So, it’s likely that you’ve heard about the May 9th Newsweek story regarding allegations that interrogators at Guantanamo Bay flushed a copy of the Qur’an (the rough Muslim equivalent of the Bible) down a toilet, in an effort to intimidate prisoners at the facility. If not, here’s a link to the article on Newsweek’s site. As almost anybody who follows the media knows by now, Newsweek eventually retracted the story, after the allegations could not be proven and after rioting in Afghanistan — sparked at least in part by the story — killed over a dozen people. Newsweek’s editor-in-chief has apologized to the magazine’s readers, and this week’s issue includes a follow-up report on the topic. (Ironically, there are now follow-up articles appearing elsewhere that indicate that elements of the story may have some truth to them after all.)
So much for the background material. As one might expect, the story dominated the media and the “blogosphere” (god how I hate that word) in particular last week, prompting angry editorials and stern defenses from people on both sides of the issue. Without getting into the political aspect of the matter, I did find interesting commentary on the media-related aspects from the usual suspects: At PressThink, Jay Rosen ran an insightful article explaining the multiple levels of abstraction in Newsweek’s sourcing for the article.
Newsweek, which I will call S1 for our first level source, and for which we have names (Michael Isikoff, Mark Whitaker, John Barry) said that it had sources (S2) without names, who in turn said that other sources (S3) also without names, working as investigators for the government, have learned enough from their sources (S4), likewise unnamed, to conclude in a forthcoming report for U.S. Southern Command (finally, a name!) that unnamed interrogators (S5) dumped the Quran into toilets to make a point with prisoners (S6) who are Muslims but also not named.
And as Newsweek Editor Mark Whitaker explained, what made this nameless, formless, virtually fact-free item newsworthy was not the “toilet” imagery itself, or some of the other equally revolting allegations, which had been reported numerous times before, but the “fact” that for the first time a government source (that would be S2) said it.
Jay continues to explain that, although Newsweek had six levels of possible sourcing, its readers only had one — Newsweek itself, and that should have led to more thorough attempts to confirm or deny the story.
Tim Porter at First Draft is even less forgiving; he takes editor Mark Whitaker to task for his initially-tepid retraction:
Its defensiveness (“I think it’s important for the public to know exactly what we reported, why, and how subsequent events unfolded.”) is matched only by the curtain-raising glimpse it offers the public into the byzantine, back-channel sourcing that passes for much of the reporting in Washington, D.C.
Here’s Whitaker:
“(The) information came from a knowledgeable U.S. government source, and before deciding whether to publish it we approached two separate Defense Department officials for comment. One declined to give us a response; the other challenged another aspect of the story but did not dispute the Qur’an charge.” (Emphasis added.)
No names. No positions. No reasons for their anonymity. No nothing that would add to either the credibility of the original report or the response.
Both posts make the same point: the public’s confidence in the media is at a historic low point, and screwing up a story in such a dramatic fashion doesn’t help. Jay follows up on this in another post, referring to the incident as an example of “trust-me journalism,” where the sourcing is presumed to be reliable rather than verified as such. It’s not always possible to do so, of course, and sometimes it’s more helpful than harmful, but it’s a high-risk strategy in today’s media jungle. Anonymous sources providing material that’s “expected to be released” is a recipie for disaster, particularly when it’s very likely that the subject matter will be highly offensive to a significant number of readers. It’s especially damning because the article appeared in Newsweek’s “Periscopes” section, which according to Whitaker has less rigid editorial checking than the rest of the magazine — not the sort of place where one might expect to find a story with these levels of nuance and connotation. (The Post’s ombudsman, Michael Getler, weighs in on this issue in today’s column for the paper.)
I said I would try to stay away from the political side, but one aspect of the story that’s been making headlines all on its own is the White House’s response to the article, specifically an exchange between press secretary Scott McClellan and ABC News correspondent Terry Moran during the May 17th press briefing:
Q. Scott, you said that the retraction by Newsweek magazine of its story is a good first step. What else does the President want this American magazine to do?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, it’s what I talked about yesterday. This report, which Newsweek has now retracted and said was wrong, has had serious consequences. People did lose their lives. The image of the United States abroad has been damaged; there is lasting damage to our image because of this report. And we would encourage Newsweek to do all that they can to help repair the damage that has been done, particularly in the region.
Q. With respect, who made you the editor of Newsweek? Do you think it’s appropriate for you, at that podium, speaking with the authority of the President of the United States, to tell an American magazine what they should print?
MR. McCLELLAN: I’m not telling them. I’m saying that we would encourage them to help.
Ouch. There’s been a lot of back-and-forth in the media and on the web on this one as well, but I’ll just say that it’s telling that this type of exchange is a rarity at the briefings.
So what’s the lesson? I’m not an editor, or a journalist, or even an influential media critic, and I’m hardly in a position to rag on people who are technically co-workers. That said, for my part I think a key lesson is that due diligence for the media is more important than ever, especially in the world of print. Had a cable-TV or even a network news broadcast reported on this story first, and then retracted it, the howls of outrage might not have been quite so loud; after all, on TV everybody’s always scrambling over each other for scoops, which translate to ratings. Print media — even print media with a significant web presence — is expected to take its time and get it right, and when it doesn’t, it hurts everyone even more.
none