Right now, it may feel like The Daily is the laughingstock of campus. It seems as though everyone has been asking me about the ramifications of the squash story, questioning the integrity and credibility of The Daily.

For those readers unfamiliar with the facts, The Daily published a front-page article on Tuesday (“On plane, squash to the rescue,” Jan. 23) that has since come under close scrutiny. The article reported that Managing Editor of News and men’s squash team co-captain David Herbert — while traveling cross-country with the men’s and women’s squash teams — helped restrain and subdue a violent and disturbed passenger who was trying to get off the airplane during the flight. The article quoted one of Herbert’s teammates, referring to Herbert a hero.

Upon reading The Daily’s article, another passenger who had been on the flight contacted the Editor-in-Chief and informed him that the story was highly inaccurate. According to this passenger, who wished to remain anonymous because of a pending criminal investigation regarding the incident, Herbert actually made the situation worse with his verbal abuse of Erin Lambert, the disruptive passenger. This anonymous source called Herbert’s actions on the plane a disgrace to Stanford.

When confronted regarding the episode, Herbert acknowledged that his memory of it was slightly hazy and that he had a couple of drinks on the flight. He admitted fault and apologized for the article’s inaccurate representation of his role. As a result of this incident, Herbert has been suspended from The Daily for the remainder of the volume, which ends Jan 31st and Editor-in-Chief Patrick Fitzgerald ran a retraction piece (“Squash story contained inaccuracies,” Jan. 24) on Wednesday — in the same place on the front page that the original story ran.

Let me first say that this incident does indeed reflect questionable journalistic standards, a gross distortion of the truth and an unacceptable abuse of editorial power. I do not want to downplay or in any way excuse these improprieties and will address them shortly. However, the situation is not quite as egregious as it appears on its face, and I would like to clear up a few concerns I originally had so that others may similarly realize that The Daily’s reliability should not be completely discounted.

When I first read the retraction, I — like many of you — was appalled and angered. I felt more than a little betrayed of the trust I place in the integrity of The Daily’s editors. And due to my considerable involvement with the paper over the past four and a half years, I felt personally embarrassed. Accordingly, I became quick to judge. The retraction story made it easy for me, and others with whom I spoke, to assume that Herbert had fabricated the story for personal benefit.

Upon closer examination, however, it became evident that the stories told by Herbert and the anonymous source were not fundamentally different on a factual level. Both agree that Herbert involved himself in the attempt to restrain Lambert and told her to shut up (though the source pointed out that Herbert did so repeatedly and with use of profanity). The issue then, is not factual error but the passenger’s objection to the article’s portrayal of Herbert as hero.

This portrayal is the regrettable result of various inexcusable missteps in the editorial process. First, the article reflects questionable journalistic standards - it probably should never have run, because Herbert was the only reachable source who witnessed the events. Sometimes The Daily, like most news outlets, must print stories with only one source. This particular story, however, probably did not merit publication the The Daily, a student newspaper, without either more witnesses or a more direct link to the University.

While the article’s writer did refer to an FBI affidavit that reported the incident, she was unable to reach the airline, TSA or the San Francisco police during the course of two hours of phone calls. The other squash team members to whom Herbert referred her when assigning the story had all been seated too far away from the incident to be able to respond to questions about it. Unfortunately, this was not made clear when the coach and two players were quoted in the article as if they had actually witnessed the event. The most blatant misrepresentation was sophomore Ned Henningsen’s statement, “It shows how everyday people can step up and become heroes.” Through this comment, a source who did not even see what happened set the laudatory tone of the article.

This is not how the story was presented in the final version of the article, however. Due to the incomplete reporting resulting from the use of limited eyewitness sources, the story became grossly distorted. Henningsen’s comment, which apparently was made in a tongue-in-cheek fashion, best illustrates this. The facetiousness of this quote is not at all evident from the article. Also, the writer’s interpretation of Herbert’s account includes several references to the “help” Herbert provided - and, most conspicuously, the article’s headline suggests Herbert came “to the rescue.” If this headline was intended to be playful, it was ill-advised. If it was serious, then it misunderstood the story. Herbert’s short-lived and minor participation in the incident was thus vastly misrepresented.

The fault for this ultimately lies with Herbert, who displayed an unacceptable abuse of his editorial power by allowing the article to advance past his desk with these distortions intact. Herbert had the second-to-last read of the story, and so saw it in essentially its final form.

Yet he did not edit it to more accurately represent the event. In fact, he removed a phrase that said he was visibly drunk. This line was not a direct quote and probably exaggerated the extent to which Herbert, who had had two drinks, was intoxicated. Whether this deletion represents manipulation on Herbert’s part is debatable, but it is nonetheless important to note. Regardless, Herbert’s implicit approval of the article’s veracity was both unprofessional and dishonest. Herbert should have removed Henningsen’s comment entirely since it contributed nothing but hyperbole (that was easily misconstrued as sincerity) to the article. Further, the quote’s source was someone who had not witnessed the event.

Finally, the whole article should have been edited to accurately portray Herbert’s limited role in the incident. Even accepting Herbert’s claim that the article was more of a featurey article than hard-hitting news, one cannot excuse his editorial approval of a slanted story. Herbert himself is quick to admit misjudgment and wrongdoing

The Daily has by and large handled the situation well. Rather than guarding its credibility and protecting one of its own by keeping secret these clarifications (which came from an anonymous source who would not go on record and so could fairly easily be disregarded), the editors rightly chose to expose the truth after Herbert admitted that his memory of events was somewhat hazy and that the source’s claims may be accurate. Herbert’s suspension from the paper is definitely appropriate. Though the suspension will ultimately last only one week since Herbert’s position would have end with the conclusion of the volume on Jan. 31st anyway, the publicity of this slap on the wrist, and the additional consequences stemming from it, provide ample punishment for Herbert’s poor judgments.

The decision to print a retraction in the same conspicuous spot the original article ran was similarly a good one. The story needed to be accurately told, and due to Herbert’s high-ranking position at The Daily, his imprudence deserved a particularly public explanation.

The decision to take the original article off The Daily’s Web site was wrong, as many frustrated online readers would likely agree. The editors simply wanted to remove misinformation, so they have since reconsidered and taken the more suitable approach of including the article online, accompanied by an editor’s note that explains that the article contains numerous errors. To quibble with semantics, however, the use of the word “error” seems too extreme. Factually, the original article was accurate; what is at issue is the grossly inaccurate slant that the story assumed.

Herbert’s editorial judgment was frankly disgraceful and The Daily’s integrity has admittedly been compromised. However, Herbert’s actions were not as unscrupulous as many probably believe after reading Wednesday’s retraction, and I sincerely hope that readers retain their faith in The Daily and its hardworking staff. A new volume with a new assemblage of staff members begins on Wednesday, and hopefully this changing of the guard will help everyone put this disappointing episode behind us.