Network Journo and Anchoress talk Newsweek

I have a friend, a very good friend, who is a well-respected member of a network news team. He’s got the awards and accolades. More importantly, he has the high regard of all who know him. I have known him for years and can personally attest to the fact that while he is a bit left-of-center in some cases, and can sometimes get as caught up in things as the rest of us, he is quite one of the fairest people I’ve come across in my traveled life. He was horrified by Rathergate. The excesses of the press sometimes get his gut, but at other times he staunchly defends his profession against the all-too-easy extreme characterizations we bloggers (myself included, sometimes) make of journalists in general and mainstream powernewsbrokers in particular.

He and I were talking Newsweek today, naturally, shooting emails back and forth, and I am always happy to do this with him, because sometimes, in the shout and fury of a blogswarm regatta, one can see things begin to list a bit off kilter, but the need to “ride the blogwind” trumps the ability to exhale and think things through a little further. My friend’s kneejerk instinct to consider all angles always helps me to get back on an even keel.

With his permission, I am reprinting some of our exchange, because I thought it might be helpful for the blogosphere to know how this is all playing with successful and influential members of the profession, and because I think both of us make some sane points that might keep the story from blowing off course.

WARNING: Some salty language. Do not read if you can’t handle it. He IS a newsman, after all! :-)

Network Guy: The whole Newsweek thing is making me ill. All I could think when I read it this morning was “Thank God, at least when WE f*cked up, people didn’t die. There but for the grace of God…” But I don’t have much patience for some bloggers who argue that Newsweek, or the “MSM” are blatantly anti-American and conspiring to do us in. What piffle. They f*cked up. It’s that simple. I find it shocking that Newsweek hasn’t– in addition to confessing its sins — retracted the story. But then, as we know, it’s out of character for the media to admit a mistake, especially something that sparked something this heinous and, in fact, frightening. Maybe they are worried for their own safety, and are expecting people with
torches and pitchforks to come stalking down Broadway….

Anchoress: I have to admit, I am not comfortable with some of the more extreme, “let’s destroy Newsweek” talk I am reading on the ‘net. I believe that in the end Newsweek adn the rest will do themselves in quite nicely without our help. But I do think this very odd new standard of journalism, ie, “well, it might not be true, after all, but it MIGHT still be true,” is a very low sort of standard, and not a good place for journalism to descend to.

It is interesting to me that you note the media will not admit a mistake. I have heard some apologists on the radio saying how “upright” Newsweek has been in admitting its error (9 days later), but really, they’ve admitted nothing – any admission of error is obliterated by the sly “but we don’t really think we err’ed” tone. It seems to me that it is the Isikoffs and the Thomases who are routinely castigating the WH for “not admitting mistakes” and apologizing. Yet their own ability to admit to a mistake and apologize has shown itself to be rather half-assed.

NG: …Whitaker, the editor, his reaction to the whole imbroglio was — how shall I put this? — cool to the touch. He said that they couldn’t verify that anything like that had happened, or hadn’t, yet not accepting any real responsibility for the tragedies that resulted from their reporting (or mis-reporting) the story. It was much too grudging, as if to say, “Well, it COULDA happened, ya know. I mean, maybe not the way we said, but, it COULDA.” The fact is: if Newsweek REALLY wanted to make a big f*cking deal out of this, and exploit it, they would have done a complete story on it, and not buried it in the Periscope section, which is comprised of a lot of gossip and inside-the-beltway hearsay to begin with. They exercised bad judgment in going with a juicy tidbit that couldn’t be independently verified — and I honestly believe they were profoundly ignorant of the impact the story would have. (For that matter, so, perhaps, was the WH … which didn’t raise any objections about the report until several days after it was published and the rioting broke out.)

A: You know what I think? I think we’ve been hearing these unsubstantiated charges made by Al Q prisoners for three years now, and it’s kind of like the “Bush/TANG/AWOL” story, just something that gets picked at and never proved, and the American public AND the WH finally just roll their eyes about it, because it’s been such a steady drumbeat of accusations.

And I even think Newsweek didn’t think clearly about it, for this reason: They didn’t see a story in a Bible being used as toilet paper. They didn’t see a story in a crucifix being covered in urine. They didn’t see a story
in an icon of Mary surrounded by cut outs of genitalia. They simply wouldn’t SEE the story thru the eyes of the Muslims. They have completely cut themselves out of the mindset of faith, to the point that they simply cannot imagine that what is meaningless to them has meaning for others, and they cannot anticipate responses, for that reason. Unless, they are anticipateing stereotypical responses of red-state “salivating morons.”

NG: You may be right. They have little sensitivity when it comes to matters of religion, and no idea how deeply disturbing that kind of desecration is to people of faith, any faith.

A: Hmmm…kinda like Tina Brown having no idea who incredibly insulting her post-conclave piece on Benedict XVI was to the Catholics? Forget it, don’t even bother answering that! :-) What would you say to someone who posits a theory that – for example – Newsweek DID in fact understand that it had a drop of poison in its vile but – knowing it was not well-sourced, they chose to drop it into the Periscopes section to see what would happen, if in fact, they could hit a mark, without anticipating all the rest of it to happen. Is that possible? Is that something a journalist would do – slip something out there, in a seemingly innocuous fashion, and wait to see if it hits a target?

NG: Nah, not in my experience. I seriously doubt it.

