Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

The Anchoress

Home
Catholic
Newsweek RETRACTS but the damage is done

Newsweek RETRACTS but the damage is done

Last updated on: March 13, 2015 at 8:47 pm by Elizabeth Scalia

Newsweek RETRACTS but the damage is done 2015-03-13T20:47:24+00:00 Elizabeth Scalia

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I’m very glad to read that Newsweek has retracted its report of American troops at Gitmo desecrating the Muslim holy book.

Sadly, it’s way too little, way too late, and while they are retracting they are still insisting that they have been practicing exemplary journalism throughout. But I like what a commenter at Captain Ed’s has to say:

Contrast this with the media’s refusal to show pictures of our fellow citizens jumping out the the world trade center. We were told that such pictures would unneccessarily anger the American people and lead to violence against Muslim Americans.

So, either they were aware of the fact that they had something highly inflammable and didn’t care, or they did care…enough to throw it out there and see what would happen. I don’t know. I’m still so very angry about this.

I do like Glenn Reynolds calm and succinct take on the retraction, though, which reads (excluding his excellent links, which you can go get at his site)

NEWSWEEK has retracted its Koran-flushing story now, after its earlier weak apology didn’t satisfy.
Good for them. Next time, of course, maybe they’ll put some of those vaunted Big Media fact-checkers and editors to work before they publish.

As I’ve said, they know how to be exquisitely sensitive, when they care to be.

And this does kind of cut some Newsweek defenders off at the knees. (Heh. Indeed, Professor!)

I want to add that I don’t think there’s anything immoral about flushing a Koran (or a Bible) down the toilet, assuming you’ve got a toilet that’s up to that rather daunting task, and I think it’s amusing to hear people who usually worry about excessive concern for religious beliefs suddenly taking a different position. Nor do I think that doing so counts as torture, and I think that it debases the meaning of “torture” to claim otherwise. If this had happened, it might have been — indeed, would have been — impolitic or unwise. But not evil.

And anyone who thinks otherwise needs to be willing to apply the same kind of criticism to things like Piss Christ, or to explain why offending the sensibilities of one kind of religious believer is “art” while doing the same in another context is “torture.” If, that is, they want to be taken at all seriously.

Bravo. Thank you, sir.

So, the same people who told the Catholics to quit their bellyaching because a picture of Mary was done with elephant dung, or because a crucifix has been lowered into urine have now – with Newsweek’s retraction – found their credibility even more shot than before.

That’s some satisfaction, but not enough. If I were the mother or wife of a soldier who died trying to liberate Afghanistan, if I had at least the pride of knowing that my son or husband had not died “for nothing” I think I would be completely beside myself right now, to think that suddenly, his death was wrought meaningless because of the wreckless behavior of Newsweek. I think I would be inconsolable, and furious beyond expression.

Newsweek’s retraction will not satisfy. Those who WANT to believe the worst of America will now have something new over which to seeth and scheme and recruit more haters…and I’m not even talking about extremist Muslins worldwide…I’m talking about the haters at home, too. So much has been sullied here – the division between liberals and conservatives just grew much wider. The distrust of media by one side and the reactionary, goose-stepping defense of the media by the other has just become more intense. This didn’t need to happen. There was no good reason for any of it.

My son’s g/f was reading over my shoulder and read a comment from someone, that Newsweek “should not have reported the story, even if it were true.” She wondered about that. “Why not report what is true?”

I tried to explain to her that once upon a time, the press did not tell all it knew, even if they absolutely knew a story was true, they wouldn’t tell it, particularly in time of war, if it meant putting our troops in harm’s way, or further complicating a dicey situation. If the press really KNEW something, but it was not really relevant, they’d keep it under their hats. “Loose lips sink ships” was the order of the day. I explained to her that after Vietnam, that began to change. American journalists began to think of themselves as journalists first, then Americans…they began to think of themselves as part of the “International” community, and from that perspective, protecting American interests in their reportage became not only irrelevent but – to their way of thinking – “biased.”

And so now, most – not all, but most – American journalists are so busy being “International” they have perhaps lost a little bit of sensitivity as to what they perhaps should or should not report.

The fact of the matter is, when the Abu Ghraib story broke, the issue had already been investigated, and the perps arrested. The story should have been that the government was addressing these untoward acts by these soldiers, which was the right and decent thing to do.

And I do believe that had someone with a D instead of an R after their name been in the White house, that indeed, would have been the complete and full Abu Ghraib narrative.

But, in an election year, with the press determined (as Evan Thomas admitted in Newsweek) to give the Democrat candidate a “ten to fifteen percent boost” with their relentlessly positive coverage of their candidate and their relentlessly negative coverage of President Bush, Abu Ghraib was a hot and potentially destructive scandal narrative that was too good to let go of. It is a narrative that is still keeping impeachment hopes alive for many on the left who have simply stopped thinking clearly.

