Regarding this Newsweek contretemps, does anyone else think the White House is protesting a bit too much?  Scott McClellan says that Newsweek needs to do more than simply retract their story.  What else can they do?  Say "We already said we're sorry, but now we're saying we're really, really sorry"?  Run down to 8th Avenue and jump in front of a bus?  Kneel in supplication in front of Scotty?

Speaking of kneeling in front of Scotty, I would be remiss if I didn't mention this tasty aside from Keith Olbermann:

Whenever I hear Scott McClellan talking about ‘media credibility,’ I strain to remember who it was who admitted Jeff Gannon to the White House press room and called on him all those times.

(Also:  Josh Marshall points out that the White House is not even directly involved in the facts of the case, and joins me in wondering exactly what action the White House can reasonably demand from Newsweek at this stage.)

It's interesting that the White House is attacking a news organization for getting something wrong and admitting it.  Especially when that White House took the country to war (1,624 US troops have died, as of this writing) on discredited "evidence" that was manufactured or altered to suit policy goals.

August Pollak notes that idiotarian right-wingers (and I should note, for the record, that idiots know no political stripe) are claiming "Newsweek Lied, People Died."  His take?

Get it? It's funny, because it's making fun of what all the anti-war people said when 1,700 Americans were killed based on lies they were warned about but didn't listen to. What, don't you have a fucking sense of humor?

This isn't even not caring. It's beyond not caring. It's taking pride in not caring.

To sit there, and act as if the soldiers were being treated as liberators and loved without anger until Newsweek came in and screwed it all up- I mean, seriously. Why not just go up to an American serviceman, kick him in the genitals, and then take a shit into his mouth. That's about an equal amount of respect you would have to have for the troops to pass one off like that. American soldiers aren't dying in Iraq because Newsweek printed a bad article. American soldiers are dying in Iraq because American soldiers are in Iraq, you fucking lunatics.

1,700 dead, for the very reason the Bush White House used today to attack a perceived "enemy:"

McClellan complained that the story was "based on a single anonymous source who could not personally substantiate the allegation that was made."

"The report has had serious consequences," he said. "People have lost their lives. The image of the United States abroad has been damaged."

There is absolutely no way Scott McClellan doesn't know what he's saying. There's no way the conservative bloggers don't. That they actually write weblogs indicates the minimum motor and cognitive skills necessary to comprehend the blood-soaked hypocrisy of a statement as devoid of basic human dignity as that.

A faulty report. Unreliable sources. People have died. And who do they want to resign? The editors of Newsweek.

(And sorry for quoting so much of your post, August -- it just makes my point exactly.)

So Newsweek had a faulty report.  News organizations make mistakes all the time.  However, they did the right thing and admitted it right away.  They didn't try to stonewall or offhandedly dismiss questions about their reporting, as CBS did.

Josh Marshall sees something potentially more disturbing at work here: 

[When] a mistake gets made, even in good faith, it puts a dent in the journalist's reputation.

If it turns out that the reporter was dishonest or acted recklessly or simply didn't perform as a professional journalist should, then there are more immediate consequences. That can include demotion, firing or even being drummed out of the profession entirely.What I do see is a pattern of a White House focusing in on particular instances of vulnerable reporting and exploiting them to set new de facto rules for the national political press. . .

What I see here is an effort by the White House to set an entirely different standard when it comes to reportage that in any way reflects critically on the White House.

That's dangerous and it should be recognized as such.

I think it's interesting, this White House tactic.  If you don't like the story, go after the source, and use that to marginalize the story.  The real shame about CBS's handling of the Texas memos story was that it took the issue of George W. Bush's military service (and whether he may have used his connections improperly) off the table.  The distraction of the forged memos (and let's remember that the memos' status was never conclusively determined to be either legit or a forgery) and CBS's bungling made the story radioactive, and no other news organization would touch the issue of Lt. Killian's concerns and their plausibility.

This is the same tactic at work here -- the White House is clearly hoping that, by forcing Newsweek to kowtow to them ("A retraction isn't enough!  You must do more!"), the story about possible prisoner mistreatment at Gitmo will no longer be an issue.

Let's finish this up with another Keith Olbermann quote:

[This] isn't well-defined, is it? I mean Conservatives might parrot McClellan and say ‘Newsweek put this country in a bad light.’ But they could just as easily thump their chests and say ‘See, this is what we do to those prisoners at Gitmo! You guys better watch your asses!’

Ultimately, though, the administration may have effected its biggest mistake over this saga, in making the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs look like a liar or naïf, just to draw a little blood out of Newsweek’s hide. Either way - and also for that tasteless, soul-less conclusion that deaths in Afghanistan should be lain at the magazine’s doorstep - Scott McClellan should resign. The expiration on his carton full of blank-eyed bully-collaborator act passed this afternoon as he sat reeling off those holier-than-thou remarks. Ah, that’s what I smelled.

Comments

[tizzie]

Good points, Vidiot. I would like to be able to say that I'm shocked at the approach the White House is taking, but they can't even shock me at this point.

[Ayelet]

Sadly, I'm with Tizzie. Every single day, I read something that makes my blood boil, something that clearly demonstrates the appalling behavior of the White House. Yet each day, I become more desensitized to the news that our nation is run by lying thieves. Guess I'm a true Democrat, eh?

[Vidiot]

Yup. I think that Democrats can be lying thieves, too...but the sheer scope and brazenness of the current pack of messianic bullies is just breathtaking.

[Ayelet]

Never would I exclude the Democrats from criticism... I'm sure they have their share of thieves amongst them, as well. But, as you say, "the sheer scope" of the current pack's arrogance is unbelievable.