During World War II, the saying, “Loose lips sink ships” became a catch-all phrase to remind people not to utter a word that could threaten American troops or security.
Last week, several readers accused us of violating that rule and putting soldiers at risk in the war against terrorism by printing a story about a facility at Patrick Air Force Base that may be the reason behind the closure of State Road A1A.
The accusations don’t stand up, but the issue is an example of what we’re facing in trying to cover the military’s role in the current crisis, and the steps we’re taking to make certain we don’t endanger the men and women in uniform.
The story, which ran Oct. 1 on page 2A, was on the Air Force Technical Applications Center, a nondescript building on SR A1A. However, the work that goes on there is anything but ordinary.
The center is used for monitoring nuclear explosions around the globe by analyzing data from a network of satellites and more than 80 ground sensors worldwide. For example, AFTAC uncovered a series of unexpected nuclear weapons tests by Pakistan in 1998.
The story, written by reporter John McCarthy, discussed the center’s role. It also included comments from experts about why AFTAC needs to be protected and why – despite the Air Force’s refusal to be specific – it’s the probable reason SR A1A has been shut.
We ran the piece because while details of AFTAC’s work is top secret, the Air Force has been anything but tight-lipped about its mission for years. In fact, it has gladly opened AFTAC’s doors to reporters and even given tours.
I know, because I wrote about AFTAC in the 1980s and was given a tour with other Florida Today editors and reporters a few years ago, a visit that included an official briefing. We also printed a long front-page story in 1997 about AFTAC, complete with Air Force quotes.
With so much information already public, we did not reveal anything sensitive and saw no danger with the story, says Managing Editor Bob Stover, adding that “we’re very aware of the concern (about security) and that people can be affected by what we print and put online.”
Yet, in hindsight, Stover says we should have included a paragraph in the story that stated how open the Air Force has been about AFTAC. That, he feels, “could have assuaged anyone’s concern” about publishing the article.
McCarthy, a former Air Force intelligence officer with long experience covering the military, put his thoughts this way:
“It never entered my mind for a second that we shouldn’t write this story because the information has been out there for years. They’ve put it in their welcome packages and on their Web site. It’s not something the Air Force has tried to keep secret.
“I certainly understand the need for security, but once the genie is out of the bottle, you can’t put it back in.”
Nonetheless, McCarthy says there are cases where he would argue against publishing a story if it clearly contained sensitive information.
“Because of my background, I’m much more likely to err on the side of caution. As much as I’m for free speech and the First Amendment, the idea that we have to publish everything we know just because we know it isn’t the best policy,” he said. “That’s just reality because of the potential loss of life and national security.”
The AFTAC story aside, Stover noted we are cooperating with the Air Force at Patrick by in effect practicing self-censorship to protect troop movements.
When some Patrick airmen recently shipped out, we agreed to a stringent, seven-point set of Air Force rules for covering such deployments.
They included not immediately printing or posting on-line information about the movement when the Air Force tells us, and waiting until after the troops have departed before releasing the news.
“That seemed like a reasonable request, so we said sure,” Stover says.
