The Newsweek Debacle

For the last 12 hours or so, the blogsphere has been abuzz with comment on Newsweek's Koran desecration story, or, more specifically, Newsweeks admission as to the falsity of that story. As everyone knows, Newsweek's story prompted Muslim riots that left 15 persons dead. I have two thoughts that, given the ubiquity of comment on this issue, have probably, if not certainly, already been contributed.

First, although Newseek deserves deep scorn, it's not the worst offender here. That title goes to the barbarians who would riot and kill over an unconfirmed report that a Koran was desecrated in the context of trying to pry information from savages hell bent on the destruction of countless lives. As I mentioned in a previous post, Muslims are not only permitted to get away with such nonsense, but also are viewed as justified in their nonsensical reactions, by the same idiots who defend the right, indeed, the need, to desecrate the symbols of Christianity (i.e., PissChrist). And, lest there be any doubt, no one would tolerate for a millisecond a Christian uprising in Manhatten that took the lives of several persons in connection with the opening of a sacreligious art exposition. I don't precisely know where I am going with this thought, so I'll conclude it with the simple observation that there is something inherently racist in the double-standard -- a tacit acceptance that the Muslims will kill just as dogs will bite, an acceptance that flows from an deep, and likely unacknowledged, belief that Muslims are closer to the animal than to the human. If one takes a bone from a hungry Rotweiler, one should not complain when one is bitten -- what else would you expect a Rottweiler to do?

Second, Newsweek. Why the outrage? Why the shock? This was as expected as a dog bite. One can't expect Newsweek to have standards -- it's a member of a breed suffering the relentless attack of a superior species. It will fight for its life with this sort of tripe, striking back at its shrinking relevance. This is just another example of why blogs are better -- there is accountability in the blogosphere, there are more and better checks and balances, and, in a couple more years, there will be far better shoe-leather reporting. Indeed, there already is better shoe-leather reporting, just check out Roger Simon on the largely unreported Oil For Food scandal. Ask yourself why you aren't reading such things in Newsweek. Then ask yourself if anyone will be reading Newsweek in five years. I'm bettiing against it, heavily.