Libertarian Librarian

Lots of interesting comments about my Newsweek post. I fear Troy's wish to move on to other, non-media/bias, topics may not happen-- off all the posts I've thrown out there, the ones on bias are always the most commented upon. For the most part I agree with Mojo, who's analysis is very good, and his style is quite persuasive (I'm going to have to keep an eye on that guy. Don't want the commenters showing up the host.). In particular I think this is a key point:

The videos of the brutal beheadings and other murders of hostages by Islamic terrorists have been available on the internet for some time. The Beslan school massacre killed hundreds of civilians in the course of a terrorist act committed by Muslim separatists. This and more has been available and reported, but none of it has jolted us into the realization of who we are facing.

Instead, we continue to have hand-wringing stories revisiting the very few abuses that were committed by U.S. personnel (abuses that involve government cases against those responsible), or stories with unsubstantiated claims of U.S. abuse that are acceptable because they seem plausible. All the while the successes of our forces in theater go widely unreported and the concept of revisiting the atrocities committed by the terrorists and their allies is dismissed as something that would be xenophobic or just stir-up ill-will towards Islam.

I agree that those who fomented the populous to riot in the Muslim world following the Newsweek story are directly responsible for the damage and deaths, but there is a plausible question of partial civil culpability on the part of Newsweek due to their publication of that piece. I don't think that the civil case will be forthcoming, but there would be a foundation for such a case in civil court.

The problem here is that we have a press that won't revisit or show the brutality of the terrorist acts for fear of riling Americans against innocent Muslims, yet press organizations seem to have no problem whatsoever in publishing stories, unsubstantiated or otherwise, that rally Muslims against Americans. If the Newsweek story had been something that caused riots against Muslims in Dearborn, MI, do you think CAIR would file a civil case against Newsweek for damages sustained in those riots on the grounds of reckless disregard and vicarious liability? I think that CAIR would; and Newsweek would settle.

I do also think it important to remember that whether the allegations are true or not is irrelevant to determining Newsweek's culpability. Innocent until proven guilty, remember that phrase? Yet, because we find it credible that the U.S. military may have desecrated the Qu'ran (and yes, it is possible that has occured), one uncorroborated source claiming such desecration is sufficient reason to go ahead with a story on the desecration. That's reprehensible journalism, because A) it fails nearly any standard of journalistic credibility and B) Newsweek had to know that the story would be inflammatory to fanatical Islamists, so they should have exercised extra caution in publishing such inflammatory material. The bar should be higher for publishing such content-- not lower.

That said, there does need to be greater outrage and scrutiny of the abuses our military is perpetrating-- as tc notes. We don't get to claim the moral high ground when things like this occur, and there is credible evidence that it is occuring more frequently then just an isolated incident or two at Abu Ghraid. By all means, let the media report on actual, credible, and documented abuse-- and let those responsible be punished to the full extent possible to show the moderate and liberal elements of Islam that we do live by the rule of law. But, the fact that abuses occur does not absolve Newsweek of responsibility for 1) shoddy journalism and 2) the consequences of reporting unsubstantiated, and inflammatory, content.

Finally, let me respond to a comment I discovered Jack left recently on an old post:

One of you brainy conservatives out there needs to explain to me why we invaded Iraq. In middle school they taught me that America would never invade a country that hadn't attacked us, but now we have.

Why was that again? As I recall, it had something to do with some miss-information about WMD. Yet, I can't help but conclude that we invaded Iraq because we could. that we invaded Iraq because we could.

Couple things. If you were taught that in middle school, did they ignore the European Theater of the WWII and the entirity of WWI? Or did I miss something and, in fact, the Nazis did bomb Pearl Harbor? The Korean conflict was just us sending troops over there after North Korea attacked Philadelphia? Now, you can argue that we shouldn't have gotten involved in any of those wars precisely because we weren't attacked, but the fact is that U.S. military might has been brought to bear on other countries many times for things having nothing to do with us being attacked. We use our military when the President, in consultation with Congress, and hopefully with the support of the majority of the country, feel it is both necessary and prudent to defend our principles, our allies, and our interests.

As to the particulars of invading Iraq. First, pretty much everyone thought there were WMD's in Iraq. The NYT, Clinton, Albright, etc. etc. The fact that there weren't any reflects incredibly poorly on our intelligence services, and if tc, Jack and anybody else want to rail about how incredibly ridiculous it was for Bush to give George Tenet a frickin' MEDAL for heaven's sake, I'll be right there with them. But at the time, our best intelligence was that there were WMD's in Iraq, and to wait until they could deliver them to Israel, Europe, or American soil would be foolhardy in the extreme, given that Saddam had already shown himself willing to use such weapons on his own people.

Second, WMD's was only one of the reasons posited for invading Iraq, though arguably the most time dependent and the most trumpeted. Saddam's continued flouting of UN resolutions and weapons inspections was antoher. Regime change was another. Stability in the region was still another. As was the fact that his was a terrorist regime, whether there was a direct connection to Al Qaida or no-- bin Laden/Zarqawi's terrorist cells are only one faction in this war. Ask all the Israeli widows, widowers and parents who no longer have children whether Saddam's funding of suicide bomers from Lebanon and elsewhere is the act of a terrorist state or not.

Now, if you want to rip the Administration on inconsistencies in their support of democracy in places like Uzbekistan (sp?), there's a case to be made. But the War in Iraq is another theatre in the War on Terror. And, for those of us who have forgetten, it is important to remember that we did not start that war.

THIS started that war.

What does that have to do with the Newsweek article? It has to do with it in that the media, and much of the country, appears to have forgotten that we are, in fact, at war. You can argue we shouldn't be, and that's fine, but we are and we should not be giving ammunition to our enemies. Things like the Newsweek report actively undermine our ability to prosecute the war and give ammunition to our enemy. A case can be made that such a story should never be reported precisely because it will aid our opponent. I think that goes to far-- we need an open society, and part of that society is a free and open media.

But.

If you ARE going to report on something that will have that effect, you BLOODY WELL BETTER BE SURE IT'S TRUE!

Labels: Politics