News-Record.com

I see no problem with an anonymous source being the initiator or starting source of a story if the information can then be verified or corroborated through identified sources or methods.
An anonymous source should not be the sole source of a story presented as fact by the news media.
Any good reporter will check, verify, and corroborate his story with sources other than the anonymous one before publication. When you don't, things like the Newsweek aberration occur.

This is not just a story about anonymous source use. It's bigger than that. And, it's a failure by many people, some not even employees of Newsweek.

The story came from a source that's been used MANY times. Newsweek sent this article for vetting by the government and was not told to remove this part. If they did anything wrong, it was to use only ONE anonymous source and not get corroboration.

I do think that this story did serious damage to the image of the United States. But, Newsweek's job is NOT to flack for the administration. They had a story, went through their normal channels and it blew up. People actually died as a result of the outrage to this story and that's VERY sad.

The use of anonymous sources has come under heavy fire. But, without anonymous sources, the press will become handcuffed. Use them if you have to, but you damn well better have it right.

How can we know or believe that this source has been used MANY times when the source is anonymous? The reporter or Newsweek can tell us anything they like, but since the source is anonymous it could be fictional. Many reporters of late have been caught using fictional sources, made-up names, etc.
Reporters will lie to sell newspapers, magazines, or advance their own careers. We see that kind of lying journalism over and over again, especially when the publication has a political agenda to pursue, as does Newsweek. If it can't be verified easily by identifying the source, it's not believable to me.
Trying to twist this back on the Administration is poppycock. Newsweek might have made up the whole thing, based on some rumor.
Until we know the identity of the source and he can be questioned, we will never know the authenticity of the original information.

In my experience, the editor ALWAYS knows the identity of an anonymous source. Now, my experience is not that of a reporter but as a person that knows and works with ALOT of reporters. I've even BEEN an anonymous source. It was not anywhere near the level of Newsweek, though. Since the Jason Blair/NYT and Kelley/USAT debacles, the clamps have been tightened on fact-checking. Call it the press' version of MLB-steroid tests.

I'm sure John would back me up but journalists and editors will do almost ANYTHING to protect the credibility of their publication(s). Now, I'm not denying that the media has and always will have a bias. That's part of what makes the machinery work.

Newsweek screwed up. No question. But the use of anonymous sources is ESSENTIAL to good journalism. Without it, no one would speak up and the press would be relegated to reporting only "approved" stories.

Whoa. You folks are victims of Rovian perception management here if you are blaming Newsweek for this debacle.

Number one, the Koran desecration is old news and has been confirmed time and time again in the media over the last two years. Talk Left has a link rich post on the subject. Not to mention a Pentagon spokesman declared early on that the Newsweek article was not the cause of the riots - which had started before the article came out.

Number two, the only thing Newsweek is guilty of is cowardice. As the Minneapolis Star Tribune posts in an editorial today. They were in the right and should have resisted White House pressure to take the blame.

Number three there is no way to do a story on the Bush administration without the use of anonymous sources because no one in the administration is willing to go on record, even when they are the ones holding the press conferences. This White House is legendary for giving "background interviews" only. It's their way of avoiding accountability.

To bring it back to topic here, anonymous sources should not be used as the sole basis for local stories. It's rarely necessary. However when it comes to this White House, there simply is no other choice.

Libby, are you defending a professionally unacceptable practice even if it results in blatantly false stories and in the deaths of dozens of people?
What if I called the local media and made false accusations against you and they printed them without verification or corroboration?
That's just wrong.

I'm not defending anything. If you read the links, I'm pointing out that the information was not blatantly false and in fact proof exists that the allegations are true.

Also on a pragmatic level, while I would prefer named sources, when reporting on the abuses of this administration, it's impossible to meet that criteria because everyone is afraid to speak on record.

And are you forgetting that Newsweek did vet the story through a trusted unnamed source at the Pentagon who did not tell them it was incorrect? Granted, not the best basis for publication but if the administration's real concern was for the lives of those who died, they had the opportunity then to kill the story and chose not to.

This While House is a master of obfuscation. They chose to let it run, I think so they could once again distract the attention from their own flawed and failing policies that are the real cause of the anger raging on the Arab Street.