:: groupthink ::

:: Thursday, January 09, 2003 ::

written:2:13am 01/09/03
published: newswatch 1/13/03


Crying Wolf

Though its been almost a year and a half since the attacks on the United States, hyper-patriotic tendencies still flutter through flag-waving newsrooms. On 12/29/02 the FBI released what can be characterized as one of the least certain pleas for assistance to the public at-large, as they sought the whereabouts of 5 men. Not only did the media cooperate by trumpeting factually unsound information on the government’s behalf but it also fell silent in sharing responsibility for the dissemination of an errant message.

I was standing with microphone in hand, staring into a camera on a brisk evening in Modesto, CA, awaiting my cue for a liveshot when in my IFB (earpiece) I heard the anchor read bits of a story that began with “5 arab men” and how the FBI were looking for them. I remember being puzzled that within 20 seconds the anchor stated that the nationalities of these men were unconfirmed, their whereabouts within the United States were uncertain, the names attached, could be false, and most important that they were NOT wanted in connection to any terrorist activities. I assumed that I must have missed out on other elements of the story and went back to focusing on my piece. When I watched the late newscast that night, this time including the story in its entirety, I was a bit shocked to find that there was no more information.

It was television performing its obligations to public safety right? We had the ability to post pictures of wanted men on the screen, awake a citizenry that otherwise might not be “vigilant” enough in these times of extra caution. We the media, were helping get the bad guys off the streets right?

The next day driving to the newsroom, I kept hearing the same story on the largest news radio station in the bay area, again, with little to no facts. Without pictures, I couldn’t fathom the utility of carrying a radio broadcast stating that there were “5 Arab men, … suspects… ” at large, countries of origin /birth dates/ names unconfirmed.

When I checked the AP wire copy which the previous night’s script had been based on, and compared it to the source (the FBI’s press release, along with a phone call to the FBI press office in D.C.) I was dismayed to find that the FBI had gone out of its way to specify that these individuals were not “suspects” nor were their nations of origin confirmed, while the media carrying the message had so casually inserted “Arab” and “suspect” into so much copy.

The wire took a costly liberty. The need for speed led the AP wire copy to read FBI searching for 5 illegal Arab immigrants By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press as it was carried by a local paper in Alaska. Keeping the lower 48 and all the ships at sea safe were national television networks who titled stories on their website and on-air FBI Searching for Five Suspected Arab Terrorists Monday, December 30, 2002.

They report, I decide? Isn’t that the slogan? Or was it "fair and balanced"? It wasn’t just about one television network or one small paper in Alaska. It was all of us, caught up in what I can only surmise was a patriotic zeal that explains the injection of adjectives to veil a lack of facts.

I began asking everyone I could find - the rationale for putting information out there when we don’t have a single fact confirmed except 5 pictures. I posed the scenario that if we had to run pictures of 5 of the 10 most wanted domestic suspects/ criminals the FBI has today, with just their pictures, without any information on their whereabouts, any relation of the individuals to crimes of any sort, no confidence in any associated names, dates of birth or places of origin, would we? Most responded with a resounding “No”. Why then, had everyone been so quick to broadcast this information?

When I wrote to the AP, FOX news, and the local news radio station asking how they could get such a different news story than what was in the press release on the FBI’s own page. Only the gentleman from the news radio station in San Francisco wrote back saying "K___ did not write this story from an FBI news release. It came from AP" I didn’t know whether to be comforted or alarmed.

Within two days news reports surfaced from Lahore, Pakistan that one of the 5 men was a jeweler there who had recognized his own picture while reading the FBI published pictures. Though he admitted to having used fabricated travel documents before, he claimed never to have been in the United States, nor was he obviously there now as the FBI, American media and public searched for him on U.S. soil.

11 days after the initial press release, the FBI withdrew the pictures from their site and admitted their decision to not publish 14 more pictures of men they were interested in seeking information on. The primary reason for their about face, (besides the egg on that face) that the credibility of the informant from whom the initial five pictures and names were based was less than they had initially suspected, and that they had in essence been lied to.

It wasn’t just the FBI that had fallen for a lie, the town clarions had blown loudly and proudly only days before, running pictures just below the fold, or in the first block of newscasts, and as always, the retractions/ corrections, pages in the past few days haven't been filled with responsibility for poor judgment or any admission of guilt. Instead consumers are treated to news stories on the layers of complexity in vetting information, at an agency as large and powerful as the FBI.

There aren’t diminishing marginal return studies that can pinpoint when the joke got old and when the townspeople stopped running to check on the boy who cried wolf, but we might as well start counting.

feedback appreciated.

:: h 2:13 AM [+] ::
...