Q Scott, you said that the retraction by Newsweek magazine of its story is a good first step. What else does the President want this American magazine to do?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, it's what I talked about yesterday. This report, which Newsweek has now retracted and said was wrong, has had serious consequences. People did lose their lives. The image of the United States abroad has been damaged; there is lasting damage to our image because of this report. And we would encourage Newsweek to do all that they can to help repair the damage that has been done, particularly in the region.
And I think Newsweek can do that by talking about the way they got this wrong, and pointing out what the policies and practices of the United States military are when it comes to the handling of the Holy Koran. The military put in place policies and procedures to make sure that the Koran was handled -- or is handled with the utmost care and respect. And I think it would help to point that out, because some have taken this report -- those that are opposed to the United States -- some have taken this report and exploited it and used it to incite violence.
Q With respect, who made you the editor of Newsweek? Do you think it's appropriate for you, at that podium, speaking with the authority of the President of the United States, to tell an American magazine what they should print?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not telling them. I'm saying that we would encourage them to help --
Q You're pressuring them.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm saying that we would encourage them --
Q It's not pressure?
MR. McCLELLAN: Look, this report caused serious damage to the image of the United States abroad. And Newsweek has said that they got it wrong. I think Newsweek recognizes the responsibility they have. We appreciate the step that they took by retracting the story. Now we would encourage them to move forward and do all that they can to help repair the damage that has been done by this report. And that's all I'm saying. But, no, you're absolutely right, it's not my position to get into telling people what they can and cannot report.
Scott McClellan has the patience of a saint. Excuse me, didn't the questionner ASK him what the President would like Newsweek to do? And then when Scott answers, he asks him 'who died and made you king'?
And anyhow, what's wrong with the President asking for Newsweek to help clean up its own mess? Why NOT report the extraordinary measures taken to respect the religious practices of the prisoners at Gitmo? (Although I always say, if I'm going to be accused of something, despite bending over backwards to the contrary, I might as well let 'er rip and give them their money's worth.).
However, this begs the question--why should there have to be external pressure applied to news organizations in order for them to retract something if they find that it was ill-founded? And then help mitigate the damage from their erroneous reporting? I would think that news organizations would want the public to know that they do NOT need any external pressures to keep their house in order (can anyone say congressional investigation?).
I, for one, do not want to see any encroachments on freedom of the press, but that carries a serious responsibility for the press to police itself. With Dan Rather, Jayson Blair, Eason Jordan and now this, the news industry seems to be on a path of self-destruction--unable to help itself from repeating the same offenses over and over. This would imply a systemic problem.
What is the root cause? Perhaps:
-Under pressure to 'scoop' each other, journalists/editors have become careless.
-Given the competition for public attention, the 'titillating' stories get immediate coverage with no thought to the consequences.
-There is a lack of political diversity in the news organization, leaving no one to play 'devil's advocate' when these types of stories arise. This is proven out by the immediate reactions in the blogosphere who find logical errors and other reasons to question these stories which apparently have never occurred to the editors.
-A certain pervasive smugness derived from being 'in the know' leads the elite media to spend insufficient time questionning their own accuracy and underlying motivation for certain news stories.
For a good analysis and discussion of the growing public mistrust of the media, check out Winds Of Change.
If media outlets want to improve their credibility, they need to bring in some independent analysts to review their internal processes for 'vetting' articles. Anonymous sources should be used sparingly and then, only when corroborated by other independent means.
Jay Rosen has a great analysis of the sourcing issues with the Newsweek debacle.
I'm sure there will be more to come on this intriguing topic.
No comments:
Post a Comment