By now, everyone has heard about the Newsweek story that claimed that some of the U.S. interrogators at Gitmo flushed a Koran down the toilet in order to rattle their detainees. When this story broke internationally, there were anti-American riots and upwards of 20 people were crushed or trampled to death. And now Newsweek is retracting their story claiming that their anonymous source cannot be sure the allegation is factual.
In the Washington Post's coverage of the Newsweek disgrace, they report: "The intensity of the anti-American riots, fueled in part by outraged Muslim clerics and radio broadcasts by elements of the ousted Taliban regime, took many Western analysts by surprise (emphasis added)."
And all I can say to that is, "WHAT??!!" Who exactly was surprised that reports of desecrating the Koran would foment riots? Muslims view the Koran as sacred, as the very words of God. All Muslims are taught to treat the book with the utmost respect. Christians in Muslim countries are even advised not to place their Bibles on the floor because no Muslim would do that to the Koran and if a Christian has such low respect for his sacred text, it would convince them that Christians don't take their faith very seriously. In some Islamic countries desecrating the Koran is a crime punishable by death. And many Western analysts were surprised?!
That would be comparable to me shouting "FIRE!!" into a crowded theater and later saying I was surprised to have caused such a panic. I might be forgiven for the ruckus if my warning were based on fact, if the theater truly were burning. But if I carelessly hit the alarm and were thus responsible for the ensuing havoc and admitted later that I really had no evidence that the theater was on fire, I ought to be penalized.
The problem, as I see it, is that many of those who are reporting on Islam don't know much about it. In fact, the mammoth ignorance of religion by those who report on it is, at times, frankly staggering.
Newsweek Editor, Mark Whitaker said: "I suppose you could say we should have foreseen the consequences of the report, but we didn't." Y'think?
Article comments
1 - Aaman
I suggest this be moved to the Politica category, with the other such posts.
2 - Scott
Aaman,
I am new to BlogCritics and hadn't noticed that the other Newsweek posts were under the politics heading.
However, with due respect, I don't believe my post is political. It is about journalists who write articles on religion without understanding the subject matter thoroughly. That is not a political issue. It does not advocate any political party, candidate, or party platform.
Given the five headings we have, journalistic integrity seemed most appropriate, I thought, under Culture.
3 - Temple Stark
It's perhaps more damaging to American interests when non-Islam politician act in the Middle East, without full understanding of Islam.
Wouldn't you agree?
4 - Aaman
Actually, politicians never know what they are talking about, so it's pretty much par for the course
5 - Scott
Temple,
I agree that politicians who wish to interact in foreign affairs out to know about the cultures with which they deal. And I'd expect the same consideration in return.
But again, the point of my post was that journalists frequently address religious subjects (Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc.) with little understanding.
As one devoted to studying sacred texts, I am often frustrated when I hear, excuse me, hacks talking like they're experts on the Bible.
I don't know if the original Newsweek allegations were true. Maybe they were. I wouldn't support such tactics. The astonishing thing to me is that people act so surprised that the article produced the results it did.
6 - Temple Stark
I'm with you there Scott.
More religion journalists / experts should be consulted in these type of stories. That would be great. However, pace Newsweek - one line out of 10 total of something reported many many times before. Nothing to do with expertise or none, there.
7 - libhom
This posting is ironic, given the corroboration of the Newsweek story. It has become obvious that Newsweek had an accurate article but backed down from pressure by the Bush regime.
8 - sydney
I suspected this all along actaully, not because I beleive in conspiracy theories but because it seems most logical.
On the other hand, given the way some Muslim fanatics reacted, I think it might have been a good idea to recind the story. Might have saved some lives.
Still... very very uncomfortable with the way the media can be bullied in this country.
9 - dee
The story never should have seen the light of day. There was a time when editors would sit on a story if they felt it would endanger lives of innocent and that is what the editor of newsweek should have done. Not only should politicians be aware of foreign cultures and beliefs but so should those who publish such stories.
I do not doubt that it happened as I did listen to a man who was an interragotor and he is retired now. He says it probably did. But how important was it that we all know this?
Was it worth the risk? I think not.
10 - gonzo marx
i see...so we can all agree that if someone uses incorrect or unsubstantiated "Factoids" and places them out into the public View as Truth, they should suffer the Consequences when it is found out to be incorrect or unsubstantiated..
i'm all for that
can we start with..oh...WMD's and linking Iraq to 9/11 as the justification for pre-emptive Invasion?
seems much more Important to me than a single line in a ten line article in a magazine
goose, meet gander...
Excelsior!
