“Leaking” a story is probably as old as journalism. The leaker provides information or a document to a news outlet that he or she believes will give the story favorable coverage. Leaks frequently are important and can lead to significant disclosures for the public. But they are tricky for the leaker because they can backfire, and they impose a responsibility on the leakees to dig deeper so they are not just carrying someone’s water, to extend the metaphor.
Last week the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and The Post demonstrated the pitfalls of leaking and reporting on leaks.
The commission, which looks into possible violation of federal civil rights protections, has been investigating and holding hearings on the Florida presidential voting last November that led to allegations of unequal treatment of the state’s minority voters.
On Tuesday’s front page, The Post reported that the commission had concluded, in its “167-page final draft report obtained by The Washington Post,” that Florida’s electoral conduct was marked by “injustice, ineptitude and inefficiency” that unfairly penalized minority voters, and that Gov. Jeb Bush and State Secretary Katherine Harris had allowed disparate treatment of voters.
As it turns out, The Post “obtained” the draft report along with the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. But readers in the Washington area who looked at the New York Times found a different treatment of the report. The Times, under a headline noting that this was a “divided” civil rights panel, reported that not all members of the eight-member commission were involved in putting together the report and that the two Republican-appointed members had not been consulted. The Times quoted one of the Republican appointees as saying the evidence does not support the conclusions; he linked the findings to the political agenda of the chairwoman, Mary Frances Berry, who supported former vice president Al Gore. The other Republican described the timing of the leak — before consultation with other commissioners — as “a procedural travesty.” None of this was in The Post. The Times also pointed out that Florida officials were to be given 30 days to review the draft, but that was demolished by the leak.
In case you missed the New York Times, you could have read the Washington Times. Its reporters didn’t obtain the report but, not surprisingly, knew of the budding controversy.
The next day, while The Post was catching up, but not on the front page, with the dissident Republican-appointed members of the commission (which has a majority of four Democrats, with the others Republicans and independents), the New York Times had moved on to Gov. Bush’s scathing letter to the commission denouncing its findings. Not a word in The Post. By Wednesday, the handling of the report was also front-page news in the Washington Times and the subject of a critical editorial in the Wall Street Journal.
The cynical reader might say: “Well, what else is new about that line-up?” But that is way too cynical. The question of what really happened to Florida’s minority voters is one of the most important and profound issues still lingering from the unprecedented confusion of the 2000 election. This was a stupid and destructive leak, no matter where it originated. It undermines the credibility of the commission and politicizes and diverts attention from what should have been an authoritative and inclusive final report. It also may diminish and distort the coverage that comes after the official release.
The Post didn’t distinguish itself either. It should have done more reporting about this certain-to-be controversial report and, in a case like this, should not have been a party to nondisclosure about who did the leaking.
