Friend or foe: the news media under seige

Can open coverage of news undermine the war on terrorism? Some citizens think so, but others see few ways in which accurate reporting could aid an enemy.

By SHARON TUBBS
© St. Petersburg Times,
published December 2, 2001

Jack Burlakos scanned the front page of the Oct. 19 St. Petersburg Times. The nation's war on terrorism was less than two months old, and most of the headlines focused on the subject.

One story, in particular, caught the 56-year-old Vietnam War veteran's eye: Little needed to grow anthrax. It informed readers that the disease is a common microorganism easily made deadly.

"In the lab, or even a basement with some basic equipment, spores can be converted into bacteria simply by dunking them in a nutrient broth," the story said, using information from Dr. Nwadiuto Esiobu, a microbiologist and bioterrorism expert at Florida Atlantic University.

Burlakos fumed. Information like that could inspire terrorists, he says.

"Skinheads, organizations like that," says Burlakos, who lives in Kenneth City. "They may not have known how easy it is to produce anthrax, but now they do."

Burlakos is among the many Americans who question the media's coverage of the war. Many feel that journalists are putting the nation in jeopardy. They think that by identifying and discussing the security of potential terrorist targets and by providing details about military movements in Afghanistan, the media are helping America's enemies.

"I don't feel like things like that should be in the media," Burlakos says.

Journalists say gathering and providing information is essential to the media's role in a free society, so much so that some have put their lives at risk to cover the war. People need information to make decisions about their lives and their government, journalists and their supporters say -- even if some of the information makes them uneasy. And advocates note that no Americans have been killed in Afghanistan because of media reports.

The war at home

Since the war began, newspaper readers and TV viewers have complained to news outlets about their coverage of potential terrorist targets and of bioterrorism.

Colin N. Ramsay, a retired Korean War veteran who lives in Tampa, believes some in the media are trying to "whip up fear" in a race for high ratings and circulation numbers.

TV reporters keep talking about how scared they are, Ramsay says. He quickly tired of Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC's politically charged Hardball:

"I'm frightened; Aren't you frightened?" the 71-year-old Ramsay says, imitating Matthews in an overly dramatic, squeaky voice.

"I've heard him say that about 10 times," Ramsay says.

Some accuse the media of sensationalism in its coverage of anthrax. Jacqueline Cattani, director of the Center for Biological Defense at the University of South Florida in Tampa, has been quoted in TV and newspaper stories about anthrax because of her scientific expertise. She says that media coverage of the disease has been "overdone."

"I understand that a hot item is news," Cattani says. But the amount of coverage is "implying that it is a greater threat to the public than it is."

Newspapers and radio and TV stations across the country have been accused of putting journalism before patriotism. Worse, some in the media have been deemed traitors, eager to provide terrorists with blueprints for prime domestic targets.

In November, the Los Angeles Times published a column by Brian Halweil, reporting that meat processing plants have "virtually no security" and that background checks of workers are lacking. The situation makes it easy to get samples of salmonella, E. coli or other life-threatening agents from a plant's inspection lab for use in "large-scale contamination," the column said. One caller accused the paper of "publishing a blueprint and an invitation" for terrorists.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram got similar heat from readers when it published articles about the potential for terrorism on chemical plants, storage facilities and oil refineries in Texas. David House, the paper's reader advocate, says irate readers berated the paper, insisting that reporters had just told the terrorists where to strike next.

Media observers say news stories are doing a service and reject the idea that they are inspiring terrorists.

Bob Steele is the director of the ethics program at the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, which owns the St. Petersburg Times. Steele says the media must be careful with war coverage, but that reporters must continue to get information. Reporting tough issues with accuracy and fairness is the core of media ethics, Steele says.

Steele says the impact of anthrax has been far reaching. At the time of this writing five people have died and more have been infected. The nation's postal system has changed the way it operates because of anthrax.

The media have a duty to analyze the nation's preparedness, or lack thereof, for a bioterrorism attack, he says.

"It would be phenomenally irresponsible for news organizations to ignore those concerns," Steele says.

While Cattani says the media have done too many stories about anthrax, she says she has not read or heard anything detailed enough to educate potential terrorists. Making anthrax lethal would probably require knowledge of biology or lab work, she says.

"It's not so easy to just mill some bacteria."

The war abroad

Reporting about military strategy has also roused much discontent.

In the beginning, military officials citing security concerns made it clear that the media would not be allowed on the front lines of the battle against terrorists.

"Let me condition the press this way: Any sources and methods of intelligence will remain guarded in secret," President Bush was quoted as saying in a Sept. 30 Washington Post story. "My administration will not talk about how we gather intelligence, if we gather intelligence and what the intelligence says. That's for the protection of the American people."

At a press briefing, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer was asked what proof the United States had connecting terrorist Osama bin Laden to the Sept. 11 attacks. "You have the right to ask those questions," he said. "I have the responsibility not to answer them."

