Ezra Klein: Fire Rumsfeld!

« Yes, But The Peach People Are Exterminating the Blueberryites | Main | Minimum Wage Woes »

May 19, 2005

Fire Rumsfeld!

Kevin identifies one portion of the Newsweek story that's getting consistently overlooked. If Newsweek really was pursuing such a pack of lies, why then, when they ran the story by the Pentagon, didn't the officials flag it as false? They gave them the heads-up, hell, they gave them the text! And yet no one seemed to think the upcoming government report wasn't going to include the Korans-in-toilets factoid. That right there should tell you plenty about why the piece ran.

It's reminiscent of the National Guard memos, wherein the Bush administration clearly figured they were true and declined to challenge them when the story broke. in both cases it seems that the facts were essentially straight, its the sources who were out of line. But you can't fault Newsweek -- they gave the higher-ups the opportunity to correct the error and, if you believe the article caused riots, to preempt those, too. The Pentagon failed.

May 19, 2005 in Media | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d8347af63969e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Fire Rumsfeld!:

Comments

Oh come on. They didn't tell Newsweek because they were perfectly happy for Newsweek to set itself up for a gigantic fall. They saw this as a golden opportunity, they said nothing, they let Newsweek run with the story, and then they jumped onto it with all four feet and their greedy snouts.

Look at how hard they're pushing the story! And look at how it's being repeated! Anti-American riots across the Muslim world are the fault of a short inside story in Newsweek magazine. Nothing at all to do with, say, the unprovoked invasion of an Arab Muslim country by the US, or the well and widely documented torture and abuse of Afghans, Iraqis, and others by US forces.

Puh-leeze. The Pentagon didn't fail. They did their job perfectly.

Posted by: bleh | May 19, 2005 2:34:54 PM

To the truth. The Newsweek story is most likely the truth. The fact that a top government perosn backed away from the story under pressure from the government is not surprising.

Anybody with any sense sees through this one.

George

Posted by: George | May 19, 2005 2:59:21 PM

I would not be as flip, but would note that the standard practice for DOD personnel other than public affairs officials is to deny comment. On an issue that inflammatory, I would not comment in their shoes either.

Ezra - the Pentagon's a building. Newsweek ran the article by DOD officials, and perhaps OSD failed to comment.

Posted by: J. | May 19, 2005 3:04:44 PM

In my wilder, more paranoid moments, I think BushCo leaks the false stuff, then fails to refute or comment before publication, just so they can make their "media bias" case later.

Posted by: Roxanne | May 19, 2005 4:20:54 PM

also, lets not forget that the 'pentagon' actually changed another part of the story, but left the koran-in-the-can part of the story untouched.

the other untold/unappreciated part of the story is that the pentagon apparently has final edit on all/most articles that get published.

Posted by: lukery | May 19, 2005 6:42:14 PM

This is a pretty weak post Ezra.

The standard that not denying something means it is true is a horrible one to go on.

Their is no way that the Pentagon officials would be able to quickly deny that no Guard in Guantanamo ever flushed a Koran. It would even be tough to confirm that no draft version of a report mentioned it. Particularly when you add in that Newsweek doubtless did not tell the Pentagon the name of their source, so they couldn't just go ask the guy what he was talking about. They are not omniscient.

Similary with the national guard memo thing. Bush did consistantly claim that he fulfilled his obligations. He was of course unable to know what, if anything, his old CO had written in supposedly private memos, especially as the guy was dead.

Lets imagine I go to you with an anonymous report that you had stolen a candybar. You could deny that you ever stole anything, but you can't honestly at least, deny that the report was made by someone. For all you know, someone has reported that you stole a candybar. They might be purposefully lying, they might be mistaken, but that doesn't mean the report I have isn't genuine. If I publish something based upon this report, and the report turns out to be a forgery, the blame is not on you for not being able to deny that the report was genuine.

Posted by: Dave Justus | May 19, 2005 7:37:26 PM

He who expects D.O.D. to clarify matters better not hold his breath. For whatever reason, we still haven't got "little green men" straight (sorry, greys).

Posted by: opit | May 20, 2005 3:23:13 AM

Dave you are missing the point. A Bush Administration official leaks something to Newsweek. Newsweek runs it by different parts of the Bush Administration and no one disputes it, this is a process called "confirmation". Newsweek runs the story.

That should be the end of it. Any blowback should go to the original source because no one is disputing that he or she said what in fact was reported, or if so I have missed it.

If the people at Newsweek and the rest of the MSM were smart they would simply refuse to run anything this inflammatory based on anonymous sources or make it explicit that if they were burned any promises of anonymity were null and void.

I wasted little sympathy on the producer in Rathergate. There was an abundance of fully confirmed documentation on AwolBush obtained through FOIA requests. But reporting based on that would have meant sharing credit. Instead they went for the "exclusive" based on a document essentially tossed over the transom from a guy who had a (legitimate) axe to grind. Years of hard work was flushed down the toilet by a handful of selfish self-promoters.

Under the Bush standard any media outlet is far game for the Newsweek/Rathergate treatment. They leak it, you confirm it and then print it, they then deny it, you are well and thoroughly screwed. I hope the whole MSM keeps this in mind the next time they quote a "High Level Administration Source".

Posted by: bruce Webb | May 20, 2005 9:05:10 AM

"I would not be as flip, but would note that the standard practice for DOD personnel other than public affairs officials is to deny comment."

The reporter was told by his source that an upcoming report by the military would confirm the Quran-toilet story; post-publication, the source claims he may have been mistaken about where he saw the reference to the incident(s), and so backed away from confirming it. This is NOT 'inventing' the story.

The reporter shoud burn the source -- reveal his/her name and the entirety of the interaction, etc. Publish the rough notes and all, and put the onus where it belongs.

It's been suggested that this was a put-up by the madministration, which I allow to be plausible. But I have another thought, which is if the Republicans want to eviscerate the judicial branch, that leaves only the "fourth estate" as a check and a balance to government power. Only the press, the news media, can keep the Sith from taking over.

Posted by: Ed Drone | May 20, 2005 10:53:34 AM

Bruce, I am pretty sure that the Pentagon neither confirmed nor denied that the incident took place. They could not do either most likely.

I don't know that blowback should go back to the original source. First off, getting multiple sources is always good when you can, and Newsweek didn't here. Presumably they could not find any others. That makes it a pretty weak story right there. Second, if you are going to go with such a story anyway, you are taking the responsibility for it.

To clarify though, I blame Newsweek for running a bad story. Happens a lot, hopefully they will learn from it and improve. I don't blame them for the riots, that blame should properly go to the Afganis who did the rioting. Even if the story was 100% accurate, it was no excuse for that behavior.

Posted by: Dave Justus | May 20, 2005 1:42:47 PM

Would it be overly cynical to suppose that the Pentagon didn't deny this story *specifically* because they knew that if the story ran and was then retracted, it would make other reports - like the one in today's NYT about torture at Bagram - less credible in the eyes of people that aren't paying that close attention?

Posted by: aphrael | May 20, 2005 2:25:48 PM

托盘
 托盘
 钢托盘
 钢制托盘
 塑料托盘
 木托盘
 木制托盘
 纸托盘
 木塑托盘