Among journalists, certain stories are called “bacon-coolers.” The image is meant to portray someone sitting at the breakfast table, reading the newspaper, eating bacon and eggs and then suddenly stopping — with fork and bacon in midair — to focus on something surprising in the paper that grabs his or her attention.
The Post’s Bob Woodward, during the past 30 years or so, has written many bacon-coolers. So it was not surprising that when President Bush lashed out at Congress last week for leaking classified information — after perhaps having experienced a bacon-cooling moment when reading the morning paper — The Post, and Woodward, were in the middle.
Officially, the flap was Bush vs. talkative lawmakers and not about The Post, and the dispute flamed only for a day before Bush backed off from the restrictions he said he was going to impose on congressional access to intelligence information.
Yet the episode contained another example of how the public can be made to distrust the press, to see it as villain or accomplice when the opposite may be closer to the truth. And it may also illustrate how an already-secretive administration gains still more edge to tighten further its grip on information.
A week ago Friday, before air strikes against Afghanistan began, Post staff writer Sue Schmidt and Woodward combined on a front-page story reporting that intelligence officials told members of Congress there was a “high probability” of another major terrorist attack in the near future and a “100 percent chance” of an attack if the United States struck Afghanistan. This was a chilling and important story, but not really surprising, because Attorney General John Ashcroft had come close to saying the same thing publicly a few days before, as had Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.).
Yet the fact that it was being said in even more stark terms behind closed doors by civil servants gave it a more credible ring. And it also seemed to remove any other administration agenda, such as support for new anti-terrorist legislation, that might have been part of earlier public remarks.
The president sent his new restrictions to Congress on Friday, soon after The Post report appeared. On Monday, talking with reporters about it, Bush said, “I want Congress to hear loud and clear, it is unacceptable behavior to leak classified information when we have troops at risk.” The White House gave no details about what provoked the restrictions on Congress, although all news accounts described The Post’s article as the catalyst.
The president has an important point to make: Lawmakers who receive classified briefings have a responsibility to guard that information with great care, and The Post report did come from such briefings.
But the Schmidt-Woodward story had nothing to do with putting troops at risk, and what it did report was information that the public was entitled to know. Subsequent FBI warnings have made that clear.
Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. says, “We decided to run the story because it was news of importance to our readers. The substance of the story did not endanger lives nor compromise national security. On the contrary, if it made Americans more alert to possible dangers, it could help save lives.”
After inquiring with sources on Capitol Hill, the reporters checked what they had heard with administration sources and, Downie says, “There was no request to remove anything from the story.” Since the events of Sept. 11, Downie says, “There have been some other stories about which questions have been raised by government officials . . . and a few specific requests have been made that we not include certain information. We, as always, have listened carefully to such concerns and requests and, when we conclude they are justified, have kept some information out of the paper. There have been no official protests about anything we have published.”
