Centerfield

This particular Quran being flushed story has been circulated for awhile now. But that doesn't mean it's true. Many in the Middle East also believe that 9/11 was a U.S./Isreali conspiracy.

The U.S. media has a great responsibility to be very, very careful before reporting on any news story that could hurt U.S. efforts. If it's 100% true, they have all rights to report on it. But what Newsweek did was deplorable and shows, at best, that they care much more about getting the scoop than getting it right. At worst, it shows an intent to harm the U.S. credibility.

Thank you Rick! I totally agree. I'm FAR less concerned about whether it is true or not than whether it should be reported. Which it shouldn't. Yes the public has the right to know- but it seems to me the media has lost sight of the fact that they need to weigh the effects of the information. I can't see any way in which the public's right to know is more important than the potentially damaging effects such information can have. And even if they didn't know what would happen, they certainly knew that revealing that information created a potentially dangerous situation for our troops. That is inexcusable, in my opinion.

I certainly don't want the press to harm U.S. credibility, our leaders are perfectly capable of that themselves, but what stretches credulity for me is the fact that a story like this could result in the type of violence that ensued.

If the foreign press reported that the Iraqis or Afghanistanis were flushing the bibles of U.S. POWs would there be that type of rioting and killing in the U.S? Perhaps, but I doubt it. I would envision instead a grassroots effort to send them truckloads of new bibles.

It just seems to my untrained eye that forces exist in other parts of the world that don't exist (at least to that degree) in the U.S. to incite this type of reacton on que for reasons that are nebulous at best.

The dead in Afghanistan were killed by their own, not by us. Bad journalism yes, but that shouldn't be a capital offense.

Didn't realize that many people read Newsweek.

I am frankly shocked at the idea that the press should self-censor true stories about abuses. Certainly, if it's a matter of reporting, say, the time of a military operation or something like that, they shouldn't report. But I can't buy saying that the press shouldn't report on a true story that highlights potential wrongdoing by the US. War or no war, we still live in a democracy and I don't trust the government to decide what we should know. Is the argument that the press should not have reported on Abu Gharib because it was potentially harmful to the US? I think that's a terrible standard to apply.

Obviously, however, reporting incorrectly like this story appareantly was is absolutely reprehensible.

As a journalist, I could not knowingly write a false story, because no one would ever believe me again. I would be out of a job.

But I and/or my editors would have discretion about the subjects I write about. I would not want to write the Koran-flushing story, even if true, and I would not have wanted to break the Abu Gharib story, either. Perhaps my editors would not want me on this beat.

I am frankly shocked at the idea that the press should self-censor true stories about abuses.

I'm glad there are at least two of us. How on earth is the public supposed to have an informed opinion about this war if every detail that might go into such an informed opinion is suppressed. Sure, there are limits to everything, and there are times when directly compromising troops' security is inappropriate. However, I'm of the opinion that those situations involve short-term tactical information (say, troop locations) that only remain sensitive for days or weeks. The question at issue here -- Does the US military's interrogation strategy involve expressions of contempt for Islam? -- is not that sort of tactical concern. In fact, the notion that it's the media's role to manage Muslim public opinion is frankly contradictory to the notion of a vigorous free press.

That said, it certainly seems that Newsweek overreached by relying on one source who changed his story. Isn't the principle of multipe sourcing fundamental to journalism, or is that just a fiction for us non-journalists to believe?

And finally, I agree with Andrew Sullivan: "Even if this incident turns out to be false, our previous policies have made it perfectly plausible." That doesn't excuse shoddy journalism, but it is to my mind a serious indictment of how this war has been fought on the public relations front.

Please read the NY Times article about Pfc. England’s court marshal before talking about our previous policies. After reading that article the primary policy I am concerned about is the promotion policy. How did Janice Karpinski ever get to be a general?

Abu Ghraib sounds like it was the result of unsupervised undisciplined loser clowns rather than some evil plot hatched at the Pentagon or White House.
http://nytimes.com/2005/05/10/national/10graner.html

I'm pretty critical of the Administration in every way concerning this war, but even I wouldn't say Abu Ghraib (and similar offenses in Guantanamo and Afghanistan) were, "some evil plot hatched at the Pentagon or White House." In other words I don't think anyone set out ahead of time to justify prisoner abuse. My interpretation is that certain compromises were made at the top, such as Gonzales' memos trying to wriggle out of the Geneva Convention. Those compromises sent mixed messages (at best) to the middle management that certain forms of abuse would be tolerated, etc. By "middle management" I'm thinking of Major General Geoffrey Miller. And then at the bottom of the heirarchy are the troops, taking these mixed messages and acting on them in creatively sadistic ways.

