Are you out of your mind exposing us like that by giving Osama bin Laden and his fellow terrorists practically a blueprint for attacking us?
That, in a nutshell, as they say, is how several readers reacted to The Pilot’s two-story, front-page package last Sunday on “Terrorism and Hampton Roads.”
One story, “Guarding our gateway to the world,” detailed how the area’s harbor offers several potential targets for terrorists; the other dealt with the possible vulnerability of the area’s tunnels.
All of which was too, too much for several readers.
“Isn’t The Virginian-Pilot aware that the United States is at war?” asked Josiah Carter of Norfolk.
“We don’t need to expose where all our security is and where all our little places are,” said a female caller.
Ret. Navy Lt. Cmdr. Robert E. Brown of Norfolk said: “It is time to exercise restraint in what we disseminate even if it hurts efforts to sell newspapers. Why give ideas to those who would do harm to us?”
“We’re wondering what’s going to be published next,” said a female caller. “Maybe the directions or recipes on how to build these bombs of destruction, or if you’re going to actually tell them where to put them.”
Pilot editors expected such a reaction from some readers.
Indeed, Pilot managing editor Dennis Hartig popped into my office two days before the stories ran to alert me to the likelihood of calls.
Hartig said that much of the information slated for publication is readily available. He noted, too, that The Pilot wouldn’t reveal specific defense positions and tactics.
Be sure to tell readers this, I told Hartig. And we did — in the seventh paragraph, just before the jump, of the “Guarding our gateway” story.
But that wasn’t enough for readers like retired U.S. Coast Guard Capt. G. Russell Evans, who called the statement “a weak crutch.”
“Your virtual road map of 17 strategic targets with operational data, including weaknesses and strengths, is like aid and comfort to our sworn enemy,” Evans said.
In the wake of such criticism, I asked Hartig to explain the genesis of the stories, their intended purpose and any concerns surrounding their publication.
Hartig, who was surprised the paper didn’t get more criticism, said his concern “was not about revealing secrets, but in avoiding alarm.”
He noted that, since the terrorist attacks Sept. 11, The Pilot has published about six stories dealing with the security of the ports. “But we had not given readers a comprehensive look at port security in Hampton Roads and how government leaders were preparing for the threats,” he added.
So about a dozen Pilot editors developed a plan for coverage. Hartig explained: “We decided to try to answer three basic questions: What threats keep port officials awake at night? What’s being done about it? And how durably built were the tunnels and bridges that connect our area? Those are the questions behind a lot of the discussion we hear every day.”
Personally, Hartig said he “wasn’t too concerned” about giving away vital secrets.
“First, if we found some — and we did — we wouldn’t publish them,” he said. “Officials have asked us not to publish information about certain security measures and we have cooperated in every case.
“Second, you’d have to be pretty oblivious not to know where to find Hampton Roads’ military and economic assets,” Hartig said. “A rack of tourist brochures contains most of them. And you could find the rest by driving around. They’re in plain view.”
Hartig said individuals driving down I-464 have noticed storage tanks and have observed how easy it would be to get into a facility. “What is not known,” he said, “is what’s being done to identify the risks and secure them. In the absence of information, people will fear the worst.
“By telling people what’s being done, we do a public service,” said Hartig, noting that much of our information was about actions taken to beef up security.
Hartig thinks that a lot of the criticism of the media in general by readers concerned about giving terrorists too much information “has been an over-reaction. But some criticism was warranted,” he added.
He noted that one national paper published a story on a nonmetallic knife that could pass undetected through airport metal detectors. “That’s OK,” Hartig said. “But then it described where and how to get them. That’s going too far. We didn’t publish that story.”
From the response of some readers, it’s clear that the less said about potential terrorist threats the better. Understandably, some fear that terrorists will utilize the information. Others fear that access to it may “put the idea [of terrorist actions] in somebody’s head,” as one caller put it.
These are legitimate concerns. And I share them, to a degree. But I’d rather know danger’s potential as well as what’s being done to minimize such danger than to be in the dark. Ignorance is not bliss. And ignoring reality doesn’t lessen the potential of terrorism.
