|
Has every journalist in America become a
potential war correspondent, in peril of losing his life if
he gets too close to the action? Is it time for city hall
reporters to bone up on chemical and biological weapons and
"dirty" nuclear devices? Or for editors to hand
out gas masks to their staffs?
In the euphoria of our military victory in Iraq, the questions
seem a touch unreal. Our officials' worst fears weren't realized;
Saddam Hussein's regime was destroyed without a single hit
being made on any domestic U.S. target.
Still, some tough issues for our future
got posed at an early April conference on homeland security
and the press at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
The group -- police, prosecutors, press
and television editors -- heard there were 400 terrorist-type
attacks on U.S. targets in the decade before Sept. 11. And
while most of those occurred abroad, it seems only logical
that U.S. domestic targets will become popular, especially
among Islamic extremist groups seeking revenge for U.S. military
moves in the Middle East.
Already, according to Rachel Smolkin in
the American Journalism Review, some newsrooms seem to be
on full domestic war footing. The New York Times has obtained
biochemical awareness training for several dozen journalists.
CBS News has provided protective body suits, gas masks and
escape hoods. WNBC-TV in New York outfitted news vehicles
with nuclear, biological and chemical kits that contain protective
body suits, gas masks, gloves, booties, tape and water.
In the end, equipment isn't the truly critical
issue. Rather, it's how government and a free press interact
in dangerous situations where the very survival of thousands
of people is at stake -- situations in which the media, in
fact if not by choice, is not just an observer but necessarily
becomes government's bullhorn, its communications channel
to an imperiled citizenry.
Some on-target conclusions came out of the
Harvard meeting.
First, there's no way to educate citizens on the details of
every potential threat, from bacteria and toxins and viruses
to dangerous chemical agents. Instead, the media have to do
their advance homework and have some knowledge of the various
threats and best ways for people to react. And then be ready
to issue informed "how to" reaction and survival
stories.
Second, states and alliances of governments within individual
urban regions need to assemble all the relevant leaders --
from police and fire to public health officials -- long before
any crisis, working out agreements of how they can confer
over secure telephone lines and make common decisions in any
crisis. And then, how those decisions get conveyed to the
media.
Third, there's a big job for public information
officers attached to public agencies. They need to develop
understandings with the media long before any crisis. A credible
balance, for example, between warning the public of real dangers
and reassuring people when the relative risks aren't high.
What that dictates is maximum feasible disclosure
of information. Government officials sometimes fear the full
story will trigger panic. But research, the Harvard conferees
heard, shows panic is overrated. The Sept. 11 attacks, for
example, generated deep concerns but not panic. The goal for
the future seems to be maximum feasible disclosure of information.
Government and the media may argue over what's "maximum"
and "feasible," but a goal of honestly divulging
most information -- leveling with people about risks -- trumps
any alternative.
What's more, if the press feels its being
bamboozled, trust will break down, wildly speculative coverage
will emerge, and all parties may suffer.
Fourth, the press needs to throw a spotlight onto unsexy but
critical planning issues: Are anti-terrorism, disaster relief
funds being spent wisely? Are there huge holes in security
plans? Is rigorous training of first responders being conducted?
Are major local private employers being brought into the planning?
Are local governments collaborating for efficiency, sharing
equipment and services, or are they playing an old politics
of duplication and waste?
And are wise decisions being made? Is it
worth, for example, a potential of tens of thousands of deaths
in order to have blanket smallpox inoculations across the
American population?
Finally, in this writer's judgment, the
media needs to remember effective international intelligence
is a proven, superior way to deter attacks. And then ask the
most relevant foreign policy question: is the U.S. exercising
strong leadership to reduce Middle Eastern bitterness through
truly even-handed but unremitting efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict? It's naive to believe foreign conflicts of various
flavors won't continue to pour over our borders. Local governments
and the press won't have a choice: the urgent need for accurate
crisis-time information should propel them, writes Kennedy
School associate Peter Van Emerson, "to put aside their
skepticism and mistrust of one another."
|
