The Beeb did a background piece on how the Newsweek story is just the latest in a long line of journalistic controversies that have their roots in anonymous sources.
Some excerpts:
There is an episode in the best novel ever written about foreign correspondents, Scoop by Evelyn Waugh, in which a reporter arrives in a city and files a story about a civil war, including a touching phrase about a body lying in the street like a broken doll.
Allegations about desecration of the Koran ignited anti-US protests |
Unfortunately he was in the wrong country. No matter. His story had such a destabilising effect that there was a run on the currency, riots broke out and there was a civil war anyway. "That's the power of the press for you," was the comment of an admiring colleague.
Fiction, even Waugh's satirical fiction, is not that far from fact.
This past week, at least 15 people died in riots in Pakistan and Afghanistan after the US magazine Newsweek reported that an FBI investigation had found that a copy of the Koran had been desecrated by camp guards at Guantanamo. They had allegedly flushed it down a lavatory as a way of putting pressure on a detainee to talk.
Newsweek first apologised for, and then retracted, its own story. It turns out that the anonymous source on whom it had relied was not necessarily in a position to know what, if anything, had really happened.
Note: I don't think the BBC's interpretation is correct. Read this.
The BBC story notes this wasn't the first time the allegation has been made.
On 26 July 2004, three British detainees released from Guantanamo Bay made a statement in which they said that "when Korans were provided, they were kicked and thrown about by the guards and on occasion thrown in the buckets used for the toilets. This kept happening. When it happened it was always said to be accident but it was a recurrent theme".
On to sourcing.
The Newsweek story is only the latest in a series of incidents which have led news organisations around the world to take a deep look at what rules they employ when dealing with anonymous sources.
Anonymity is a vital journalistic tool. On a daily basis, officials of many governments talk to journalists on the basis that their names are not used.
More sensitively, someone who is revealing something they should not be will often ask for anonymity.
But a new phenomenon is at work which has forced journalists onto the back foot.
This is the growth of the "bloggers" on the internet, the web loggers who make it their business to delve into the practices of the mainstream media.
What is called a "blogswarm" over the Newsweek story is now developing, clamouring for Newsweek blood.
It talked about discussions at the NYT on building reader trust.
And it also talked about the Beeb's problems over the WMD story of 2003:
The BBC has also reassessed its practices following the suicide of Dr David Kelly who was the anonymous source for a report by Andrew Gilligan that the British government had "sexed-up" its dossier on Iraqi armaments.
An inquiry by Lord Hutton criticised BBC procedures and these have been tightened up.
For example, editors have the right to ask a reporter who an anonymous source is. And viewers, listeners and readers have the right to know as much as possible about the source.
"If the source of an allegation has to remain anonymous, we must give the audience as much accurate information as is compatible with protecting the identity of the source," says the BBC Producers' Guidelines on journalistic practice.
It may be obvious but it has not always been done.