These are volatile times. Information circling the globe is incomplete and all the more frightening for being so. Take Thursday editions of The Oregonian, for example.
On Page One, two stories contained the word “bioterrorism” in the first paragraph. One was about stockpiling emergency medicines, and the other was about the changing understanding of anthrax spores in congressional offices.
In addition, a small box directed readers inside to a story on smallpox vaccinations. Another small box and an illustration led readers to the News Focus page. The topic: “Treating anthrax.”
With everyone from government officials to journalists to readers learning on the run, with headline-changing events happening hours apart, these are times when a newspaper might carry a warning label.
It is up to editors to make that package as non-explosive as possible.
Some of that burden falls on headlines and the people who write them, the copy editors. News editors and page designers play a role as they select the most accurate and up-to-date stories and decide how to play them.
On Wednesday morning, most readers of The Oregonian saw an Associated Press wire service report that said the anthrax mailed to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle was “a purified form that could be used as a weapon.”
Daschle had said the spores were “a very potent form” of the bacteria. The headline reflected his statement.
A photo adjacent to the story and below the banner headline depicted a crowd of Capitol Hill workers waiting to be tested.
Below the photo was another story and a headline that read, “Nature of anthrax doesn’t warrant high anxiety.”
That story, by Oregonian reporter Andy Dworkin, explained that anthrax in its natural form is not a serious problem in Oregon. The story took a calm, science-oriented approach.
One reader, seeing the two stories juxtaposed, said The Oregonian had given her conflicting messages.
Some newsroom staff members also thought the layout whip-sawed readers.
Which was true? Anthrax the potent weapon, or anthrax, the natural bacteria that is no big deal? The answer that day was both. Depending.
Dworkin’s science story, focused on Oregon, was legitimate and timely. That information won’t change.
At the same time, Daschle believed that the specific substance in his office was indeed a potentially more lethal anthrax. By the next day, however, he and others had toned down the language.
According to the Associated Press in a subsequent story, a general from an Army testing laboratory said the powder sent to Daschle contained a “common variety” of anthrax. Although someone might have tried to collect it in more concentrated form, it was not the weapons-quality threat officials had described earlier.
Demonstrating an overnight change of perspective, Daschle said emphatically, “It is treatable.”
At the same time, House Speaker Dennis Hastert was closing down the House of Representatives in the face of the potential dangers.
That is a lot of information, and change, within 24 hours, a lot to absorb for editors and readers alike.
Given the lack of reader calls, I don’t think the seeming disparity on Wednesday’s Page One was serious. I think most people saw the headlines, read the helpful summaries and sorted out the information.
That said, if we can make that process easier — tweak a headline, add an explanatory sentence here and there — we should. The more we think about that, the less often we will send a mixed message, however inadvertently.
