Caveats About the Newsweek Controversy
I understand the outrage against Newsweek. The outrage is fueled in part by a suspicion that Big Media lowers standards for publication when the story is anti-American — something I discussed in this post. It’s also fueled by disgust that Big Media types fail to ask tough questions or report what they don’t know about a story — and then claim that they went to “unusual lengths” 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’s remember two things:
1. As I said in the UPDATE x2 to this post, the rioters are primarily responsible for the deaths. Did Newsweek‘s poor reporting contribute to the rioting? Unquestionably. But primary blame goes to the rioters.
2. It’s not “Newsweek Lied, People Died.” With all due respect to the people propagating that slogan — and I like many of them — where is the lie here? Newsweek‘s source told them something that was wrong. They didn’t check it out sufficiently. They didn’t tell us how poor their limited checks really were. But as far as I can tell, they didn’t lie. Let’s not say they did.
P.S. Bush didn’t lie either.
UPDATE: Of course, I missed the point that many of the people using the line intend it to be taken as satire. A rather obvious point, really, which makes me feel rather humorless to have missed.
Patterico,
If I yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre and fifteen people are killed in the rush to the exits, does “primary blame” for those deaths go to the theatre patrons who stampeded?
[No, of course not. But I don’t see an analogy. Stampeding is not the wisest response, but it’s understandable. I wouldn’t *blame* someone for doing it. I do blame rioters for killing people. — Patterico ]
Scott Crawford (367602) — 5/16/2005 @ 9:36 amScott, no. People don’t have a lot of choice about how scared they get (when, say, fleeing a fire).
But if you yell “Jew” at a Klan rally, the Klan members do have primary responsibility for killing the guy you’re pointing at, because anger, or at least the violence which springs from it, is within our control. (More so in the Koran case, when the protesters were presumably reacting to something they hadn’t heard within the previous 60 seconds.)
All that said, Newsweek of course also has blood on its hands. (As would the “jew” baiter at a Nazi rally.)
DWPittelli (376b98) — 5/16/2005 @ 10:42 amLet’s get this straight:
“P.S. Bush didn’t lie either.”
Okay, but MSM has said over and over, and continues saying that Bush lied. So what you’re implying, without stating, is that by the MSM’s standards NEWSWEEK (sic) lied.
It’s fair to hold them to their own standards, isn’t it?
I do agree that we should note that we are using MSM’s standard when we use it, and point out that it’s not a very rational standard. Some of us do have stricter standards on what is lie and what is truth…
but it’s FAIR.
Blow them sky high with the fuses they lit.
Dan S (d281eb) — 5/16/2005 @ 1:18 pmThanks for the answers. I’m still chewing on this one. I think that the violent reaction to the story is/was predictable, if not rational. That’s why I think Newsweek carries a large share of the blame – what I’d call their “reckless disregard” for the potentially lethal results of their story.
Scott Crawford (367602) — 5/16/2005 @ 3:05 pmThanks for the answers. I’m still chewing on this one. I think that the violent reaction to the story is/was predictable, if not rational. That’s why I think Newsweek carries a large share of the blame – what I’d call their “reckless disregard” for the potentially lethal results of their story.
Scott,
We agree. I think Newsweek does need to shoulder some of the blame — just not the *primary* responsibility.
It’s like when the LA Times does irresponsible reporting about race in this city. I think that helps contribute to riots, and innocent people dying. But the primary responsibility for such deaths always lies with the rioters themselves.
I credit Derek Rose for making this observation.
Patterico (c8acf2) — 5/16/2005 @ 4:43 pmI’m sorry, Patrick, I have to disagree with you and Derek. The reason you can’t cry, “Fire”, in a crowded theater is precisely because the outcome is entirely predictable, not because the people in the theatre aren’t culpable in the devastation. Surely you understand that, were the people to not panic and exit the theatre calmly, no one would be hurt?
Exactly the same is true here. Yes, the Muslim radicals are inciting the riots, but do you honestly believe that Afghans would be rioting against the US if the Newsweek story hadn’t deeply offended them and given them a perfect excuse to act irresponsibly?
I’m surprised that you, a lawyer, can’t see the connection between cause and effect and the culpability of the actor who precipitated the action!
antimedia (2924da) — 5/16/2005 @ 9:26 pmSo if you had to assign 51% blame here, antimedia, would it be to Newsweek, or to the people who actually killed people in the riots?
And (as Insty has pointed out), would Christians be justified in rioting and killing people over a “Piss Christ”?
Patterico (756436) — 5/16/2005 @ 10:08 pmI would assign 51% of the blame to Newsweek. The people who killed people in the riots would not have killed anyone had Newsweek not published a false story.
Yes, Muslims need to get control of themselves and learn to act in a mature manner. But when you know that they do not and you act in a manner that incites rioting anyway you are culpable under the law, are you not?
Why should Newsweek be held to a lower standard? My gosh, lawyers have worked hard to get the concept of negligence into the system. Doesn’t it apply here?
If “No Newsweek article” = “no riots”, then how can Newsweek not be to blame for this mess? The riots are a direct result of Newsweeks negligence.
Do we really need to start discussing the McDonald’s coffee case here? 🙂
antimedia (63d4b4) — 5/17/2005 @ 4:00 pm