On high alert
By Heather Bourbeau Posted Apr 1 2003
In the coverage of terrorism, the current trend is toward short-sighted and sycophantic reporting, which may do long-term damage to journalism by eroding the trust in news outlets as independent and scrupulous sources of information. In the press, there has been a lack of necessary discussion of civil liberties incursions, which makes it seem as if news organizations have given the United States government permission to take actions that could limit civil rights in time of peace. As terror suspects continue to be brought into custody or questioned, the press and the U.S. federal authorities are reacting in tandem, without scrutiny and without a cautious review of mistakes.
Routinely, newspapers and broadcast news organizations, including CNN, The New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times, tantalize with headlines such as “Florida Is Gripped by Terrorist Scare” and “Terrorist Plot Uncovered to Explode Dirty Bomb in D.C.”
Tip leads to media frenzy
One of the most striking examples came on Sept. 13 last year when a 20-mile stretch of highway was closed in Florida while over 100 law enforcement officers searched the car and belongings of three Muslim men. The same day, Broadcast News reported that “a waitress in Georgia stated hearing three men of Middle Eastern descent talking about explosives.” Other news organizations focused on the mens’ ethnicities as well. The New York Times on Sept. 14, reported “three men of Middle Eastern descent were detained for more than 17 hours [as] their cars were searched for explosives.”
The entire episode played out before the eyes of the world on television news, but only tucked in between stories of man-eating alligators and the latest news about Iraq. The news reports were peppered with statements from the Shoney’s waitress-turned-informant, quotes from officials about explosives in the vehicles and the added indictment that these men ran through a toll booth without paying.
However, after the incident, when the three men, who turned out to be medical students and U.S. citizens, were released without charges, the news continued to perpetuate false information as fact. Only two days later did the footage from the tollbooth appear that showed that the men not only stopped but also paid their toll, thus debunking one of the key pieces of evidence against them.
Even when the medical students were cleared of terrorism charges, the press found a way to escape self-reflection by claiming, again with little backup, that the students had said provocative things as a joke, as reported by “NBC Nightly News” and The New York Times. There were statements from law enforcement officials that the exaggerated response was due, in part, to the students’ lack of cooperation.
As quoted in The Los Angeles Times: “Notwithstanding whether it was done in jest or if it was done on purpose, the result was the same,” said Tim Moore, commissioner of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. “Floridians were in a state of alert, and we spent hundreds of thousands of dollars.”
Only at the end of that article did the students get to say that they were not talking about September 11 but about their upcoming semester. Way down in the fifth paragraph of a report by Agence France Presse was the governor’s statement that there was not a terrorist threat. Yet the paragraph before stated, “police would not immediately say what action was planned against the men,” without comment or reinforcement that no action might be a possibility, or that these men may be completely innocent of any crime.
Still the blame rests on the students, who in more normal times would have had the support of civil libertarians and possibly a press more sympathetic to the idea of innocent before proven otherwise. Where were the words like “alleged,” “suspected” or “possible” that allow for some distance and perspective on volatile situations?
Is it a coincidence that the incident came within two days of the anniversary of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, when the United States was once again on extra high alert?
At best, the incident demonstrated the quick response of law enforcement officials. At worst, it showed the willingness of the public and the press to prosecute, without evidence, anyone pointed to as a possible terrorist.
President’s speech feeds media
The Florida example is not, unfortunately, an anomaly. Jose Padilla, an American also known as Abdullah Al-Muhajir, was arrested in June on suspicion that he was plotting to explode a “dirty bomb” in Washington, D.C. He has been classified by President Bush as an “enemy combatant” and placed in military custody, where he has no access to legal counsel.
After the arrest, the president, who one week before had criticized the CIA and FBI for lack of coordination before September 11, took the opportunity to unilaterally decide guilt and bolster the public’s support for the nation’s security forces. “I can tell you that we have a man detained who was a threat to the country, and thanks to the vigilance of our intelligence-gathering and law enforcement, he is now off the streets,” he said.
A quick look at the reporting of this statement (by news organizations such as CNN, Cox News Service, The Times of London and the Associated Press) demonstrates an acceptance of the president’s pronouncement of Padilla’s guilt and of the inconsistencies in the president’s statements made earlier.
Padilla is still being held in custody. There has been limited coverage of the case, but for some editorials.
September, the month of the anniversary, signaled the resignation of the press to the administration’s spin even more clearly. There was the aforementioned Florida chase, which was soon followed by the arrests of a group of U.S. citizens from Lackawanna, N.Y. Reports used words – “terror cell smashed” and a “double blow on terrorism,” – that gave a false reassurance to the audience that some action was being taken as we collectively mourned last year’s events. While the evidence was stronger against the Lackawanna group than against the three students in Florida, headlines and lead-ins in newspapers and on television once again convicted the group before a jury and judge had the opportunity to review the case.
In an Associated Press article, dated Sept. 14, 2002, the fact that there was no evidence of the Lackawanna men being involved in any stage of a terrorist attack was tucked near the end, a fact that debunked the piece’s lead that America had broken up a terrorist cell. Even a Washington Post editorial, “Prosecute or Detain” on Sept. 19, took the Bush administration’s case as fact, saying the arrests were “reassuring that progress in the war on terror is possible.” The editorial continued to say, “The public can only hope that such arrests, which represent real successes in the war on terrorism, will grow more numerous.”
Journalists ask leading questions cutters in a soap dish and lotion bottle. Rita Cosby of Fox News, seizing the hot topic, asked a New Jersey police officer such leading questions as “How surprised were you that you found this here in your own backyard?” Remember, the passenger had not been formally charged with anything, let alone terrorism-related activities, when the reporter was posing these questions. Eventually, Dzhonev was charged with attempting to board an aircraft with a concealed weapon. In the end, he agreed to a plea bargin that required him to leave the country. Wire services provided much of the original reporting on his sentencing.
In mid-November, the president once again trumpeted the good work of federal security authorities, notably a week before the vote on his proposal for a new cabinet-level Homeland Security Department. “We have captured and interrogated thousands of terrorists, while others have met their fate in caves and mountains in Afghanistan,” he said.
It is important to note that of the nearly 1,200 people who were detained following September 11, only four have been charged with terrorism-related offenses. Yet, there are fewer than 100 people still in custody in the U.S. in connection with terrorism, meaning that either the thousands are in Cuba at Camp X-ray or in Afghanistan.
More likely, thousands of people have been questioned, and the vast majority has been released because they have not been connected to terrorism. This fact may not be flattering to the administration and security and intelligence officials needy of positive press following accusations of incompetent intelligence gathering before Sept 11. But as journalists, flattery is not our job.
Burying the corrections in the midsection of a newscast or newspaper signals an unwillingness to highlight what should be considered thoughtfully – why did the federal authorities (and the press) need to push this case with such fervor and immediacy?
Bob Steele, Director of Ethics Programming at the Poynter Institute explains the intracacies of providing accurate terrorism coverage. “This is an exceptionally challenging landscape, and the turf under our feet is constantly changing,” he says. “However, this does not condone sloppy journalism.”
The press needs distance to maintain independence and perspective so the greater interests of truth and justice are better served. To preserve the integrity of our chosen pro
Then in late September, a Bulgarian student, Nikolay V. Dzhonev, was arrested for trying to board a plane with scissors and box fession, we need as reporters and editors to learn temperance.
The war on terrorism will not be won in the next few weeks. Just as the governments of the United States and its allies must be vigilant yet respectful of the rights we want to defend, so must the international press be vigilant in its coverage.