David Brooks has a decent piece up on the over-reaction of EVERYONE regarding Newsweek:
Maybe it won’t be so bad being cut off from the blogosphere. I look around the Web these days and find that Newsweek’s retracted atrocity story has sent everybody into cloud-cuckoo-land. Every faction up and down the political spectrum has used the magazine’s blunder as a chance to open fire on its favorite targets, turning this into a fevered hunting season for the straw men.
Many of my friends on the right have decided that the Newsweek episode exposes the rotten core of the liberal media. Dennis Prager, who is intelligent 99 percent of the time, writes, “Newsweek is directly responsible for the deaths of innocents and for damaging America.” Countless conservatives say the folks at Newsweek were quick to believe the atrocity tales because they share the left-wing, post-Vietnam mentality. On his influential blog, Austin Bay writes that the coastal media “presume the worst about the U.S. military – always make that presumption.”
Excuse me, guys, but this is craziness. I used to write for Newsweek. I know Mike Isikoff and the editors. And I know about liberals in the media. The people who run Newsweek are not a bunch of Noam Chomskys with laptops. Not even close. Whatever might have been the cause of their mistakes, liberalism had nothing to do with it.
It reeally is too good for me to excerpt, something I am not used to saying about David Brooks. At any rate, he is right. The people to blame for the riots are the rioters and the cynical mullahs who whipped them into a frenzy- not Newsweek. Threats to control the press, or limit their freedoms, or to prosecute them, are misguided and dangerous.
The insanity of the overreach by both left and right is something that became really clear to me just by reading the comments to to the posts I made earlier this week in which I refused to condemn Newsweek to the fiery pits of hell. Sometimes I wonder if this snarky piece from Matt Yglesias is what many really want…
And, as an example of hysteria, I offer you Ann Coulter.
*** Update ***
The Instapundit adds:
BLAME THE CRAZY MUSLIMS: This seems to be the rapidly-gelling defense of Newsweek.
I respectfully disagree. This is not about absolving Newsweek of any sins. What they did in this case was horribly irresponsible, and you can’t excuse a news outfit putting out an inflammatory story with thinly sourced bullshit. Newsweek should be scorned for their laziness, and they, in my opinion should out the damned liar who fed them the nonsense.
However, this is a defense in some sense, in that those who want to put a stake through the heart of all media are using this Newsweek story as a club with which to beat all media around the head and neck, and that is misguided. Newsweek put out a shoddy story, but they are not responsible for the actions of a bunch of lunatics overseas. Should they be more careful so as to not provide them ammunition they don’t need? Sure. But they didn’t supply the gun, let alone brandish it, aim it, and pull the trigger.
shark
You offer ANN COULTER as an example of hysteria?
Is she ever NOT an example of hysteria.
Comon, you gotta do better than that. I love Coulter, but you simply have to understand that hysteria is her default mode.
Blue Jean
Shark is right. When is Coulter NOT hysterical?
bains
There are two aspects of the Newsweek story. On one, Brooks is correct. But while it is wrong to blame the story for the deaths and injuries caused by rioting, it sure is fun to shove the “bush lied, people died” mantra right back down the wacko left’s throat.
The more important issue is the shifting and somewhat capricious threshold by which a story’s veracity is judged. Andrew Sullivan said that the original story has merit because it’s “plausible.” Well excuse the hell out of me, not only is it plausible that OJ killed his ex-wife and Ron Goldstein, its highly likely. Yet the media doesnt refer to him as a convicted murder. It is also plausible that Sen. Kennedy was criminally neglegent in causing the death of Mary Jo K___ but he is not refered to that way either. Why? Because regardless of how likely, or plausible each scenerio is, the facts dont support those statements. OJ was aquitted (in the criminal trial) and Teddy was never charged.
The threshold to run with a story is not whether something could be true, nor whether or not we would like it to be true, it is whether or not it IS true.
After 9/11, the media and the government were very carful to make sure that the Muslim world was not viewed nor judged thru the prism of the terrorists, yet this same media has no qualms about presenting the military, and by extension the USA, thru the prism of Abu Ghraib. As long as the topic is the US government or the right, fake but plausibly accurate seems to rule.
RW
Does today’s standard also apply to Chritians?
RW
Tongue in cheek, btw, on the above. Plus, add an “s” to the last word.
Oh, well, enough for me. Bye.
dagon
john,
you don’t know (or haven’t bothered to report) the half of it. this newsweek imbruglio is such a b.s. smokescreen as to have gone well past laughable.
what they reported wasn’t even new as reports of koran abuse have been leaking out via widespread outlets since 2003! AND the insurgency began BEFORE the piece even came out.
now to hopefully put a stake in the heart of this story, here’s what richard meyers had to say:
“Afghan Riots Not Tied to Report on Quran Handling, General Says
Army investigating allegations of mishandling at Guantanamo Bay facility
By Jacquelyn S. Porth
Washington File Staff Writer
Washington
Kimmitt
it sure is fun to shove the “bush lied, people died” mantra right back down the wacko left’s throat.
Okay, does one have to be completely incapable of basic logic to be a conservative these days? How does this make even a tiny bit of sense? Did the shareholders of Newsweek order the US military to conquer France when I wasn’t looking or something?
Parker
Conquer France?
Geez, do we have to do that AGAIN?
jcricket
John – You’ve been admirable in your appropriate response to the Newsweek story, but I wouldn’t be so sure Newsweek was wrong.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0505190306may19,1,278199.story?coll=chi-news-hed
Sure, Newsweek was wrong to post that a forthcoming military report would contain information about Koran desecration. That’s prima facia evidence that Newsweek shouldn’t have written the article “as is”.
