I've been following the Newsweek controversy over the last few days and asked a friend who hs 25 years in newsmagazine journalism (Newsweek included)her opinion. Here it is in part, FWIW:
"Newsweek thought they had a mini-exclusive, which is why they put it
in the Periscope section. Although the two reporters, John Barry and
Michael Isikoff, are both real professionals, they didn't think the
nugget was important because of the Koran/Quran toilet flush (which,
after all, had already been reported elsewhere, albeit not
authoritatively); they thought it was important because they had
evidence that the US Mil investigators were taking it seriously and
might do something about it.
So: good intentions, good reporters, bad information and lots and
lots of misinterpretation among everyone from arabs to the pentagon.
when people die, EVERYONE starts trying to cover their own asses
(right, the Defense Department). And the game is all about plausible
deniability.
Unfortunately, Newsweek can't, shouldn't, wouldn't -- play that game.
Someone has to play it straight, and once the mainstream news orgs
start waffling (as the NY Times did for years until recently, always
denying they were ever wrong), we're all in trouble.
If Newsweek did anything wrong, it was that they didn't think through
the impact -- which they probably would have had the foreign editor,
not the Periscope editor, been in charge. And had it been Tuesday,
not Friday, on the eve of their close.
Now NW needs to explain, WITHOUT knuckling under to pressure from the
Bushies to take this mysterious "next step" Scott McLellan referred to.
Newsweek is not the baddie here, not by a long shot." |
