News media, administration struggle over press freedom, national security
By The Associated Press
10.12.01
WASHINGTON — The nation's war against terrorism has led the government and news outlets into uncertain terrain, raising questions about how both sides proceed when press freedom and national security concerns clash.
Central to the conflict is the exchange of information about the military and diplomatic pursuit of a clandestine terrorist network.
"This will be a war like none other our nation has faced," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
The White House has aggressively protected details of its anti-terror campaign, warning reporters and lawmakers that leaks could endanger more lives. President Bush even scolded Congress for leaking classified information.
News outlets, meanwhile, are agitating for everything from better access to the front lines of this war to details of the investigation.
The sides have stumbled upon some middle ground in recent days.
Americans highly supportive of Bush and the military campaign are likely to be patient, polls suggest.
"The public is giving the administration the benefit of the doubt," said Clark Hoyt, Washington editor of Knight Ridder.
Some news outlets are too. Five major news networks agreed this week to limit broadcasts of Osama bin Laden after the White House said the head of the al-Qaida terrorist network may have used the TV footage to send a coded call to action to his supporters.
And The Washington Post last weekend withheld information from a classified briefing received by members of Congress from a story quoting anonymous officials as saying new terrorist strikes were "100 percent" certain if the U.S. were to attack Afghanistan.
At the request of the Pentagon, Knight Ridder delayed publication of a story saying special operations units had secretly entered Afghanistan, Hoyt said.
But the restraint doesn't mean news outlets are willing to be spoon-fed hand-picked details about a war that will cost billions of taxpayer dollars and put American troops at risk.
"It's our job to press for information and use good judgment about the information that we receive," Hoyt said. "It's never our role to just sit back and accept what's handed to us."
Even the restraint shown thus far by news outlets — especially regarding the broadcast of bin Laden footage — has raised hackles among free-press advocates.
"Patriotism and transparency are kissing cousins," said Robert Manoff, director of the Center for War, Peace and the News Media at New York University. "Denying the American people the opportunity to understand what they are facing and to debate among themselves what to do about that is a terrible mistake."
But restraint and responsibility are close relatives too, the administration insists.
Bush fired a stern warning down Pennsylvania Avenue after the leak to the Post: If lawmakers can't keep war secrets, none but a handful will be trusted with any. The news came the same day the House Ethics Committee issued a caution against disclosing secret information, saying violating the Classified Information Oath can result in sanctions. Bush later dropped restrictions that severely limited the members of Congress who could get top-secret briefings on the war on terrorism.
The Pentagon, meanwhile, told defense contractors not to talk about the weapons they make.
The State Department also tried to block the government-funded Voice of America radio network from airing an interview with a Taliban official.
And last month, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer publicly scolded the host of TV's "Politically Incorrect" talk show, for controversial comments on the terrorist attacks and admonished Americans "to watch what they say."
Rumsfeld invoked Winston Churchill's comments about the importance of the element of surprise during the invasion of Normandy.
"Sometimes the truth is so precious it must be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies," Rumsfeld paraphrased during a briefing in September.
Later, he added: "I don't recall that I have ever lied to the press. I don't intend to, and it seems to me that there will not be reason for it. ... There are dozens of ways to avoid having to put yourself in a position where you're lying."