UPDATE: STORY RETRACTED by Newsweek ...
UPDATE 2: Little Green Footballs reminds us that in 2002, when Palestinian terrorists invaded and occupied the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, they reportedly tore up Bibles and used them for toilet paper. Strangely, no Chrisitans anywhere rioted as a result of this blasphemous act by Muslims against the holy Word of God.
UPDATE 3: Why this story is a big deal
Reading all of the reaction to the Newsweek story around the blogosphere has left me with a sense that even smart people don't understand that this story is really about.
Yes there have been numerous allegations of prisoner abuse at the hands of Guantanamo interrogators, and yes allegations involving the descration of the Koran are numerous and have been floating around for years. We also know that Al Qaeda instructs its operatives to lie about their treatment at the hands of 'infidels.' That much is all true.
But the Newsweek story sourced the Koran allegations back to the US government itself, taking the word of an anonymous government official who told them that he had read about the Koran incident in an official government report, thus implying that our government officials knew exactly what was happening and deliberately took steps to cover it up. That is what enraged Muslims.
Subsequent investigation by Newsweek revealed that their source could not positively recall exactly where he had seen the Koran allegations, and that Newsweek reporters failed to obtain verification from two independent sources (read further for more details on this) before publishing their article.
Newsweek recklessly rushed a story into print without properly verifying its contents. The allegations made in the story were explosive, leading to riots and the death of at least 15 people and the injury of hundreds more. Newsweek fell victim to the "fake but accurate" standard which seems to be prevalent in journalism today - if a story fits the MSM worldview (e.g. the Bush Administration is lying to us about everything) then airing or printing it is crucial, regardless of whether or not the facts are there.
More and more it seems as though the MSM has wholly bought into the wacky conspiracy theories being peddled by the Loony Left, and now believes that their primary mission is to protect America from the Bush Administration. The Newsweek incident certainly bolsters that assumption.
_____________________________________
Last weekend, Newsweek Newsreek magazine published a brief item by Michael Isikoff and John Barry quoting an anonymous source who alleged that US officials were aware of the fact that interrogators tore pages out of a Koran and flushed them down the toilet in an attempt to humiliate Muslims being questioned at Guantanamo about their ties to terrorism.
As a result, peaceful, tolerant Muslims proclaimed the US to be a criminal nation and expressed their outrage by staging violent riots in Afghanistan and elsewhere, claiming 15 lives and injuring hundreds.
Newsreek responded by publishing a lame "He did it first" story this weekend, claiming that they were simply passing along well-known allegations that had appeared in the foreign press months ago. But buried in the details is this ...
On Friday night [I would assume May 13, four days after the original item was published], Pentagon spokesman DiRita called NEWSWEEK to complain about the original PERISCOPE item. He said, "We pursue all credible allegations" of prisoner abuse, but insisted that the investigators had found none involving Qur'an desecration. DiRita sent NEWSWEEK a copy of rules issued to the guards (after the incidents mentioned by General Myers) to guarantee respect for Islamic worship. On Saturday, Isikoff spoke to his original source, the senior government official, who said that he clearly recalled reading investigative reports about mishandling the Qur'an, including a toilet incident. But the official, still speaking anonymously, could no longer be sure that these concerns had surfaced in the SouthCom report. Told of what the NEWSWEEK source said, DiRita exploded, "People are dead because of what this son of a bitch said. How could he be credible now?" (italic comment added)
... and this,
A U.S. military spokesman, Army Col. Brad Blackner, dismissed the claims as unbelievable. "If you read the Al Qaeda training manual, they are trained to make allegations against the infidels," he said.
Exactly.
This morning, Newsreek's Editor's Desk published another flimsy excuse for the story, claiming that they ran their anonymous source's allegations by two Pentagon officials; one official refused to comment, and another could not firmly deny the Koran story. So that's what passes for confirmation these days at Newsreek. Interestingly, that's the same "confirmation" technique used by the New York Times to justify their bogus Al-Qaa-Qaa amo dump story last October. I tagged that little scandal "Failure-to-Investi-Gate." I think that the name applies here, too.
Also, this morning's Washington Post includes a story about the Newsreek affair by Howard Kurtz. In it, Michael Isikoff says,
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," [Isikoff] 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. (emphasis added)
Sure.
Scott at PowerLine reasonably concludes,
It should be obvious by now that nearly all mainstream news outlets--the New York Times and Washington Post, most notoriously, like Newsweek in this instance--rely on a steady stream of anonymous leakers (nearly always hostile to the Bush administration) for their front-page stories. These news outlets are happy to publish anonymous allegations because the stories leaked by their sources fit the reporters' political preconceptions. No doubt, when someone anonymously tells a reporter that U.S. soldiers flushed a Koran down a toilet, that assertion sounds highly credible. To most reporters, that sounds exactly like the kind of thing a soldier would do. So the story appears in print. Common sense tells us that when a person can make a claim anonymously, he is much more likely to stretch the truth, or flat-out fabricate something, than when he has to attach his own name to his statements.
This is pretty much an echo of comments that I previously made about news reporters in light of RatherGate - Big Journalism has become so infiltrated by ideologues that stories are now merited because they fit the leftist/socialist/progressive worldview, rather than being supported by solid evidence.
PowerLine has another good post here. Michelle Malkin says Newsweek lied, people died.
Oh, the delicious irony. Big Journalism notoriously gloats when Christians or conservative politicians or the military are caught in a scandal, piously calling for guilty parties to come forward, churlishly impugning anyone who denies wrongdoing, and editorializing that these incidents, once again, prove that Christians/Generals/Republicans/etc. can't reasonably be trusted. Cameramen delight in chasing people down the street, shoving their lenses in people's faces and trying to make their targets look as guilty as possible.
Now we get to watch Newsreek's chain of command attempt to absolve themselves of any misconduct while pointing accusing fingers at one other, all the while reminding us that they did nothing wrong. Heh.
If life were really fair, we'd get to see Big Journalism release the hounds against Newsreek and remind us on at least a weekly basis that Newsreek is responsible for the deaths of dozens of Afghanis as a result of their lies. Maybe even ol' Uncle Teddy would make a speech on the one-year anniversary of the dateline of the story.
But as usual, I'm not holding my breath.
...
On a lighter note, the original Newsreek item said,
An Army spokesman confirms that 10 Gitmo interrogators have already been disciplined for mistreating prisoners, including one woman who took off her top, rubbed her finger through a detainee's hair and sat on the detainee's lap.
Huh? That's mistreatment? Heck, in this country we pay girls $20 to do that!
_____________________________________
Cox and Forkum's brilliant last word:
"As a result, peaceful, tolerant Muslims proclaimed the US to be a criminal nation and expressed their outrage by staging violent riots..."
Peaceful, tolerant Muslims staging violent riots...
Yeah, right. Peaceful folk routinely characterize their tolerance by deliberate acts of violence that claim lives.
The issue isn't what NewsWeek did or did not appropriately do, the focus ought to be on precisely how the Islamo-Fascists reacted to it.
Flushing pages of a book down the crapper isn't that serious. Even if it's the Koran. Even if it's the Bible.
Publishing a news story based on anonymous sources who state pages of a book were flushed down the john isn't serious. Even if they can't own up to it, either the publisher or the source.
Choosing to act violently and in such a way that lives are claimed, because a book one regards as holy was purportedly flushed down the commode, is the issue. It's reprehensible and without defense.
And yet we froth at the mouth claiming NewsWeek is RESPONSIBLE for what a group of Islamo-Fascists did.
They're never responsible for their actions, are they?!
Posted by: NewsReek | April 25, 2007 at 09:16 PM