I disagree with the author.
News-tweek deliberately published a weak story with a poor source of information. They didn't bother to confirm it. Whether Muslims rioted or not is secondary to the real crime.
Newsweek published this story out of their rabid anti-American viewpoint. The goal wasn't to inflame Muslims - it was to embarrass the United States to its enemies.
Newsweek is guilty of treason. It is guilty of betraying the very same country that protects its right to publish this trash. This is far worse than the deaths of the Muslims. A consequence of this treason will undoubtedly be the death of more Americans.
Are we angry at Jane Fonda, or the North Vietnamese that allowed her to sit behind an anti-aircraft gun? We're angry at Jane Fonda, of course. Likewise, we should be angry at Newsweek.
All true. But no one contributing to these pages will let NW off the hook where it rightly belongs--though we're arguing somewhat as to which wrong to hang it for. If it lied (for whatever reason), that's obviously wrong; add to that that it might have lied with a motive--wronger still. Suppose, however, that it told the truth: KNOWING that the "truth" could inflame jihadists to murder&mayhem (which EVERYone apparently accepts as de riguer behavior from jihadists when a Koran is "violated"), the publication of that truth is treason, murder, atrocity. NOT KNOWING that the "truth" could inflame jihadists . . . is incompetence on a scale we don't often see--even from the media, and STILL treason, murder, atrocity. Newsweek CAN'T be held blameless, can't be forgiven.
BUT, tho the Fonda/NV example is a good one, it's not entirely analagous: there were folks in the U. S. who thought, said, wrote that communism was EVIL, worthy of our destruction. Mr. McCarthy's one of the few who has named and would like to hold accountable the current, particular evil of our adversary.