Newsweek ran a sensational claim based on an anonymous source who turned out to be completely wrong. While one can't blame the subsequent violence entirely on this report, it's fair to say that credulous reporting like this contributed to a climate in which many innocent Muslims died.
The inaccurate Newsweek report appeared in the magazine's March 17,
2003 issue, on the eve of the invasion of Iraq. It read in part:
"Saddam could decide to take Baghdad with him. One Arab intelligence
officer interviewed by Newsweek spoke of 'the green mushroom' over Baghdad--the
modern-day caliph bidding a grotesque bio-chem farewell to the land of the
living alongside thousands of his subjects as well as his enemies. Saddam wants
to be remembered. He has the means and the demonic imagination. It is up to U.S.
armed forces to stop him before he can achieve notoriety for all time."
Unlike a more recent Newsweek item (May 9, 2005), involving accusations
that Guantanamo interrogators flushed a copy of the Quran down a toilet,
Newsweek has yet to retract the bogus report about the "green
mushroom" threat. The magazine's Quran charge has been linked to rioting in
Afghanistan and elsewhere that has left at least 16 dead; alarmist coverage like
Newsweek's about Saddam Hussein's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction
paved the way for an invasion that has caused, according to the best
epidemiological research available (Lancet, 11/04/20), an estimated 100,000
deaths.
Newsweek was right to retract the Quran story--mainly because the
magazine claimed to have "sources" for the information, when Newsweek's
subsequent descriptions of how it acquired the story mention only a single
source. But it's far from clear that Newsweek's source was
inaccurate in saying that U.S. investigators had uncovered abuse of a Quran in
the course of a recent investigation; similar allegations have repeatedly been
made by former Guantanamo prisoners (Washington Post, 26/3/03; London Guardian,
3/12/03; Daily Mirror, 12/3/04; Center for Constitutional Rights,
8/4/04; La Gazette du Maroc, 12/4/05; New York Times, 1/5/05; BBC,
2/5/05; cites compiled by Antiwar.com, 16/5/05).
Denials by the U.S. military that such incidents have occurred mean little; when
any government holds prisoners in violation of international law, and denies
them access to independent counsel or human rights groups, assertions by that
government about how the prisoners are being treated can be given little weight.
Eric Saar, a former U.S. Army sergeant who served as a translator at Guantanamo,
has accused the Pentagon of engaging in organized efforts there to deceive
outsiders: Citing a new book by Saar, the Washington Post reported (29/4/05)
that "the U.S. military staged the interrogations of terrorism suspects for
members of Congress and other officials visiting the military prison in
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to make it appear the government was obtaining valuable
intelligence."
It's certainly not the case that the Pentagon has been so attentive to Muslim
sensitivities that such treatment of a Quran would be unthinkable. The
Pentagon's deputy undersecretary for intelligence is Lt. Gen. William Boykin,
who is notorious for suggesting that Allah was "an idol" and saying
that the United States' enemies were led by "Satan," and would
"only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus." It
was Boykin who reportedly ordered the coercive interrogation methods used at
Guantanamo to be used at Iraq's Abu Ghraib as well (London Guardian, 20/5/04).
It has been repeatedly said--including by Newsweek itself, in its initial
apology (5/23/05)--that the magazine's source erred in saying that the Quran
incident was contained in a report for the Pentagon's Southern Command. In fact,
the original report said that the incident was "expected" to be in the
report--an expectation that could have easily been altered by the fact that the
explosive allegation became public.
Newsweek's retraction of the Quran story, contrasted with the lack of any
correction of its "green mushroom" claim and other similarly erroneous
WMD coverage, is quite illustrative of the actual rules--quite different from
the ostensible rules that are taught in journalism school--that govern
contemporary journalism:
- Anonymous sources are fine, as long as they are promoting rather than
challenging official government policy.
- It's all right for your reporting to be completely wrong, as long as your
errors are in the service of power.
- The human cost of bad reporting need only be counted when people who matter are doing the counting.
Courtesy, FAIR, Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting