A Pilgrim’s Digression

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=765093

Since the Newsweek Koran desecration story fell apart over the weekend, I’ve been wondering if the magazine might not have been set up by the Bush Administration as a way of discrediting another “liberal” media outlet. This is not too wild a conspiracy theory, compared to others I’ve cooked up in my crackpot brain.

Consider the chief similarity with the Dan Rather story: in both cases, the White House or its agents (in the case of the Koran story, the DOD) was given a chance to dispute a potentially damaging story before it went to press. The Administration remained mum.

Then, as soon as the story broke apart, the Administration had the pleasure of “[jumping] on the necks of the news organization with both feet” (to use Keith Olbermann’s words). Olbermann is the first reporter I know of to suggest that the Administration allowed Newsweek to impale itself on a story it could have disputed, but chose not to do so. His opinion is expressed on his blog here.

Last night on Brit Hume’s Fox News program, Mara Liason tried at least twice to point out that the White House had been provided an opportunity to tell Newsweek it had it all wrong. Hume responded condescendingly that it’s not the job of the White House to fact check news organizations.

So let me get this straight: a news organization is going to publish a story that makes the United States military look like a pack of Vandals, and which might cause serious unrest in the occupied lands of the Empire. However, it’s not the job of the Administration to offer evidence that runs counter to that story. Hmmm.

There’s a deeper, untold aspect to this story. Why are Brit Hume, Mort Kondrake, and Charles Krauthammer so damned condescending to the lovely Mara Liason?

No, that’s not the deeper story. That’s my personal preoccupation. The deeper story is the way in which the Administration is purposefully, and maybe clandestinely as well, ham-stringing the media in this country.

In an ABC News story today, Newsweek Must Do More About Koran Case, Scott McClellan is quoted as saying that “what we would like to see now is for Newsweek to work to help repair the damage that has been done, particularly in the region, and Newsweek certainly has the ability to help undo what damage can be undone.”

What specifically would you suggest, Scott?

McClellan said Newsweek should explain “what happened and why they got it wrong, particularly to people in the region. They can also talk about policies and practices of the United States military. Our United States military goes out of its way to treat the holy Koran with great care and respect,” he said.

What McClellan is essentially saying here is that Newsweek needs to pump out some propaganda for the Administration.

Is that not what he’s saying? How else does one interpret the “suggestion” that Newsweek “talk about policies and practices of the United States military?”

My question is, was Newsweek set up for precisely this reason: so the magazine would have to do some pro-Administration penance to repair its reputation?

The whole thing stinks to me—the phony self-righteousness of McClellan and the White House, the demand that Newsweek “repair” the damage it’s done by shilling for the Administration. I suppose my theory will either live or die based on who was the unnamed Administration official who began this fiasco with his incorrect statement.

Isn’t it funny, though, that the White House has made no clear sign that it wants to find this leaker, who by all rights ought to resign? Olbermann seems to think the source is McClellan himself. Whoever he is, his formerly good reputation with reporters is now shot to hell. Just one more sacrifice in the Bush Administration battle to control the news.