I don't think the alternative explanation, a few "unsupervised undisciplined loser clowns," comes close to explaining the recurring themes across different sites, such as general disrespect for Islam, use of nudity and sexuality, etc. I suppose you could say that some particular sadist, knowing only that Muslims are the enemy, might happen to hit on similar techniques to those used elsewhere. However, it seems far more believable to me that this culture of willingness to abuse prisoners goes higher up.

So to summarize, I don't think prisoner abuse was exactly planned at the highest levels, I do think that poor management allowed enough ambiguity to foster a culture where abuse sprouted up all over. As I've followed Andrew Sullivan's scathing criticisms of the administration's pro-torture policies from the Right, my despair has mounted at the total lack of accountability among our military's senior leadership. So yes, I hold the Defense Secretary and the President responsible for Abu Ghraib and other incidents of torture.

My previous link was bad. Hope this one is correct.
http://nytimes.com/2005/05/10/national/10graner.html

Based on the testimony given at the trial, I am not sure the unit in charge of Abu Ghraib could have effectively accomplished anything. They didn’t seem inclined to follow any orders they had received, so even if the directions concerning proper treatment of prisoners had been extremely detailed I get the impression they would have been ignored.

The Pentagon is as much to blame for this as the reporter. The article was printed two weeks ago and not until it was translated and placed in Afghan and Pakistani press did the riots erupt. According to the author, he gave the draft to the the Pentagon for review and they said nothing. They didn't deny it when it broke in Newsweek. They began denial when the riots started.

A similar story in 2003 appeared and no such backlash occurred. But post-Abu Ghraib and the other stories about the military makes this story more believeable.

EG,

The idea that the military confirmed by not denying it is the same problem that CBS had with Memogate. They faxed the memos to the White House, and when the White House failed to quickly denounce them as fakes, CBS decided that they must be true. The error lies in assuming that the person asked to review the paragraph was both fully informed of the contents of the draft reports and fully cognizant that the reporter intended to rely on his lack of response to indicate affirmation that the story was accurate.

Thus far, Newsweek's defense has been based in large part on the idea that, hey, these allegations were already out there. Of course they were. But they were from sources that lacked credibility. Newsweek reported, basically, that the U.S. government had confirmed that U.S. personnel had done this. Just like CBS and Memogate, Newsweek purported to have the smoking gun to a previously-reported story.

I agree with Rick that Newsweek should not have reported this story, even if true. Editors make judgments all the times for many reasons about what is and is not news. We have seen myriad stories of late about the disappearance of middle-class white women on the news shows and throughout national media. Plenty of poor and black women disappear every year too, but we haven't seen any stories on that at all. Why? Because the MSM audience is mostly middle class and white. If they are willing to base their judgments of what is newsworthy based on the color of the skin and economic class of the victim in a disappearance case, what is so different about deciding that a story about alleged desecration, in an effort to gain intelligence to protect American lives, of a bunch of paper bound together with printing on it really isn't that newsworthy?

Pat,

How do whistle-blower stories ever see the light of day if the press requires the Administration to confirm or deny the allegation?

The comparison of the runaway bride to other truly kidknapped, lost people is not appropriate. I mentioned earlier that this similar story appeared in 2003 and the reaction of Islamic countries was not noticed. We need to realize the Koran flushing story along with the other stories that have come out about how we are treating prisoners brought out this reaction.

There are also reports that al Qaeda is fermenting these riots. The NewsWeek story is possibly the cover for their activity.

Of course Al Qaeda is behind the riots. The problem with the Newsweek story is that it gave ammunition to Al Qaeda to use against us. As has been noted elsewhere, it is in Al Qaeda's operations manual to disseminate false claims like this against the U.S.

And I don't maintain that the media needs administration confirmation before running stories. My point was that, like CBS in Memogate, here Newsweek is trying to partly exculpate itself by claiming it was relying in part on the silence of the other Army official to whom they sent the story. Nor do I think that the media must always and every time eschew confidential sources. But there was no urgency here. They could have just waited until the report came out. And if they then believed there was a cover-up, they could have done more to confirm such a significant story before reporting it.

And I do think that my analogy is appropriate. The media clearly believes that it is appropriate to ignore the disappearance of a black woman because she doesn't resemble their target audience. Given that believe on their part, I don't see how they can claim some great obligation to reveal news which does little but hurt Americans, as well as the vast majority of Afghanis who are relying on us to protect them from the remnants of the taliban and the warlords.

