When Anonymous Government Sources Are Good Enough for the L.A. Times
When are reports by anonymous government sources good enough to repeat in the L.A. Times? It appears that the answer may be: when those sources are reporting information that is harmful to the interests of the United States.
In its May 9 issue, Newsweek reported that American interrogators had flushed a copy of the Koran down a toilet. Muslims were outraged. Riots throughout the Muslim world resulted, and many died.
The Newsweek piece was based on a single anonymous government source. The story provided no corroboration for the allegation. And it now appears that the report was incorrect.
Yet the L.A. Times repeated the allegations of the Newsweek report in numerous stories — without once telling its readers that the report was based on unconfirmed reports from anonymous government sources. (See here, here, here, here, here, and here). And editors found the allegations credible enough to mention them in an editorial this morning.
Meanwhile, the paper deep-sixed reports of an alleged satellite recording that supported the American version of the Sgrena/Calipari shooting.
Why did L.A. Times editors hide information about the satellite recording from their readers — while repeating the Koran-in-the-toilet story without any caveats about the shaky sourcing of the report? It’s certainly true that, once the riots occurred, the Newsweek reports were news whether they were true or not. But if L.A. Times editors were truly suspicious of stories based on anonymous government sources, surely they would have warned readers that the Newsweek report was based upon unnamed sources, and lacked corroboration.
It’s hard not to see a pattern here. When anonymous government sources report news favorable to America, the L.A. Times cuts it out of the story. When anonymous government sources report news that makes America look bad, it’s reported without any caveats — even when that news is inflammatory and causes rioting.
If there is an alternative explanation, I’ve yet to hear it. It has now been two weeks since I wrote L.A. Times “Readers’ Representative” Jamie Gold about this issue, and no response has been forthcoming.
UPDATE: More from Captain’s Quarters here.
UPDATE x2: Derek Rose has a good point: we should obviously hold the rioters accountable for the deaths in the first instance. Newsweek screwed up — badly. But the primary responsibility for the deaths is on the hands of the rioters.
That should go without saying — but maybe it’s worth saying anyway.
[…] standards for publication when the story is anti-American – something I discussed in this post. It’s also fueled by […]
Patterico's Pontifications » Caveats About the Newsweek Controversy (0c6a63) — 5/16/2005 @ 2:12 pm[…] Here’s what you missed this weekend if you didn’t read this blog: My initial comments on the infamous Newsw […]
Patterico's Pontifications » The Weekend Roundup (0c6a63) — 5/17/2005 @ 5:20 amOH, WELL, GREAT
Pejmanesque (2ae9b5) — 5/15/2005 @ 2:04 pmApparently, the story about the desecration of the Qur’an by American interrogators was wrong. Or at least, there is massive amounts of uncertainty regarding the issue: Last Friday, a top Pentagon spokesman told us that a review of the probe…
Spot on, as Tim Blair would say.
This is a classic, textbook set of examples where an unproven reported allegation is repeated in one instance and another unproven reported allegation is ignored in another.
The only substantive difference is that in once instance the report cleared (or appeared to) the Bush Administration of wrong-doing while in another buttressed an accusation of Administration wrong-doing.
SMG
SteveMG (1deb0c) — 5/15/2005 @ 3:25 pmNewsweek lied and people died
Media Lies (11ee8e) — 5/15/2005 @ 6:21 pmI have never been more disgusted with the news media than I am right now. Recently a Newsweek story spa…
It’s Bigger Than NEWSWEEK
Sisyphean Musings (59ce3a) — 5/15/2005 @ 7:19 pmPatterico makes a VERY important point about how anonymous sourcing is perniciously compounded as it spreads …
The Newsweek main defense appears to be that they are stupid. Honest but stupid.
Walter Guest (15c075) — 5/15/2005 @ 7:38 pmI see a final Banzai charge by a media that desperately wants the United States to lose as long as the hated Bush is president. They deliberately printed something that would stir up those already opposed to us, and bring more people to oppose us. They are traitors.
Newsweek and the Koran-flushing
As disappointing as Newsweek’s error was, the magazine didn’t force anyone to riot and ransack aid offices.
