. and the military look bad. The liberal press is always looking for an opportunity. Evan Thomas, who was involved in “investigating” this pack of lies, made the news himself last year by saying he thought the media’s favortism for Kerry was worth 15% of the vote.
Comment by Jerry — 5/16/2005 @ 8:20 pm
It’s over. Newsweek apologized. Let’s move on. This will be the message from the media now. It doesn’t matter that sixteen people have died and hundreds were injured. That wasn’t Newsweek’s fault anyway. That’s the administration’s fault for having gotten Muslims into such a state of anger …
Trackback by Media Lies — 5/16/2005 @ 8:21 pm
Newsweek Screws Up First hand accounts? Inside information? Send me your exclusive tips. ——————————————————————————————– Update (11:06 a.m.): Let me clear up one thing. Whether Americans flushed the Koran d…
Trackback by La Shawn Barber's Corner — 5/16/2005 @ 8:33 pm
As soon as I heard Isikoff’s name, I remembered that 1) he has produced stories intended to harm this administration, but also 2) he was the lead reporter on a very big story 7 years ago. When he presented that story to the editors at Newsweek, they decided to spike it. Presumably, they thought it was damaging to the President and to the country. So, Drudge ran it and the rest is history. Different standard?? Nahhh.
Comment by Bob Sacamano — 5/16/2005 @ 8:42 pm
Were any US soldiers even slightly injured in the skirmishes. Now is the time for the lefts real standard bearers- the trial lawyers- to get into the act. I would love to see someone sue Newsweek for somethiong in the high 8 figures plus punitive damages for injury caused as a direct result of irresponsible reporting. HIt em where it hurts. As an aside - does this meet the standard for treason?
Comment by vic — 5/16/2005 @ 9:23 pm
The Cold Calculus Of A Journalistic Fraud Wretchard at The Belmont Club delivers a sharp smack to Newsweek over its “journalistic integrity” (hat tip: Bill Roggio): Their efforts at “confirmation” yielded a denial and a non-denial from Defense officials, but no confirmation. In predicate c…
Trackback by The Bernoulli Effect — 5/16/2005 @ 9:35 pm
Why is anyone surprised?? The MSM, Newsweek et. al, considers itself beyond the restraints of ethics and moral common sense. Of course they “erred” , big time, and they’ve been caught with their pants down and nowhere credible to hide. What to do? Circle the wagons, deny, for a time, then issue an apology and then, finally , a retraction–”oh, by the way, our facts were not credible to begin with, we had no evidence, one unreliable source who has since recanted. Golly, what is a poor journalist with 27 years experience to do??? It is one more revelation of mediat bias in a most graphic way. If that was all it was, it would not be the end of the world until you consider that, so far, 17 people who need not have died, have died. So the popular reduction to the essentials is right on: Newsweek Lied; 17 died. For shame!
Comment by Marlowe Anderson — 5/16/2005 @ 9:58 pm
The MSM’s habitual incompetence and hypocrisy is having nearly the same negative effect on America as would deliberate treason during wartime. We are nearly 4 years into the War On Terror and our MSM behaves as if America is the main enemy. World War 2 was finished in 4 years, and if the MSM of the 1940s had behaved like the one we’ve got now, America might have lost. We know that an open society has a necessary and legitimate need for someone to perform the “watchdog†function. But our current MSM is performing this function with stunning incompetence and barely concealed dishonesty – all the while hiding behind the protections the function must legitimately have. And they are in vociferous denial that they even have a problem. Thus, THEY will never be able to solve it. Change will have to come from outside the profession. Four years of waiting is ENOUGH! The rest of us should start to think about some formal “rules changes†for this diseased industry. Perhaps product liability concepts could be applied to shoddy MSM information products, and when they cause harm – make it much easier for the people harmed to “SUE the bastardsâ€! .
Comment by Tom Paine — 5/16/2005 @ 10:41 pm
Newsweek and the Koran. We’ve all heard by now of the Newsweek screw up, where they took a tip off that a Koran had been deliberately flushed down a toilet at Guantanamo in order to pressure detainees. The result was riots and at least
Trackback by Tim Worstall — 5/17/2005 @ 4:09 am
Kerry, “All these journalistic foul ups are like restaurant food poisoning. Once sickened, you never trust them enough to go back.” Truer words were never written re: MSM.
Comment by Peg C. — 5/17/2005 @ 4:17 am
It’s funny how when these MSM outlets make ‘mistakes’ they always go in the same direction. I know I didn’t think that up but it’s just so true.
Comment by IcallMasICM — 5/17/2005 @ 7:00 am
I think Newsweek should name its source right after Novak names his. It’s utter hypocrisy to defend Novak’s freedom of the press yet try to destroy Newsweek’s.
Comment by Greg — 5/17/2005 @ 10:02 am
WHAT ISIKOFF SHOULD DO Drudge has the siren spinning over Newsweek’s refusal to accept reporter Michael Isikoff’s resignation. The magazine is making all macho-like in standing up to supposed White House bullying: “Mike was told he would not be sacrificed, we are standing…
Trackback by Michelle Malkin — 5/17/2005 @ 10:20 am
CBS announces unsolicited bid for Newsweek After trading closed on Wall Street today, Viacom/CBS announced an unsolicited offer to acquire all outstanding assets of Newsweek Corporation in a surprise takeover bid. Larry S. Kramer, the head of Viacom’s CBS News Division, explains: “We felt l…
Trackback by Peenie Wallie — 5/17/2005 @ 10:44 am
Why be upset with Newsweek, they have lied before and they will lie again. What we should do is not buy the magazine. We shouldn’t support such biased reporting. Just don’t buy the magazine, cancel the subscriptions and Newsweek will have to learn how much honesty will help them.
Comment by Harold Cutler — 5/17/2005 @ 2:49 pm
Newsweek died, people lied, what do you expect? Move on please I for one won’t shed any crocodile tears for the Islamists who had planned to use Newsweek’s “story” as propaganda, only to end up meeting up with an unofficial Afghani firing squad for rioting. It’s about time that the r…
Trackback by Blind Mind's Eye — 5/20/2005 @ 9:04 am
I’m going to add a comment I made on a different blog with some editing. The commercial press is responsible to make money for its owners. The customers of the commercial press have conflicting desires, however, because they aren’t a monolith. A large group of customers wants the press to prove the war was wrong. Another large group wants the press to prove they we should bring the boys home now. Another large group wants the press to prove that the war was fully justified. Another large group wants the press to prove that we should stay the course until we are done. Another large group wants the press to help win the war, like it did in World War II. Poor press. This used to be handled by not trying to be objective. Press organs took particular points of view, and played to their audience. Someone will jump in and say, “Why not the truth?” But we are also talking about which true stories are on the front page 53 times and which true stores are buried near the want ads and which true stories aren’t covered at all. Newpapers do not have infinite resources and there is only so much room on the front page. So I have a technical solution: Market segmentation. My local newspaper prints different editions for different areas of the city. Why not different editions for different political segments? My newspaper would feature an article about Sergeant First Class Paul Smith winning the Medal of Honor on the front page, above the fold, stories about Abu Ghraib near the want ads and the editorial page would be dominated by people like Michelle Malkin and Victor Davis Hanson. My parent’s newspaper would feature stories about Abu Ghraib on the front, Medals of Honor in the back and columnists like Molly Ivins and Paul Krugman, since my parents are against the war. Yes, there is some expense. But maybe it would cause subscriber numbers to go back up. Yours, Wince
Comment by Wince and Nod — 5/20/2005 @ 2:42 pm