This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 DHAKA 002570 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR I/FW, B/G, IIP/G/NEA-SA, B/VOA/N (BANGLA SERVICE) 
ALSO FOR SA/PAB, SA/PPD (LSCENSNY, SSTRYKER), SA/RA, INR/R/MR, 
DEPT PASS TO USAID FOR ANE/ASIA/SA/B (WJOHNSON) 
CINCPAC FOR PUBLIC DIPLOMACY ADVISOR, J51 (MAJ TURNER), J45 
(MAJ NICHOLLS) 
USARPAC FOR APOP-IM (MAJ HEDRICK) 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: KMDR OIIP OPRC KPAO PREL ETRD PTER ASEC BG OCII
SUBJECT: Media Reaction: Koran Desecration and NewsWeek; Dhaka 
 
 
Summary:  The readers are mature enough to understand that 
the retraction of the story was not because of violent 
demonstrations by angry Muslim crowds in a number of 
countries because that could have been foreseen. It is 
obvious to them that tremendous pressure was brought to bear 
on Newsweek to plead guilty by powerful quarters. By 
capitulating to extraneous pressure Newsweek has seriously 
impaired the trust and confidence of many of its readers. 
Great damage has been done to the image of the magazine, not 
because of publishing the story about abuse of the Holy 
Quran but by retracting the story under duress.  The paper 
has been exposed as being afraid of telling the truth in the 
face of coaxing and cajoling. Readers don't have to be told 
what `anonymous source' exerted pressure. By capitulating to 
that `source', Newsweek will now lack credibility in respect 
of many of the stories it they might publish in future. For 
this breach of trust with the readers the magazine can only 
blame itself. 
 
Following are excerpts from the op-ed article: 
------------------------------ 
Koran Desecration and Newsweek 
------------------------------ 
"Newsweek's News" 
Independent English language newspaper "New Age" op-ed 
article by columnist Hasnat Abdul Hye comments (6/5/05): 
 
For a newsmagazine that brings news and publishes comments 
on current national and international affairs it must have 
been a humbling experience to be in the limelight across the 
world. That the publicity it received after a news scoop led 
to violent demonstrations, bloody crackdowns by authorities 
and widespread condemnation of the act reported in the news 
scoop, could only have enhanced its embarrassment. The 
saving grace for Newsweek was that those who showed their 
indignation after the publication of the news did not kill 
the messenger. They targeted the American Administration as 
the perpetrator of the sacrilegious act. But Newsweek had to 
pay a price for spilling the beans because those who were 
exposed by the news wanted the readers of Newsweek to 
believe that there was no beans to spill and it was all 
rumor. Newsweek retracted the news and apologized to the 
readers and to the families of those who had died in the 
protest demonstrations set off by the news. This is 
extraordinary for a new magazine that has been savvy in 
handling news, particularly sensitive ones. Its selection of 
news, particularly news scoops, goes through a rigorous 
process of checks and re-cheeks. 
 
Given this sensitivity of the editorial board, it is 
unthinkable that the news in question just slipped through 
the normal scrutiny of senior editors of Newsweek. The fact 
that the news involved Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo) detainees and 
the Holy Quran make it highly improbable that Newsweek's 
board of editors did not realize the potential of world wide 
repercussions among the Muslims over the news about 
desecration of Holy Quran in Gitmo. Like every other agency 
in America, Newsweek knew very well that America's 
credibility and honor had gone down sharply in the past two 
years in the Muslim world where the militants never fail to 
miss an opportunity to give vent to their anger against 
their antagonist through violent attacks. It is impossible 
to think that the editorial board of Newsweek did not know 
about the serious consequences that the publication of the 
news would have. But this knowledge did not deter them from 
revealing the truth because they thought that such 
revelation is in the highest tradition of media that is 
built on the trust of readers. 
 
Newsweek enhanced the trust of majority of its readers by 
publishing the news about guards flushing down the Holy 
Quran in toilets in Guantanamo Bay. It was an unpleasant 
truth to be told by an American news magazine because it 
knew that its publication would bring the wrath of the 
Muslim world against the American administration and by 
extension, the American people. It took a lot of courage and 
moral certitude to stick to the truth. 
 
The news scoop on the defilement of the Holy Quran was made 
by Michael Issikoff who had unearthed the Clinton - Lewinsky 
scandal and won praise for accuracy and objectivity. He is 
by now an old hand in dealing with anonymous and 
confidential sources for breaking news. So it cannot be 
 
SIPDIS 
suspected that he was amateurish and rash in using the 
confidential source before writing the story in `Newsweek's 
 
SIPDIS 
Periscope column about desecration of the Holy Quran by 
guards in Guantanamo Bay detention center(Gitmo) to 
humiliate and unnerve the hardcore detainees. In fact the 
new was already known to Defense department officials who 
were briefed by the International Committee of the Red Cross 
(ICRC) about prison personnel disrespecting or mishandling 
copies of the Holy Quran at Gitmo as early as 2002. 
According to a spokesperson of ICRC, the organization had 
provided several instances that it believed were credible. 
 
The contradiction and pusillanimity in the (Newsweek's 
retraction) statement is mind-boggling. If the story was 
written `ethically' and `professionally', relying on a 
`historically reliable government source' and `provided to 
senior defense department officials who did not object to 
the allegations', why should Newsweek feel guilty about the 
publication of the story? What is the mistake involved in 
taking the defense official's silence for confirmation of 
the story? That is how stories are checked and conclusions 
drawn by the media. Newsweek's hand wringing and retraction 
of the story following the furors that erupted in the Muslim 
world amount to almost intellectual dishonesty. Having gone 
through a process of checking and getting confirmation about 
the news meticulously there was no scope and necessity of 
mea culpa. 
 
Very few would deny that Newsweek maintained the highest 
standard of news gathering in this case. There was no lapse 
on its part in following the traditional procedures for news- 
gathering of this type. There is, of course, always room for 
improving the standard for the use of anonymous sources, as 
the Editor-in-Chief has mentioned in his letter. But it does 
not mean that he or his magazine has to disown what was done 
in good faith and with due diligence. For publishing a 
straightforward and honest news story it earned great esteem 
and confidence from the readers who could appreciate the 
risk it was taking by telling the truth. The readers are 
mature enough to understand that the retraction of the story 
was not because of the violent demonstrations by angry 
Muslim crowds in a number of countries because it could not 
be unforeseen. It is obvious to them that tremendous 
pressure was brought to bear on Newsweek to plead guilty by 
powerful quarters. By capitulating to extraneous pressure 
the Newsweek has seriously impaired the trust and confidence 
of many of its readers. Great damage has been done to the 
image of the magazine, not because of publishing the story 
about abuse of the Holy Quran but by retracting the story 
under duress. The paper has been exposed as being afraid of 
telling the truth in the face of coaxing and cajoling. The 
readers don't have to be told what is the `anonymous source' 
from where pressure was exerted. By capitulating to that 
`source', Newsweek will now lack credibility in respect of 
many of the stories it they might publish in future. For 
this breach of trust with the readers the magazine can only 
blame itself. 
 
Chammas