As I watched Thursday’s ceremony marking the end of cleanup and recovery efforts at ground zero, the TV camera panned on a sign that said: “We will never forget.” I remembered that sign when I got to the office and found an e-mail from a reader objecting to The San Diego Union-Tribune’s front-page headline: “FBI admits it missed 9/11 signals.” Not only was it inaccurate but irresponsible, the reader wrote. The story did not support the headline, she claimed.
The e-mail reminded me of criticism leveled at the news media by people who, it appears, do not want to acknowledge that our government’s inattention might have contributed to the events of Sept. 11, the very events the sign said we would never forget.
But was this particular headline wrong and therefore misleading? The first paragraph showed it was dead on. The story said FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged for the first time that the Sept. 11 attacks might have been prevented had officials reacted differently to all of the pieces of information available.
It was plain the signals the headline referred to were those “pieces of information.” But I kept reading.
The third paragraph of the story from The New York Times News Service said Mueller listed some missed opportunities: “I cannot say for sure that there wasn’t a possibility we could have come across some lead that would have led us to the hijackers.”
Although there were no specific warnings, Mueller said “that doesn’t mean that there weren’t red flags out there, that there weren’t dots that should have been connected to the extent possible.”
The New York Times, where the story carried by this newspaper originated, had a headline that said: “F.B.I. Chief Admits 9/11 Might Have Been Detectable.” With its story of Mueller’s statements, The Washington Post headline said: “Mueller: Clues Might Have Led to Sept. 11 Plot.” The Los Angeles Times headline: “Terrorist Signs Were Missed, FBI Chief Says.” A secondary headline was even stronger: “Intelligence: As more ‘red flags’ come to light, Mueller disagrees with Bush team’s assertions that nothing could have prevented attacks.”
If you’ve read the Union-Tribune story, you know Mueller said changes have been made that will alter the FBI’s mission fundamentally, from solving crimes to counterterrorism, and will produce “a redesigned and refocused FBI.”
The e-mail in response to the story reminded me of some readers who wish the news media would go away and not report the aftermath of Sept. 11, who in essence are making the news media the scapegoat for the horrible events. They want the news media to stop questioning what was known and who knew it, to let those in power determine what the public should know and not know. They are angry at the news media when they report leaks from officials of both parties about what they want the public to know. Although some claim they criticize the media out of loyalty to their country, it appears some critics want to read only stories that reflect their own views.
These are the same people who insist they do not want the American way of life changed except when it comes to the First Amendment and access to information. Do they know that what they are asking would mean that Americans would be giving up one of their most cherished freedoms the free flow of information? Do they really think lack of information means there would be no unpleasantness?
A few weeks ago, the Organization of News Ombudsmen, of which I am a member, received an e-mail from a woman in Northern California’s Gold Country. She counted herself among the 70 percent of Americans she claimed are disgusted at the news media because after Sept. 11 newspapers and other media reported that Americans were frightened. That was giving the world the wrong picture of Americans, she claimed.
She said she thought the news media were sensationalizing events surrounding Sept. 11. She suggested that most citizens supported “as sensible” President Bush’s decision not to tell Americans everything, but the news media did not. She accused journalists of arrogance and a self-promotion for risking their lives, as did the late Daniel Pearl and others, by reporting in south central Asia.
What was particularly chilling was that she was willing to accept an unsubstantiated statement by Vice President Dick Cheney on Fox television that a leak by an unnamed newspaper led to the death of a confidential source on terrorism.
One wonders why these people read the newspaper, why they listen to news programs. If the news media stop asking questions, if American leaders were not held accountable, would that wipe out the possibility of future events such as Sept. 11?
Of course, most readers are more discerning, more cognizant that the role of the news media is to be the watchdog. They are, aren’t they?
