It is time to look past the fury caused by Newsweek when it took a tip and printed it as a fact, but one cannot ignore the probability that this was an example of "gotcha journalism." It brings to the forefront again serious journalistic questions facing the media in the post-9/11 era.

Clearly none of the editors of the gossipy Periscope item regarding stuffing a copy of the Koran in a toilet had any idea that enemy forces in far-off Afghanistan would be able to use the item to whip up riots where 17 would die. Now we know it can happen.

Newsweek has retracted the story, but if the item had been true, the question still would center on whether there was real news of value in the act of an individual American guard violating U.S. policy in this single incident.

This is different from the more critical abuses found in Abu Ghraib prison where the violation of humanitarian policy was widespread. Prison policies and training were an essential part of that story. The Newsweek item referred to a single incident. That reporting was not based on policy.

Many newsmen have become angry because they feel tight U.S. post-9/11 policy regarding prisoner interrogation has been too secretive and perhaps covers up violations of the Geneva Convention.

An example is the New York Times, which reacted editorially to the Newsweek problem with a countercharge against the Bush administration. "The White House and the Pentagon have refused to begin any serious examination of the policy-making that led to abuse, humiliation, torture and even killing of prisoners taken during anti-terrorist operations and the invasion of Iraq," the Times said. The Times then used its counterattack to call for the release of the "Southern Command" report and "all other reports on prisoner abuse."

The Times editorial raises the question of whether, given the post-9/11 times in which we live where one item has been exploited to kill 17, should we publish every misstep, and thus make it available for enemy exploitation? I think not.

David Brooks, New York Times columnist, took a more reasonable line.

"Maybe we should focus on what's important. Newsweek's little item was seized and exploited by America's enemies in a way that was characteristically cynical, delusional and fascistic.

"The people who seized upon this item, like the radical clerics in Afghanistan, are cynical in the way they manipulate episodes like this to whip up hatred and so magnify their own standing.

"At the same time, they believe everything that could be alleged about America--and more," Brooks said as he summarized the problem.

If one is to avoid handing daily ammunition to the enemy, we need to ask how much do we need to publicize individual misconduct? Do we have standards?

In 1969 as the first White House Director of Communications, I opened up reportorial access to government freedom of information reports, but the restrictions of security always were in place. In part, that led to the battle over the "Pentagon Papers."

Security too often is used to hide government mistakes, and the media has a responsibility to continue to probe. That means that government-media conflict is inevitable, but in a democracy that also is both important and healthy. Every administration would like things to go its way, but reporters' questions always must be there.

Loren Ghiglione, dean of Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism, sums the subject up with the old saying, "The media needs to be a watch dog, not a lap dog."

In today's world, the media has turned more toward "gotcha journalism" looking toward sensationalism to attract readers and viewers. With large public companies dominating the media, the pressure to meet the "bottom line" has caused many to cut back on expenditures primarily dedicated to thorough investigative reporting. This is understandable, but it places added responsibility on editors.

Michael Parks, director of the Annenberg School of Journalism at the University of Southern California, sees a "relaxation in the past vigor of investigative reporting. We have lost some of our steam," he says.

In the post-9/11 era, the use of anonymous sources continues to be essential to some reporting, but too often it is used as an easy way out, and that, too, is a major problem.

Newspapers generally demand two or three sources, but over the years even publications like the Washington Post, which usually requires multiple sources, has changed its approach to anonymity from time to time. The Post's policy toward Watergate differed from its policy on other government matters.

With today's emphasis on the Middle East, there are few Western news persons with deep knowledge of the culture or the people of the region.

Rick Rodriguez, president of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, believes we need to "do more to educate our staffs and our readers on the Muslim culture."

Geoff Cowan, dean of USC's Annenberg School of Communication, believes we approach Middle East problems "with an insufficient frame of reference."

One thing which both the media and the government share is the need for greater credibility.

Credibility is more important in the post-9/11 era than at any time since the Vietnam War.

The credibility of the media and of the government is at a low level, but it will not be improved by "gotcha journalism" or by military deception.

There is a lot which is important happening in the world today, and there is a serious question whether the media fully understands the new world. There also continues to be a growing challenge of transparency in government.

It is time for both sides to take a new look at the post-9/11 era and its new demands, problems and opportunities.

Herbert G. Klein is a national fellow at AEI.