If we agree that al Qaeda is using the NewsWeek story as a cover, should the press (and not just American) stop reporting anything negative about the Iraq war?

You say the comparison of a 'kidknapped' white woman with others is based on the demographics of the readers. So NewsWeek thought that story about flushing pages from the Koran would sell? Given the outburst from many who say 'report any true and positive stories' would lead me to believe they had no idea what the reaction would be.

BTW, we are not protecting Afghans from warlords. They still run the country outside of Kabul. Taliban, maybe, but not warlords.

Have you quit beating your wife? Just answer yes or no!

Failure to immediately deny an allegation is not an affirmation that it is true. That should be engraved over the entrance to every media outlet in the world.

Nobody died from MemoGate.

Just a quick follow-up... we are indeed having success at bringing many warlords into the democratic fold.

And no, I don't think Newsweek ran this story to sell magazines... I think they ran it because they dislike our President, dislike American policy, and because the reporters get a lot of positive feedback from their peers whenever they run any story which "confirms" their personal, negative preconceptions about the military, Republicans, or government officials in general.

While I don't disagree, Pat, I would note that scandal sells and unemployment smells. We seem to be incrementally inching back to the days of yellow journalism.

Tully,

Yeah, you're right about that... it's all part of the equation. I've never been a fan of boycotts, but maybe I should change my mind.

That's definitely a problem, one that can be helped by looking for all the facts available, and at the context.

I rather like Hitchens' approach to journalism; although he has plenty of faults (certainly plays situations for more than they're worth as much as any other journalist), IMHO he works hard to let the facts lead him.

Maybe the worst problems, though, come when the media doesn't care whether or not something is rue, just about getting a nice sacrifice to either bring attention or exert power. Like the Koran thing, or see these posts about a situation from the SCO trial. Nasty stuff.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050509145744287

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050510114214525

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050514104521978

Interesting sidenote: I've heard the right jumping on this story as proof that the "liberal mainstream media" will do anything to rip into America's troops, etc. I don't think I've heard anyone mention that this particular reporter is the same reporter who chased the Paula Jones story (and got suspended over it) and introduced us to a certain Monica Lewinsky.

But now he's the tool of the radical left?

LOL. But of course, Abel, he's the tool of whichever side likes what he reports! "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

If there's ideological bias, it lies with the editors for allowing looser sourcing standards for stories that fit their politics. Blame the reporters all you like--it's the bosses that carry the load for what they print and distribute. But I suspect it's still mostly the bleeds/leads thing.

Good points Tully. I also shy away from assigning responsiblity for these murders to Newsweek. After all, if we truly believe in personal responsibility we have to embrace the belief that people are responsible for their own actions. I may read in tomorrow's paper that there is corruption in my local mayor's office. If I walk in there, shoot someone, and find the story retracted the following day...who is responsible? I made the choice to kill...the reporter had nothing to do with it.

Crazy example, but just trying to get the point across...Newsweek does not bear the blame for deaths. They did not pull the trigger.

The blame, no. But they do bear some responsibility. Isikoff sourced too loosely and carelessly, but it was his editors/publishers that let him, and who printed it. They can't pass the entire buck on to him.

You can consider me biased because my opinions on this war and this administration are well-established. However, when PatHMV writes,

...I don't see how [the media] can claim some great obligation to reveal news which does little but hurt Americans, as well as the vast majority of Afghanis who are relying on us to protect them from the remnants of the taliban and the warlords.

I guess I don't get the supposition that the point of the Qur'an-down-the-toilet story was to hurt Americans. If you've already decided that non-Muslims are "us" and Muslims are "them", and if you've alread accepted anti-Islam acts of desecration as a necessary part of successful interrogation, then I suppose there's no other purpose to run a story like this than to make "our side" look bad to the rest of the world. But I don't recall our country having had that public debate about the pros and cons of anti-Islam tactics. Perhaps I missed it?

None of this is to excuse Newsweek's shoddy journalism, presuming they weren't set up (which I consider plausible). But Newsweek's misstep doesn't render the whole story null and void. Like Andrew Sullivan, I believe there's much additional anecdotal evidence of anti-Islam tactics, and I believe that some would leak out sooner or later. Certainly I don't find the toilet story wildly implausible, given what we know about Guantanamo and Iraq. Therefore I have to wonder if our political leadership has any desire left to make a claim on Muslim public opinion, or if it was written off months and years ago. If the US has abandoned any concern for Muslim public opinion, I find that a short-sighted policy -- but the point is, until we've had this debate, it's an entirely reasonable topic for journalists to report on.

