On two legs
Op-Ed: The Quran Affair and the Informants: Peter Studer Recalls the «Two-Sources Rule.».
Guest commentary The Koran affair and the whistleblowers: Peter Studer reminds us of the "two-source rule. "Once again, a dispute over media impact and ethics has divided the US public and caused a stir far beyond. It's about a dozen words in a Newsweek report: "Sources say interrogators flushed a Koran down the toilet to humiliate prisoners." The sentence sparked violent demonstrations; 17 people died in Afghanistan. Newsweek withdrew the text a few days later under pressure from the White House, because the (only) anonymous source was no longer sure where it had picked up the information, and the debate has long since taken on a life of its own. Liberal commentators call Newsweek's editor-in-chief a wimp, while conservatives lash out at the "unpatriotic East Coast media". The New York Times responds with excerpts from confidential FBI reports detailing US torture practices - albeit in 2002.
But let's ask what specifically went wrong and whether the Swiss media could be accused of something similar. Newsweek quoted sources, but only had one. This is surprising, because the basis for the success of the parent company, the Washington Post, has so far been the "two-source rule"; the paper only wanted to publish the scandalous evidence surrounding "Watergate" on this basis. It is legitimate to castigate Bush's secretive, even manipulative information policy. But media outlets that want to fight this battle have to be clean about their own kidneys. After all, Newsweek had submitted its story to the Pentagon, where nobody was offended by the Koran anecdote. So it's not enough for a scandal. But it was still misconduct.
It is often noticeable in our newspapers that numerous suspicions are printed without the quality of two - even anonymous - sources being precisely described. (Not to mention the fact that suspects are not even questioned about serious allegations). In addition, reporters are all too quick to offer anonymity just to elicit further details from an informant - even if the informant does not request confidentiality. So there is much to improve, not only there, but also here.
> Peter Studer was editor-in-chief of Tages-Anzeiger and SF DRS. He has chaired the Swiss Press Council since 2001.
But let's ask what specifically went wrong and whether the Swiss media could be accused of something similar. Newsweek quoted sources, but only had one. This is surprising, because the basis for the success of the parent company, the Washington Post, has so far been the "two-source rule"; the paper only wanted to publish the scandalous evidence surrounding "Watergate" on this basis. It is legitimate to castigate Bush's secretive, even manipulative information policy. But media outlets that want to fight this battle have to be clean about their own kidneys. After all, Newsweek had submitted its story to the Pentagon, where nobody was offended by the Koran anecdote. So it's not enough for a scandal. But it was still misconduct.
It is often noticeable in our newspapers that numerous suspicions are printed without the quality of two - even anonymous - sources being precisely described. (Not to mention the fact that suspects are not even questioned about serious allegations). In addition, reporters are all too quick to offer anonymity just to elicit further details from an informant - even if the informant does not request confidentiality. So there is much to improve, not only there, but also here.
> Peter Studer was editor-in-chief of Tages-Anzeiger and SF DRS. He has chaired the Swiss Press Council since 2001.
