|
America at War:
Press Coverage, War and Access to Information
With Leonard Downie Jr.
Executive Editor, The Washington Post
Wednesday, Dec. 5, 2001; Noon EST
The war on terrorism, spurred by the Sept. 11 attacks in New York and Washington, D.C., and currently being fought in Afghanistan, is arguably the story of a lifetime. The press is charged with illuminating and explaining the action, the roots of conflict and consequences of solution. But the quality of the information that the press can obtain -- both on the ground and from official sources -- can make or break its effectiveness.
Washington Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. was online on Wednesday, Dec. 5, to talk about these issues and journalists' role in the war against terrorism.
The transcript follows.
Downie has been executive editor of The Post since 1991, after serving as managing editor for seven years. He was national editor and did a stint as the paper's London correspondent from 1979-82. He was an investigative reporter and editor on the Metro staff for 15 years, helping to supervise The Post's Watergate coverage. The author of three books and contributor to a fourth, Downie is a director of the Los Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service and a director of the International Herald Tribune. He joined The Post as a summer intern in 1964.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
washingtonpost.com: Good afternoon, Len, and thanks so much for joining us. When the U.S. began the bombing raids in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld commented that the information flow to the press and the public during this action would be even tighter than it was in the Gulf War.
Can you talk about the Pentagon's and the Bush administration's approach to the press and reporting about Afghanistan and the war on terrorism? Have Secretary Rumsfeld's intentions been borne out? If so, how?
Leonard Downie: Hello. I'll answer the first question about the administration's information policy for the war against terrorism. The secretary of defense has controlled information about military activities very tightly, allowing very, very little access to U.S. military inside Afghanistan or at bases in neighboring countries. And much of the information supplied here in Washington has come only from Rumsfeld himself. This has made it difficult to give our readers anything like a full picture of what is going on in American military action in Afghanistan. Much of our reporting about the war has come instead from our correspondents traveling on their own, at great personal peril, inside Afghanistan and from reporting by reporters like Bob Woodward from other sources here in Washington.
Miami, Fla.: How aggressive has the administration been in asking that you withhold some of your war reporting for security reasons? Have you received a call from the Defense Secretary on this? Or the vice president, or even the president?
Leonard Downie: The Bush administration has made several requests that we withhold from publication certain details about American military and intelligence activities that would either endanger ongoing operations, endanger American lives or reveal intelligence collection methods. After careful discussion, most of it taking place between senior officials and Post reporters and editors, we have agreed to several of these requests and withheld such details.
Washington, D.C.: Are the media doing enough to put into legal perspective the recent decisions by Bush and Ashcroft to use military tribunals and other Constitutionally questionable tactics in the prosecution of the alleged crimes of non-citizens relating to the attacks?
Leonard Downie: Yes, I believe the media is scrutinizing these civil liberties questions thoroughly. We have published news stories about them almost every day and our editorial and op-ed pages (which are run by our editorial page editor Fred Hiatt, not me) have published editorials and opinion columns about them.
Golden, Colo.: My impression is that the media have had less access to the facts about activities in Afghanistan than to the facts in any prior American military engagement since World War II.
Do you agree and do you feel the American public is less informed as a result?
Leonard Downie: This is obviously a much different military operation than most, with relatively few American troops actually on the ground and much of the American military activity being carried out in relative secrecy by small numbers of special force troops and CIA agents. So it is much more difficult to accompany and observe them in action. I am concerned, however, about what we unable to see and report. Time will tell whether important information has been hidden from the American people by the administration.
Washington, D.C.: When reporting on the war effort, it seems the media has given a lot of deference to the administration's claims that the terrorist network and bin Laden are a significant threat to our long term security. People in the know see them more as a dedicated -- but sloppy and unsophisticated -- loose confederation. Based upon my past experience with military and government intelligence (Central America and the Middle East), the intelligence and defense communities often exaggerate the threat to justify spending more money on defense and keeping these intel operatives at their (often cushy -- think "Miami Vice") posts. It seems the administration keeps churning out rah-rah rhetoric about freedom and evil, while warning us of this vague "threat to national security" that justifies huge outlays to large defense contractors (corporate contributors to the RNC).
Finally, a question: Do you feel it is your paper's responsibility to more aggressively challenge these claims despite the prospect that you'll be branded unpatriotic? Or do you see the paper as purely non-partisan re: the war? And why haven't reporters (or editors) been demanding a better accounting from the president on these issues?