11 - Scott
I don't know if what Newsweek reported happened or not. I'm neither attacking nor defending the accuracy of the original story.
I am discouraged by the naivete and ignorance of world religions many reporters seem to demonstrate.
However, I'm not buying that they retracted only because they were pressured to do so by the Bush administration. Evidence? And I don't know what real pressure even the President could put on a free press. It seems more likely that they were motivated by the market. The negative PR will drive down subscriptions.
12 - Temple Stark
Particulalry with the White House - perhaps like no other place, the "control" is access, and the fact that a leader, a president, directly and through his spokesman can publicly say, Newsweek has "blood on its hands."
And the public sentiment expressed by these leaders is not regret that the abuse happened, it is "We're sorry the story came out."
And a Defense Secretary who says, "Be careful what you say." Repeatedly.
These people know, but profess not to, that when they say things like this, it matters.
It matters.
National magazines and newspapers that don't have access to the White House, to the DOD, the FBI etc, are sunk. Should they be sunk just because a couple leaders don't like them?
Because usually what happens with "e don't like you" is not only the stories they feel are wrong, but also the stories they know are right and make them look bad.
So, is the magazine or newspaper then only allowed to send reporters based on approval of those who are being covered? That is dangerous and opens the door to easy and wide potential for abuse.
I have been heartened that, faults as it has, as any tnghas, many members of the public - including many non-partisan bloggers - have stepped up to say, woah, a little heavy on the assault and accusations there, buddy. This has happened and we know it.
13 - Scott
Temple,
I think you make some good points.
But you say, "This happened and we know it."
How do you know it?
I believe that proof must be shown. One is innocent until proven guilty, even if that one is the US government.
I'm not denying that it happened. I DON'T KNOW. And unless you have hard evidence or first-hand info, then you don't KNOW either. Am I right?
14 - gonzo marx
evidence and testimony from first hand sources has been gathered and put out there by the Red Cross since '03
hopefully you will acknowledge that that Organization is about as non-partisan and trustworthy as we can get
Scott sez..
*One is innocent until proven guilty*
excellent point...so the more than 200 detainees released fom Gitmo in the last 2 months , that were held for over 2 years without Trial, are innocent until proven guilty as well?
this is all a very sticky topic on many levels...but i tend ot have a bit more Faith in the "slam dunk" of the Red Cross' info over the clearly wrong "Intelligence" that prompted an unfounded invasion of a sovereign nation and all that has entailed since...
much is being done in the Nation's name within these "prison" facilities...i woudl feel much better if the basic tenets of human decency as outlined in the Geneva Conventions were being adhered to...
remember "We hold the Truths to be self evident, that all Men are created Equal"
doesn't that cover even the "bad guys"...more especially..even those accused but not proven to be the "bad guys"?
just stuff to think about...
Excelsior!
15 - BillB
I second most of what Gonzo is saying. About 10 or so stories of Koran desecration have been published in the last 2 or 3 years.
This cited by Ari Berman at The Nation.
[And the Times reports: "A former interrogator at Guantanamo, in an interview with the Times, confirmed the accounts of the hunger strikes, including the public expression of regret over the treatment of the Korans." (Neil A. Lewis and Eric Schmitt, "Inquiry Finds Abuses at Guantanamo Bay," New York Times, May 1, 2005, p. 35.)]
You can find a copy of the whole piece here.
http://rempost.blogspot.com/2005/05/inquiry-finds-abuses-at-guantanamo-bay.html
And other accounts go back much further with no apparent violence as a result. Granted this Times piece was from only 3 weeks ago so the case can be made that it may have contributed. But as far as I know it has not been cited, and what about the rest?
Newsweek made their own bed by citing a Pentagon source, submitting it to the Pentagon for review 10 days before publication, and when the Pentagon did not confirm or deny the story, Newsweek ran with it. They're guilty of masochism more than anything else.
I'm exceedingly leery of squashing a piece because of the way a segment of the population may act.
Do sensitive subjects deserve a somewhat hightened level of sensitivity? Of course but Newsweek is simply the conveyor of the last straw. Look to the Bush Adm. and developing political realities in the region as General Myers has stated for the previous boatload of straws.
As for whether or not this particular story is true, I don't know. As stated there are ample accounts of such activity.
Not to mention, does anyone really think abuse of the Koran to coerce cooperation is beyond some of our interrogators?
Maybe that's where our ire and outrage should be aimed.
If indeed these stories are true (and I for one believe they are) than blame those reponsible for allowing it to be done.
If you blame Newsweek you're pretty much killing the messenger.