It’s more likely that a SOURCE with an agenda found a gullible accomplice in Newsweek. That the SOURCE wanted to unleash that poison and see what would happen. Who knows? I might have been someone at DOD who doesn’t like the way things are going. Or it might have been someone trying to intentionally put another stake through the heart of the media. But it’s entirely possible, whoever is behind it, didn’t realize they were opening a Pandora’s box. As someone said this morning on one of the chat shows (mixing my fantastic allegories) “There is real concern in Washington that the Islamic world will not believe Washington’s apology and explanation — and they won’t be able to get the genie back in the bottle.”

A: Wait, do you mean “Washington’s” apology or “Newsweek’s”?

NG: Yeah. Thanks for clarifying that. I think it was Russert. He was saying that he was hearing that folks in the ME thought the Newsweek “apology” was orchestrated by the WH, and they weren’t buying it.

A: don’t know if I agree with your theory that the press is more distrustful because of the WMD intel problem. They seemed pretty darned distrustful from the get-go, to me. Wasn’t it Newsweek, if I remember, who – the week after 9/11 ran the cover story with : WHY DO THEY HATE US, which more or less assumed that we’d done something to deserve the attack?

NG: Maybe. But I’m reminded of something a journalism prof told me in college: “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.”

In other words: don’t believe it just because someone says it is so.

(Of course, perhaps the Newsweek crowd should have paid more attention to that when someone started spewing the scoop on the Koran…)

A: Now, I’d like your opinion. It’s not my question, but it’s a good one, by Roger Kimball: Why is it that all the stories you read in Time-Newsweek-The New York Times-The Washington Post-Etc. or see on CNN-The BBC-CBS-NBC-Etc., why is it that all their stories about Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, etc., why is it that the presumption, the prejudice, the predisposition never goes the other way? Why is it that their reporters always assume the worst: that we’re doing dirty at Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., and are primed to pick up and believe any rumor damaging to the United States? Shakespeare knew that rumor was a “pipe/blown by surmises, jealousies, conjectures,” not to be trusted. So why do these journalists, trained to sift evidence, to probe sources, to listen beyond the static of rumor: why do they only do so in one direction, so to speak? Yes, I know that’s a self-answering question, at least in part, but it is worth pondering nonetheless. Austin Bay calls the incident at Newsweek “The Press’ Abu Ghraib.”

What do you think of that question, and do you think this is, in fact, the press’ Abu Ghraib?

NG: I think the media’s instinct is to mistrust the Official Story — to suspect ulterior motives and discern an alternative reality that may not be as rosy as the authorities tell us. It has nothing to do with being anti-American, but has everything to do with being anti-manipulation. This White House — and others — have proven to be masters at using the media to their own advantage, which is something the media doesn’t particularly like, no matter what one’s political leanings might be.

If the government tells you it’s running a thoroughbred in the Kentucky Derby, and you notice that this horse’s ears are unusually large, there is a natural inclination to wonder if it is, in fact, a mule. You can’t help but start checking its teeth. I think the whole WMD thing got the press looking a lot more closely at ears, and teeth, and various other anatomical anomolies…

A: Hmmmm…I’m highly dissatisfied. You didn’t actually answer if this was the press’ Abu Ghraib, but I’ll let you off the hook because I likes ya.

I have to admit, I’m mad, and I’m really tired of the press I grew up admiring repeatedly letting us down like this – by us, I mean we consumers of news. That said, I also am a little leery of calling Newsweek “Anti-American,” for several reasons. First, I believe if they’re anti-anything, they are Anti-Bush, and any damage they might have wanted to inflict would have been damage in that direction, and not to innocent people, our troops, or even our foreign policy. Remember, they want a Democrat president in the WH in three years, and that president is not going to want to have to deal with this crap. Afghanistan should be “no” story by ’08 except a successful one that helps America in the long run and doesn’t bring more problems to a new president’s plate. I do not think Newsweek anticipated all this.

NG: I don’t know how much of what we’re witnessing is because of hubris, how much is competitive pressure, how much is ignorance, how much is arrogance… or how much is a combination of all of the above. But I don’t think it has much, if anything, to do with anti-American bias in the press. America has been very good to the press — too good, perhaps? — and there is nothing to gain from shitting where you eat, so to speak.

A: So…bottom line…no, the genie can’t be put back in the bottle, the poison can’t be uninjected, and we’ll have to work very hard to regain the trust of these people who were beginning to trust us, to stabalize their government, etc, etc, all because a big-time, modern day newsman ran with a story that needed more checking, and relied upon the new “prove me wrong – but you really can’t” standard of journalism to get him by. Egad. We’re in trouble.

NG: Yep. Pathetic.

Anchoress note: Maybe more than merely pathetic. Here’s the latest:

Muslims in Afghanistan were skeptical about the turnaround on Monday.

“We will not be deceived by this,” Islamic cleric Mullah Sadullah Abu Aman told Reuters. “It comes because of American pressure.” Aman was the leader of a group of clerics who vowed to call for a holy war against the United States.”

I cannot help but be angry, very angry, still.

WELCOME: Captain’s Corner readers, please look around. The Newsweek fiasco has dominated the blog today, but I think I came to understand why so many American journalists count themselves as Journalists first and Americans second, here. We’re also talking about how the rest of Europe seems to hate France, we are looking into new PC language reforms and we have a little fun at Newsweek’s expense.