Leonard Downie: I believe we have and will continue to be aggressive in this reporting. We knocked down unsubstantiated administration claims when justified by the facts and reported on the continuing lack of coordination in the homeland security response. However, the tone of your question makes me wonder how much more evidence you would need of a real threat than the events of Sept. 11.
washingtonpost.com: Can you talk a bit more about the process of deciding whether to withhold details about this story? What your criteria are for doing so?
Leonard Downie: Our criteria are simple: Would publication clearly endanger human life or realistically endanger national security (rather than, say, simply embarrassing the government). We consider each case very carefully before making a decision. Usually, we have decided only to withhold a detail that would endanger life or national security rather than deciding not to publish an entire story.
Washington, D.C.: Do you feel that the Pentagon and White House have engaged in actual dis-information? In other words, have they deliberately tried to lead the press away from a story, or are they merely keeping a tight lid on [or stonewalling, depending on how you look at it]?
Leonard Downie: I believe, based on what we know so far, that the administration has been tightly controlling information but not misleading, as we have sometimes seen in the past.
Denver, Colo.: The polls suggest the public is not very concerned about Ashcroft's rescission of a variety of fundamental liberties in America. Yet the media have talked about these issues at length. What do you think of these poll results?
Leonard Downie: My job is to provide our readers information and not to state opinions. And our job is to give our readers all possible facts, whether or not such reporting would appear from polls to be popular.
Nonsense: Why is it that the Post editors and the government are allowed to have information that the public isn't allowed access to? We elect people to serve in our interest, and we rely on information from newspapers to come to our own opinions.
If both our representatives and the press are keeping secrets (we'll never know if the information is being withheld for national security or just for secrecy), we cannot come to reasonable decisions about what is going on. That leaves us out of the equation.
So there are folks at the Post who know more about what is going on than the people down the street from them? Absurd!
Leonard Downie: We make decisions all the time about what we will or will not publish based on available space, accuracy, fairness, etc., in addition to the other criteria I discussed. That is what editing is all about.
Arlington, Va.: So how tough is it to be aggressive and cover this war when there is such a lockdown?
By the way, how are Pam Constable and Peter Baker? They've both done such great work, but I heard that Constable was in the caravan where the journalists were ambushed and had to identify one of them.
Leonard Downie: Thanks for asking about the safety of our reporters in Afghanistan. Despite numerous close calls, all are currently safe. Peter Baker is currently in Kabul. Pam Constable is getting some time off.
Jacksonville, Fla.: What is the Post's policy on using unnamed sources in its news stories? At what level is the use of an unnamed source approved?
Leonard Downie: We try hard for all sources to be on the record. When that is not possible, we try to describe an unnamed source's background ("senior administration official," for example) in a way that helps readers know where they are coming from. Important facts must be confirmed by more than one unnamed source before we will publish.
Kentucky: I read in the New York Observer that the New York Times is mobilizing younger metro reporters without any foreign experience at all and sending them off to the war. What has been the practice at the Post? And in the competition for stories based in Afghanistan, how do you think the paper is faring?
Leonard Downie: I am very pleased with our reporting and believe we had led the way on many stories. Most of our reporters and photographers inside Afghanistan have had previous experience covering wars and /or that part of the world, both to better ensure their safety and get the best reporting from them.
Arlington, Va.: Why is it that the media have heavily focused on Americans who have died in the fight with the Taliban, but has almost ignored the number of Northern Alliance fighters and civilians who have died? It seems as if the reporting is not complete.
Leonard Downie: In the case of The Washington Post, because of the tireless enterprise of our reporters and photographers on the ground, we have published both stories and pictures about Afghan casualties and some of their concerns about American bombing. This journalism has not always been popular with some of our readers, who have complained that it is not supportive of the war effort, but we believe our readers should have all the facts.
Milwaukee, Wis.: Is it more important for journalists today to put journalistic values or American values first?
Leonard Downie: Meeting our obligations as journalists fulfills our constitutional obligations as Americans.
Colorado Springs, Colo.: Hello Mr. Downie:
It has been tossed around recently by some talking heads that the root of journalism has shifted from simply reporting the facts to adding one's interpretation and that the journalist's mentality has become akin with a social worker in trying to shape the minds of the masses. Your thoughts?
