« From the Desk of Pile | Main | The Armorer, Unleashed »
July 21, 2006
The More Things Change....
Toward the end of 1979, hundreds of American and Canadian journalists and news organizations got hold of a dynamite news story that would have made personal reputations and careers and sent circulation or broadcast ratings soaring. The facts were confirmed, unassailably. Any one of these reporters could have had the scoop of a lifetime.And yet not one reporter, newspaper, network or newsletter ran with the story until given permission to do so (all at once) by the governments involved. No court or governmental threat of retribution forced them to do so. It was all voluntary.
What was the nature of this miniature passion play, this decision that harrowed the very souls of our journalistique brethren?
In 1979, Islamic militants took over the US embassy in Tehran and seized 70 hostages. You may remember the incident - the half-vast editorial staff know we do. It had a profound effect on many in our generation. It is the reason the Unit has spent twenty-five years in the Marine Corps. But they didn't realize they'd missed a few US employees who were being sheltered by Canadian diplomats in Tehran.
A UN correspondent noticed a discrepancy and for some unknown reason decided, rather than alerting terrorism authorities (something you'd think he might have done if he'd been genuinely concerned about the safety of these folks), brought it to the attention of the American press officer, who undoubtedly fired the Batphone right up.
Not having gotten quite the reaction he hoped for, he then went to the Canadians. Unsurprisingly, they none too gently reminded him of what anyone with an ounce of intelligence should already have figured out: going public with the story would endanger not only the lives of the US employees, but the Canadian diplomats and their families who were bravely shielding the embassy employees.
At this point, our hero spews forth some self-congratulatory observations for our delectation:
The Canada-hostage story proves that reporters and news organizations can be trusted, en masse, to make the right call on security information they uncover. And neither Iranian officials nor Iranian news media got wind of it.
No thanks to you, pal. You'd better be glad that "hundreds of American and Canadian journalists and news organizations [who] got hold of a dynamite news story [Ed. note: however did this happen?] that would have made personal reputations and careers and sent circulation or broadcast ratings soaring" [because this is always a priority in a hostage situation] due to your carelessness didn't blab it. I'm not sure I could be that cavalier with the lives of other people. But wait... there's more!
Do I think that a thousand reporters could be trusted today to make the same call that we did in 1979? I wonder. Even back then, there was the fear that some rogue reporter would ignore the pleas and go with the story. In today's journalism world, I fear that some blogger or counterculture ideologue using journalism as a political tool rather than as a mechanism for dispensing straight information, would make the wrong call. I hope I'm wrong about that.
It is worth noting that bloggers are no better (and certainly no worse) than professional journalists. But we are dependent on the media for information. We certainly can't, like Dan Rather, make the stuff up out of whole cloth.
It is also worth noting who was in office back in 1979: Jimmy Carter. There was no "gotcha" journalism going on back then. That is certainly not the case today. Different times, different media climate. AtlanticBlog comments:
Does Berlin seriously expect anyone to believe this is a case of high journalistic integrity? Imagine if a reporter and his editor had published the story. How long before someone lost it and beat up the reporter, or ran the editor off the road? This is more a case of reporters not wanting to risk a lynch mob. I did not hurt that the White House was occupied by a reporter's dream inhabitant: an ineffectual, weak, vacillating Democrat. It is more than comical that Berlin offers this ringing endorsement of his profession.
One thing about the media: they never fail of their amusement value. Even if most of it is entirely unintended.
Posted by Cassandra at July 21, 2006 07:00 AM
Comments
How in the world can on make the claim that this was a "...dynamite news story that would have made personal reputations and careers and sent circulation or broadcast ratings soaring."
The essence of the story would be, "Hey stupid terrorists, you missed a few hostages and we know where they are. Just to prove We'll tell you where they are. Go ahead, go take a look-see."
How would intentionally increasing the number of hostages and/or getting some people killed have "made a reputation" as a provider of news? This would be equivalent to covering the Apollo 13 crisis with one exception. Imagine if a reporter openly and intentionally damaged the spacecraft and then proceeded to write about it. That would sure make a reputation. Imagine Jason Blair and Tokyo Rose, Ethel and Julius Rosenburg all wrapped into one.
Posted by: pepster at July 21, 2006 01:36 PM
I wonder if the "security" wasn't afforded by our frere journalistique because A. it would create a greater crisis, demanding an actual response from Jimmah, and/or ii. it would downplay the crisis they had sequestered and could sit on, bouncing between soundbytes of denouncements from the Iranian government, images of the terrorists guarding the embassy, and the occasional shot of crowds burning things at any given "Death to the West" protest-cum riot.
Posted by: tee bee at July 21, 2006 02:33 PM
That should read "...afforded by our frere journalistique because A. revealing the hidden Americans would create a greater crisis..."
Posted by: tee bee at July 21, 2006 02:35 PM
One is left to wonder if any journalist would have traded this information for a better story at the US embassy in Tehran.
Since the Iranian hostage takers looked at all Americans as agents of the CIA, including the journalists, any possibility of a "trade" was probably impossible.
Unlike the chummy relations between "neutral" (AKA self-serving) journalists that now populate the crisis points of the world.
Posted by: Neo at July 21, 2006 03:16 PM
Courage!
Posted by: Dan Rather at July 21, 2006 03:58 PM
Today, if the same thing happened, a New York Times reporter would write something up, Bill Keller would put it on the front page and Gail Collins would have an editorial the next day blaming Bush for leaving those people to be captured at the Canadian embassy.
And their defense when someone calls them up on it?
Everybody knew ... so it wasn't a secret, after all!!!
Posted by: Martin A. Knight at July 22, 2006 07:25 PM