Newsweek--what were you thinking?

Here's a quick recap of events: Newsweek published an item in the "Periscope" section of the May 9, 2005, issue stating that there had been incidents of desecration of the Qur'an by guards at Guantanomo Bay, and such incidents included flushing the holy book down the toilet. That report caused outrage in many places, especially Afghanistan, where anti-American protests turned violent, resulting in 15 deaths. Then, over this past weekend, Newsweek said, "Oops...we might have gotten the facts wrong."

In this week's issue (dated May 23), Newsweek gives its explanation for the error--twice. First, Mark Whitaker, Newsweek's editor, has a column in which he says, "I think it's important for the public to know exactly what we reported, why, and how subsequent events unfolded." There is also an article in the magazine, "How a Fire Broke Out," which gives a more detailed explanation than Whitaker's column. Basically, here is Newsweek's side of the story:

1. There had been similar media reports months earlier. From the Newsweek article: "As early as last spring and summer, similar reports from released detainees started surfacing in British and Russian news reports, and in the Arab news agency Al-Jazeera; claims by other released detainees have been covered in other media since then." Whitaker added that "Although other major news organizations had aired charges of Qur'an desecration based only on the testimony of detainees, we believed our story was newsworthy because a U.S. official said government investigators turned up this evidence."
2. Word was that the Southern Command (which is in charge of Guantanomo) was investigating reports of prisoner abuse and was about to complete its report. Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff contacted the abovementioned official about the upcoming report, who told Isikoff of the Qur'an desecration, including the toilet allegation.
3. According to the article, Newsweek "provided a draft of the NEWSWEEK PERISCOPE item to a senior Defense official, asking, 'Is this accurate or not?'" That official corrected one item not related to the desecration allegations, about which he said nothing.

So Newsweek decided to print the desecration allegations.

Let's just assume for the sake of argument that all of the above is true and that Newsweek properly followed acceptable journalistic standards. That still does not justify the printing of the item.

"How a Fire Broke Out" states three reasons why Newsweek should have taken more care--and time--before publishing the allegations. First, "obviously the reports of Qur'anic desecration touch a particular nerve in the Islamic world." Duh. This should have been bloody obvious. Just look at the millions of people here who got so completely bent out of shape over the removal--not desecration--of a Ten Commandments monument. Moreover, if Newsweek had waited a short time, perhaps it would have discovered "before the fact" the following:

But to Muslims, defacing the Holy Book is especially heinous. "We can understand torturing prisoners, no matter how repulsive," says computer teacher Muhammad Archad, interviewed last week by NEWSWEEK in Peshawar, Pakistan, where one of last week's protests took place. "But insulting the Qur'an is like deliberately torturing all Muslims. This we cannot tolerate."

The second reason why Newsweek should have waited is that "the NEWSWEEK report arrived at a particularly delicate moment in Afghan politics. Opponents of the Karzai government, including remnants of the deposed Taliban regime, have been looking for ways to exploit public discontent." Could Newsweek perhaps waited just a little while to publish the allegations to see if the "delicate moment" might become less delicate?

And that brings me to my biggest criticism of Newsweek. What was the rush? Why did these allegations have to be published now? I really do not know, and it seems to me that the obvious potential for causing unrest really called for some discretion in this instance. Compare this to another media faux pas--Rathergate. Listen, I think the record is clear that Bush took the easy way out to avoid Vietnam, and then he used Daddy's influence to even take the easy way out of his National Guard service, but there is absolutely no excuse for CBS airing the story it ran on "60 Minutes." Even so, one can see the relevance of timing. The election was right around the corner, so there was a time pressure to air a story which related to the election. However, I see no such circumstance regarding the Newsweek allegations.

The need to taking more care and time is clearly shown by the third reason conceded in "How a Fire Broke Out," namely that

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.

In other words, it turns out that there might be a problem with the source.

Whitaker is quoted in today's Washington Post as saying "I suppose you could say we should have foreseen the consequences of the report, but we didn't." I am not sure about "should," but I believe that Newsweek certainly could have foreseen the consequences of the report. It bothers me that apparently no effort was made to do that.

Another thing that bothers me is that this gaffe by Newsweek will make it even more difficult to counter the winger-biased media (including but certainly not limited to O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, the Washington Times, etc.). And for those of you who think the winger media does not make mistakes and spout bullshit, go check Media Matters for plenty of examples. High profile mistakes such as this one damage credibility and supply a level of credence to claims of "the liberal media." What's more, mistakes like this and Rathergate could have been avoided. Thanks a lot, Newsweek.

UPDATE: Newsweek has this afternoon announced that it will retract its story.

UPDATE 2: Kevin Drum has some good observations about this situation over at Political Animal. One of his points is that the riots and deaths are not Newsweek's fault. I am not trying to blame the riots on Newsweek, but I stand by the rest of my criticisms, especially the concluding paragraph.