Leonard Downie: Readers expect expertise and context from our journalists, rather than just stenography, but not their opinions. It is very important at the Post that our reporting be fair, nonpartisan and non-ideological. We are not supposed to tell readers what to think. I am notorious for refusing to vote so that I do not make up mind about issues or candidates as the final decision-maker here.
Richmond, Va.: Why do reporters persist in asking operational questions such as "Can you tell us where the Marines are going and what they will do when they get there?" Such questions undermine the credibility of the reporter asking the question (since he/she looks like an absolute loon asking such a question). Surely the reporter doesn't expect an answer such as "they're going to grid coordinates 649438 and destroy 16 bunkers." Such queries give the impression the reporter simply wishes to make the military look secretive.
Leonard Downie: Reporters should ask every question possible, whether it looks silly or not. The administration official still has control over what they choose to answer.
Cambridge, Mass.: I recently read some commentary that stated that the American press is more nationalistic than the British press, and that Americans should be glad that they have an alternative source of info coming from the BBC. Do you think that this is really true? Isn't the American press held to a different standard than the British press, which often includes commentary in its news reporting? And is it, in your opinion, a good or bad thing to have a nationalistic press in times of crisis?
Leonard Downie: As it happens, I was the Post correspondent in Britain during the Falklands War between Britain and Argentina. The British control of information and the nationalism of the British press were extraordinary, way beyond anything you see in the United States now.
Colorado Springs, Colo.: What are your journalistic obligations? Don't you think you do more than simply state the facts? Don't you decide which facts are most important to provide?
Leonard Downie: Yes, of course, we need to use our experience and expertise in deciding which facts are the most important and to place them in context -- to best inform readers rather than trying to tell them what to think.
Richmond, Va.: When there are civilian casualties resulting from an attack on a bona fide military target why is the accompanying photo invariably of the civilian casualties rather than the military target? Showing photos of screaming women, dead children, etc., gives the false impression that civilians are being targeted rather than the actual fact: a military target was either placed in a civilian area or the civilians were nearby a bona fide military target. In either case, the responsibility for the civilian casualties rests with the nation being targeted, not with the nation doing the targeting.
Leonard Downie: We have published pictures of both military and civilian areas hit by U. S. bombs. As the Pentagon has stated, sometimes bombs go astray, as one did today in killing and injuring our own troops.
Cambridge, Mass.: How well do you think that the Post has conveyed Arab and Muslim opinion? It seems to me that American media coverage has split into two camps -- everyone in Arab and Muslim countries hate us or things aren't that bad in Arab and Muslim countries. Do you think media coverage of those places has been nuanced enough to give us an accurate reading of those populations?
Leonard Downie: This is an excellent question. We are trying to hard to report opinion from the Islamic world as well as much more information about Islamic peoples. The American media has some catching up to do on this subject.
Bowie, Md.: Putting this into a larger context, there has been criticism about the press in general having ignored issues of terrorism and of the Middle East, except as relates to oil and Israel.
Without assigning blame, if you had the last 10 years to do over again, what should the Post have done differently about these issues, and should the lessons carry over to other low-interest parts of the world like Africa?
Leonard Downie: Actually, the Post has published much in the last decade about Third World issues, problems and poverty, about terrorism in many parts of the world, and we will continue doing so.
Philadelphia, Pa.: Exciting reading yesterday: take the two top stories together and you could believe the authorities are worried about a "dirty-nuke" attack, perhaps on Washington, any day now. (The story that Al-Qaeda may be close to that, plus Cheney avoiding some meeting with foreign officials, plus the statement that this was a factor in the new alert, plus the suburban police official saying they were warned of a threat to the Washington area.) Yet other media don't seem to have picked up on this -- no mention I saw in the New York Times, the top story on "Today" this morning was the unusual weather.
Am I overreacting to your story or are the media tired of panic mode? This seems to me to be a much bigger deal than a few cases of anthrax.
Any comments?
Leonard Downie: We know that the government is very concerned about possible future terrorist attacks and about the possibility of a "dirty" bomb, so we think it is an important story.
Virginia: I had to go to the BBC's site to find a prominent story about MANY Afghan refugee children dying, in their camps of flimsy tents, now that the snow has begun, temps dropping below freezing, and humanitarian aid and food not reaching them, and not likely to reach them -- it is a crisis.
Why don't I find that, in a prominent position, in American coverage of the situation in Afghanistan?
Leonard Downie: We have written about the relief problem in afghanistan in the past and will do so again. You are right that it is a serious issue.
