Posted on 05/23/2005 7:04:12 PM PDT by wagglebee
Newsweek magazine has announced that it will institute stricter guidelines on the use of unnamed sources after last week's retraction of a Quran-desecration story.
But despite the tremendous uproar generated by the discredited story, the magazine says no staffers will lose their jobs.
In a letter to readers in Newsweek's latest issue, chairman and editor in chief Richard M. Smith promises that "the cryptic phrase 'sources said' will never again be the sole attribution for a story in Newsweek."
Two of the magazine's top editors will be assigned sole responsibility for approving the use of anonymous sources.
"We got an important story wrong, and honor requires us to admit our mistake and redouble our efforts to make sure nothing like this ever happens again," Smith writes.
In an interview, Smith said the decision not to fire any writers or editors over the Quran report was "a tough call. I understand the impulse for people to call for heads to roll, but wishing that we had done some things different and finding that we need to tighten up on the policy isn't the same as finding unprincipled, unethical or unprofessional behavior."
The story by reporters Michael Isikoff and John Barry relied on a single source who said interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba had flushed a Quran down a toilet to agitate prisoners. Resulting protests in the Muslim world led to as many as 17 riot-related deaths.
Smith said Newsweek relied on a senior Defense Department official to tell the reporters whether the story was true. In his letter to readers, he said "we mistakenly took the official's silence for confirmation."
But veteran newsman David Gergen of U.S. News & World Report believes Newsweek hasn't gone for enough.
"I think they should unmask the unnamed source," he told CNN.
"There was an old rule in journalism that if an unnamed source lies to a new organization, that sources loses his anonymity, by definition, because he misled people."
I don't think they can name the source, because I think Michael Isikoff made the whole thing up.
Oh, that'll help. Their guidance will be what the current one is: if it hurts Bush, print it. Why should anything change? They managed to damage Bush and the country and get away with it scot-free. Why change?
They won't name him until he has a chance to write a book "exposing" other atrocities by Bush.
Facts be damned, we've got a President to destroy!
So in other words, even their own "source" denies ever saying this.
"But veteran newsman David Gergen of U.S. News & World Report believes Newsweek hasn't gone far enough."
The Clinton mouthpiece Rush used to call "David Rodham Gergen" ...
If they need two editors to do this solely, then they obviously are planning to use a lot of "anonymous sources" in the future.
So in other words, even their own "source" denies ever saying this.
Actually, their source doesn't deny saying this, they admit that he did not confirm nor deny.
there is a concerted effort by the mainstream media to deny president bush his deserved military successes.
the media's doing the same thing they did during the vietnam war--focusing on disciplinary matters and blowing them up as reasons to be against the wars.
Actually, they won't name the source because now they own him completely. They might as well cut him (or her) a paycheck. Journalistic honor, if there ever was such a thing, says the source should be exposed. But now it is all about leverage and access.
As much as Gergen would like to find some DOD official to blame for Newsweek and the MSM's treachery, it ain't gonna sell. Someone should send this old fraud out to pasture.
I disagree, because I'd bet the source is the equivalent of CBS's "unimpeachable sources" Bill Burkett.
IOW, someone with a long-time grudge, for what ever reasons, that nobody "honorable" would have taken a story from without checking all other the place.
Whoever it is, he/she lied to Isakoff, but it was a lie he wanted to hear.
This is beyond merely cynical, it is a cold admission that the campaign will continue and the drums will still beat. That they're going to be more careful about their treatment of anonymous sources says nothing about whether such stories will still be printed in the future, nor should it, because they will be. The only real difference is that Newsweek's staff doesn't want to be caught out as easily next time.
On the Freeper threads he was called David "The Traitor"!
I'm still thinking that the source is a staffer for one of the Dims on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and that he/she was following orders.
That's an interesting idea. You can go to U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services and read some names. Kennedy, Byrd, and Clinton are there which is not very comforting. But Gergan is a bought and paid for Clinton minion, so why would he be crying to out the name of the source if it's a Dim staffer on that Committee? It couldn't be a Clinton staffer if Gergan wants to out him/her.....
I was asking for this the first week. I never once heard the MSM bring up who the source might be or if there really was one.
So in other words, even their own "source" denies ever saying this.
No, it means that the DOD person Newsweak sent the article to for comment didn't stop the Newsweak train from running off the track & wrecking. Doncha' know that senior DOD persons are sposed to stop everything they're doing (like running a war) and fact check every article from every news organization & stop them from making complete fools of themselves?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.