Canada's Globe and Mail published a scoop on Saturday claiming it had received a secret Nato document which disclosed that Taliban insurgents were better prepared than French troops during last month's controversial battle in Afghanistan. However, Nato and French Government officials deny the very existence of any such document and strongly dismissed the substance of the report and article.

During the controversial battle last month, ten French troops were killed in an ambush in one of the most shocking attacks on foreign troops since the fighting in Afghanistan began. The incident has shocked France and brought France's very presence in Afghanistan into question.

Since the story broke there has been claim and counter claim between Canada's Global and Mail and French and Nato officials. The Editors Weblog decided to get to the heart of the matter, and spoke to Colin MacKenzie, Managing Editor of News for the Globe and Mail about the controversy surrounding the article.

EW: Can you confirm if the document you received was an email correspondence or a "secret Nato report"? And is there a real difference for you? 

CM: The document in question is not electronic, and bears no resemblance to an email. Any document we think may be newsworthy is assessed based on its contents, provenance, and the authority of the author, among other things, not on the medium with which it was created or conveyed. In this case, it was on paper, and clearly a detailed and official document. Emails are obviously more easily subject to manipulation, but even there, reporting can usually determine whether an email is authentic.

EW: What mechanisms do you have in place to check sources and how would you rate the source in terms of reliability?  
 
CM: Editors are in constant conversation with reporters about the reliability of sourcing for any particular story. In this case, we are confident in the authenticity of the NATO document in question and that we accurately reported on the nature and contents of that document.

EW: Is there any connection between the timing of the publication of the article and the French vote on the war in Afghanistan this week?

We published the information as soon as we were able to confirm it to our satisfaction. That being said we can't attribute motive, except as an aside, our source was not likely to be fully au fait with the intricacies of the French legislative agenda.
 
EW: How, as a Managing Editor, do you manage your reporters when they come to you with a scoop? Also, how do you react when the story comes under attack, for example, the allegations that the secret report is in fact just an email?
 
CM: Well, we have considerable experience with such allegations. Typically, we ask a reporter to share his or her sourcing, we try to assess any hidden agendas, and we determine accuracy by interviewing others who are aware of the subject at hand.

EW: Why do you think the French media are downplaying the story and not investigating it further (the story received minimal coverage in France and equal weight was given to the denials of the French Minister of Defense, Hervé Morin)?
 
CM: Not to sound flippant, but I would argue there are two things at play. First of all, the story was not original to any of the French media, and there is a universal tendency to be less enthused about others' work. Second, it broke over a weekend, when in most newsrooms there are fewer people to pursue stories aggressively, especially those that require official comment.

EW: What action are you taking next? How do you foresee this story playing itself out? Will you ask French authorities to respond to the main issues revealed in the Globe & Mail article (lack of ammunitions, lack of communication tools)?
 
CM: Our reporter in Afghanistan is primarily pursuing stories about Canada's involvement in the country. Without sounding too parochial, it falls a little outside our readers' interests.
That being said, we continue to report on developments in France's involvement in Afghanistan. The French Government has already responded to the main points of our report, and we have published that response as well as the facts as we know them. The government has since changed elements of its response, and we'll report that too.
 
Sources: Globe and Mail, TimesOnline