This one is on Glenn Reynolds’ comparative coverage of the Newsweek error and the original Abu Ghraib revelations:
Like yourself, I was particularly struck by the suggestion made by Instapundit that Newsweek’s error was “the press’s Abu Ghraib”. Initially, I interpreted the parity as one of moral fault: the idiotic idea that similar consequences make similar crimes. But in considering its relation to the surrounding arguments – i.e. Reynolds’ not-so-subtle premonitions about the future of free speech – I arrived at a more cynical interpretation: namely, that it ultimately didn’t matter whether the reports of torture were true or not (since we now know that Muslims will riot and hate us either way) and so just as Newsweek shouldn’t have reported its story, the original Abu Ghraib story should have been likewise silenced. This also fits with Reynolds’ recent musings that other documentation may also be fake, thus calling into question the legitimacy of the entire torture story.
To evaluate these two interpretations, I went back to the week in May ’04 when the torture story broke, and took a random sample (as a social scientist, such are my habits) of Instapundit’s posts/updates to compare his reaction to that of the Newsweek scandal. The Newsweek story was the subject of 22 of the 40 posts/updates, all of which expressed admonishment. In contrast, the sample of 40 posts from the Abu Ghraib weeks contained only 2 expressing admonishment of the abuse (and even there, it is qualified), while the 12 other posts/updates on the abuse scandal either: A) Attempted to minimize its moral and practical significance, or B) Tried to discredit the evidence as fake or exaggerated by anti-troop, liberal media bias.
In other words, Reynolds’ treatment of the real torture story was almost indistinguishable from his treatment of the fake torture story. For Reynolds, a false report of torture represents the same, basic problem as its demonstrable, photographic truth: namely, the subordination of the media’s liberal agenda to that of the U.S. in wartime. This, it seems to me, is the real implication of the notion of “the press’s Abu Ghraib”: the tendency to view The News, not by the criteria of empirical validity, but by the patriotism and political pragmatism of its consequences.
I think the emailer is being too kind. Instapundit’s coverage suggests that he believes that the erroneously-sourced Newsweek story is actually more offensive and important than what happened at Abu Ghraib. A more direct expression of an even more hardline position is given by LaShawn Barber:
Let me clear up one thing. Whether Americans flushed the Koran down the toilet is irrelevant. Newsweek should not have reported it, even if true.
Now there’s a new standard.
The Dish 