Newsweek ran a sensational claim based on an anonymous source whoturned out to be completely wrong. While one can't blame the subsequent violenceentirely on this report, it's fair to say that credulous reporting like thiscontributed 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 intelligenceofficer interviewed by Newsweek spoke of 'the green mushroom' over Baghdad--themodern-day caliph bidding a grotesque bio-chem farewell to the land of theliving alongside thousands of his subjects as well as his enemies. Saddam wantsto 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 accusationsthat Guantanamo interrogators flushed a copy of the Quran down a toilet,Newsweek has yet to retract the bogus report about the "greenmushroom" threat. The magazine's Quran charge has been linked to rioting inAfghanistan and elsewhere that has left at least 16 dead; alarmist coverage likeNewsweek's about Saddam Hussein's nonexistent weapons of mass destructionpaved the way for an invasion that has caused, according to the bestepidemiological research available (Lancet, 11/04/20), an estimated 100,000deaths.
Newsweek was right to retract the Quran story--mainly because themagazine claimed to have "sources" for the information, when Newsweek'ssubsequent descriptions of how it acquired the story mention only a singlesource. But it's far from clear that Newsweek's source wasinaccurate in saying that U.S. investigators had uncovered abuse of a Quran inthe course of a recent investigation; similar allegations have repeatedly beenmade 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; whenany government holds prisoners in violation of international law, and deniesthem access to independent counsel or human rights groups, assertions by thatgovernment 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 deceiveoutsiders: Citing a new book by Saar, the Washington Post reported (29/4/05)that "the U.S. military staged the interrogations of terrorism suspects formembers of Congress and other officials visiting the military prison inGuantanamo Bay, Cuba, to make it appear the government was obtaining valuableintelligence."
It's certainly not the case that the Pentagon has been so attentive to Muslimsensitivities that such treatment of a Quran would be unthinkable. ThePentagon's deputy undersecretary for intelligence is Lt. Gen. William Boykin,who is notorious for suggesting that Allah was "an idol" and sayingthat the United States' enemies were led by "Satan," and would"only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus." Itwas Boykin who reportedly ordered the coercive interrogation methods used atGuantanamo 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 initialapology (5/23/05)--that the magazine's source erred in saying that the Quranincident 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 thereport--an expectation that could have easily been altered by the fact that theexplosive allegation became public.
Newsweek's retraction of the Quran story, contrasted with the lack of anycorrection of its "green mushroom" claim and other similarly erroneousWMD coverage, is quite illustrative of the actual rules--quite different fromthe ostensible rules that are taught in journalism school--that governcontemporary journalism:
Advertisement
- 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
