by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright May 16, 2005
All Rights Reserved.

ewsweek's award-winning investigative reporter Michael Isikoff detonated his own suicide belt, taking down another icon of the liberal press, breaking a May 9 story about Koran abuse at Guantanamo Bay. After a flurry deaths from rioting in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Gaza—imperiling U.S. troops and civilian personnel—Newsweek mercifully retracted the story. “Based on what we now know, we are retracting our original story that an internal military investigation had uncovered Koran abuse at Guantanamo Bay,” said Newsweek Editor MarkWhitaker, after days defending the story. Like CBS News' Dan Rather broadcasting on “Sixty-Minutes II” fraudulent documents about President Bush's military record in the Texas Air National Guard, Newsweek jumped the gun, alleging possibly illegal religious desecration during interrogations at Camp X-Ray.

      Rioting broke out across the Muslim world before Isikoff's report hit the newsstands. Newsweek contends it had several prisoner reports about Koran abuse where interrogators attempted to flush the Koran down the toilet. A few months ago, lawyers representing Kuwatis held at Guantanamo alleged that U.S. military guards dumped a Koran into a commode. According the Washington Post in 2003, an Afghan and three Britons also alleged that Korans were defiled in toilets. “It's appalling that this story got out there,” said U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, chastising Newsweek for irresponsible reporting. Newsweek's story raises real concerns about the manipulation of the news and, more importantly, when free speech crosses into incitement. In the wake of prisoner abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib Prison, the U.S. didn't need more adverse publicity.

      Retractions don't reverse the liability stemming from deaths and injuries associated with Newsweek's story. Unlike CBS's debacle with Dan Rather, Isikoff's story caused real personal injuries—including deaths. Newsweek, which is owned by the Washington Post, its reporters and the U.S. government may be responsible for the false story causing real deaths and injuries. “People lost their lives. People are dead,” said Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, expressing grave concerns about how Newsweek exacerbated international tensions. Before Newsweek's retraction, Whitaker expressed reservations in a note to readers. “We regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in the midst.” Whitaker's insipid apology doesn't undo the damage or deal with implacable management problems at Newsweek.

      Rushing to get sensational stories on the newsstands shouldn't blind journalists from responsibility to the facts. Whether Newsweek or the Post printed allegations about possible religious desecration doesn't excuse false reports, citing reliable, yet unnamed, government sources. Citing government sources lent credibility to an otherwise flimsy story, based almost entirely on self-serving reports by former prisoners. Attaching Isakoff's name to the story also created credibility, despite the fact the Pentagon disowned the report. “It was never meant to look into charges of Koran desecration,” said a top Pentagon spokesman, denying the military placed too much trust in the desecration charges. Newsweek's story raises more questions about left wing media bias, especially when it comes to the Iraq war. Newsweek's story runs afoul with the White House and right wing groups.

      Before the 2004 elections, CBS's bogus story was designed to hurt President George W. Bush's reelection. An exhaustive investigation resulted in the terminations of Dan Rather, though the network denied it, and other members of the CBS newsroom, including senior producer Mary Mapes. So far, Newsweek hasn't announced plans to investigate its hierarchy leading to the false story, including Isikoff's boss, assistant managing editor Evan Thomas or, for that matter, Whitaker himself. Accountability starts and stops at the top. Editorial boards—in both broadcast and print journalism—bear a heavy burden to balance reporting against public interest and the first amendment. Offering genuine regrets and sincere apologies doesn't put the genie back in the bottle, especially when it comes to national security. Whitaker must pay more than lip service to undo the damage.

      Before controversial and potentially incendiary stories go to press journalistic ethics require editors to vet sources. Whether Newsweek failed to vet Isikoff's story or whether the story was indeed vetted, senior management must stand accountable. If the story was properly vetted then Newsweek must follow CBS's lead and appoint an independent panel to get to the bottom of—including the chain of command—how and why the story got printed. Whitaker has already expressed regrets about the loss or life, injuries and added risks to U.S. military and civilian personnel. While CBS never admitted its newsroom was hijacked by Democratic operatives, there's no other plausible explanation. Whether that's the case at Newsweek remains unclear. At the very least, Newsweek compromised journalistic ethics, inflamed a volatile situation and caused untold injuries and death.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.