Culpability vs. Intentionality

The Washington Post's Media Critic, Howard Kurtz, goes to bat for Newsweek, in his latest Media Notes Extra column:

There's plenty of opportunity to criticize Newsweek for its botched report on Gitmo that touched off days of rioting.

The magazine relied on an unnamed source -- an increasingly controversial if age-old Washington practice -- who turned out not to know what he was talking about.

Newsweek's editors admit they didn't foresee the explosive consequences of reporting that U.S. interrogators had flushed a copy of the Koran down a toilet to rattle detainees -- it had been reported before, but the magazine quoted a senior government official as saying the incident would be cited in a military report.

(snip)

But the blogosphere has been denouncing Newsweek for far worse than making a terrible mistake. According to some online critics, Newsweek (owned by the Washington Post Co.) was on a crusade to make the military and the U.S. government look bad. In this view, the magazine gave free rein to its anti-war sentiments by lobbing a factually flawed grenade into the Muslim marketplace, and its staffers should either be fired, flogged or charged with treason.

In fact, a Texan in my online chat complained of "the seething hatred that the mainstream press has for the military."

Here's why some of that criticism is overstated:

--If Newsweek was on such a crusade, why did it devote all of one half-sentence to the Koran allegations? The whole Periscope item was just 10 sentences, and only a few words involved the flushing-down-the-toilet business.

--Newsweek showed a draft of the item to a senior Pentagon official, who disputed another aspect but not the Koran question. The absence of a denial hardly amounts to confirmation -- that was the same mistake CBS made on the Bush/National Guard story -- but things might have turned out differently if the Pentagon had objected.

--This wasn't the first time such a Koran incident had been alleged. Indeed, we know that some U.S. interrogators have done far worse, as those photographs of prisoners on a leash or a naked pyramid vividly reminded us.

--Extremist elements were obviously using the Newsweek item as an opportunity to whip up anti-American violence.

None of this gets Newsweek off the hook. But the notion that it was an intentional mistake, as opposed to a bad blunder or reckless reliance on a single source, remains unsupported.

Unsupported?  You mean like the Koran-flushing story?  Here's the problem with Kurtz's mealy-mouthed defense:  it might night rise to the level of "intentional", but it sure is "negligent".  And, as such, brings with it a degree of culpability that Newsweek (and their corporate parents at the Washington Post) which they have not yet accepted.

But here's a reply, point-by-point, to Kurtz's defense.

--If Newsweek was on such a crusade, why did it devote all of one half-sentence to the Koran allegations? The whole Periscope item was just 10 sentences, and only a few words involved the flushing-down-the-toilet business.

• If the story was likely to inflame worldwide public opinion -- as it did --  shouldn't they have taken greater care with it?  It's the flippancy, the lack of care, of discretion, that characterizes the reporting of this item in what amounts to a journalistic "conventional-wisdom"-cum-gossip page in a ten-sentence blurb that  is not only wholly irresponsible, it's negligent.  Hell, I'd say it's callousness raised to professional malpractice.

--Newsweek showed a draft of the item to a senior Pentagon official, who disputed another aspect but not the Koran question. The absence of a denial hardly amounts to confirmation -- that was the same mistake CBS made on the Bush/National Guard story -- but things might have turned out differently if the Pentagon had objected.

• Fascinating.  The burden of proof is not on the reporters, but on the subjects of the story.  Here's the problem with this: no matter what, when you speak to a journalist, you're screwed.  If the absence of a denial is proof positive, then a denial of any particular story is -- in every possible case -- the default reaction one should take.  However, if one denies what turns out to be a true story, why, then it's a "cover-up".  The very premise of Kurtz's point makes any press contactee into a liar and a conspirator, when in fact, they could very well be the wrong person to ask, they could be unqualified to opine on technical matters, or simply ignorant of the on-going issue.  The adversarial relationship with the government, and in particular, the Pentagon, has been raised to the point that normal standards of truth have been thrown out the window, such that what the Newsweek -- and Kurtz -- see as good journalistic ethics amounts to "How long has it been since you stopped beating your wife?"

