What, exactly, is it that Michael Isikoff and his editors did that they shouldn’t have done?
Can someone explain to me what Mike Isikoff and Newsweek were supposed to do when a senior Administration official confirmed the Koran-flushing incident? Not publish it, in order to forestall the prospect of riots? Wouldn’t that be carrying “civic journalism” to an almost Soviet extreme?
As far as I can tell, there’s no real reason to think that the incident didn’t happen. So far at least, the Pentagon hasn’t even said that it didn’t happen.
Author: Mark Kleiman
Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out.
Books:
Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken)
When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist
Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993)
Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989)
UCLA Homepage
Curriculum Vitae
Contact: Markarkleiman-at-gmail.com
View all posts by Mark Kleiman