The Rioting Began Before the Newsweek Piece Hit

This is just one of the many indicators that Newsweek has been set up to take the fall over the rioting (principally in Afghanistan, but similar riots occurred in Pakistan as well):

Drudge and other right-wingers have been quick to dub this recent surge in violence the “Newsweek riots.” But let’s not forget that this anger has been boiling for quite some time.

Before the Newsweek report even hit the newsstands, the Associated Press was already noting a “revived Taliban-led insurgency” and the Agence France Press said there was “an upsurge in violence by suspected Taliban rebels” which had left two U.S. Marines dead.

This is not to suggest that Newsweek’s report did stir passions among Muslims across the globe. But there’s a deeper issue at play here. The United Nations reported in February that living standards among Afghanis was among the world’s lowest. While it may be convenient to attribute the surge of violence to a few lines in a magazine article, the real story is more complicated.

Just a note: I removed the link to Drudge. I don't Drudge.

More important than Matt (and my dog's stool is more important than Matt), is this item also pointed out quite ably by Think Progress:

Today, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan lectured the media about a “journalistic standard that should be met” before running with a story. Fine, but isn’t there also a political standard of accountability that should be met as well? McClellan’s issue with the Newsweek story was that it was “based on a single anonymous source who cannot personally substantiate the report.”

Remember when we learned that the evidence for Iraq’s supposed mobile biological weapons labs came from an unrel iable source? What was McClellan’s response then?

QUESTION: Does it concern the President that the primary source for the intelligence on the mobile biological weapons labs was a guy that U.S. intelligence never every interviewed?

MCCLELLAN: Well, again, all these issues will be looked at as part of a broad review by the independent commission that the President appointed… But it’s important that we look at what we learn on the ground and compare that with what we believed prior to going into Iraq.

The White House is quite comfortable with going to war on shaky evidence but they have a much loftier standard for the media.