Patterico's Pontifications

5/16/2005

The Newsweek Standard for Running a Retraction

Filed under: International,Media Bias — Patterico @ 6:46 am



Members of the vaunted mainstream media often slam blogs for supposedly lacking their ethical standards. Recall, for example, that Adam Cohen said blogs “rarely have procedures for running a correction.”

Today we’re getting a little insight into just exactly what Big Media’s standards really are for running a correction. Specifically, if you report something based on a single anonymous source, who later tells you he’s not sure what he said is right, you have no obligation to retract anything. Because, hey! . . . it could be true!

Regarding that shaky Newsweek story that led to riots and deaths throughout the Muslim world, today’s New York Times reports that Newsweek‘s editors aren’t retracting a thing:

“We regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst,” Mark Whitaker, Newsweek’s editor, wrote in the issue of the magazine that goes on sale at newsstands today. In an accompanying article, the magazine wrote that its reporters had relied on an American government official, whom it has not identified, who had incomplete knowledge of the situation.

But Mr. Whitaker said in an interview later: “We’re not retracting anything. We don’t know what the ultimate facts are.”

I don’t know what the ultimate facts are regarding the question of whether Mark Whitaker wears women’s undergarments. But my lack of knowledge doesn’t entitle me to print that as a fact — or to leave the allegation standing if my only source for the allegation says he’s no longer sure of its truth.

P.S. So what are you saying, Patterico? Never use anonymous sources?

No. I don’t mean to slam anonymous sources in every instance. I just think that media outlets should generally be more up-front about what they know and what they don’t know. This becomes especially true when you rely on an anonymous source — if you do checking to confirm the statement, tell us what you learned and what you didn’t.

For example, I wouldn’t have had as much of a problem with Newsweek‘s initial story if the magazine had asked a few more questions, and then made the deficiencies of the reporting clear from the beginning. Let’s say Isikoff’s piece had read:

An anonymous source claimed that the Koran flushing incident was coming out in an upcoming report. Newsweek was not able to see the report, so we asked two other anonymous officials about this allegation. One had no idea what we were talking about. The other was silent on the allegation. When we asked him why [something Newsweek hadn’t bothered to do], he said he just didn’t know anything about the report. We went back to our original source and asked him if he had actually seen the report. He said that he was sure he had seen this allegation somewhere, but he was not sure it was actually from the upcoming report.

That wouldn’t have been too compelling a story, would it? Which might have been a tipoff not to run the story to begin with.

The key is: tell us what you know and what you don’t. If you do that, you’ll be fine.

UPDATE: Newsweek‘s editor has now officially retracted the story.

15 Responses to “The Newsweek Standard for Running a Retraction”

  1. […] ; to check the story out, and say they’re not retracting a thing. I discuss that in the next post . But as we properly express our anger, let&# […]

    Patterico's Pontifications » Caveats About the Newsweek Controversy (0c6a63)

  2. […] re is only one source for an assertion, and that source will not go on the record. I have argued that a media outlet should be allowed to tell its rea […]

    Patterico's Pontifications » Reporting Information from a Single Source (0c6a63)

  3. “So what are you saying, Patterico? Never use anonymous sources?”

    Just never wear women’s underwear – it’s sure to come back to haunt you.

    Regret (22cb76)

  4. What Newsweek is really saying is, “Hah! Since we never told you who our source was, you can’t actually prove anything.”

    And they’re right, which is why, after the latest hubbub dies down, I expect them to do more of it. Rathergate is now the standard.

    ras (f9de13)

  5. Wait, do people actually think that Koran desecration does not go on?

    actus (3be069)

  6. Actus,
    What does that have to do with the poor reporting that caused people to die?

    Semper Squidelis (fdd68c)

  7. “What does that have to do with the poor reporting that caused people to die?”

    Because if it was well reported it would still cause people to die wouldn’t it?

    actus (3be069)

  8. Lost in all of this is any analysis of why people are rioting in the first place. Obviously the article itself was only a trigger, if that. How is it, I would like to know, that such intense anti-american demonstrations could be organized right under our noses, and no one knew anything about it?

    Mark Key (0ead32)

  9. The headline on the New York Times website is this:
       Newsweek Retracts Report on Koran Insult After U.S. Pressure

    Newsweek says: “We’re not retracting anything. We don’t know what the ultimate facts are.”

    So which is it?

    Ladainian (91b3b2)

  10. Perhaps New York Times got their information about Newsweek retracting the story from an anonymous source inside Newsweek.

    Ladainian (91b3b2)

  11. According to NPR the only incident of Koran flushing so far is the one where a detainee tore pages out to flush them down the toilet in an attempt to back up the toilets as a protest.

    According to my daughter, Newsweek is now really retracting the story as opposed to only sort of kind of but not really retracting it.

    DeputyHeadmistress (e71725)

  12. >Wait, do people actually think that Koran desecration does not go on? < As usual, our friend actus zeroes right in on the gravamen of the charges in this case. You're right out of central casting, my friend. SMG

    SteveMG (a071c7)

  13. Newsweek Roundup
    Not too much to add to the Newsweek “apology” over their bogus “Koran flushing” story. It’s really an old story with different details – MSM jumps to biased conclusion about story that makes U.S. military look bad, rushes to press with sketchy ev…

    The Unalienable Right (7a057a)

  14. Roundup: Newsweek digs themselves a deeper hole
    Powerline, LGF (also here), Michelle Malkin (also here), Captain’s Quarters, La Shawn Barber, WizBang, Blogs for Bush, Patterico, HyScience, Jawa…

    JackLewis.net (807fbc)

  15. “According to NPR the only incident of Koran flushing so far is the one where a detainee tore pages out to flush them down the toilet in an attempt to back up the toilets as a protest.”

    There are other reports of desecration. you shouldn’t believe the liberal media.

    actus (5b2f21)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0708 secs.