Note to US media: Use your heads!

12/01/2001

Click here to enlarge image

Recently there was a meeting held by Silicon Valley companies about steps being taken to protect facilities that might be vulnerable to attack by terrorists. Solid State Technology chose not to cover this meeting, and not to report on either any vulnerabilities or the steps being taken to provide safeguards. In case someone hasn't noticed, there is a WAR going on between the US and a dangerous global terrorist network. Publishing details like this seems to us to be supplying potentially damaging information to the enemy.

This attitude does not seem to be prevalent in some sectors of the US media. Getting the story, and giving all the details that a reporter can collect, seems to be the order of the day. Getting high ratings or a front page scoop, no matter the consequences, seems to be the attitude of the managers running news operations at major media outlets.

Let's look at some examples.

• Shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, it was learned that some of the terrorists attending flight school in Florida (including a presumed leader of the attack force, Mohammed Atta) had made several visits to a crop spraying company. They had asked questions about the volume of chemicals the aircraft could carry, the range and speed of the spray planes, and other details. A network reporter told about this, explaining that the manager of the service had declined to give the terrorists any of this information. Then she breathlessly gushed forth just exactly the details they had been seeking — chemical capacity, range, etc. Any terrorist watching the broadcast now had the data.
• On an evening news "special," a shadowy airport worker told how the access codes to secure areas had been written on the walls next to the entry pads. After the attack, he explained, these walls had been painted over so the access numbers were gone. But a couple of days later, he went on, the numbers had been written again next to some of the pads, and they were still there. Is this the kind of "exposé" we need from our media?
• On one TV news program, there was discussion of who checks the aircraft before boarding to ensure that no unusual packages have been left on the planes overnight. An airport worker explained that this was left up to the cleaning crew, minimum wage workers who had little time to do a thorough search.
• A TV special on the vulnerability of nuclear power plants to attack by a large aircraft cited reports which found that, although the containment vessels were much stronger than the shell of a skyscraper, it was not clear whether they could withstand an impact by a large airliner, although some experts suggested that they probably could. Then the broadcast went on to discuss the potential vulnerability of nearby buildings used to contain spent fuel rods — which were not as sturdy as the plant itself. The special had the feel of a course for terrorists: Nuclear-Plant Attacks 101.
• On a radio talk show, one of the hosts explained that he knew an airport baggage handler, who had learned that none of the luggage was checked for explosives except for that going onto international flights. Then he added: "But they never check the luggage for flights to [we will not repeat the name of the overseas city]." Was this need-to-know information for the American public?
• The endless coverage of the anthrax scare and potential bio-terrorism provided intricate detail from experts on how the chemicals or biological agents need to be prepared, which delivery methods would or would not work, where we might be most vulnerable to attack, and so on. We all had a cram course on how to conduct bio-warfare. While the media was trying to whip the public into a fearful frenzy, many more of us were being killed or maimed in automobile accidents than from anthrax, but you didn't see much coverage of that, probably because it wouldn't do as well in the ratings.

An important function of the press, in our view, is to expose fumbling, mismanagement, and fraud within institutions that are supposed to be serving the public. This function is so important that freedom of the press is protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution. But courts have determined that this does not give anyone the right to stand up and falsely shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. While there are very few limits to those rights, there are some. Many fine reporters within the US media recognize that — in wartime — information that endangers troops or civilians should not be reported. Evidently there are some who either don't recognize this need, or, if they do, choose not to respect it.

Our choice is not to report on any potential vulnerabilities of our industry, and not to disclose what steps are being taken to protect against any attack. In fact, we know that there are plenty of bright, responsible people in our industry making sure that our workers and facilities remain safe. If there were any vulnerable areas, we are confident that steps already have been taken to protect them. The terrorists, and the TV producers and general publication editors, can look elsewhere if they are seeking potentially vulnerable targets.

Robert Haavind
Editor in Chief