Just so, THIS story, this “maybe there was a desecration of the Koran” story, was a story that, true or not, didn’t REALLY have to be reported, not REALLY. Reporting it served what? To put Americans off? Most Americans, if they’re not worrying too much about Torah’s and Bible’s being abused, are not going to worry too much about a “maybe a Koran was desecrated” story.

Did reporting the story present a compelling narrative about the US’s insensitivity to Islam as a whole…well no, because the policies and procedures about the freedom of worship of Muslim prisoners at Gitmo is a matter of record, and some former prisoners from there have reported no disrespect in that aspect.

All putting that “short” story out into the public did was potentially wreck an American foreign policy that – whether the press and the Democrats like it or not, whether they want to admit it or not, was actually making America safer by bringing some portions of the Middle East into the 21st century, in terms of how the people lived, voted, treated the women, were educated, etc. The people of Afghanistan and elsewhere were beginning to trust “The Great Satan” and looking forward to perhaps entering the marketplace of goods and ideas, etc…there was so much hope. All of that may now be lost or seriously set back.

And for what? I just don’t know.

As I told my son’s g/f, I don’t want to think, or to believe that the whole motiviation behind Newsweek’s mistake was the equivalent of: “oooohhhh….MAYBE something happened that might make the troops – and by extention their CIC and his administration – look pre-tty bad to at least one segment of the world.”

But for the life of me I can’t figure out WHY it was something that was important to report, even “if it were true!”

If something is not true, or if it cannot be completely verified as true, it should not be reported.

And perhaps, sometimes, when something IS true, and reporting it serves no constructive purpose, only a destructive one, perhaps it should not be reported, either, without a compelling motivation to do so. Newsweek, once upon a time, knew that, back when it spiked the Monica Lewinsky story because reporting it had “nothing to do with how the president governed.” Just as stories of Jack Kennedy’s and FDR’s extra-marital exploits were “protected.”

It seems when a president is not a Democrat, though…nothing is protected, not even the valorous sacrifices of our troops, or the future of American foreign policy.

I have to think that Newsweek – complicating everything as they have – have not only made President Bush’s job more difficult, they have made the job of a future Democrat president who had not anticipated Afghanistan to be anything but a “positive and easy” part of her presidency, much more difficult, as well.

UPDATE: Captain Ed and I seem to be thinking along similar lines:

This story was just as pointless; what possible news value did a flushed Qu’ran have for the American reader? First, no one bothered to even ask themselves if the story sounded plausible. How would a flushed Qu’ran promote cooperation from a Muslim terrorist? Perhaps threatening to do so would get some positive reaction, but as we’ve seen in reaction to the story, actually flushing one in front of an Islamist is much more likely to steel themselves against any kind of cooperation. Second, even it did happen, all toilet physics to the contrary, what of it? Does that constitute some sort of Geneva Convention violation? In view of the hand-chopping and rape rooms of Saddam Hussein, maintaining that argument borders on the macabre.

Not only was this a gossipy, ludicrous, and irrelevant piece of trivia, its power to inflame Islamists could easily have been guessed by people who have followed the war on terror, or at least its propaganda value. That’s the ultimate issue with Newsweek. Its editors have proven themselves absolutely clueless, with journalistic judgment related to that of the Weekly World News. The executive management should consider that when they review the catastrophic failure of Mark Whitaker, Michael Isikoff, and John Barry that led to the deaths of sixteen people and the enormous damage to American interests in a vitally strategic area in the war on terror.

Yep.

And finally, interesting remarks from Sigmund, in the post below:

…the hypocrisy of the Islamic world must be addressed.

Churches-filled with worshippers- are shot up, blown and torched in Palistan, with nary a voice of concern from any Muslim authority. The remnants of the Jewsih community in the middle east has been virtually eradicated, with nary a word…The real outrage wasn’t the Newsweek story or what may or may not have happened at Gitmo. The real outrage is the silence of the Muslim clergy and the Muslim world as they watch these riots.

