There has been quite an uproar in the Arabic, and particularly Lebanese, media over the Der Spiegal story linking Hezbollah to the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Al Arabiya has come under particularly fierce attack from pro-Hezbollah media, especially of course Al Manar, as well as NBN and other sympathetic media. But they seem to miss the point -- they attack Al Arabiya for reporting on the Der Spiegel article without assessing its inherent news value and recognizing that this was a story across the world and not part of some pro-Hariri or pro-March 14 agenda. All major news organizations across the world covered the story, from news agencies like AP to Al Jazeera and CNN. And of course Al Arabiya (and here's the arabic one).

The Der Spiegel article was published less than three weeks ahead of the June 7 parliamentary elections pitting the Western-backed Sunni-led March 14 coalition against the Syria and Iran-backed Shia-Christian alliance known as March 8 led by Hezbollah. And we were clear to point this timing out as were so many others.

The article relied on unnamed and unidentified "sources" in the United Nations Special Tribunal that reportedly told the German magazine that the tribunal has evidence linking special forces in the Hezbollah to the bombing that killed Hariri and 19 others. It cites information obtained from unspecified source "and verified by examining internal documents" and claims that the special prosecutor is afraid of Hezbollah and therefore has not made the information public. And Al Arabiya noted this. But just because there are unamed sources doesn't make an article unquoteable. It is certianly not ideal and should be clearly stated. But when I think to my time at the New York Times and the types of stories that got published without naming sources - think Abu Ghraib, illegal wiretapping etc -- it can sometimes be necessary. And the stories the NYT broke on these subjects as well as recent ones about US strikes in Pakistan were considered newsworthy as well and were covered by all professional media.

Of course there are also stories such as those in the lead-up to the Iraq war that used unamed sources and were wrong. That is why the journalist has a responsibility to make clear that the story is from an unamed source and thus must be treated with a certain amount of skepticism. But when respected news organization write reports they become legitimate story sources for other journalists. It doesn't mean there is a political agenda behind it. And as the head of Al Arabiya told us today, we must cover the news regardless of the politics - if the report was that Saad Hariri assassinated his own father this too would be news and we would have reported it. And the Arabic chanel and Arabic & English sites have done several follow up stories on Hassan Nasrallah's denial, accusations that Israel was behind the story, accusations the story was published to create clashes between Sunnis and Shias, and of course the timing of the Der Spiegel article.