Even journalists who don't hate the United States.

Newsweek could not have been "set up" unless they had relaxed their standards well below those of professional journalism.

To wit, the story relied on one source, an anonymous source "in government" who claimed to be relating an anecdote about source materials for a draft report that hadn't yet been submitted.

Point one: anonymous sources in government often have private agendas. Major DUH!

Point two: Editorial standards generally require a second (reliable and independent) source for verification of anonymously-sourced materials. How did Newsweek verify this single-sourced item? They showed a draft of the story to someone at the Pentagon who didn't immediately deny it because he hadn't seen the report on which it was reportedly based. DOUBLE DUH!

The second "verification" came from a released Gitmo detainee and suspected al Qeada militant who is currently demanding compensation from the US government, who had previously stated to several news agencies that he wasn't tortured at any time, and who said not one word about any such incident until he was asked if it had actually happened. And whom any freakin' Google search would have turned up many whiny complaints from, but NOT the Quran tale. Apparently none of the FIVE reporters who collaborated on putting the story together bothered to try this little technique. But hey, we got a "verification" of this second-hand rumor of an unproven allegation from a hostile and biased source, so let's jump on it! DUH DUH DUH MAJOR DUMB!

According to Newsweek, that original anonymous source, a "senior government official, [or is that former senior government official?] who said that he clearly recalled reading investigative reports about mishandling the Qur'an" has reportedly now recanted, saying that he didn't think these things were actually mentioned in the SouthCom report. What a surprise.

These stories about the Quran-in-the-toilet have been floating around for years (pun intended), everywhere from ABC radio to the "Seattle Times" to the "Houston Chronicle". The Rude Pundit has a good roundup of sources today.

What I want to know is this:why is single source reporting (like the kind the WH used to verify the existance of Saddam's mobile weapons labs which didn't turn out to exist) good enough for this administration, but not good enough for "Newsweek"? Are we holding "Newsweek" to a higher standard then we hold the WH?

Tully,

Your point about Newsweek's low standards is well-taken. However, I sense more concern with the specifics of this particular report than with the underlying reality.

I make no bones about my underlying presuppositions: sometime last spring, a few weeks before the Abu Ghraib bombshell broke, I decided in my mind that our country's leaders don't know what they're doing in Iraq. I had supported the invasion when it happened, so it's not as though I came to this conclusion out of hatred for George W. Bush or the Republicans. But in the sense that one sees what one expects to see, yes, I go into these discussions with the assumption that excessive tactics are being used. I've just heard too many anecdotal instances to give our leaders the benefit of the doubt.

That said, I'm more interested in arriving at the truth than at confirming my own suspicions. To that end, here's some evidence, admittedly from an even more biased source than I am:

These Are Dark Times: Newsweek & the Koran

Lest the DailyKos address prejudice you, this material has been linked by Andrew Sullivan as well. (I'm glad some conservatives -- by the way, I consder myself conservative -- are still unwilling to suppress outrage in favor of reciting their side's talking points.)

I feel that most of us don't know fly crap about whether our underlying suppositions about the situation (positive or negative) have any basis in reality or not. The people who know are the people who are involved, period. They may choose to tell others the truth or not or some version of the truth.... or people who have no freakin clue what's going on might just decide to make up stuff until some reporter decides to put it in print.

However, I am sick and tired of this attitude that's floating around of "well this report may have factual problems but we've heard alot of rumors about this sort of thing and it confirms our dispositions so it must by true"... bunk!
By that standard Elvis is hanging out at the local 7-11.

Furthermore, even if it turns out to be true.... at worst it's blatant stupidity because of the PR flack it was bound to cause. I'm an historian and I can tell you such treatment of captured combatants is pretty damned tame compared to most of the rest of the history of warfare. You want a comparison, just look at how the people we are fighting treat thier captives.... heck, look at the standards the nations where the rioting broke out apply to thier millitary prisoners.

Let me know when we start video-taping beheadings or crucifying prisoners every 500 ft along the Belt Parkway...then I'll start to give a damn... maybe.

cengel,

I can only reply briefly at present. Perhaps we can take this discussion somewhere else that won't age so fast (this site's message forum?) if you want to continue.

1. Your comment invokes many broad epistemological questions. I'll just say that I do believe that on the issue at hand, there is a truth that is knowable to us. My goal is to piece together different sources to know it.

