Jim Geraghty on why multiple layers of fact checking do not gaurantee accuracy.

Some of the biggest names in the industry are now in the business of confirming their own viewpoint, regardless of the facts. After a bunch of young guys were caught making stuff up – Stephen Glass at the New Republic and Jayson Blair at the New York Times – a slew of big-names have been exposed as touting, murmuring, or breathlessly reporting stories that didn’t turn out to be true or verifiable – Dan Rather, Eason Jordan, and now Michael Iskoff and the editors at Newsweek.

In every one of these cases, stories that were fake, unsubstantiated, or unreliable got through the highly-touted editing and fact-checking processes because the editors wanted them to be true. They ‘rang true’ to editors’ ears. Of course, they thought, Bush’s service record was ’sugarcoated.’ Of course, U.S. troops would deliberately target and murder journalists whose coverage they didn’t like. Of course, U.S. interrogators would flush the Koran. You read the coverage of some corners of the media world, from the New York Times, to the American Journalism Review to the Nation to the Huffington thing and elsewhere, the reaction in the face of retraction is the argument that, “well, this story could still possibly be true – it hasn’t been disproven 110 percent.” They surmise that the retractions are the result of Bush administration pressure and vast sinister conspiracies.

The Detroit Free Press is proudly announcing that it’s pulling up its socks. Starting this week, they will

Begin a program of random post-publication fact-checking to look for inaccuracies that slip through our multilayered editing process.

Random? post-publication? A systematic pre-publication attention to accuracy would be too much to expect.

Witness this exchange from yesterday’s WH press briefing:

Q. Scott, you said that the retraction by Newsweek magazine of its story is a good first step. What else does the President want this American magazine to do?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, it’s what I talked about yesterday. This report, which Newsweek has now retracted and said was wrong, has had serious consequences. People did lose their lives. The image of the United States abroad has been damaged; there is lasting damage to our image because of this report. And we would encourage Newsweek to do all that they can to help repair the damage that has been done, particularly in the region.

And I think Newsweek can do that by talking about the way they got this wrong, and pointing out what the policies and practices of the United States military are when it comes to the handling of the Holy Koran. The military put in place policies and procedures to make sure that the Koran was handled — or is handled with the utmost care and respect. And I think it would help to point that out, because some have taken this report — those that are opposed to the United States — some have taken this report and exploited it and used it to incite violence.

Q. With respect, who made you the editor of Newsweek? Do you think it’s appropriate for you, at that podium, speaking with the authority of the President of the United States, to tell an American magazine what they should print?

How I would have answered the question:

First, who made you President of the United States? When you stop telling us what to do, we’ll stop telling you what to do.

Second, whoever asked me that first question made me the editor of Newsweek. When you ask me what they should do, my answer does not consistute a claim of editorship.

CBS announced that it’s cancelling 60 Minutes 2, the program that Dan Rather used to end his career on the Bush memo story.

Les Monves says the memo story had nothing to do with the progamming decision.

“This was a ratings call and not a content call,” Mr. Moonves said. “I know that’s a question.”

You can’t separate the two. MSM’s audience has been going down as new media’s has been going up. 60M2 lost its audience because of it’s content, not despite it.

Jonah Goldberg makes a good point about the paternal double standards in how MSM editors choose what to let through their gates.

To me the similarities with the Abu Ghraib are greatest not in terms of the abuse but in terms of the media’s unreflective willingness to undermine the war on terror. We saw the photos from Abu Ghraib on the nightly news and in the newspapers far, far more than we saw video of American leaping to their doom from the top of the Trade Towers. Why? Well, according to the Brahmins of the media, it would be irresponsible to stir American passions with such inflammatory images. But the relentless gray strobe light of images showing Arab men in dog collars and black hoods was necessary to inform the public–even though the abuses were already being investigated by the proper authorities. In other words, American passions are to be feared and tamped down on whenever possible, while there’s nothing too worrisome about inciting Arab and Muslim passions, even when that attitude plays perfectly into the hands of the people we’re fighting.

The Seattle Times reports on two companies that are delivering micro pay-per-view programming for TV over the Internet.

The shift in the video landscape is made possible by high-speed connections and increasingly fast microprocessors that typically allow a two-hour feature film to be downloaded in less than an hour.

For spur-of-the-moment viewing, a customer can begin watching a film in less than a minute and download the rest while the movie plays. Or, like TiVo, a download can be scheduled while a computer isn’t in use, for later viewing.
Allaire and others expect that companies like his will bypass the copyright battles plaguing music downloads because distributors can choose to offer only copyright-protected content. And copy-protection technologies such as Microsoft’s Windows Media Digital Rights Management system are expected to limit unauthorized copies.
Allen Weiner, a new-media analyst at Gartner, says startups like Brightcove are “all going after the next generation of what television will look like.”

Hat tip: Instapundit

David Gergen, an old MSM mainstay, notes that the Newsweek mess may mark an important tipping point in the balance bewteen new and old media.

Imagine if a physician, who had just killed 16 people with a misprescribed drug, defended himself like Newsweek is doing.

Asked if anyone involved in preparing the article would lose his job, Klaidman said, “We think that people acted responsibly and professionally and … there was no malice, no institutional bias, just a mistake that was made in good faith.” The article was written by Michael Isikoff, an investigative reporter, and John Barry, a national security correspondent for the magazine.

“We think that the doctor acted responsibly and professionally and …there was no malice, no hospital bias, just a mistake that was made in good faith.”

Would you ever visit that physician again? Would the public stand for such a dismissive response?

A good observation from a commentator at Captain’s Quarters:

There is absolutely no legitimate reason to run a story like this. Newsweek ran the story knowing that it would excite the passions of the world’s muslim population.

