I caught a bit of Michael Isikoff on Charlie Rose tonight.
Referring to the Newsweek report on the Koran in the toilet, Rose asked Isikoff, "Do you believe it happened?"
Isikoff explained, "We retracted, but we are continuing to report the story...We don’t know how this is all going to play out in the end."
He continued that there was "certainly no official confirmation. Absent that, these are allegations."
Although Isikoff admitted that not a single story of Koran desecration had been verified, it was quite clear he believed the allegations were facts.
Rose asked him, "What would you do different today?"
Isikoff responded, "We're going to have a firmer policy on sourcing...There will be every effort made to get as much on the record as possible...That's going to be tough."
Poor Isikoff. He's actually going to have to confirm that what he's writing is true. Journalists have it SO tough. Making stuff up and believing others' stories is so much easier.
To Isikoff's credit, he did say, "I dropped the ball." Nevertheless, his willingness to be held accountable for shoddy reporting was offset by his seeming belief that of course American personnel have desecrated the Koran. At issue was his carelessness and failure to have a rock solid source, not the factual nature of his claims.
Isikoff went on to say how important it was to find out what was really happening at Guantanamo. He called it a "black hole," and said that it was created to be a shadowy place, free from scrutiny.
Rose asked if he believes the administration sought to raise questions about the credibility of mainstream news? Isikoff replied that he wanted to stay out of the politics of this, yet he proceeded to insinuate that the White House jumped on the retraction to bash Newsweek.
Quoting Rush Limbaugh, Rose brought up his suggestion that Newsweek wanted the story to be true to discredit the military.
Isikoff insisted, "That’s just not true." He claimed there was nothing they take more seriously than the safety of the troops. "We have a role to play, but we’re also citizens, patriotic citizens."
At that point, I gagged.
Rose inquired, "How much damage has this done?"
Isikoff's response caught me off guard. I interpreted the question to refer to damage in terms of America's image around the world. Isikoff answered the question in terms of damage to Newsweek's image.
"It could have done some temporary damage...We're going to go back to basics," Isikoff said. He insisted Newsweek would continue its "first rate reporting."
"Credibility is what it's all about in the end," Isikoff said.
After saying that, he went on to state that the entire incident, in the vast scheme of things would end up being just a blip. He said, "There was no fabrication," and that they "fell a little short" on a small item.
What???
There was fabrication. Therefore, the story was retracted. The facts of the item were not grounded in any verifiable truth. Isikoff is obviously operating under a different definition, but I consider that to be fabrication.
As far as falling a little short goes, I imagine the loved ones of people who were killed or injured in the anti-American protests supposedly generated by that story would describe Newsweek’s infraction in much stronger terms than that.
To be fair to Isikoff and Newsweek, I find it difficult to single them out for reporting questionable “Koran in the toilet” stories and holding them responsible for the violence. It was only one of many similar accounts relayed by the liberal media. There’s plenty of blame to go around.
Referring to the Newsweek report on the Koran in the toilet, Rose asked Isikoff, "Do you believe it happened?"
Isikoff explained, "We retracted, but we are continuing to report the story...We don’t know how this is all going to play out in the end."
He continued that there was "certainly no official confirmation. Absent that, these are allegations."
Although Isikoff admitted that not a single story of Koran desecration had been verified, it was quite clear he believed the allegations were facts.
Rose asked him, "What would you do different today?"
Isikoff responded, "We're going to have a firmer policy on sourcing...There will be every effort made to get as much on the record as possible...That's going to be tough."
Poor Isikoff. He's actually going to have to confirm that what he's writing is true. Journalists have it SO tough. Making stuff up and believing others' stories is so much easier.
To Isikoff's credit, he did say, "I dropped the ball." Nevertheless, his willingness to be held accountable for shoddy reporting was offset by his seeming belief that of course American personnel have desecrated the Koran. At issue was his carelessness and failure to have a rock solid source, not the factual nature of his claims.
Isikoff went on to say how important it was to find out what was really happening at Guantanamo. He called it a "black hole," and said that it was created to be a shadowy place, free from scrutiny.
Rose asked if he believes the administration sought to raise questions about the credibility of mainstream news? Isikoff replied that he wanted to stay out of the politics of this, yet he proceeded to insinuate that the White House jumped on the retraction to bash Newsweek.
Quoting Rush Limbaugh, Rose brought up his suggestion that Newsweek wanted the story to be true to discredit the military.
Isikoff insisted, "That’s just not true." He claimed there was nothing they take more seriously than the safety of the troops. "We have a role to play, but we’re also citizens, patriotic citizens."
At that point, I gagged.
Rose inquired, "How much damage has this done?"
Isikoff's response caught me off guard. I interpreted the question to refer to damage in terms of America's image around the world. Isikoff answered the question in terms of damage to Newsweek's image.
"It could have done some temporary damage...We're going to go back to basics," Isikoff said. He insisted Newsweek would continue its "first rate reporting."
"Credibility is what it's all about in the end," Isikoff said.
After saying that, he went on to state that the entire incident, in the vast scheme of things would end up being just a blip. He said, "There was no fabrication," and that they "fell a little short" on a small item.
What???
There was fabrication. Therefore, the story was retracted. The facts of the item were not grounded in any verifiable truth. Isikoff is obviously operating under a different definition, but I consider that to be fabrication.
As far as falling a little short goes, I imagine the loved ones of people who were killed or injured in the anti-American protests supposedly generated by that story would describe Newsweek’s infraction in much stronger terms than that.
To be fair to Isikoff and Newsweek, I find it difficult to single them out for reporting questionable “Koran in the toilet” stories and holding them responsible for the violence. It was only one of many similar accounts relayed by the liberal media. There’s plenty of blame to go around.
No comments:
Post a Comment