"Yes, the myth of the Noble Savage recast"

"Karzai:  We strongly disapprove of Newsweek's approach" reads FOXNews banner under image of deadly riots in Afghanistan precipitated by the newsweekly's single-sourced publication of rumors re Koran desecration at Guantanamo.

"Are the editors completely ignorant of the world? Or do they want to sabotage America's war effort? Is there a third, more benign explanation?" asks TigerHawk re Newsweekgate. Or is there, perhaps, a third, more malign explanation? It's the hot-button topic this morning both in and outside of the blogosphere. Pajama-clad types like Roger L. Simon have been on the case for days, of course, re Newsweek's publication of unsubstantiated rumors that Guantanamo personnel had flushed a Koran down the toilet to unnerve prisoners for interrogation purposes. Picked up by anti-American press outlets in the Muslim world, the story triggered deadly riots in Afghanistan, undermining our nation's hearts-and-minds progress there.

Austin Bay [via InstaPundit, who has lots of interesting links and commentary of his own, natch] calls it "the press's Abu Ghraib," the result of ordinary human foibles writ large via "technological compression":

Some slip-ups merely damage reputations -- Dan Rather and Eason Jordan come to mind. World War Two vets know “loose lips sink ships.” Today, loose (computer) disks can sink ships, but loosey-goosey allegations can lead to riot and death.

But why might this be the press’s Abu Ghraib? Here’s the connection: globe-girdling technology has once again amplified foolish behavior, lack of professionalism, and disregard for consequences into a tragedy. Consider Abu Ghraib, without the fevered hyperbole of The Nation or The Guardian. The behavior of US troops at the prison was inexcuseable -- frat rat hazing, trailer trash porn, street punk threat taken up ten quanta to felony prisoner abuse. But dump the hyperbole and call Abu Ghraib what it was: rank felony abuse, not deadly torture. The global dissemination of Lynndie England’s dog leash photos, etc., (and magnification of the abuse by anti-American critics) made Abu Ghraib the political and historical scar it is. The US soldiers committed a crime, but information technology made the crime an international fiasco.

From the enlightened left, Jeff Jarvis adds:

An incident such as this should force us to ask what the end result of journalism should be. Is it to expose anything we can expose? Is it to beat the other guy to tell you something you didn't know?

Or is it to tell the truth?

"But profit generated by a frantic 'me first' quest isn’t the only motive," notes Austin Bay:

The “Vietnam-Watergate” motive’s also in play. That’s a tired and dirty game but for three decades it’s been a successful ploy for the New York-Washington-LA media axis. Its rules are simple. Presume the government is lying -- always make that presumption, particularly when the president is a Republican. Presume the worst about the US military -- always make that presumption, even when the president is a Democrat. Add multi-cultural icing -- the complaints and allegations of “Third World victims” are given revered status, the statements of US and US-allied nations met with cynical doubt and arrogant contempt. (Yes, the myth of the Noble Savage re-cast.)

Deja vu all over? Afghani rioters enacting classic anti-American flagburning recall Arab-street-for-hire theatrics during the Mother of all Islamic Revolutions, the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

Finally, further insight into the source of the MSM's missing linkage of loose lips and sinking ships comes from Mike Wallace and Peter Jennings in a 1989 PBS forum linked by Austin Bay commenter Trent Telenko:

The two network stars agreed that if they were traveling with enemy troops and learned of an ambush planned to kill U.S. soldiers they would not provide any warning.

“Don’t you have a higher duty as an American citizen to do all you can to save the lives of soldiers rather than this journalistic ethic of reporting fact?” Ogletree asked. Without hesitating Wallace responded: “No, you don’t have higher duty . . . you’re a reporter.”

A few minutes later Ogletree notes the “venomous reaction” from George Connell, a Marine Corps Colonel. “I feel utter contempt. Two days later they’re both walking off my hilltop, they’re two hundred yards away and they get ambushed. And they’re lying there wounded. And they’re going to expect I’m going to send Marines up there to get them. They’re just journalists, they’re not Americans . . . But I’ll do it. And that’s what makes me so contemptuous of them. And Marines will die, going to get a couple of journalists.”

Newsweek is apologizing for the errors in their story but not retracting it, and the White House is not amused.  Hey, ladies and gentlemen of the MSM, maybe it's time to stop hiding behind the "J" word and realize there's something larger than your career out there worth fighting for.

Comments

[andophiroxia]

You said it like it is. I am tired of these people undermining at every turn at what this administration is trying to do, endangering and making our US military's job much more difficult, and never showing both sides of the story, just for the sake of the 'story'. When they released the Abu Garaib pictures, they should have also released pictures of the prison underneath Saddam at the same time. How shameless these people are.