The Fourth Estate

US Military

Previous Post

May 16, 2005

Network Journo and Anchoress talk Newsweek

Next Post

May 17, 2005 Democrats blame US in oil-for-food scandal

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category "Remaking" Ourselves 'Remaking' America 9/10 Mindset 9/11 trials Abortion ACORN Adoration Advent Advent 2008 Advent 2009 Advent 2010 Alternative Energy Alternative Media America American Catholic Church American Church American Genius Ameridolatry ANCHORESS BOOKSHELF Anglican-Roman Reconciliation Answers & Questions Anti_Semitism Archbishop Hilarion Ayn Rand Bad Mass Barack Obama Baseball Benedict Benedict & Islam Benedict in UK Benedict XVI Benedictine Bill Whittle Birth Control Blogs and Blogging Blogs and Blogging Bloodless Coup Bobby Jindal Bookchat Breitbart Bride at every wedding... Bride at every wedding... Buckley Bullies Bush Bad? Bush Good Buster Capitalism Catholic Fiction Catholic Vocations Catholicism Celibacy Chaput Charitable Stuff Chesterton Chile Chris Christie Christians in Exile Christine O' Donnell Christmas Christmas Gift Ideas Church Hates Science? Church hates women Communion of Saints Compline Conclave 2013 Confession Constitutional Stuff Conversion Crisis & Opportunity Critical Thinking Crooks and Liars Crucible of Faith Cuba Culture of Life Culture of Life/Death Culture of Treason? Dancing Death Dialogue re Islam Dick Meyer Divorce and Remarriage DOJ Domestic Terrorism Dominican Order Don't try me too high Dowd Dumb Democrat moves Dumb GOP moves Economic woe Education Egregious Harry Reid Elder Son Elder Son's Sweet Girlfriend Elderly Election '10 Election '12 Election '16 Election 2004 Election 2006 Election 2008 Election 2010 Election 2016 Elena Kagan Elitism Embryonic Stem Cell Research End Times? English language Enhanced Interrogation Erosion of Rights Eucharist Euthanasia Exorcism Extraordinary Synod Facebook Faith Faith and Reason Faith Friday Faith Perspective Faithful Friday Fascism Again Fascism in America Fatima FCC Feminism Film First Things Forgiveness Fr. James Martin Francis and Islam Francis in America Frassati Fred Thompson Free Speech? Freedom of Worship FutureChurch Global Pandemic GOP Congress Haiti Head Covering Health Care Here and Queer Hermits Heroes Hitchens Holy Spirit Holy Week '09 Holy Week '10 Hoo-Hah & BS Hoo-Hah & BS Icons Illegal Immigration In The Arena Interviews Interwebz Iran Uprising Iraqi Christians ISIL ISIS Islamic State Islamification/Islamofascism Islamification/Islamofascism Isra-El It's all about me! Me! ME! James Burke Jerry Lewis Jesus Christ Joblessness John Boehner John McCain John Paul II John XXIII Juan Williams Just Words Katrina/Rita King is a Fink Latin Mass Leadership Lectio Divina Lent Lent '08 Lent '09 Lent 2010 Lent 2011 Limbaugh Listen to Lizzie Litigious Society Liturgy Liturgy of the Hours Mainstream Media Manliness Marriage Mary Media Excess Medical Merton Michelle Obama Mighty John O' Connor Misc. Miss Ella Missionaries Mitt Romney Monasticism My brother S My Irish Aunties Mystic Monks Nanny Statism Nature NEA Neri New Media Newman Noonan Notre Dame NPR Stuff Nun News Obama Bad? Obama Good? Obama White House Oil Spill Online Retreat '08 Online Retreat Days Oratory Orthodoxy Our Hillary! Parenting Passionists Patheos Patheos Book Club Patrons Paul Ryan Penance Penn Jillette Philosophy PJTV Podcasts Poetry Politics-free zone Pop Culture Pope Emeritus Pope Francis Prayer Predictions Priesthood Pro-Life Public Sector Unions Purgatory Questions about Catholicism Quotes of the Day Quoting the News Race in America rants Recipes Remarried Catholics Reposts by request Retreat thoughts Rome Rudy Giuliani Russia Saints Sarah Palin Scandal Scott Brown SCOTUS Scriptural stuff Secularism Send in the clowns Serving up hot links Sexuality Sherrod Shroud of Turin Sisters and Nuns Social Entrepreneurship Social Media Social Security Socialism doesn't work Sports and Faith Stem Cells Strange Gods Suffering Synod Tea Parties Tea Party Terri Schiavo The 9/11 Commission The Catholic Answer The Constitution The Desert The Fourth Estate The Pelosi The Perpetual Adolescents The Rosary Third Party? Timothy Dolan Touch of evil TSA Tsunami TV/Pop Culture/Music TV/Pop Culture/Music Twitter Uncategorized Unemployment Unintended Consequences US Military Vaginal Musings Vatican Vespers video faves Vile Joe Biden Voter Fraud War by Litigation War on Terror War, What it good for? Why can't weeee be ... World Youth Days Year of Faith Year of the Priest

Select a Month August 2016 July 2016 April 2016 March 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 August 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does "Redeemer" mean?

Select your answer to see how you score.

One who buys back One who gives One who conquers One who judges