…
Blog: Derek Rose (50fbba) — 5/15/2005 @ 7:53 pmRice promised to look into the allegations & promised appropriate action if the allegations are proven to be true – May 13 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4543373.stm
See also http://usembassy.state.gov/ireland/index.html http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2005&m=May&x=20050512160316cpataruk0.2498896&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html
Yi-Ling (bd5980) — 5/15/2005 @ 9:09 pmMy first thoughts were that Newsweek had fallen into the old cliche, but I looked around the web for thoughts on “yelling fire in a crowded movie house,” I determined that too many see nothing wrong with this practice. It’s the 1st amendment and all that. It was Newsweek’s “right” to publish this Koran abuse story.
Neo (7136ee) — 5/15/2005 @ 9:57 pmThe other half of this story is that Newsweek should now have to clean up the mess they made, it’s their “responsibility” .. now isn’t that a ugly word that is never spoken. Anyone stupid enough to light a match whilst sitting on a keg of gun powder should have the responsibility to go pickup all the pieces of flesh and bone that remain after the explosion. Newsweek’s Mark Whitaker, Michael Isikoff and John Barry should now go to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. to explain what happened .. it their responsibility.
The Miami Herald had the ‘toilet’ story March 8th:
It had been reported in the Washington Post in a 2003 interview with a former detainee from Afghanistan:
Leaning hard on Newsweek is a worthwhile expedient. An errand.
Ed (25dccf) — 5/15/2005 @ 10:01 pmEd,
The toilet story is old. U.S. Government “confirmation” is new.
Patterico (756436) — 5/15/2005 @ 10:06 pmNewsweek’s DC bureau chief was just on FoxNews saying that this “story went through the normal vetting process, even for a sensitive story”. Ah, okay. So false stories pass their truth test. Note that the US Military cannot investigate this because there isn’t even an allegation by the anonymous source anymore.
Ladainian (91b3b2) — 5/15/2005 @ 10:09 pmNewsweek Says Koran Desecration Report Is Wrong
Noahware (59ce3a) — 5/15/2005 @ 11:46 pmHow many Muslims will hear, let alone believe the retraction ? How many people died because of Newsweek’s sloppy journalism ? How many Americans will die in the future because of new recruits to the Jihad generated by this bogus report ?
Breakfast: 5/16/2005 (News Weak)
basil's blog (af7df9) — 5/16/2005 @ 3:18 amTry one of these specials with your breakfast: Patterico finds that bad sources are good when they make U.S. look bad. The Art of the Blog comments on Newsweek’s
Newsweek publishes lies, resulting in deaths
JackLewis.net (807fbc) — 5/16/2005 @ 6:06 amI’ll recap the story, although most of you would already be familiar with it. Newsweek’s May 8th issue contained a…
The idea of determining the effect on the war effort is now passe, for some.
Years ago, when the country when to war, the country when to war. It was everybodies war, so, if you believed in it or not, you found a way to help end it.
Somewhere around the time of the first Gulf War, the notion sprang up with fervor that it was now possible to “opt out” of a war. It was “Bush’s War” not mine. I saw this again when the WTC was struck .. the war of terrorism is not “my war” came from places like NPR and was not challenged.
Once you “opt out,” it is pretty darn easy to think that whatever you do is done as a “neutral.” Just after 9/11, Rather and Jennings in a panel discussion on journals “embedding” with the enemy said that they would cover the story of the enemy attacking US forces before trying to warn them of an impending attack. That position is easy to take when your a “neutral.”
Newsweek has taken their “oath to neutrality” while blindly tossing about “anonymously sourced” accusations with no need to worry about the “war effort” because it is simply “not their war.” It stands to reason.
But “opting out” is not a choice. The underlining premise that you can “opt out” of a war is most obvious fallacious when you consider that there were some 3000 folks would probably have liked to “opt out” on the “war on terror” on the morning of 9/11/01, but were not given that choice.
Neo (7136ee) — 5/16/2005 @ 9:17 amLinks to the Newsweek Fiasco
The Art of the Blog (e68c19) — 5/16/2005 @ 9:51 amWill the MSM ever stop shooting themselves in the foot when it comes to whether or not they can be trusted? Here’s a link roundup for blog entries about the Newsweak f-up. Basil’s Blog has some great links, no commentary. Captain’s Quarters lets New…