Last Sunday, reporter Les Zaitz described the increased security at the Umatilla Chemical Depot near Hermiston in Eastern Oregon. The depot contains concrete igloos housing thousands of tons of potentially fatal nerve and mustard agents.
Zaitz noted that the Army long ago had realized the potentially deadly outcome were an aircraft to crash into the depot’s bunker-like structures.
He explained the recent establishment of a no-fly zone over the depot and how many soldiers have been assigned to guard the site in the aftermath of Sept. 11. He reported how long it would take military aircraft responding to a threat to reach Umatilla from McChord Air Force Base near Tacoma.
Zaitz received an e-mail from a Hermiston resident who said he had several questions. They included: “ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?”
He continued: “This is exactly the information a terrorist needs.”
People living near the depot were not the only readers to complain that The Oregonian was tipping off terrorists.
A Vancouver, Wash., reader wrote, “This is some of the most irresponsible journalism I have ever encountered.” A Clackamas reader asked, “Isn’t anything kept secret anymore?”
In those same Sunday editions, reporters James Mayer and Norm Maves Jr. wrote about the major military bases in neighboring Washington. The articles included a base-by-base breakdown of personnel, primary functions, main equipment and the potential role in current military activities.
Several readers reacted to those stories as well. One man wrote, “It should be kept secret. I was wondering where, also, you were getting the information.”
The answer is simple: the government.
The information about the military bases was available on Web sites. Reporters telephoned to confirm the information and to ask follow-up questions.
Maves said military sources were pleased at the interest.
Zaitz said information on the Umatilla depot is available in the Army’s office in Hermiston. Displays include examples of the munitions housed at the depot.
Even so, some readers said, why write about these topics? Maybe real terrorists have what they want, but a newspaper should not give ideas to “wacko copycats,” as one reader put it.
Len Reed, editor of the Environment and Science team, edited the Umatilla package. Editors did not embark on the military bases and chemical depot stories lightly, he said.
At the same time, he said, the newspaper has an obligation to address issues of public safety as it has done previously.
Detailed information on the chemical depot is not new. In 1996, Reed worked with reporter James Long on stories outlining conditions at the depot as a debate focused on whether it would be safe to incinerate the chemicals.
Long wrote that the Army and environmentalists agreed: “The arsenal is a time bomb that needs defusing.”
Given the vulnerable nature of the site, Reed said, “The fact that an exposed facility has heightened levels of security is news that informs the public.”
The story, Reed said, was not so specific as to be a guide to breaching that security.
The same was true with the military bases stories. They have been a longtime presence in Washington, their locations available on any map.
The stories on both the bases and the chemical depot let the public know what the government has in place or is doing to improve protection of a potential target. “It’s up to the reader to decide if it is enough,” Reed said.
Some readers might be satisfied with that role. Others might prefer to not know even the often-reported basics.
In either case, it is safe to assume that the military gave away only what it wanted to give, and no more. The newspaper did its job in helping interested readers stay reasonably informed.
