Here is a recent comment from a law review by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist on the role of the media in covering a bioterrorist event.
“Copyright (c) 2006 Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law
Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law
2006 / 2007
38 Case W. Res. J. Int’l L. 581
LENGTH: 3055 words
SYMPOSIUM: THE FIFTH PLAGUE: ESSAY: Media Responsibility During a Terrorist Attack
NAME: Josh Meyer *
BIO:
* Josh Meyer has been a staff writer for the Los Angeles Times for seventeen years and covers a wide range of issues — from politics and government to law enforcement — through general assignment work and investigative projects. Meyer has reported on terrorism and related intelligence, law enforcement, and national security issues for the newspaper’s Washington bureau since shortly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. ..
SUMMARY:
... To prepare for my role as a national reporter in the bioterrorism drill at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, I read everything I could find on the proper role of the media in the event of a terrorist attack. ... In a future bioterrorism attack, such as the outbreak of human-transmissible Foot and Mouth Disease, the media’s role will be even more important, and not just as the key information provider for the public. ... Law enforcement agencies are often even worse than public health officials when it comes to disclosing information to the media, particularly during potential terrorist attacks and outbreaks such as the anthrax mailings. ... I agree that the media should not question everything the government does, especially when a bioterrorism attack is unfolding. But I also believe that the second most important role for the media in covering a bioterrorism attack, after informing the public, is precisely to question what the government is doing, especially if that government action does not appear to be in the best interests of the public. ...
TEXT:
[*581]
In covering a bioterrorism attack, the primary role of journalists is the same one they have fulfilled for centuries when potentially life-threatening events occur: they must be the eyes and ears of the public. The media should immediately inform the populace of the attack and update citizens on all relevant developments, not merely those that the government approves for dissemination. There are a few exceptions to that rule, which I will discuss later. But for the most part, reporters should act as aggressive intermediaries, finding out everything that they can about the attack from the government or other sources. Specifically, the media’s concerns should include: the nature of the attack, its potential health impacts, and the identity of the perpetrators. The media should relay this information to the public as it becomes available, and the information should be as complete and accurate as possible.
While the media surely will face resistance in trying to obtain this information, I believe that the media’s aggressive lobbying for information and prompt public disclosure of it will be critically important to public health and safety. Many public health and bioterrorism experts have espoused this belief in their published comments and writings. An alert and diligent media could help to save lives, mitigate the potential for widespread panic, and help people cope in a potentially overwhelming atmosphere of fear, chaos, and human tragedy.
***
In a future bioterrorism attack, such as the outbreak of human-transmissible Foot and Mouth Disease, the media’s role will be even more important, and not just as the key information provider for the public. Whether terrorists attack by spreading pathogens through the air, water, or food supply, authorities probably will not know that such an attack has occurred until many citizens begin showing symptoms of a particular disease — perhaps this will happen across a wide geographic area that transcends several local and even state health and law enforcement jurisdictions. The public (and many if not most government officials) will end up getting their information from CNN and other televised news broadcasts and from the printed press. In the days and weeks following the attack, government officials will communicate through intranets, but the public will remain glued to their television screens, radios, BlackBerry devices, and cell phone visual displays for the latest developments. Newspapers and magazines will play an important role by providing more in-depth coverage, with context and analysis from experts supplementing the reporting. The analysts can provide insight into what is happening and what they think people should do. And the all-important live televised news conferences that have become such a staple of major events in our 24/7 news cycle will play a major role too.
***
Law enforcement agencies are often even worse than public health officials when it comes to disclosing information to the media, particularly during potential terrorist attacks and outbreaks such as the anthrax mailings. The FBI in particular has an almost Pavlovian response to media requests for information: they refuse to provide information and often go to great lengths to ensure that even the most basic facts remain unknown to the public. Ted Wasky acknowledged this during our daylong seminar, saying he and his colleagues at the bureau have learned the hard way that if they do not share information with reporters, the reporting will still occur — but it probably will not be the whole story and it may not be even remotely accurate. Incomplete or erroneous information can induce panic, or, equally dangerous, lull them into a false sense of security. “We have learned the lessons from Katrina, that when you do not feed the beast they are going to go out and get fed somewhere else,” Wasky said.
That was the case in the anthrax attacks, where the nation’s new Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge implored the media to work closely with government authorities to help get the word out to an anxious public and keep it informed. In reality, however, Homeland Security officials and the FBI engaged in a virtual blackout of officially sponsored information. That forced reporters to scramble for tidbits of information that came in the form of unauthorized leaks from government officials who often had incomplete information or, worse, their own agendas for spinning whatever information they had. The result was often contradictory information, [*585] which in turn further confused and perhaps even jeopardized a public that did not know how to react.
