Reputation always at stake

Recent "anti-American" protests in Afghanistan claimed the lives of about 15 people. The cause, according to the Bush administration, was an article published in Newsweek citing an anonymous source which alleges American interrogators at Guantanamo Bay desecrated the Quran by flushing it down the toilet.\nNews of the incident supposedly created a backlash in Afghanistan resulting in the deadly protest. \nNewsweek has since retracted the story in the wake of the violence in Afghanistan and is being questioned by the White House as to how and from whom the magazine obtained the anonymous-source information, which has yet to be substantiated.\nThe string of events has caused the Bush administration to criticize other publications that use anonymous sourcing. \n"One of the concerns is that some media organizations have used anonymous sources that are hiding behind that anonymity in order to generate negative attacks," White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said. \nJournalism is like building a glass house. Reporters, like any other craftsmen, use different tools to tell a story. One of those tools is anonymous sourcing, although it's a clunkier wrench than most -- it can do the job in the absence of solid sources, but a few turns in the wrong direction and the whole house could shatter. Problems arise when journalists forget to take care of their delicate craft. In this case, Newsweek left the Quran story in sharp and shattered shambles.\nNewsweek's journalistic integrity has been questioned recently, even before this occurrence, and we would hope the magazine did not knowingly print false and damaging allegations for the sole purpose of selling more issues. If it did so, the magazine should be ashamed and should lose all credibility with the American public.\nIn the field of journalism, a retraction is the last item on a long list of potential solutions to correcting inaccurate and misguiding information. A retraction is, in a sense, an admission of guilt.\nHowever, if Newsweek retracted the story solely because of pressure from the White House, we think its staff made a mistake. They need to stand up for journalistic rights, even if that means disagreeing with the White House. \nWe think anonymous sourcing can put a publication's reputation in jeopardy when used recklessly and obtaining the integrity of truth involves more than verifying sources. Being able to stand up behind your sources, whether anonymous or not, and not backing down because of governmental threats is crucial in the eyes of the public.\nWe feel journalists need more corroboration and should be ever-vigilant toward the truth. This is a journalist's job -- to seek the truth of every situation, look at it from every angle and report it correctly to the public.