| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Newsweek in the News: a round-up of reports on their screw-up |
| 2005-05-16 |
| Wall Street Journal, dead tree version p. B2 In an editor's letter and an article published today, the magazine said parts of its original report were flawed. Newsweek said its original anonymous source recently said he isn't sure that the Quran allegation is actually in the report, and that it might just be a story told by former detainees. Though Newsweek sent a copy of the item to a Pentagon official before it appeared, the official, who didn't raise questions about the allegation, might not have had detailed knowledge of what was in the report, the magazine said. Newsweek, which is owned by Washington Post Co., said it began looking into its article on Friday when the Pentagon contacted the magazine to deny the truth of the report. "Certainly the fact that the Pentagon and the top Pentagon spokespeople are denying it and saying we got the story wrong troubles us," editor Mark Whitaker said in an interview. "This is all we've been able to find out," said Mr. Whitaker. "We suggest we may have gotten something wrong, but we're not entirely sure what we got wrong at this point, frankly." and WSJ.com Morning Brief Editor Mark Whitaker, in the issue out today, doesn't retract that report but backs away from it. The information, he writes, "came from a knowledgeable U.S. government source, and before deciding whether to publish it we approached two separate Defense Department officials for comment. One declined to give us a response; the other challenged another aspect of the story but did not dispute the Quran charge." Newsweek believed the story newsworthy, he says, because a U.S. official said government investigators turned up evidence of what other news organizations have been attributing to the testimony of detainees. But on Friday, "a top Pentagon spokesman told us that a review of the probe cited in our story showed that it was never meant to look into charges of Quran desecration," and that an investigation had found such charges "not credible." Moreover, "our original source later said he couldn't be certain about reading of the alleged Quran incident in the report we cited, and said it might have been in other investigative documents or drafts," Mr. Whitaker writes. Newsweek continues to look into the story, he says, adding that "we regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst." Fox News In a statement, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the original story was "demonstrably false" and "irresponsible," and "had significant consequences that reverberated throughout Muslim communities around the world." "Newsweek hid behind anonymous sources, which by their own admission do not withstand scrutiny," Whitman said. "Unfortunately, they cannot retract the damage they have done to this nation or those that were viciously attacked by those false allegations." Blogger Austin Bay runs with the story, with lots of links. History may see Newsweek's fatal "Koran flushing" story as the US press' Abu Ghraib. (hat tip Instapundit) |
| Posted by:trailing wife |
| #8 badanov - the common reporter couldn't pass a college level history test yet they pretend to report on it as experts. Give me a break. J-school is for those who can't teach, but can type Then permit me to file this under the rublik of what they're s'posed to do. |
| Posted by: badanov 2005-05-16 11:19 |
| #7 SPO'D - What brains? |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-05-16 10:54 |
| #6 and: Isikoff is actually one of teh sharper ones - he knew what he was doing. AUnnamed sources should never get in the way of agenda.... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-05-16 10:02 |
| #5 badanov - the common reporter couldn't pass a college level history test yet they pretend to report on it as experts. Give me a break. J-school is for those who can't teach, but can type |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-05-16 10:01 |
| #4 This is really so tiresome. Reporters are "citizens" but they try to act as if being a "reporter" puts them above "citizenship". As far as I am concerned all 3 of these asstards should be investigeated by the FBI. If they don't give up their source, they should go to jail and stay. We are in a war. They just made it harder to win, willfully made it harder to win. They have given comfort to our foes. These riots didn't just happen. People who want to destroy sanity used this story to stur up trouble and further their aims. Newsweek and these 3 helped them. I hope someone works them over on the street and leaves them their brains leaking out of their ears. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-05-16 09:30 |
| #3 Paraphrasing a relevent line from the film "Capricorn One" Reporters are plodders. They look for the little things: like facts. |
| Posted by: badanov 2005-05-16 08:17 |
| #2 "we approached two separate Defense Department officials for comment. One declined to give us a response; the other challenged another aspect of the story but did not dispute the Quran charge." If I am a someone you would consider a source, I certainly would not coment on something, I know nothing about. And i certainley would'nt dispute or confirm such a story I did'nt know about. So what about these two guys not knowing about this incident made a reporter think "it must be true, they are hiding something". Sure wish that was OK with my boss, I'd play a lot more golf. |
| Posted by: plainslow 2005-05-16 08:14 |
| #1 Newsweak accomplished it's goal: Further and needlessly endangering American lives. |
| Posted by: badanov 2005-05-16 07:57 |