Two recent reports on the availability of chemical and biological weapons have provoked a strong response from many listeners: Don’t report it!
Finding Bio-Weapons
On All Things Considered on September 27th, Anne Garrels reported on the easy access to biological weapons. Garrels reported that they are stored without security in Uzbekistan, a former Soviet republic:
GARRELS: “The island is easily accessible to terrorists. When Vosraginia was a Soviet test site, the heavy presence of the Red Army and the KGB prevented unauthorized persons from even approaching it. However, ever since the island reverted to Uzbek and Kazakh sovereignty, the poor economic situation and uncertain politics have meant no guards have been stationed on the island.”
Garrels’ report caused enormous anxiety:
NPR does a great job of reporting the news. Sometimes the news you report, however, would better be left unsaid. Short of actually delivering biological poisons such as anthrax to potential terrorists this article was about as destructive as can be imagined. You’ve not only described the nature of the poisons but their location and lack of adequate protection.
How about a little foresight into the potential destruction you can cause through your reporting?
– Jim Grafton
From Sue in Texas:
Message: I am concerned that the level of detail on the news gives terrorists too much information (e.g. your story on Soviet research into anthrax). Why are you advertising ways they can hit us again?
From Joseph Lopisi:
I just listened to your report regarding the biological agents at a site in one of the provinces of Russia. I cannot think of any good reason to specifically tell the world where currently active anthrax and other biological agents are stockpiled, readily available and not being guarded by anyone. Even if you think the terrorists already know this, why broadcast it to the world.
From Carlotta Creevy:
Your story on anthrax in Uzbekistan seemed more appropriate for a tabloid. Is it your intention to scare the American public or inform the uninformed terrorists. Why don’t you censor yourselves?
Unprepared for Bioterrorism?
Another story was by Daniel Zwerdling. It ran on Morning Edition on Thursday, September 27. The story looked at the state of preparedness (or lack thereof) among U.S. scientists and federal officials in the event of a biological attack.
Some listeners were equally frightened:
The other morning I awoke to hear an NPR report on biological terrorism. It was quite instructive: it told me how vulnerable we are to an epidemic of smallpox and/or anthrax; how easy it would be to spread the germs, even telling me about new aerosol technology. I’m not sure what was the objective of this report…other than to instruct any potential terrorists about another way to kill Americans. It certainly did not satisfy my “right to know,” but it did unsettle my nerves quite a bit.
Was that the point?
If so, it certainly runs contrary to the government’s plea to “get back to normal.” What does that mean? Get on airplanes, but be sure to stock up on your anthrax vaccine? (Oh, yes, I learned that from the report, too, that one expert is so sure that biological warfare will happen that he has stockpiled vaccine for his family. How encouraging.)
– Joan Merrill
While Zwerdling found that while biological weapons are a possibility, they are not a probability.
One scientist claimed that using bacteria as weapons is too complicated; another said that delivery of the poison is too uncertain.
A third said that there is “only” a 50-50 chance of these weapons being used. (Another example of dueling experts?)
Zwerdling asked the scientists if they would recommend a higher state of preparedness.
All agreed that there should be — if only to upgrade neglected public health facilities around the country.
The response from many listeners was anguished; many felt that the reports were inflammatory and irresponsible and criticized NPR for creating a further climate of fear.
Not Just a ‘Scare Story’
Zwerdling says he was surprised by the response from the listeners. “I thought the report was responsible. It wasn’t just a scare story.”
He explained how he deliberately avoided details which could be interpreted as a primer on biological weapons or a how-to manual from NPR.
“Did I self-censor? Absolutely.”
In my opinion, the public has a right to know, and NPR has an obligation to report responsibly…even if some listeners may not want to hear about it.
‘Terrorists’ in America: Why not in the Palestinian/Israeli Conflict?
“Terrorism,” as a noun, is now everywhere in the media.
But Reuters, the esteemed news agency has said, in an internal memo, that the word “terrorist” will no longer be used as a noun.
Many media critics attacked Reuters for its position and the insensitivity of their timing. Reuters’ response:
We lost six members of the Reuters family and offices that housed 550 others who thankfully survived. From the first moments after the attacks, Reuters staff around the world worked tirelessly to account for their colleagues, restore our information services to customers, and report the news.
However, these efforts have been overshadowed by the controversy over the policy of our Editorial group to avoid using emotional terms such as “terrorist” in their news stories. This policy has served Reuters and, more importantly, our readers well by ensuring access to news as it occurs, wherever it occurs.
As a global news organization reporting from 160 countries, Reuters’ mission is to provide accurate and impartial accounts of events so that individuals, organizations and governments can make their own decisions based on the facts.
Nonetheless, in an internal memo reminding our journalists of our policy in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, a statement was made that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” This wording caused deep offense among members of our staff, our readers and the public at large, many of whom felt this meant Reuters was somehow making a value judgment concerning the attacks.
This was never our intention, nor is it our policy. Our policy is to avoid the use of emotional terms and not make value judgments concerning the facts we attempt to report accurately and fairly. We apologize for the insensitive manner in which we characterized this policy and we extend our sympathy to all those who have been affected by these tragic events.
What About at NPR?
NPR has been inconsistent on the use of the word “terrorist.” NPR has referred to the “terrorist attacks in N.Y. and D.C.”
But NPR continues to avoid the word in reference to Israel and the Palestinians, for much the same reason as do Reuters and other news organizations, notably CNN: using emotional adjectives may tend to make a news organization appear “on side.”
So here’s what I think: NPR needs to use appropriate and accurate radio language.
The destruction at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the downing of the plane in Pennsylvania were acts of terrorism done by terrorists. So was the blowing up of a pizza parlor and a disco in Israel. To describe those who did that as “militants” or “activists,” as NPR has, makes the reporting sound politically correct.
Partisans in the Middle East conflict may criticize NPR for using language that has been “tainted” by its use by one side or the other.
But NPR’s reporting should be aimed at more than the partisans.
