Jonah, I have to disagree again! I think some Rather comparisons are apt here, especially Mark Whitaker saying in the New York Times today “We’re not retracting anything” because they don’t know what’s wrong yet. Newsweek should NOT be trying to claim it’s apologizing, but then refuse to retract. They should retract the entire story, and say it should be proven true before we publish it again, not suggest it should all be considered true until someone can disprove it. Newsweek is making PR mistakes here by trying to change the subject (hey, French and Russian reporters circulated this garbage before we did).

Newsweek should NOT be trying to assert they reported this story “very carefully, with great sensitivity and concern,” as Managing Editor Jon Meacham claimed. They were not careful at all. They used one anonymous source, who now can’t back himself up. They sent the story to two Pentagon officials. One declined to respond. The other challenged one aspect but did not dispute the Koran-flushing charge. Just as in the Rather case, failure to object does not equal proof that your sensational story is true. The ironic thing here is since the original story was so short (320 words), I’m guessing both Newsweek and the Pentagon were blase about the content. If Newsweek had a 4000-word expose, both sides would have been much more careful.

Meacham also claimed: “We have tried to be transparent about exactly what happened.” Wrong. You can’t use anonymous sources and say you’re “transparent.” Transparent would mean you put the source on the record and let the readers judge whether that person is qualified and whether they have an agenda.