Journalism Blog

More on the Newsweek Fiasco

Newsweek published a short, 200 word story in its May 9th issue where it alleged that "that U.S. military investigators had found evidence that American guards at the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had committed infractions in trying to get terror suspects to talk, including in one case flushing a Qur'an down a toilet."

An anonymous source inside the US military gave Newsweek this information. Newsweek brought it to the attention of two defense Department officials. One declined to comment, the other corrected another error. So what did Newsweek do wrong? And what did they do right?

Right now, we still do not know if the Newsweek story is actually true. What we do know is that it can not be properly verified. Newsweek ran into the same problem that CBS did a while back. It may very well be true. After all, other news organizations ran similar stories. So Newsweek only used one source -- which is not uncommon for such a magazine -- and ran it by two government officials and then decided to publish it.

What they did not realize is how inflammatory the story actually was. Bob Zelnick, former ABC News Correspondent claims that "even if the Koran incident was true, he would have had 'reservations' about running it because 'the potential to inflame is greater than the value of the piece itself.'" But Newsweek officials insist they went by the book but "will review its standards for dealing with unnamed sources."

Almost a week later, cricket legend turned politician Imran Khan and others start drumming up opposition to the US government's handling of the Qur'an at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

The intense reaction in Afghanistan and Pakistan is highlighted by a cultural gap. "In Pakistan and Afghanistan destruction of the Qur'an is seen as blasphemous and punishable by death. In the US, destruction of any religious text is a constitutional right."

Now at least 17 people have died and hundred have been injured. Newsweek, right or wrong, has retracted its story. The US government feels that its reputation has been damaged. What Connie Rice et al. fail to realize is that their reputation was horribly damaged long before.

It's appalling that this story got out there," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said as she traveled home from Iraq.

"People lost their lives. People are dead," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said.

Such problems in the US media circus are nothing new.

The episode is the latest in a series of scandals that have dogged the US media, beginning with an uproar caused by former New York Times reporter Jayson Blair, who fabricated quotes and other elements for his articles, and continuing with a similar controversy at USA Today involving reporter Jack Kelley.

These two episodes were soon followed by the case of former CBS News anchorman Dan Rather, who used documents of dubious authenticity to question President George Bush's Vietnam-era National Guard Service.

Journalists need to be careful. Cultural sensitivity is necessary when reporting. Should Newsweek have published the story as it did? If it were true and verified, then yes. The problem is the magazine only had one confidential source. US officials were not aware of how inflammatory such a story could become in the hands of someone like cricketer Khan.

So how should Holy Books be handled? USA Today's article presents more information on how to handle the big three.

posted by Dave @ 10:24 PM