There’s lots of buzz around the deaths caused by Newsweek’s erroneous anti-American reporting of the unverified anonymous source’s claim of Koran descration at Guantanamo Bay, and editor Mark Whitaker’s response.

But we regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst.

Roger L. Simon and Michelle Malkin want to know Isikoff’s source.

Newsweek isn’t saying. Until they report such things as that, I won’t believe a word the magazine says. Why would anybody? - Simon

Newsweek has blood on its hands. Blood on its desks. Isikoff should cough up his source. - Malkin

Black Five guest blogger Cassandra asks rhetorically:

I do not want to see the press muzzled, nor anyone hauled off to jail. But I cannot help but wonder: who was served by publication of this story? In their exercise of that freedom of speech we hold most dear, was there no thought for those who guarantee that right?

Jerry over at Milblog:

I guess there’s a good reason why they figured an unconfirmed rumor need to be spread worldwide. At least, good for THEIR aims. But what’s funny is that the folks they seem to be most sympathetic towards would likely shoot or behead them if they had the chance. And I’m not sure why they don’t seem to realize that.

Neil Shah has a different take, and thinks the criticism of Newsweek is onesided.

John Dunshee:

Isn’t there something in those journalistic ethics you like to pretend to follow about publishing harmful information that you cannot confirm as true? Or does that only apply during Democratic Presidencies?

Our enemies don’t even have to bother putting out propaganda anymore. You guys do it for free.

The Anchoress jumps on board, reiterating the “Newsweek lied. People died.” line.

Got that? No source. No one to back that up, no accountability. Just a tremendously inflammatory rumor thrown into a major news magazine - a rumor that any reasonable person has to know will cause trouble - and not trouble, it must be said, with the supposedly “Theocratic Christians” who are accustomed to seeing their Holy Book DISRESPECTED by some quarters, (not that the press would choose to notice) but from the truly Theocratic Muslims, the ones whom Europe would appease and about whom the left will never find fault, because to do so might actually mean - in their sick, convoluted world of hate - supporting George W. Bush.

Scott at Powerline analyzes the situation and concludes with:

Is this how an elite newsmagazine confesses error and corrects the record when it makes a big mess?

Iowa Voice:

They had to know what would happen if this went public, that it would be a serious setback for the United States in the war, and turn possible friends and allies against us. To me, Newsweek knew exactly what they were doing when they printed this. Inexcusable.

Captain Ed is equally furious.

Remember this when the Exempt Media gets on its righteous high horse and instructs us on their superior system of checks and balances. Newsweek ran an explosive story based on a single, unnamed source that it knew would cause a huge effect on the Muslim world, at precisely the moment when we need to ensure that people understand that we’re not at war with Islam. It’s just a little late to say, “Oops, we’re sorry.” It’s a little late to unring the bell that Newsweek rang with its false story — it’s too late for the nine people who died because Newsweek couldn’t wait to run its story without checking it properly first.

And Marc at the USS Neverdock thinks…

Someone should get fired over this one.