TOM MAGUIRE rounds up the news, and finds that, shockingly, the Newsweek debacle isn’t actually the only story.

PRESIDENT BUSH STARTS A BLOG to respond to press misinformation, in a tale ripped from today’s headlines.

THE SUPREME COURT RULES ON WINE:

States cannot ban direct out-of-state wine shipments if they allow their wineries to sell directly to consumers, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a decision that could lead to lower prices and more easily available choices.

By a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled that the bans involving out-of-state wineries unconstitutionally discriminated against interstate commerce. Such laws have been adopted in 23 states while the other 27 states allow direct wine sales, industry officials said.

Defenders of the laws argued that states under the 21st Amendment, which repealed Prohibition in 1933, have the power to regulate the sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages.

I actually think that the defenders may be right here, but that won’t stop me from enjoying a better market for wine than Tennessee’s rather protectionist setup has heretofor permitted. However, unlike Professor Bainbridge I doubt I’ll need a Personal Wine Curator to keep track of my collection. Even a robotic one.

UPDATE: Bainbridge says that the ruling may not affect Tennessee. Dang. An arguably-wrong decision that also won’t benefit me personally. No upside there.

AUSTIN BAY will be on MSNBC around 1:45 Eastern time talking about the Newsweek debacle.

UPDATE: Over at ChicagoBoyz, a call for a Congressional investigation.

Meanwhile, Trey Jackson offers advice on how Newsweek can defuse things.

PEOPLE SOMETIMES WONDER whether I’m free to criticize the many corporate affiliates of MSNBC in my GlennReynolds.com columns. Today’s post should answer that question.

Meanwhile, somebody send Newsweek a case of these.

MORE THAN 700 DEATHS IN UZBEKISTAN: Gateway Pundit has the reports and video.

A TROUBLING REPORT from one of Austin Bay’s readers:

I’m on my way back to Kabul, as I typically do every summer, but my family is completely opposed to my travel and work this year in Afghanistan even though I’ve safely transited there, in and out of State and UN/NGO service for nearly 20 years. The word I receive from Kabuli friends is that Isikoff has singlehandedly turned US triumph in the country to a total disaster. It was thought an anomaly last summer that some wonderful–and tragically forgotten–American DynCorps workers (mostly ex-military and my good friends) were killed in an environment that was pro-American to the core. That could be seen as a terrible tragedy, an unreasonable sad event impinging on an overall positive atmosphere–a last ditch effort by desperate Al Qa’eda remnants from outside Afghanistan to vent anger at the overwhelming success of the Americans. Now thanks to one Bush-hating reporter (google Isikoff if you doubt his intentions,) the recidivist Taliban-Pathans of southeast Afghanistan once again have an issue to de-legitimize the Karzai-US alliance.

Really, I don’t want to hear another word about the superior “responsibility” of Big Media. Not one more word.

UPDATE: Dean Esmay agrees.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Earlier, I wrote that:

This was entirely predictable given that (1) Al Qaeda propaganda turns on stuff like this; and (2) Historically, such rumors have been used to stir up trouble in the region (remember the Sepoy Revolt, based on false rumors that the British greased their cartridges with pig fat?). If the folks at Newsweek are too ignorant to realize this, or too sloppy to care, then they shouldn’t be in the news business.

But Newsweek’s Mark Whitaker says:

I suppose you could say we should have foreseen the consequences of the report, but we didn’t.

I’ll take that as an admission.

Jeez, even if you guys skipped World History, didn’t you read Harry Flashman?

MORE: Yes:

If bloggers had done this, you’d see the news media calling for sweeping restrictions on online publication by “non-professionals.” Indeed, the media would be going after bloggers so long and so hard that it’d be pushed to the top of the reporting for weeks until another white woman goes missing.

Indeed. Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin is trying to uncover the source.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Newsweek is already suffering damage to its pocketbook, according to this report.

INSTAPUNK responds to the critics of its Pat Buchanan post. “And, finally, if you’re going to call InstaPunk ‘stoopid,’ or ‘unsofisticated,’ why not grab that old dusty dictionary and look up one or two of the really hard words in your post.”

