The Laughing Wolf

Jihadweek

Others are covering the despicable story of newsweek quite well. No, I am not going to follow their "style" and all cap them; they deserve no caps. Among the bloggers, Baldilocks - as usual - does a great job including an honest assessment of media attitude towards those in the military. Acidman rips the disgrace billed as advocacy journalism, which is contradiction in terms. Mark Tapscott covers the JM101 and related errors. My own take on such starts with this post and runs on a bit longer, but the series could have been written expressly for this incident instead of what originally sparked it. Suffice it to say that right now I am ashamed at ever having been any part of the Old Media or to say that I was a "journalist." Alas, I was, and even was inducted into Kappa Tau Alpha for my academic work in journalism.

That background, including the academic, though, is why I want to discuss some things that I think are being missed in current discussions. Please be aware that I am suspending my normal rules of language, and plan to call them as I see them.

First, the defense of newsweek to blame the Pentagon and the military for the story is much more than mere bullshit. "Gee, if she hadn't been dressed so provocatively, I would never have raped her." Blaming the victim is exactly what they are doing here, and the quote is not mere hyperbole. Take their argument, break it/strip it down, and then parse it logically. Their defense and the quote above break down the same, and it is bullshit in both cases.

Second, I don't buy several statements that have come out of newsweek of late. The one most deserving of scorn is the quote attributed to Mark Whitaker that says "I suppose you could say we should have foreseen the consequences of the report, but we didn't". I call bullshit, for several reasons, not the least being the reaction to the overhyped (and often misleading, IMO; see this post for why) Abu Ghraib stories. Or the reaction to the "Bottles" non-story. Or, pick almost any other story of alleged American perfidy spread by the Old Media and reaction to same. If you think that members of the Old Media (and New) don't look at and even study the reactions around the world to their stories, do I have a land deal for you. They do, and rather intently, so this one just doesn't fly for me.

To say that the story was a piss-poor job is to compliment it far too highly. Going with a single anonymous source for something that had to be known was inflammatory beggars (if not buggers) description. Especially given that the Al Qaeda training manual has been out there for quite some time, and this claim is straight from the book. Nor the fact that this has been a topic of discussion among informed writers and readers for some time. To my mind there are other lapses of what is supposed to be journalistic procedure and ethics here, but again I leave that fisking to others.

No, what matters here is that newsweek screwed the pooch massively. They ran a story that has shaken a fragile democracy [do they really want to see the Taliban and its regular (and almost ritual) rape and murder of females of all ages and atrocities back?], endangered the lives of civilians dedicated to alleviating the humanitarian crisis generated by the Taliban (and not the liberation), and endangered the lives of American and Allied armed forces still fighting the Taliban. They have also done massive damage to media credibility and freedom of the press -- to the point that if we lose such the Old Media will have no one but themselves to blame.

I am also left pondering a rather distasteful question, if not conclusion. Did newsweek inadvertently provide aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war? Or, did newsweek knowingly provide aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war? Instapundit sums it up well when he says "If the folks at Newsweek are too ignorant to realize this, or too sloppy to care, then they shouldn't be in the news business."

As for me, it is my opinion that the author of this pile of crap and every editor and member of management above him are as morally and ethically guilty of the murders (and looting, burning etc.) that resulted as if they had gone and shot, beaten, or clubbed those people themselves. If this erodes or ends up leading to the destruction of the fledgling democracy there, they are guilty of that as well as simply damaging it now.

I have heard the non-apology and am not impressed. If they are sincere, and not just trying to skate, then they need to do more than the token. In this case, words don't mean shit. The mark of a Man is not apologizing, but in doing whatever is possible to make right a wrong. Concrete actions, and I don't just mean firing a couple of people, will show how serious they are.

Tremendous damage has been done the new elected government of Afghanistan; tremendous damage has been done to the United States and its efforts to ensure our safety; and, a tremendous slur was made against the members of the military.

Make it right. I don't care what it takes, make it right. Not words, not half-assed stories, belated retractions, or non-apologies. Actions.

LW
disgusted

NOTE: Follow-Up is here.