--This wasn't the first time such a Koran incident had been alleged. Indeed, we know that some U.S. interrogators have done far worse, as those photographs of prisoners on a leash or a naked pyramid vividly reminded us.

• Ah, yes, "fake but accurate."  After all, "everybody knows" that "they" do it. This is absolutely amazing to me.  The point of journalistic ethics is to prove that stories are true, despite what  rumor or "conventional-wisdom" might say.  What "fake but accurate" amounts to is unsubstantiated prejudice, printed with the gloss of journalistic credibility.  This is a shameful position to take, Mr. Kurtz.  Reporters aim to establish truth, not simply create sloppy work which gibes with the reporters pre-formed misconceptions.  This speaks volumes about how reporters approach their jobs: "We know it's going on, but we can't prove it.  Therefore, it's okay to misrepresent the facts to fit into our knowledge.  There's a higher truth, involved, after all."  Let me ask you this:  if you can't prove it, how do you know that it's true in the first place?

--Extremist elements were obviously using the Newsweek item as an opportunity to whip up anti-American violence.

• Yes.  This is true.  The real perpetrators and victims of the violence obviously took advantage of this story to create mayhem.  They took advantage of a false story to destroy lives and property.  They took advantage of a baseless rumor published as fact to besmirch the image of America abroad, yet again.  One would think that journalists are aware that interested actors take advantage of press reports, true or false, to further their own political goals.  This is why there are things like "press offices" and "PR attack machines" and "propaganda".  There should be some understanding and accountability for the effects of journalistic reporting.  This is why there are libel laws.  The problem is that when a media outlet reports something, that report must enjoy the same kind of public scrutiny as the subjects of that reporting.  Perhaps even more so, as the reporting shapes our meta-understanding of the issues of our day.  It's very simple:  who watches the watchers?

I'm very sorry Mr. Kurtz, no doubt you felt the need to defend a business unit of your corporate structure.  Or perhaps you felt the need to be an apologist for dear friends. But you need to understand that your excuses are simply not good enough.

By analogy, consider the harried surgeon.  Here's a professional who's overworked and on deadline (literally).  By virtue of experience and education he knows how to operate on the human body and (hopefully) cure or ameliorate sickness.  He is called into the OR to remove an appendix from a very sick person.  But, alas, he leaves a sponge inside the patient, and the patient promptly develops an infection, and dies.  The surgeon had no intention to kill her, quite the opposite, in fact.  But this does not relieve him of the culpability and legal liability for his actions.  Even if he was called into the next room to save the life of a little girl killed in a drive-by shooting, he would be culpable, because he was negligent.

What is most risible about the behavior of the MSM in episodes like this is that they expect that their mistakes are just that, mistakes, not malpractice, because they're well-intentioned.  It's not just that these excuses don't get "Newsweek off the hook", but that journalists don't proceed with their work with an assumption of culpability like other professionals do.  It's not that they intentionally smeared the U.S. and it's armed forces in a throw away, ten-sentence,  sensationalist "everybody-knows-its-true", Periscope teaser.  It's that journalists today operate on a set of ethics that says, "as long as it's not reckless disregard for truth, it's okay.  Besides, we are the keepers of the Truth, therefore, we know what's  true and untrue."  It's that for so many years they have failed to take credit for their mistakes and make good on them that the vast majority of their audience assumes that the media intentionally attacks their subjects in adversarial "gotcha" hit-pieces.  Think about it:  if a company spills toxic sludge into a river, they are responsible to clean it up, but if a reporter puts toxic speech into the public debate, hell, it's okay, after all," I didn't mean it", "the pressure made me do it," or "it's fake, but accurate."

If you guys are gonna be unselfish gadflies, well, you have to live up to a higher moral standard.  If not, you're a bunch of under qualified bully-boys with a big soapboxes and even bigger chips on your shoulders.