Rockville, Md.: You introductory statement says that the press is charged with illuminating and explain the news, yet many people only see the headlines. Post headlines often seem to be written to be clever and catchy, with accuracy a secondary goal. It is not infrequent that the headline is at total odds with the story. For example, on Nov. 23, albeit on the Web version, the headline read, "Israel blamed for deadly blast," while the story started, "No one is sure what caused the blast that killed..." Does anyone oversee headline writing and do reporters ever complain about the way their work was headed?
Leonard Downie: Headline writing is very difficult. Headlines should be "catchy" -- as you said -- to attract readers' attention and also must summarize a complicated story in a very few words. And all this is done in a very minutes on deadline. As a result, while most headlines are quite good, some don't work as well as intended and can confuse or mislead readers unintentionally.
Washington, D.C.: There is a quote attributed to Ben Hecht that "Trying to determine what is going on in the world by reading newspapers is like trying to tell the time by watching the second hand of a clock."
Should newspapers try to do more to place events in a broader context? For instance, it is relevant to the current conflict that the Northern Alliance represents essentially the government that was overthrown by the Taliban, with a great deal of support from the U.S., at least after the fact if not during the conflict. Yet many Americans seem to be unaware of this. Is there anything newspapers can do or is this myopia an inherent limitation of daily news?
Leonard Downie: Yes, such context is important. In fact, that information about the Northern Alliance appears in our paper day after day.
Alexandria, Va.: The Post and other papers often mention that authorities suspect that a group called the Holy Land Foundation in Richardson, Tex., is funnelling money to terrorists.
Is there any way for The Post to verify independently the money trail from radical American mosques to the suicide attackers?
Do reporters have access to bank or Hawalla records the way the police sometimes do?
Leonard Downie: Without subpoena power, we do not have the same access to records as authorities do. But we will try to answer the questions you raise as our reporting goes forward.
Washington, D.C.: In choosing what aspects of the war to cover do you worry about sensationalizing or popularizing an otherwise very legitimate story? Do you believe that we are seeing any of this from other sources, such as the television media?
Leonard Downie: So far, I have not seen much sensationalizing in the war coverage, perhaps because the media has to work so hard simply to find out what is going on.
Washington, D.C.: The Israelis are trying to equate what is going on in Israel with Arafat and the Palestinians to the situation between Ben Laden and Al Qaeda and the United States. The press does not question this type of bogus equating and in certain cases seems to even support it.
Why is the American press so biased against the Palestinians? The Israelis have their boots at the Palestinians' throats in as oppressive a manner as the whites over the blacks used to be in South Africa, yet the American press treats the Jews as though they are the oppressed ones. I don't get it, and I certainly don't like it. I think the Israelis deserve a fair shake for sure, but the pendulum has swung way to far to their side. The Palestinians are really getting screwed and the American press seems content to either look the other way or blame the whole messy situation on them.
Why is the American press, including the Washington Post and clearly the Bush administration, so biased against the Palestinians? The Palestinians, despite all of the atrocities being committed against them by the Israelis, never seem to get any sympathetic support from the U.S. media.
Leonard Downie: We report very aggressively and thoroughly both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Today's newspaper shows evidence of that. Both sides, however, because their passions run so high, complain that we do not favor them enough in our journalism.
Washington, D.C.: Are you worried that other important issues and stories are getting buried amid the war coverage, and if so what do you do to prevent this from happening?
Leonard Downie: Fortunately, we have a large staff who are continuing to cover many other subjects besides the war. In deciding what to put on the front page, however, we need to work hard to make certain that enough of the other news in represented there.
Fairbanks, Alaska: Can your reporters make more of an effort to "show" what is happening to Israeli citizens and the effect on them of Palestinian suicide bomber attacks or is your newspaper and it's reporters sympathetic only to the Palestinians?
Leonard Downie: If you read washingtonpost.com thoroughly, you will see that we have done exactly the kind of reporting you suggest.
Seattle, Wash.: Why does the Post not do more to report on the war than simply repeat the handouts and briefings at the State Department? And, why doesn't the Post do more investigative reports on our training, funding, and support of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda?
Leonard Downie: Again, if read washingtonpost.com thoroughly, you will see that the vast majority of our reporting on the war and terrorism is independent of the government briefings. Most of our reporting comes from our correspondents working independently in Afghanistan and here in Washington. Many weeks ago, we published stories detailing past American (and Saudi) support of the Taliban in the war against the then Soviet Union.
washingtonpost.com: America At War Special Report
Washington, D.C.: What are your impressions (or the impressions of Post reporters) of Secretary Rumsfeld as an interview subject or as a "briefer."