During our exercise, Cleveland Plain Dealer managing editor Tom O’Hara said the anthrax case is only one of many that have made it harder for reporters to do their job of giving readers the whole story. “I have been dealing more with attorneys on sort of keeping reporters off the stand and out of jail more in the last two or three years than I had been in the twenty-seven years before that,” O’Hara said. I agree with his assessment of the prevailing anti-media environment. But this hostility toward the media is not surprising.
***
Ted Wasky emphasized the importance of law enforcement and public health authorities “becoming partners with the media.” He suggested, “Media needs to be your ally in this particular instance, not questioning everything you do.” I agree that the media should not question everything the government does, especially when a bioterrorism attack is unfolding. But I also believe that the second most important role for the media in covering a bioterrorism attack, after informing the public, is precisely to question what the government is doing, especially if that government action does not appear to be in the best interests of the public. That higher purpose calls for digging for information the government may not even know about or that the government is intentionally withholding. It also calls for asking uncomfortable questions. ...
***
To be sure, there is always the chance that terrorists could read such articles and get an idea of how to exploit holes in the safety net. But my experience dealing with the terrorist threat has shown that terrorists, particularly Islamic militants affiliated with Al Qaeda and related organizations, are already trolling the Internet and doing their own research into such vulnerabilities. Writing about those vulnerabilities is unlikely to offer much aid and comfort to the enemy.”
Here is some of the exchange that went on with respect to suppression of information relating to the criminal or national security investigation:
PROF. GUIORA: Suppose that Agent Wasky says “Please do not print this?”
JUDGE POLSTER: Hypothetically, I would want to know if release of that information would endanger people. Would it endanger lives, or would it compromise a very important criminal investigation, and balance that with the public right to know [the information]. [That is a] critical right in our country, and we guard that zealously. Generally once the media has something, they are free to print it. It is very difficult to get a prior restraint, but there are situations where they are imposed.
AGENT WASKY: As I said before, protection of life is paramount. We will damage a crime scene if it means saving somebody’s life. ... In the end, if we protect someone’s life, that might be a potential witness. We do not know. Why get him in danger? . .
PROF. GUIORA: Hypothetically speaking, could you foresee coming in front of Judge Polster and asking for prior restraint?
AGENT WASKY: In this case, no. The only way I could see [grounds for prior] restraint is if the information they would print would endanger someone’s life. As he said, if we had information from a singular source, that would identify the source and this terrorist group would kill that person. Not knowing the facts, [prior restraint] would be the only way of us coming and preventing someone from giving them someone’s life. [We would also have grounds for prior restraint if] that information was obtained through classified means, and that classification is of significant interest to national security. When I say national security, that means other people’s lives are at risk or the technique of getting it has saved other lives and that technique [needs to remain confidential to continue to be effective]. It is not necessarily the information that . . . is classified, and that understanding is very important.
Protecting sources of information protects how we get the information . . . . We can sanitize the information in a general fashion to get it out to the public, as long as we can be assured that how we get it remains confidential, because that might save someone’s life tomorrow. Osama Bin Laden, someone divulged that he was using a certain type of telephone. Classified information. Sources and methods. Not that we were able to find him, but it was how that was done that compromised a significant national security interest . . . we can not ever capture it that way anymore because it is out there. . . . [This is]why we might go to ask for a restraining order.
***
MR. MEYER: It is working too. If there is another anthrax attack nobody is going to talk to reporters about it because we were all subpoenaed in the Steven Hatfill case, and we can all end up in prison.”
Comment:
Disclosure that the USG was intercepting Bin Laden’s satellite phone used in communicating the 1998 embassy bombings is a real life example. A device was put in the battery and then delivered by someone from Northern Virginia (and St. Louis) to Afghanistan. It was the satellite phone bought by the fellow (Khaleel Ziyad) living with the Dad of Al-Timimi’s friend, co-defendant Royer. There has been no public prosecution of that leaker but both Richard Clarke and Michael Scheuer agree it was a disastrous leak with ruinous consequences.
Given the context and history of past investigations involving Al Qaeda, jpl and treblerebel, it is not surprising that they know how to zealously safeguard classified information.
The reality, though, as Richard Clarke and Michael Scheuer have often said, most intelligence is open source.
It is public knowledge that when Brian Ross reported on December 20, 2001 that they were investigating former Battelle employees, experts knowledgeable about anthrax, such as Dr. A and Dr. B at GMU, were slated to be polygraphed, along with dozens of other scientists.