Newsweek’s Apology Doesn’t Satisfy Government, Arab Critics Or Blogosphere

The controversy over Newsweek’s story about alleged desecration of the Koran is very much alive.

Yesterday the magazine issued a de facto retraction in the form of an apology over the report that had sparked riots in Afghanistan and cost more than a dozen lives. But the magazine’s mea culpa reportedly doesn’t go far enough for many in the Arab world, the White House and for many Internet weblogs. And, if anything, it seems like a new controversy is underway.

For instance, in today’s New York Times Newsweek’s editor Mark Whitaker makes it clear that the “apology” his magazine made is just that, and nothing more: he won’t use the “R” word:

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,” Mark Whitaker, Newsweek’s editor, wrote in the issue of the magazine that goes on sale at newsstands today. In an accompanying article, the magazine wrote that its reporters had relied on an American government official, whom it has not identified, who had incomplete knowledge of the situation.

But Mr. Whitaker said in an interview later: “We’re not retracting anything. We don’t know what the ultimate facts are.”

Meanwhile, the White House has called Newsweek’s response insufficient:

“It’s puzzling. While Newsweek now acknowledges that they got the facts wrong, they refuse to retract the story,” said presidential spokesman Scott McClellan. “I think there’s a certain journalistic standard that should be met. In this instance it was not.

“This was a report based on a single anonymous source that could not substantiate the allegation that was made,” McClellan added. “The report has had serious consequences. People have lost their lives. The image of the United States abroad has been damaged. I just find it puzzling.”

And in the Arab World? Newsweek’s apology is going over like a bag of pork rinds. ABC News reports this:

Many Muslims believe Newsweek succumbed to pressure from the U.S. government to backtrack. Many believe that that whatever the truth may be, the harm has been done….

Many analysts believe this episode will just increase the level of distrust. The Arab world, especially the Middle East, is more likely to believe such reports after the prison scandal at Abu Ghraib in Iraq.

Moreover, many believe that a soldier or interrogator would not act without his or her superior’s approval and say this episode is yet another reminder that the United States is at war against Islam.

One moderate cleric said, “the U.S. keeps on handing out reasons for extremists to become more ferocious. These stories are amazing recruiting tools and more young people will now join the fight.”

The report also notes that the Newsweek article has led to Jihadist websites calling for the killing of yet more Americans.



CNN, quoting Reuters, has this tidbit:

“We will not be deceived by this,” Islamic cleric Mullah Sadullah Abu Aman told Reuters in the northern Afghan province of Badakhshan. “This is a decision by America to save itself. It comes because of American pressure. Even an ordinary illiterate peasant understands this and won’t accept it.”

So what are we to make of this, if we sift through the various reactions to the Newsweek piece — reactions often offered through the filter of personal politics?

• Newsweek’s journalistic standards either are or have become lax. This story could have waited a bit. The reason: they should have anticipated that there could have been an uproar — although they surely could not have anticipated that there would be riots eventually blamed on their news report. They should have had several sources ready to back up their report.
• Even with an apology or a retraction (which may evetually come, but it will have NO IMPACT later on if the magazine is now parsing words on whether an apology is a retraction), Newsweek has given valuable ammunitition to those who want to paint Americans as being in some kind of a Holy War. Again, we are talking in cold, clinical terms here about the impact: this was a Godsend to those looking for propaganda to use against the United States.
• This story won’t die for awhile. Media from various countries will be looking into reports about various forms of Koran desecration. If they are confirmed then the administration will have lots of explaining to do because they are jumping on Newsweek hard right now, too. That’s acceptable if the Newsweek report is false; should it turn out to be correct, it’ll confirm Arab contentions about the United States and there need to be serious consequences for any military or political bigwigs who knew, sanctioned, denied or tried to hide it.

For weblog reaction, see yesterday’s post which includes a long roundup from weblogs from all over the Internet. If you read even differing opinions you see a consensus — that this issue is far from over and Newsweek’s statement has not defused it. Will some people (in the press or administration) be looking for new jobs before this controversy has completely run its course?



UPDATE: Jon Friedman, writing in Investor’s Business Daily, writes in part:

How could a story this explosive have passed through Newsweek’s hierarchy without someone raising his or her voice and asking if the sourcing on such a sensitive piece was air tight?



How could Newsweek have allowed such an important a single-sourced story (featuring an anonymous source, no less) to be published?



I would chalk it up to Newsweek wanting very much to have a scoop of any kind. More than most magazines, it prides itself on being as capable of breaking news as the big daily newspapers.



If Newsweek was sure it had such a juicy scoop, why did the magazine bury it in its Periscope section?



Wouldn’t you think the editors would want to showcase the magazine’s exclusive in the most visible way possible? Even if the story had come in right on deadline, surely the magazine could have done more to highlight the would-be scoop.



Another part of the answer may be that the magazine doesn’t always use good judgment.