The banner headline on Page One in Wednesdays editions read, Informant in terror case revealed.
The story reported and written by three reporters for The Oregonian said Khalid Ibrahim Mostafa had been an undercover informant crucial to the FBIs investigation of six Portland-area people accused of conspiring to join the fight against U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
Reporters had pieced together the vivid story of Mostafas undercover work through interviews with his friends, acquaintances and law enforcement officials, and from court documents. It detailed how Mostafa had infiltrated and befriended the group.
The story was a rare look at recruitment and use of an informant in an important federal case.
Another element stood out as well. Editors, the story said, had decided to identify Mostafa who had not previously been named publicly – after prosecutors said he would be a witness.
They also had decided to delay publication of the story a few days to allow time for federal authorities to move Mostafa to a secure location.
Such arrangements are unusual, if not rare. Journalists tend to publish what they know as soon as they know it and are confident the information is correct.
At the same time, editors are not oblivious to the potential ramifications of their decisions.
Stephen Engelberg, a managing editor who worked with the reporters, said, If the government says a human life is endangered, we take notice.
Before deciding to publish, said Sandy Rowe, editor of The Oregonian, We had a serious discussion among senior editors that took into account the governments role in identifying him in court papers, his willingness to talk to The Oregonian by telephone and other factors.
Within limits, Rowe said, the public has a right to know how the government conducts investigations. Explanatory stories such as these, which she considers a staple of The Oregonian, she said, part the curtains on significant issues.
That is the highest goal a newspaper can have, she said, to provide not just information, but to add insight in order to help people form their own opinions.
Mostafas role was not unknown. Authorities had talked about him without naming him. The suspects and their attorneys knew who the informant was.
Reporters Mark Larabee, Bryan Denson and Maxine Bernstein had determined his identity through detailed examination of court and other public documents and interviews. Bernstein had talked with him by telephone.
Mostafa was shrouded by a government fog, perhaps, but hardly hidden.
Rowe and the senior editors made a tentative decision to publish the story.
Mike Mosman, U.S. attorney for Oregon, telephoned Rowe to express his concerns for the informants safety and ask that the newspaper not publish the story. After some discussion, Mosman asked if The Oregonian would consider delaying the story until authorities could be sure that Mostafa was in a safe location. Rowe agreed.
It was a matter of timing, Rowe said. His name was going to come out. At the same time, delaying publication helped ensure Mostafas safety.
Mosman appreciated how the matter was handled. We were treated very professionally, he said Friday. We were listened to.
Such issues could become more complicated, Engelberg said. Not publishing troop movements in a traditional war situation is an easy decision. These days, however, government is involved in a shadow war with terrorists.
Do we have new kinds of duties for a new kind of war? he asked. I dont think this issue is going to go away.
The Oregonians editors did well this time around. They take ethical issues seriously and encourage such thinking throughout the newsroom.
Engelberg is right, though, when he raises questions about the future and a new kind of war.