2.

"well this report may have factual problems but we've heard alot of rumors about this sort of thing and it confirms our dispositions so it must by true"... bunk!

Bunk indeed. I didn't just cite rumors; I posted a link with a good deal of documentation. If you want to call into question those sources, go for it.

3.

Let me know when we start video-taping beheadings or crucifying prisoners every 500 ft along the Belt Parkway...then I'll start to give a damn... maybe.

I find it really sad that the only moral standard you would apply to our nation is, "Not quite as bad as al-Qaeda." My moral conviction is that we must not only refuse to sink to the level of our enemy; we shouldn't even sink to the level where our only defense is, "At least we're not as bad as our enemy." Plainly you disagree.

Beyond that, though, even if anti-Muslim interrogation tactics are morally justifiable, that doesn't make them prudent. In a war -- now two wars -- where public opinion in the Muslim world could make our task so much easier, showing disrepect to Islam under the "At least we're not beheading people" doctrine is foolish in the extreme.

Philip,

No, you simply cited a blog who offered as "supporting evidence".......

- A simple regurgitation of the origional recanted article.

- The fact that the origional "unnamed" source only PARTIALY re-canted his story.

- Citations from attornies representing terrorist suspects in lawsuits against the government.

By that token, if you want offer a quote by Johnnie Cochran stating that O.J. did no wrong as "documentation" go ahead.... but I think most sane people would disagree. That's the standard of "documentation" that the site you linked to seems to ascribe to.

Furthermore I think it's a pretty long stretch to describe potential mishandling of religious material as simply "Not quite as bad as" public beheadings of captives. I'd say it was more like " a helluva a lot less bad", wouldn't you?

The bottom line is that these people are not innocent toddlers. They are enemy combatants who are members of an organization which routienely and flagrantly violates the Geneva Convention itself..... if we are guilty of insensitivity in handling of thier religious material, I say "boo freakin hoo".

Part of the reason we get attacked is despite the fact that we have vast natural resources and strong millitary capabilities is that people are under the misaprehension that we are pushovers with no stomache for finnishing a fight. Just look at the Axis rationale for Pearle Harbour. Any guesses as to how that image gets fostered?

You know rather then send the message that we'll whip ourselves into a frenzy of guilt and self-recrimination if some of our soldiers are insensitive about handling religious materials distributed to terrorists.... I'd rather send a message that says "We'll treat you decently if you respect our rights, but if you wage war on us.... we'll wipe your people from the face of the earth, tear down thier monuments and salt the earth where they used to dwell". Any guess as to which is more of a deterrent against future acts of agression?

Don't think that strategy works? When was the last time you saw any Carthaginians making trouble?

Your point about Newsweek's low standards is well-taken. However, I sense more concern with the specifics of this particular report than with the underlying reality

You sense "more concern?" Pardon my sarcasm, but let me inquire...how? Is your Spidey-sense tingling? Mother Shipton has ethereally passed on her psychic powers to you from beyond the grave? Revelation from God? What? This is all relevant to the veracity of the published report exactly how? Were you there when it happened, so you know the "underlying reality" somehow exists even though the reporting was wrong and Newsweek has retracted the story? BTW, my data on the sourcing and errors came from (ready for it?) Newsweek itself. They coughed up a furball. They've admitted it. And people died.

When discussing fraud and error in journalism the standards used for vetting and verifying the erroneous story are indeed germane, as are "the specifics." If the report was published despite failing all major tests of credibility (other than "our prejudice and bias leads us into wanting it to be true"), and despite having failed to be obtained in conformity with the safeguards and standards used for maintaining accuracy and veracity in reporting, then what more is there to say? The New York Times line, "Fake But Accurate"? GMAFB.

There are still folks out there who maintain that the Rather/MemoGate documents are genuine, and have produced mountains of imaginative "evidence" in support. They, like Mary Mapes and Dan Rather, desperately wanted the story to be true, so the faked evidence must somehow be correct, and the rationalizations somehow prove something or other. None of which make the memos real. Just as the KOS-linked ramblings don't mean much. Allegations and rumors, especially ones encouraged to be manufactured and spread by enemy doctrine and written training materials, are not proof of freakin' anything.

Got some good evidence that passes the smell test? Trot it out. But don't claim the "underlying reality" is there just because you want it to be. Elvis has left the building.

You have done a very nice job with your website, I enjoy reading the various posts and opinions of your other visitors.
I do Home finance, Refinance, Mortgage, and Second Mortgage loans nationwide.