Earlier this month, anti-American riots raged in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, resulting in the deaths of at least 15 people. Surprisingly enough, the carnage was linked to a small item printed in Newsweek. The short excerpt made reference to an internal report that described interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay naval base flushing a Quran down a toilet to provoke responses from reticent detainees. Now, Newsweek has learned that the anonymous source used by its reporters was mistaken. While the magazine's mistake caused undue harm and should be learned from, instances like this remain insufficient grounds for curbing the rights of journalists.
Newsweek acknowledged possible errors and issued a formal apology to all of those harmed before retracting the article. The apology and retraction have fallen on many deaf ears at the Pentagon and comes at a time when the use of anonymous sources by news organizations is under heavy criticism. Several news organizations have adopted stricter rules for the use of unnamed officials, with public surveys citing such usage as a main reason why trust in the news media is decreasing. However, the practice should not altogether be demonized. Some sources, for fear of retribution, simply will not share needed information unless their identity is concealed. This is no reason to pass up such knowledge, which often is required to fully inform the public.
Allowing journalists to use anonymous sources is not the equivalent of allowing them to print whatever falsities they please. According to Newsweek, its source was an American government official who had proven reliable in the past and was qualified to answer the questions asked. This is usually the case with professional news organizations, which should use anonymous sources only as a last resort and do so responsibly. Newsweek was responsible and has admitted to its mistakes. Any ban on the media's use of anonymous sources, despite monumental mistakes like Newsweek's, unnecessarily shackles the freedom of the press. Adherence to the highest of journalistic ethics is a means of preventing mistakes, and government restrictions would do more harm than good.
17 Archives
The Post Editorial Board