Many fear an unrestrained press would tell too much.

"What we know is what the opposition will know," says Matthew Felling, media director for the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a nonpartisan Washington, D.C., think tank.

"We're only a year away from election night when restraint was not practiced," Felling says. "In this case, scooping one another could result in loss of life."

Just this week, a small group of journalists was allowed for the first time to accompany American troops into southern Afghanistan.

But Felling thinks it unnecessary, and potentially dangerous, for journalists to travel with U.S. soldiers. Untrained journalists could do something to get themselves and soldiers killed, he says. They should rely on information from the Pentagon.

"I think it's a matter of national security, as well as personal security," Felling says.

For their part, journalists have said the government is not providing the people with enough information. At a press briefing in October, a reporter asked Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld why the media could not parachute into military areas along with soldiers. (The transcript does not identify reporters by name.) The reporter noted that military photographers with camera equipment have been allowed to accompany special forces.

Rumsfeld said, "Well, it seems -- I'm amazed at the question. I would think that the world would fully understand that it does not make sense, when a handful of American soldiers are parachuting into a hostile place and are going to be fully occupied in dealing with the opposition forces and shooting them, to the extent it's necessary, collecting intelligence, photographing things so that they know what's going on, and then being extracted -- the idea of embedding a press pool into that group seems to me to be outside of the realm of reasonableness."

Comments from others in the media have raised questions of discretion.

Loren Jenkins, the senior foreign editor of National Public Radio, told the Chicago Tribune that he had ordered his reporters to track down U.S. special forces. A Tribune reporter asked what NPR would do if reporters discovered that an American commando unit was in northern Pakistan.

"You report it," Jenkins said. "I don't represent the government. I represent history, information, what happened."

"Treason," Ramsay, the Tampa resident, called the statement when he heard about it. Ramsay sent out e-mails that encouraged friends to stop any support of NPR.

Jenkins later said his remarks were taken out of context. And Bruce Drake, vice president of news, released a statement:

"Let me assure you that Loren Jenkins neither believes nor intended to suggest that NPR would engage in reporting that would put in peril the lives of U.S. military personnel. NPR reporters, producers and editors always take into account whether our reporting might put lives in danger, or pose an unacceptable security risk. NPR would never knowingly compromise the security or safety of American military or national security operations by airing information that would endanger them. . . ."

Steele, from the Poynter Institute, and Paul McMasters, First Amendment ombudsman at the Freedom Forum in Arlington, Va., and a former journalist, say they do not advocate reporting that would put soldiers' lives in danger.

"The press doesn't need to know every single thing or publish everything they find out," McMasters says.

Using discretion

But media advocates say the government has not allowed the media to find out much. Although some people think stories about military missions put soldiers in danger, McMasters says that's just not so.

By the time the media have reported on military missions, McMasters says, the only people being informed for the first time are the American public. The Taliban and the people of Afghanistan already know "because they were being attacked and they were attacking back."

McMasters thinks reporters should be allowed to travel with soldiers and ask questions for a closeup perspective of the war.

"In a democracy, citizens need to know how the government is going to operate," Steele says. "We need to know how and why they make the decisions they do to the greatest degree possible."

Journalists say they are capable of using sound judgment in times of war. House, the reader advocate from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, said his paper has used discretion. After the attacks, the newspaper got a scoop about two men authorities arrested on an Amtrak train headed for San Antonio. FBI agents asked Star-Telegram editors to hold off on the story for 24 hours.

"We agreed to it," House said. "We lost the competitive edge on the story. We recognized that for the good of national security, we should cooperate."

Media organizations worldwide have sent reporters to the region where the war is being fought to get information independently. Some reporters, including the Times' Susan Taylor Martin, have run from mobs in fear of their lives. When this article was prepared, eight international journalists, none from the United States, had been killed covering the conflict.

How much is too much?

The Oct. 22 Pentagon press briefing included this exchange (again, the transcript does not identify the reporters by name).

Rumsfeld: "You will receive only honest, direct answers from me, and they'll either be that I know and I'll answer you, or I don't know, or I know and I won't answer you. And that'll be it."

Reporter: "Without in any way impugning your promise that you're . . . going to . . . tell the truth to us, do you worry, however, that by withholding so much information and by withholding so much access, that may undermine the credibility, ultimately, of the United States government's story of what's going on?"

Rumsfeld: "First of all, we're not withholding so much information. I am admittedly withholding some information that I think would put American lives at risk, or would jeopardize the effort we're engaged in. But in terms of saying it's a lot, it isn't. The press in this -- this is a very open society, and the press knows, you know, almost as much as exists and almost as soon as it exists.

"And to the extent we make a mistake, we'll come down the next day and clean it up. But clearly, we do not want to undermine the effort, and it strikes me that how the press handles this new conflict will also contribute to the success of it."

- Excerpts from the U.S. Department of Defense Oct. 22 transcript were used in this report. Information from the Los Angeles Times was also used.

© St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.