I get the sense that while he is often coy (and even, to a certain degree, disingenuous) with the media, he at least makes no secret that he is indeed acting that way.
Do reporters sense (and, if so, do they respect the fact) that he seems to admit that this is going on? Or is it frustrating to them?
Leonard Downie: Rumsfeld clearly enjoys sparring with reporters and controlling the information the Pentagon gives them. At the same time, he has not yet really mislead reporters and often has given suprisingly frank clues about things. What is needed is more access to the military itself, both here and in the war's theater.
Colorado Springs, Colo.: Do you have any comments about the new Goldberg book called "Bias" about the arrogance of the media? I think it will become a very popular read. Will it make any difference to those at the top such as yourself?
Leonard Downie: As I understand it, the Goldberg book is about just one media organization, CBS. For my views about the media, its role and importance, please watch for an upcoming book, "The News About the News: American Journalism in Peril," written by myself and a colleague, Bob Kaiser, which will be published by Knopf in February. Thanks for the chance to get that plug in.
Washington, D.C.: What kind of access are you talking about to the military here? More than briefings? Actual conversations with the commanders running things from here, even off the record?
What about in the field? Is it simply that the military is kept far away from the press at all times?
Leonard Downie: I'm talking about background briefings with military commanders here and in the field that would provide more details about the war -- and access to pilots, special ops forces, etc. after their missions in the field -- both of which has been routine in past wars.
Columbia University (originally from Arlington, Va.): Shortly after Sept. 11, a number of columnists were fired/disciplined for doubting President Bush and/or criticizing U.S. foreign policy. What's your opinion? Would you ever fire a columnist for not jumping on the never-question-Bush bandwagon? In this respect, what makes The Post different from other newspapers?
Leonard Downie: Fred Hiatt, the editor of the editorial page, is in charge of the op-ed columnists who most frequently write about the war and administration policy. As for the local, sports and other columnists who work for me, I generally believe in their right to express their own opinions, which is why they are columnists.
Buffalo, N.Y.: It seems that readers of this chat have a much deeper interest in the issues than the Post is able to report. In this day, with easy access to information being just a phone call or search engine query away, do you think more individuals have become their own reporters?
I sense that, from reading the above posts, the Post is lagging behind the readers to some degree.
How does this affect reporting?
Leonard Downie: Again, if you read washingtonpost.com thoroughly, you will see that coverage is much broader and deeper than anything that has come up in this discussion or than could be achieved by non-journalists.
St. Louis, Mo.: In view of Sept. 11 do you think the Gary Condit matter was overreported? And why are some congressmen's personal lives fair game but others not? When does adultery and drunkenness become news?
Leonard Downie: Congressmen's private lives are important when they affect their public duties or become scrutinized by law enforcement.
Philadelphia, Pa.: Do journalists accompany the military as in days of old?
Leonard Downie: Not yet they aren't. And we keep pressing to do so.
Washington, D.C.: Is there anything that would cause you to question the reporting of the Post? Almost every response to someone's request that the the Post go into more detail, or explain things further, has been met with a confident "we're doing fine."
At what point would you say, "Hey, we're not doing fine and we need to change?"
Just curious.
Leonard Downie: Actually, we go through exactly that drill several times a week in meeting sin which we ask ourselves, what are not reporting that we should be reporting and we re-oriented our resources to try to fill holes. In asking readers to see all that we have already reported, I do not mean to suggest that is not much, much more for us to do, because there is. Way too much about this war and the nation's efforts to combat terrorism remain unknown to the American people and we will continue to try to change that.
Washington, D.C.: In your view, is the growing domination of media outlets by a few large multinational corporations, abetted by the repeal in recent years of laws designed to prevent this type of dominance, a significant threat to the American public? Might we benefit from a British-style system where there are major public news outlets as well as private ones?
Leonard Downie: That forthcoming book I plugged a little while ago will discuss this at length. The concentration of media ownership is a serious problem. But government ownership of any media is not an answer, especially in our constitutional separation of media and the government.
Leonard Downie: Well, that's all for now folks. Thanks for your really smart questions and forbearance with my answers.
washingtonpost.com:
That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the
discussion.
© Copyright 2001 The Washington Post Company | 