Contrast this with the media’s refusal to show pictures of our fellow citizens jumping out the the world trade center. We were told that such pictures would unneccessarily anger the American people and lead to violence against Muslim Americans.

The MSM will show us endless Abu Ghraib pictures, and Newsweek goes so far as to print false stories to inflame muslims against the U.S.

Tonight’s Nightline is a good example of how the concept of each person’s “own truth” has infiltrated journalism. ABC defended Newsweek on the basis that we can’t know that the information is false, therefore if it sounds and smells true, it must be true.

Newsweek started this problem with the same non-denial truth standard. An unnamed source did not say that it was incorrect, so Newsweek assumed that it was true.

No-one told Dan Rather that the Bush memos were actually fake, just that we couldn’t know that they were authentic. They looked right to Dan, so they were true.

John Podhoretz demonstrated the new standard’s absurdity and turned them back on ABC.

Quoting Pentagon spokesman Brian Whitman’s declaration that the story is “demonstrably false,” Donvan responded in an incredulous voiceover, “Demonstrably false? At Guanatamo Bay almost nothing is demonstrable, especially to the Muslim world. It’s a secret prison — for good reason perhaps — but secret. What really goes on at Guanatamo Bay no one really knows.”

The thing is, no one really knows what goes on at Nightline either. And we know network news has a credibility problem. So would that make it all right for me to report that, according to an anonymous source, Ted Koppel flushed a Koran down the toilet?

No, Ted Koppel did not flush a Koran down the toilet. But according to Nightline, we just can’t be sure, can we? Maybe John Donvan did it.

Lorie Byrd notes that quite a few sites have headlined the Newsweek story, “Newsweek lied. People died.” Byrd reminds blogoreaders that the claim is a satirical play on anti-Bush bumper stickers from 04.

Those who have been using it, however, are completely justified, in my mind at least, because they are lampooning those on the Left. As Cramer says, it is satire. Bush didn’t lie about WMD. Those on the left who say so, and who poster their cars and SUVs with “Bush lied, people died” bumper stickers either know that he did not lie, but don’t care about the truth when it comes to smearing Bush, or they are morons who probably shouldn’t be driving. Those using the Newsweek line are turning the tables on those who claim that since Bush said we would find stockpiles of WMD and didn’t that he had to have lied. And as Cramer says, Bush had a whole lot more evidence to back up his statement than Newsweek did.

Seeing how free blogs have changed the media landscape in the last few years, the reality-based New York Times has decided to charge $50 a year for access to its opinion columns.

It’s quite a way to strangle oneself. In response to declining newspaper subscriptions and growing online readership, the Times has decided to limit access to its online version.

It’s probably in the national interest, though.

Paul Marshall argues that the rioting and deaths that came after the Newsweek Koran article were entirely predictable, assuming they had a basic knowledge of the religion they were covering.

It would be charitable to think that if Newsweek had known how explosive the story was it may have held off until it had more confirmation. If this is true, it is an indication that the media%u2019s widespread failure to pay careful attention to the complexities of religion not only misleads us about domestic and international affairs but also gets people killed.

A new trend is emerging in the undergraduate college library system. The University of Texas in Austin is attempting to empty its shelves and turn the libraries into an electronic heaven with online resources that can fulfill any undergraduate’s needs. According to NY Times, this is a trend that many colleges are turning to and signing on. However, there are many mixed feelings as to whether or not online materials can replace books. For more information read the NY Times article “College Libraries Set Aside Books in a Digital Age.”

Do you think the MoveOns and Moores will get too upset about Newsweek’s “lie” about U.S. officials desecrating the Koran?

Michelle Malkin reprints Newsweek’s explanation for its mistake.

Michelle Malkin collects today’s references to the MSM’s favorite kind of Republican–the maverick.

Bloggers are starting to ask CBS for the unedited version of the Ken Starr interview.

LGF have an animated graphic comparing CBS’s “authentic” Bush memo with text produced using MS Word’s default settings.

The similarities are striking.

CBS News reported yesterday that Ken Starr was panning the GOP for planning the “nuclear option” on judicial filibusters. Yesterday afternoon most conservatives were very confused and outraged the Starr would lend his voice to the pro-filibuster media.

It turns out that CBS completely misrepresented Starr’s words and ideas. Here’s Starr on what he really said and meant:

“In the piece that I have now seen, and which I gather is being lavishly quoted, CBS employed two snippets. The ‘radical departure’ snippet was specifically addressed — although this is not evidenced whatever from the clip — to the practice of invoking judicial philosopy as a grounds for voting against a qualified nominee of integrity and experience. I said in sharp language that that practice was wrong. I contrasted the current practice . . . with what occurred during Ruth Ginsburg’s nomination process, as numerous Republicans voted (rightly) to confirm a former ACLU staff lawyer. They disagreed with her positions as a lawyer, but they voted (again, rightly) to confirm her. Why? Because elections, like ideas, have consequences. . . . In the interview, I did indeed suggest, and have suggested elsewhere, that caution and prudence be exercised (Burkean that I am) in shifting/modifying rules (that’s the second snippet), but I likewise made clear that the ‘filibuster’ represents an entirely new use (and misuse) of a venerable tradition. . . .

“[O]ur friends are way off base in assuming that the CBS snippets, as used, represent (a) my views, or (b) what I in fact said.”

Harry Reid and other Democrats were quoting Starr as being on their side yesterday afternoon. Will Starr’s clarification quash that talking point?

Hat tip: NRO

Could the AP distance Hillary Clinton from the fund-raising scandal any more than they do with this headline?

Trial to Start for Ex-Clinton Ex-Staffer