I am absolutely irate about this. After much exclaiming and arm waving this morning as my SO headed out the door (agreeing with me in his cool French way, but grinning at my American exuberance) I sat down to post. But first I visited Buzzmachine, and, of course, Jeff Jarvis said it better than I could in "When a Story Gets in the Way of the Truth."
Given that none of those if's was true -- the informant did not have the balls, the event was not witnessed by a source, the event was not confirmed independently -- and given the knowledge that such a report could only be incendiary, then why report it except to play one of two games:
Show-off -- in which the journalist delights in knowing something no one else knows and wants to tell the world before everyone else does, even if it's not assuredly true.
Gotcha -- in which the reporter think he has exposed something somebody wanted to hide.
An incident such as this should force us to ask what the end result of journalism should be. Is it to expose anything we can expose? Is it to beat the other guy to tell you something you didn't know?
Or is it to tell the truth?
And if you don't know it to be true, is it reporting? If you rely on unnamed sources and unconfirmed reports, is it journalism?
To sum up journalism as "tell the truth" sounds so damned simplistic. But that is what journalism is about, isn't it? Or shouldn't it be?
I'm not saying that Newsweek lied. But they didn't know the truth before they said what they said. They put the gotcha scoop ahead of the truth and ahead of nothing less than the good of mankind.
The old saw says that with power comes responsibility. Well, responsibility also comes with influence. Newsweek failed. And their editor's lame non-apology doesn't begin to address the harm they have done.
Hi,
I'm reading your blog in Tokyo as one of corporate communicators.
The incident of Newsweek's Qur'an abuse story also reached to here. And I looked at website of them and also Washington Post Company's one. Surprisingly, there is no excuse or official statement about that.
Don't you think they have resposiblity to release what is the fact and what they should do next or shoudn't?
Viewed in PR lights, what do you say about their attitude?
Do they consider lawsuit or something?
Posted by: Mina | May 17, 2005 at 05:26 AM
It is almost impossible for large media now to publish the "news" - would anyone have believed Abu-Gharaib but for the pictures? I do not mean to say that 'Quran was desecrated' but what appears to be a fact to all the Muslims in the world is that US military will do any kind of torture! And US does nothing to counter that feeling.
Posted by: Rick | May 17, 2005 at 07:23 AM
Mina - Thanks for reading. I linked to the one statement from the editor of Newsweek in the post above. They don't highlight it in any special way, but in the top right-hand box titled "On Newsstands Now" the statement is the second link down. The story behind the story is the first link (as of now): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7857407/site/newsweek/. It is called, "How a Fire Broke Out."
Interesting how Newsweek is using the passive voice here - a big no-no according to any journalism course. Of course, writing it any other way would imply some kind of responsibility, which they are trying to avoid as much as possible. The last paragraph of that explanation reflects that same non-stance: "But Westerners, including those at NEWSWEEK, may underestimate how severely Muslims resent the American presence, especially when it in any way interferes with Islamic religious faith."
Note the "may underestimate"...[hand hitting forehead] Oh, you think? Sigh.
All of these statements have "lawyer" written all over them, which is, of course, unavoidable in the US in this day and age (at least for organizations with a true lack of courage to do the right thing).
Posted by: Elizabeth | May 17, 2005 at 08:58 AM
I'm surprised Newsweek actually spelled Qur'an correctly. At least that level of accuracy we can still count on from this "leading" news source.
Posted by: Paul | May 17, 2005 at 05:56 PM
There's nothing behind that link now. At least not through my browser.
Posted by: Ike | May 18, 2005 at 07:53 AM
They keep changing the link. I have added the latest one above.
Posted by: Elizabeth | May 18, 2005 at 10:27 AM
I am withholding judgment on this one. I have seen some reports that the rioting started before the publication of the Newsweek story.
It is at least possible the the administration is engaging in a classic PR diversionary tactic.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200505170003
Posted by: Alice Marshall | May 18, 2005 at 07:53 PM