Source reverses, embarasses Newsweek--but the Koran incidents are old news.
Newsweek is saying the source of the Koran desecration at Gitmo turned around and said he could not confirm that information. "Oops, sorry! Can't confirm that explosive accusation I made!" It doesn't look like a case of fabrication on the part of Newsweek, but that won't stop the scandal. No doubt the rest of the media will swoop in to bring Newsweek down (as far as they can push them, just like CBS).
That said, this online news site lists many other published stories that make similar reports about desecration of the Koran. From the looks of it, Newsweek didn't report anything that had not been reported before. So the big question is why the Muslims only got upset NOW?
You can bet your retirement money that Newsweek will be crucified for the credibility of the source and not the facts of the story.
posted by Daniel Preece @ 11:14 PM
3 Comments
3 Comments:
"You can bet your retirement money that Newsweek will be crucified for the credibility of the source and not the facts of the story."
As they should be, when the source is not credibile how can you be assured there are any fact in it. This CBS/New York Times method of journalism has got to stop or the MSM will find themselves going the way of the T-Rex.
In previous posting you have "Pointed Your Finger" at inaccurate sources, the WMD for example. As one of the new age journalists "blogger" why are you not attacking NewsWeek? They printed a lie, just like Dan Rather, people were harmed and NewsWeek said Oops so sorry. At least they admitted it kind of in a timely manner.
As far as I can tell, Newsweek isn't so much guilty of lying as for falling for someone else's lie. The source did a 180 after the claim was printed. This is bad journalism on Newsweek's part for not double checking and all that. But that's different from knowingly printing lies.
I'm not apologizing for Newsweek. The harder they're hit for this the better for all journalism in the long run. The more these people rush to print without reliable sources, the worse our news gets.
But it does bother me how QUICKLY the facts get glossed over in the "scandal." If this were the first time Koran desecrations had been reported, it would be different. But as my link shows, this accusation has been reported IN MORE DETAIL by other outlets.
Same with Rather. None of the accusations on that memo were new, nor were they challenged by the White House. In fact, CBS had the facts confirmed by the military secretary who would know if the memo spoke truth or not. The "lie" was the paper it was printed on. I'm not defending Rather for rushing to report someone else's lie, but the meat is again getting second billing to the bun.
You ask if the source is not credible how can we be assured of the facts. We absolutely cannot--if that's the ONLY source for the facts. In this case, and in Rather's case, this new non-credible source is just one in a long string of sources saying the same thing.
My issue is that we cannot dismiss facts (in this case, the facts are claims about Koran abuse) already in evidence even if some new person without credibility parrots them.
If I said I can confirm that Timothy McVeigh bombed the OK Federal building, that would be a lie. I am not a credible source. But that does not mean he didn't do it, nor does it invalidate all the other sources of evidence.
Adding to all this, a Washington Post story mentions that the Newsweek author gave the Pentagon a chance to refute the story:
"Isikoff said Sunday that "there was absolutely no lapse in journalistic standards," noting that the Pentagon declined an opportunity to challenge the story before it was published."
If this is true, that the Pentagon did not challenge the story before it was printed, then it's hard to lay all this on the publisher or the author's feet.
Of course certain little details still need filled in, such as who at the Pentagon was given the chance to refute the story.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home