I WARNED EARLIER that if Americans concluded that the press was on the other side, the consequences would be dire.

Now it looks as if things are already dire:

A new survey to be released Monday reveals a wide gap on many media issues between a group of journalists and the general public. In one finding, 43% of the public say they believe the press has too much freedom, while only 3% of journalists agree. . . .

Six in ten among the public feel the media show bias in reporting the news, and 22% say the government should be allowed to censor the press.

I’m a big fan of freedom of the press. I think it’s too bad that the journalistic profession is ruining things for everybody through the hubris, irresponsibility, sloppiness, and outright agenda-driven bias of its practitioners. Which makes this bit especially ironic:

Blogs showed their growing influence among those polled as 83% of journalists reporting the use of blogs, with four out of 10 saying they use them at least once a week. Among those who use them, 55% said they do so to support their news gathering work. And even though 85% believe bloggers should enjoy First Amendment protections, 75% say bloggers are not real journalists because they don’t adhere to “commonly held ethical standards.”

Tell it to the guys at Newsweek.

MORE BACKGROUND ON NEWSWEEK’S JOURNALISTIC STANDARDS: And it’s not pretty.

But Newsweek’s reach seems to be limited, as Iraqi blogger Omar reports:

What is interesting is that Iraq witnessed no demonstration at all, not even a single statement of denoencemnet from anyone although Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya kept running updates on this subject almost every news-hour and have always talked about the descretion incident as if it were confirmed news.

If this is to indicate anything I think it indicvates that Iraqis are more concerned about their own lives than they’re about the “issues” of the Islamic world’s dignity and more important (and here I see our community approaching a turning point) is that people are giving the media less credit than they used to do.

Less credit here, too, I think. A turning point, indeed, and one that should worry the folks at Newsweek more than it apparently does.

UPDATE: Nick Gillespie observes:

The final insult? It makes those of us who are critical of government sources, largely because they are quicker to lie than they are to tell the truth, agree with the Pentagon (!) spokesman who said of the mystery source, “People are dead because of what this son of a bitch said. How could he be credible now?”

He also suggests that, before this is all over, journalism pundits will be trying to figure out a way to blame the Internet.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Jeff Jarvis:

This mistake cost people their lives, put the lives of our soldiers in the Mideast at risk, damaged the American position in the effort to defend itself and spread democracy, and damaged the already tattered reputation of journalism.

And to what end?

If the report had come from a source who had the balls to stand by what he said, if the alleged event had been witnessed, if it had been confirmed by independent authorities, I’m not sure what the imperative to report would have been: Why did we need to urgently know this? What public good is served? If it were absolutely true, that might be one matter but…

Given that none of those if’s was true — the informant did not have the balls, the event was not witnessed by a source, the event was not confirmed independently — and given the knowledge that such a report could only be incendiary, then why report it except to play one of two games:

Show-off — in which the journalist delights in knowing something no one else knows and wants to tell the world before everyone else does, even if it’s not assuredly true.

Gotcha — in which the reporter think he has exposed something somebody wanted to hide.

An incident such as this should force us to ask what the end result of journalism should be. Is it to expose anything we can expose? Is it to beat the other guy to tell you something you didn’t know?

Or is it to tell the truth?

And if you don’t know it to be true, is it reporting? If you rely on unnamed sources and unconfirmed reports, is it journalism?

It’s what journalists claim that bloggers do — but honestly, I see a lot more of that from Big Media than from bloggers.

Michael Silence: “This is the biggest buzz in the blogosphere I’ve seen since the presidential election.”

MORE: TigerHawk:

Even if true, it was unbelievably irresponsible for Newsweek to have published the “toilet Koran” story. That they published it on the basis of an anonymous source in the middle of war in which disinformation has figured prominently is almost beyond comprehension. Are the editors completely ignorant of the world? Or do they want to sabotage America’s war effort?

They’ve done considerable damage.

MORE: Unconventional Wisdom wonders if this will mark a tipping point in press coverage of the war. I’m not so hopeful, as the press shows little sign of learning ability where these things are concerned.

STILL MORE: Bill Quick says that these allegations weren’t even new.