Späte Einsicht: SPIEGEL ONLINE Finally "Corrects" Obvious Blunders...

Or So You Thought...

This past weekend, Davids Medienkritik brought you a report on SPIEGEL ONLINE's latest reporting debacle. On April 28, the magazine featured an article on its homepage entitled, "Late Insight: Even USA Now Sees Iraq as Terror Incubator." The article (twice) claimed that the recently released Country Reports on Terrorism, an annual report issued by the U.S. State Department, had labeled Iraq a terrorist "safe haven." In fact, the report did no such thing:

Below is how the SPIEGEL ONLINE article in question looked for four days (the first and sixth paragraphs are shown):

BEFORE Davids Medienkritik:

"The war against terror was one of the US government's arguments for the march into Iraq. Three years later it has been shown that the goal has been totally missed: The State Department's annual Country Reports on Terrorism calls the country a "safe haven" for extremists." (...)

"The report calls Iraq a "safe haven" for terrorists. In the country there is a quasi "pipeline" for extremists in the entire world. Iraq is therefore the most important location in the fight against worldwide terrorism."

And here is how the report looks now:

AFTER Davids Medienkritik:

The "corrections" are a tiny sign of progress. But major problems still remain: Now that the magazine has admitted it was wrong, what point is there to keeping the article to begin with? The entire premise has been torn to bits. The US government authorities cited by SPIEGEL ONLINE clearly do NOT view Iraq as an "incubator for terror." Wouldn't it make more sense to remove the article entirely?

The Journalistic Quagmire Continues: Article Still Wrong Despite "Corrections"...

Unfortunately, SPIEGEL ONLINE's "corrections" are still not correct. The first paragraph now claims that the State Department report says that the war against terror in Iraq was an objective of the occupation that has been totally missed. In fact, the report says no such thing. Additionally, the article now claims that the State Department report states that Iraq "could develop into a safe haven." In fact, the report clearly states that terrorists and extremists "view Iraq as a potential safe haven and are attempting to make it a reality."

But hey, when you are dealing with chronically biased German media, any admission of guilt is a sign of hope. "Späte Einsicht" as they say. Better late than never for SPIEGEL ONLINE. Let's hope they finally get it right some day...

Endnote: A popular German-language blog, BildBlog, is actually sending BILD newspaper a bill for the corrections they have helped the paper make. They are charging something like 40 EUROS per correction. SPIEGEL ONLINE can expect something very special in the mail from DMK in the very near future... (Article by Ray D.)

Comments

[PacRimJim]

Spiegel's color scheme is red, black, and white. Now where have I seen that combo before? It was in Germany. It was during the 1,000 years between 1933 and 1945. Oh, yes, I remember.

[Klops1]

PRJ, will you ever learn to write a comment without making stupid misplaced allusions to the nazis?

[Cousin Dave]

That's funny... sending SPIEGEL a bill for "editorial services". The scary thing is, if SPIEGEL's accounts-payable is like that of a lot of companies, they will probably pay it...

Seriously, it is rather remarkable that corrections like this get made at all, when the pressure is coming solely from a handful of Web sites. Truth is a powerful motivator. Who besides Medienkritik has commented on this article? Just scanning around the handful of English-language sites that I know of, I haven't found anything about it anywhere else. It looks like Medienkritik is catching some eyes among German MSM types.

[Pamela]

PacRimJim, that remark is absolutely uncalled for. Piss off.

I would like German readers here to educate me. Most American publications have what is called a corrections policy. They publish corrections to articles in a standard place so readers can see them. Some newspapers, e.g. the Washington Post and New York Times also have ombudsmen, who critique the paper's performance per readers' complaints/compliments.

Same in Germany? Or not?

[Alex N.]

Good job, Medienkritik and readers!

"But major problems still remain: Now that the magazine has admitted it was wrong, what point is there to keeping the article to begin with? The entire premise has been torn to bits."

Well, now you have forced them to unintentionally just do what journalists - including those with an attitude - are supposed to do all along: Just report the facts. Ha, I wonder the look of their faces while doing that. I bet it took them so long to correct it 'cause they were trying to figure out how to get the proper spin on it again.

[PacRimJim]

I am merely countering Der Spiegel's frivolity with comments equally frivolous, though not as pernicious. I suppose such subtlety is lost on you lost. Next time, I'll be more direct.

[Carl Spackler]

PRJ.

Lame, and weak. Reminds me of Jessie Jackson, et. al, always reaching for the race card.

David,

Good catch.

(Note from David: Ray did this magnificient piece.)

A thought occurred to me. What if all our tools, instraments that we use to make, manufacture, build, repair were as sloppy, error filled, as newspapers and journalist? Everything would break, fall apart, we would spend immense parts of our lives just trying to get things going. But isn’t this the state with popular mass journalism? In democracies the people have to fully and fairly informed, so that they can vote, and elect honestly. There ought to be a ‘credit’ rating for news organizations. It is crazy. You can buy a magazine that tests coffee makers to rate the best, but not those manufactures of the news that put out junk products?

[Mike H.]

Carl, with all due respect to your always good and probing comments, what the hell do you think you're reading? ;) The only thing that this magazine is missing is the shredded wood for the pulp. I enjoy your letters to the editors BTW.