The problem with retractions

Jeff Jarvis complains that Newsweek's "apparent" retraction of the bogus Koran-flushing story is too equivocal. Newsweek said the story might not be true.

They should have said that they retract the story because they do not have any reason to know that it is true. We are not in the business of reporting what might be true, what could be true if only we know more. We are in the business of reporting what we know is true. Aren't we?

Of course, anything that Newsweek does now will not undo the harm the publication has already caused. It's not just that 15 people are dead as a result of the spurious report--though that's not by any means an insignificant outcome. Rather, once a story like this is reported it takes on a life of its own. Twenty years from now this story will be repeated as fact; someone will use this as a lever to promote his anti-American agenda and all the rational explanations in the world will not stop people from believing in it.

After all, look at the blood libel, a 13th Century Christian fabrication that 21st Century Islamists have adopted for their own. Exposure of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a forgery hasn't stopped others from repeating it. And some people who know it's a forgery still profess to believe it.

I'm not putting the Newsweek story in that rank, but it's never easy to put the genie back in the bottle.