But, it’s still possible (and maybe even likely) that the substance of the allegation was true (that the Koran was abused).
Regardless, that doesn’t put the rioters or Newsweek off the hook. I merely point it out to say that the rightie bloggers are using this like “Rathergate” in an attempt to taint/hide any charges of prisoner abuse.
James Emerson
So Dan Rather reports a story that is factually true, but he errs in basing it on questionable documents, and he is attacked not on the vaildity of the story, but on the integrity of his source.
Now Micheal Isikoff writes a story that was vetted by the Pentagon, and was based on a “high level” source who later retracted his statement. Nevermind that the story has been out there for a number of months confirmed by a variety of sources. Michael Isikoff is viciously attacked for his story and is further accused of instigating the deaths of a few dozen rioters, nevermind that fact that the Iraq debacle has killed thousands times more.
Maybe that is why the Downing Street Memo has managed only a whispered stir on this side of the Pond. People have been warned to “be careful of what you say and do,” and there have been consequences for speaking truth to power. So the truth yields to unrestrained political power and applied mass psychology.
I understand Rathergate, for Dan carelessly rushed the story into the public sphere, do certain was he that the story was correct. But Isikoffgate? That story was officially vetted, there were similar preexisting stories already in print, and the mistreatment of Muslim prisoners utilizing acts that were knowingly offensive to Muslims were commonly employed. The story was a “slam dunk” to borrow Tenet’s phrase. We know how Tenet’s slam dunk is turning out, the fall of Iraq wasn’t “the beginning of the end, it was the end of the beginning.”
I’m hoping freedom of the press does a little better in light of the massive failures of this administration’s foreign policy, but while the smoking Downing Street gun lays on the path in plain sight, and while the stacatto of AK47s and the thud of IEDs can almost be heard from Baghdad, the press has carefully chosen to investigate Michael Jackson, steroids, and now the housing bubble.
Never, never have so many owed so liitle to so few…
Oberon
The Republican party still stands for the right to own guns.
No sell-out there, eh?
pdq332
The “air of plausibility” meme is no defense for Newsweek. The MSM created the “air of plausibility” of Koran desecration that they are now hiding behind by the kneejerk reporting of every exceptional circumstance or hint of exceptional circumstance (from Abu Ghraib to Gitmo) as the norm. This is what Scott McClellan was getting at while he got ripped to shreds the other day, namely that Newsweek and MSM atone by starting to report exceptional events in a proper context. For example, I only learned yesterday that the US army was actually handing out Korans to Gitmo inmates.
So now we have Brooks’ assurance that Isikoff & company are not some “Noam Chomsky” type characters? Well if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, what’s the difference?
dagon
pdq332
“The MSM created the “air of plausibility” of Koran desecration that they are now hiding behind by the kneejerk reporting of every exceptional circumstance or hint of exceptional circumstance (from Abu Ghraib to Gitmo) as the norm.”
–so, the ‘msm’ has been quietly leaking reports of koran and captive abuse over the last 2 – 3 years…in anticipation that newsweek would become the center of a firestorm over riots in afghanistan?
since you’re not asserting that the ‘msm’ is making this all up, i suppose you fall into the camp where, ‘what the american people don’t need to know won’t hurt US’
wow….i’m speechless. can i hire you out for weddings?
dagon
kimmitt:
“Okay, does one have to be completely incapable of basic logic to be a conservative these days?”
…sadly, i believe the answer is yes. even john strains credulity with his steadfast refusal to reassess his initial support for the ‘attack’ on iraq. he holds onto that like linus van pelt clings to his magical security blanket.
and for further proof, look no further than to the above post by pdq.
peace
DarkMech
What are the facts;
1) Newsweek quoted the Koran desecration from a source, who “may” have seen a report about alleged desecration – not too sound a link
2) The events in AFG, whether caused by the story or not, exemplify the impact of a major news outlet on the opinion and actions of the emotionally volatile (sorry not too PC)
3) The Pentagon did not “vet” the report, they simply provided no comment. Typical action for the services
Did Isikoff make a bad decision in his use of sourcing? My opinion – Yes. Have detainees had their Korans mishandled, maybe. But this seems to be more difficult to pin down than the source of the “Microsoft wants to send you $139” email.
In an age where facts can be checked, rechecked and quadruple checked in a matter of minutes, this type of error speaks of a sloppiness and disregard which is truly frightening and disheartening.
TJ Jackson
Sir:
In your opinion when the media recklessly publishes something that could impact in a serious fashion don’t you think their professionalism requires them to insure the accuracy of their charges?
Or is the press free from responsibility for publishing rumors and innuendoes that result in death and destruction? Had the National Review been guilty of publishing a similar article I am sure the MSM would defend them in the same way they are rallying to Newsweek’s defense, ha.
I think your Coulter example will be valid when we see Fineman smacked in the face with a pie. Till then the public will just have to watch the MSM slowly sink into the morass of lies, half truths, and slander that is now their stock in trade.
Howard
Hmmmm… Anne Coulter “hysterical”….. That implies she’s delusional and what she says has no basis in fact, doesn’t it? Remind me David: which one of the things she said in this article is not perfectly honest, true and complete? I don’t see much hysteria here. Just a different viewpoint than yours….
Brad R.
“Dennis Prager, who is intelligent 99 percent of the time…”
With all due respect, Mr. Brooks, Sadly, No!
Rick
Dan Rather story “true?” If you live in Area 51, waiting for the Y2K calamity to blow over.
Cordially…
markus
interesting that Instapundit would take an “idiotarian” stance on the riots, after
Kimmitt
Looking for logical consistency in Instapundit is like looking for a needle in a haystack that doesn’t have any needles in it. Also, there are razor blades.