They say all is fair in war, but some readers of The Post and Courier disagree.
As the United States moves toward a possible war with Iraq, readers are finding more in the newspaper that seems unfair to them:
- It is unfair that the paper publishes military information. It might tip off Saddam Hussein.
- It is unfair that the newspaper withholds some information that the military considers sensitive.
- It is unfair to our military to draw attention to war protesters.
- It is unfair to readers not to draw enough attention to war protesters.
There is understandable tension between the military’s need to protect information that might compromise their plans and the public’s right to know about major news events.
Journalists are accustomed to ferreting out as much important information as possible and writing it — even if some people wish they wouldn’t. That remains their goal during times like this, but they sometimes agree to hold back information. They don’t want to undermine military efforts, and they don’t want to anger officials on whom they rely for access to military information.
Military officials are doing a balancing act as well. At times, they would like to squelch information, but at the same time, they don’t want to lose the trust of or anger reporters on whom they rely to deliver information to the public.
Post and Courier military reporter Terry Joyce said that he sticks with what official sources tell him when it comes to reporting on troop deployments and assumes they would not divulge information that would present a security problem.
“Most military units have a public affairs officer whose job it is to tell the press whatever they can about upcoming deployments. … They usually can’t tell us exactly where a unit’s final destination is or exactly when it is leaving,” he said.
Once the unit has left, officials have no trouble with reporters saying when that happened. But they will provide only general information about overseas destinations. They might say “southwest Asia” or “Central Command area of responsibility” or “the Persian Gulf region.”
Recently, Ron Menchaca, who covers the ports, reported on a military shipment leaving the State Ports Authority. He did not name the destination, but he did write that the items were clearly labeled for a Turkish port.
Military officials were not happy. They agreed the labels, which are usually encoded, had been a mistake; and Menchaca said it wasn’t his intent to reveal sensitive information and he wouldn’t do so knowingly.
The military was not concerned, however, with a story in The Post and Courier that worried some readers. It described special operations forces in some detail. Such information is readily available to the public. Instead of tipping off the enemy, the information might be a deterrent.
Joyce said rules can change mid-stream. For instance, just after 9/11, the military asked reporters to publish a service member’s first name only. They’ve since changed the rules to provide complete names unless the individual requests otherwise.
Joyce and Menchaca both have military experience. Both said they are not interested in compromising military plans and endangering troops. They are interested in providing readers as much accurate information as is appropriate. In the end, it is a judgment call.
Newspapers must also judge how significant stories are as this war story unfolds with one report more dramatic than the next.
Last Sunday’s front page had a story and picture above the fold about peace demonstrations around the world. But when Monday’s story on war protesters was put inside the A section, several readers cried “foul.”
They also objected to the headline, which unfortunately noted that 100,000 had protested the war when the story said police estimated the crowd at 150,000 and organizers estimated at 200,000. While the story, without attribution, also referred to a crowd of “more than 100,000,” it appeared to readers that the newspaper’s headline downplayed the protests.
It added to their suspicion that the headline also noted a pro-war demonstration in Denver that drew 300 people — hardly worth the same headline space as the San Francisco gathering.
The reason the story ran inside was that two other Iraq stories warranted front-page treatment. NATO and the European Union were debating their responses to Bush’s call for action against Iraq. Also, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was talking about presenting the United Nations with a new plan.
The paper could have helped readers if it had referred from those front-page articles to the protest stories inside the section and had chosen a more precise headline.
Passions are running high as regards possible war. The newspaper needs to exercise particular caution. Wednesday’s 1A headline said “Bush Brushes Off War Rallies.” While most would understand those rallies were war-related, not pro-war, a more precise headline would have served better.
Thursday’s paper could also have been more helpful to readers. A photo on 1B showed a handful of people at the Customhouse protesting the war and a few people supporting the president. The cutline should have said how many people represented each side.
