When the mail arrived at The New York Times and Washington Post in June, leaving editors with the 35,000-word treatise of the notorious Unabomber, the two venerable newspapers found themselves at the center of a classic collision of ethical principles.
The man who has claimed responsibility for killing three people and wounding 23 with a series of mail bombs the past 17 years vowed that the killing would stop if the newspapers published his rambling manifesto and allowed for three annual follow-ups. The document would consume seven full broadsheet pages.
The Unabomber gave the newspapers until late September to meet his demands. Even with that long deadline, the newspapers still face a major challenge in unraveling the entangled journalistic principles of truth-telling, independence and minimizing harm.
In early August, both papers published lengthy excerpts from the document as part of a story with a legitimate news peg. But neither has responded directly to the Unabomber’s demands, leaving the ethical morass unresolved.
Journalists and those who study journalism ethics, many of whom approve of the way the newspapers have publicly handled the Unabomber case thus far, say that the broad ethical issues are familiar to news organizations and are only magnified in such an extraordinary case as this.
Journalists, then, may be able to learn something from an examination of the larger challenges presented by this case, even if they never face the demands of a faceless terrorist.
When values collide
The issues are myriad:
“There is news value (in the excerpts),” said Ed Tobias, Assistant Managing Editor for Broadcast News with the Associated Press. “People want to know what’s in his mind. But are you playing into the hands of the bad guy and encouraging similar actions by others?”
The Post and The Times have a duty to publish “factually and contextually accurate information about what is happening in the Unabomber case,” said Bob Steele, who directs the ethics program at the Poynter Institute for Media Studies in St. Petersburg, Fla. But there are competing duties. The newspapers must be sure that they are “not unduly influenced by this terrorist’s demands no matter how serious they might be.” The newspapers also have “an affirmative ethical responsibility to consider actions that will protect vulnerable people.”
“It’s one of the central dilemmas of journalism: What’s my role?” said Lee Wilkins, a University of Missouri-Columbia professor and co-author of a book on media ethics. The Times and the Post, she said, must be true to journalistic principles, “but you’re also trying to help law-enforcement, or certainly not hinder them. And what about the next crackpot? ‘Here’s my manifesto. Print this.’ It’s not that rare.”
“It’s an attempt to interpose another editor; someone who is telling the news organization what they have to do,” said Emerson Stone, former Vice President for News Practices at CBS News.
The collision of values is clear and, many say, inevitable. But entangled and perplexing as any ethical dilemma might be, a decision awaits — a daunting reality confronting the two major dailies.
The Post: “We are continuing to talk it over with people at the New York Times and are consulting with responsible public officials,” Post publisher Donald Graham said in the Aug. 2 article accompanying the excerpts. “And quite obiously it takes some thinking about. It is not an easy decision.”
The Times: “The tough decision of whether we publish the entire document is still ahead,” NYT publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. said in the Times’ Page 1 story. “There’s no easy way to open negotiations with this person and for the moment we’re stymied.”
A matter of independence
Should a newspaper be conducting “negotiations” or working with police officials in the solution of a crime?
The question sits at the core of the dilemma. The answer, those interviewed for this case study say, is not nearly as important as the journey of inquiry that precedes it.
“I would collect information from all agencies, talk with people involved in other situations, whether parallel or not, to see if the threat is plausible,” said Ed Turner, Executive Vice President of CNN. “There are no tricks. It really is, in the end, experience and common sense.”
In situations such as this, journalists need to do what they do best, said Missouri professor Wilkins. They need to do thorough reporting.
“I’d listen to as many people as possible,” she said. “Top editors. People outside the newspaper. Psychologists. Psychoanalysts. There aren’t any rules. I’d be as inventive and expansive in the sourcing pool as I can get.”
Journalists must recognize that “they are not experts on matters of terrorism,” Poynter’s Steele said.
“The Post and the Times can make better ethical decisions about what they will do by hearing the perspectives of those with expertise in this case, be they the FBI or private terrorism experts,” he said.
“In the end, the newspaper retains the independence and shoulders the responsibility for making the best ethical and professional decision possible, knowing as much as they can about the case.”
Few organizations have rules governing contact between journalists and police officials in such situations. Given the endless continuum of possibilities, it’s a difficult rule to write, journalists say.
Nearly 20 years ago CBS News made an attempt at defining the parameters for a journalist-official relationship in the coverage of terrorists. The April 1977 policy, still in effect today, instructs CBS News personnel to listen to authorities but to make independent decisions:
“Responsible CBS News representatives should endeavor to contact experts dealing with the hostage situation to determine whether they have any guidance on such questions as phraseology to be avoided, what kinds of questions or reports might tend to exacerbate the situation, etc. Any such recommendations by established authorities on the scene should be carefully considered as guidance (but not as instruction) by CBS News personnel.”
Guidance, but not instruction.
It’s the same advice former news executive Stone and others offer those wondering if it’s okay for competing news organizations facing similar threats to consult on how they will respond. The NYT and the Post have held such talks.
There’s no harm in asking the competition what they’re doing, Stone said. “But I don’t think you make agreements like, ‘You print the first half, I’ll print the second.’ ”
Tomorrow’s decisions
Federal investigators may have given the newspapers a convenient — though not necessarily coincidental — news peg on Aug. 1 when the FBI announced its decision to distribute the manifesto to some 50 college professors in the hope that someone might recognize his thinking and aid in his capture.
With the controversial document now in much wider circulation, are the newspapers essentially off the ethical hook?
Most say no.
“It may make the papers more comfortable with publishing all of (the manifesto), because they know other people have access to the information,” CNN’s Bill Headline said. “But it doesn’t change the dilemma.”
The newspapers have been careful in explaining all of this to their readers. When top executives have spoken in print, the words have been measured, sober. This enduring ethical tension — telling readers the fullest truth while minimizing the damage the truth might cause — will follow the newspapers beyond the resolution of the Unabomber dilemma.
Analysts of this case favor giving readers as much information as possible. Chuck Stone, a journalism professor at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, favors full disclosure at the end of a step-by-step, consultation-rich analysis.
“I’d tell them what we did and I think my readers would respect me for this,” said Stone, who often found himself negotiating the release of hostages when he reported for the Philadelphia Daily News.
Poynter’s Steele said that while the newspapers have a duty to “shine the bright light of scrutiny on themselves” by telling readers what’s going on, to do so might cause more harm to the investigation and to the public.
“That said, the papers may be able to judiciously report some elements of their decision-making as they unfold,” he said. “And, when the case reaches closure, or at least at a point where dangers are minimized, then the Times and the Post should provide extensive disclosure. The papers must provide the public with as much insight and detail as possible into how and why they made the decisions they did.
“It is only through such public disclosure that these powerful media organizations can be held accountable.”
Deborah Potter of The Poynter Institute contributed to this case study.
