Newsweek Story Retracted (Sort Of)

Click on the title for a link to Newsweek editor Mark Whitaker's feeble attempt at a retraction of a flawed story, on US soldiers' desecration of a copy of the Qu'ran. This story was very irresponsible for several reasons. But one clearly stands out.

The man responsible for this story Michael Isikoff, relied solely on verbal information. It appears, he only reported what another had stated and had no documented proof whatsoever. In court, that's called hearsay and it is inadmissible. To base a story on that and that alone (no matter who the source is), shows an extremely high degree of poor judgment.

In the retraction, more poor judgment is on display. Given the magnitude of the fallout (and the Memogate lesson), one would think that Newsweek would want rectify the situation better than this. CBS News and other MSM outlets have suffered greatly, not necessarily because of the initial story, but because of their refusal to own up to their mistake. (Digging in when wrong, doesn't set well with ordinary decent people.)

In this piece, there are two components, the excuse and the retraction. First, let's examine some of the excuse and see what I am talking about, shall we?

Whitaker starts it off with:

Did a report in NEWSWEEK set off a wave of deadly anti-American riots in Afghanistan?

Well Mr. Whitaker, have you been watching the news? Things weren't perfect in Afghanistan and they never will be. But to have open and hostile riots against the forces widely viewed as the reason for the country's new-found liberty wasn't occurring, before the story. Add to that the fact, the instigators used this story as their source and you have your answer.

But here's Mark's answer:

That's what numerous news accounts suggested last week as angry Afghans took to the streets to protest reports, linked to us, that U.S. interrogators had desecrated the Qur'an while interrogating Muslim terror suspects.

Gosh Mark, a simple yes would have saved a little ink for your company and would have helped you contain future costs, since you may see a decline in revenue soon.

What follows is the longest excuse that starts with:

We were as alarmed as anyone to hear of the violence, which left at least 15 Afghans dead and scores injured. But I think it's important for the public to know exactly what we reported, why, and how subsequent events unfolded.

This sounds like something Dan Rather would open his tapdance of an excuse with. Bottom line, you were wrong and you need to say that you were wrong. Ordinary decent people don't care how you screwed it up. What you wrote is something for you and your staff to discuss in your meetings that are usually filled with egos clashing, over who can best damage the government with their liberal biased reporting.

I will not bore you further with what follows. But if you read the entire piece available through the link, you will see a very defensive posture.

That was the excuse and now here is the official retraction:

Based on what we know now, we are retracting our original story that an internal military investigation had uncovered Qur'an abuse at Guantanamo Bay.

Notice the conspicuous absence of the words, sorry and wrong.

If I commit a wrong against anyone, I first seek to rectify it by saying "I am sorry". Then at some point I want to say that what I said or did was wrong. Then I am free to reflect within myself and/or with others what led to my wrongness and how I can best prevent it from happening again.

I just can't imagine saying to my wife, children, or others near and dear to me:

"Based on what I now know, I retract my comment and/or action."

I can't imagine them accepting that as any form of contrition. I doubt many would. But we as the newsreading public are supposed to just say, that's okay?

If I was a big shot at Newsweek, Michael Isikoff would be fired. Mark Whitaker would be demoted at the very least, if not fired. In fact, anyone that had anything to do with this story would be on the hotseat and would be in my office, coming up with some serious solutions on how to repair the damage. If they didn't, they would be fired. Someone with an office, desk, and pen signed their name approving this. There is no shortage of journalists and all could be replaced.

The bottom line is, the damage is done. Lives have been lost and they can never be found. Money can be replaced, but human lives cannot. If the damage control will only consist of a weak and feeble excuse and an even poorer retraction, you may have just seen the beginning of the end of Newsweek Magazine. So, sell your stock now and minimize your losses.