Pouring Salt into the Wound
March 3, 2003 1:11 PM Subscribe
Pearl Harbor II? Al Qaeda terrorists recently considered hijacking jetliners from Honolulu International Airport and crashing them into military targets — including several warships, and nuclear submarines — in Pearl Harbor, the Washington Times reports. The story notes these reports were part of the reason why the nation's threat level was bumped up to orange... although that same day, Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle decided to hold the islands at blue (two steps lower) because of local intelligence as well as concerns over costs. More...
The Dec. 7 attack that catapulted the U.S. into World War II is the historical event most often compared to the Sept. 11 attacks. Although there’s no doubt Hawaii is a strategic target by any measure – living here, I’m acutely aware of the incredible number of military facilities (as well as our apparent “within range” status in North Korea’s developing missile program) – the nation’s still aching wound at Pearl Harbor had to have been a factor in its targeting as well.
Of more concern to me is the conflicting information going out – the feds saying “be prepared” and the locals saying, “there’s nothing to be worried about.”
I truly hope that our fine governor didn’t have the information cited in the Washington Times article when she and her advisors to keep us at blue. It wouldn’t surprise me, given the reluctance among intelligence agencies to share (and the inability to efficiently disseminate information that is shared).
But her comments, and comments from cities nationwide, give me pause. The additional costs of ‘stepping up’ the alert level are frequently mentioned, but so are fears of ‘alert fatigue’ and, on the other end, causing needless anxiety and panic. How much intelligence isn’t passed on to the public, supposedly for our own good? How do you balance expense versus risk? How do you coordinate national and local 'homeland security' systems... and how would you handle dissent?
posted by pzarquon at 1:19 PM on March 3, 2003
Of more concern to me is the conflicting information going out – the feds saying “be prepared” and the locals saying, “there’s nothing to be worried about.”
I truly hope that our fine governor didn’t have the information cited in the Washington Times article when she and her advisors to keep us at blue. It wouldn’t surprise me, given the reluctance among intelligence agencies to share (and the inability to efficiently disseminate information that is shared).
But her comments, and comments from cities nationwide, give me pause. The additional costs of ‘stepping up’ the alert level are frequently mentioned, but so are fears of ‘alert fatigue’ and, on the other end, causing needless anxiety and panic. How much intelligence isn’t passed on to the public, supposedly for our own good? How do you balance expense versus risk? How do you coordinate national and local 'homeland security' systems... and how would you handle dissent?
posted by pzarquon at 1:19 PM on March 3, 2003
They might have considered it, but I'd bet the passengers would have other ideas...
Exactly. Hijacking a plane is not going to be a viable option anymore now that everyone knows that the stakes have changed.
posted by witchstone at 1:26 PM on March 3, 2003
Exactly. Hijacking a plane is not going to be a viable option anymore now that everyone knows that the stakes have changed.
posted by witchstone at 1:26 PM on March 3, 2003
Can anyone cite a source besides the Washington Times?
posted by thebigpoop at 1:38 PM on March 3, 2003
posted by thebigpoop at 1:38 PM on March 3, 2003
Hell, can the Washington Times even cite one source? Besides anonymous "officials," I mean.
posted by Mo Nickels at 1:51 PM on March 3, 2003
posted by Mo Nickels at 1:51 PM on March 3, 2003
FWIW, hijacking doesn't require a plane full of passengers. And in Honolulu, with planes arriving and departing at considerably later hours than most U.S. airports, more than a few are nearly empty.
Also, not mentioned in the Washington Times piece (witchstone: I'm not too familiar with the paper... does it suck?) but very apparent to folks who live in Hawaii are interisland flights. These are DC-10s, 717s and 767s that often take off several times an hour.
They're as much commuter flights as tourist flights, and can also be somewhat empty (although less so since our two competing airlines got an FAA exemption to cooperate), and could make a pretty big dent in something.
When pilots are armed, of course...
posted by pzarquon at 1:54 PM on March 3, 2003
Also, not mentioned in the Washington Times piece (witchstone: I'm not too familiar with the paper... does it suck?) but very apparent to folks who live in Hawaii are interisland flights. These are DC-10s, 717s and 767s that often take off several times an hour.
They're as much commuter flights as tourist flights, and can also be somewhat empty (although less so since our two competing airlines got an FAA exemption to cooperate), and could make a pretty big dent in something.
When pilots are armed, of course...
posted by pzarquon at 1:54 PM on March 3, 2003
It would appear to me that it is in the best interests of Al Qaeda to continue to "leak" reports of bombing targets and upcoming terror plans. With frequent cries of "Wolf", even the best coordinated "homeland security" measures will fail given time, and we don't have the best coordinated by any stretch.
How do you coordinate national and local 'homeland security' systems...
(snarky sarcastic comment deleted) As this article shows (if its true in premiss), a top down approach isn't going to work without compulsory compliance at the local level, and funding that also comes from the top down. Any effort to establish that will fail unless full and complete disclosure of any viable threat is given to local officials and the public. Vague cries of "watch yer ass, now, we think they're up to somethin'' isn't going to sway a local politician on a tight budget, nor will it sway the public who votes for them.
and how would you handle dissent?
This question unnerves me. What is meant by "dissent"? Thankfully I live in an area where a terrorist attack would scare more muledeer than humans, so I tend not to get my panties in a bunch when Ridge screams "puce alert with carnelian overtones". Any suggestion that the public, or local public officials, be forced to action based on vague alerts is clearly coming too close to what the paranoid "Freemen" are already shouting about; that the government is instituting martial laws to take away civil liberties.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:05 PM on March 3, 2003
How do you coordinate national and local 'homeland security' systems...
(snarky sarcastic comment deleted) As this article shows (if its true in premiss), a top down approach isn't going to work without compulsory compliance at the local level, and funding that also comes from the top down. Any effort to establish that will fail unless full and complete disclosure of any viable threat is given to local officials and the public. Vague cries of "watch yer ass, now, we think they're up to somethin'' isn't going to sway a local politician on a tight budget, nor will it sway the public who votes for them.
and how would you handle dissent?
This question unnerves me. What is meant by "dissent"? Thankfully I live in an area where a terrorist attack would scare more muledeer than humans, so I tend not to get my panties in a bunch when Ridge screams "puce alert with carnelian overtones". Any suggestion that the public, or local public officials, be forced to action based on vague alerts is clearly coming too close to what the paranoid "Freemen" are already shouting about; that the government is instituting martial laws to take away civil liberties.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:05 PM on March 3, 2003
The Washington Times is a sham. Why would ever link to it? Is this a joke?
posted by The Jesse Helms at 2:11 PM on March 3, 2003
posted by The Jesse Helms at 2:11 PM on March 3, 2003
Mr. Helms, would you concider your comment at all helpful, inciteful or having value in any way? Just curious...
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:19 PM on March 3, 2003
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:19 PM on March 3, 2003
Screw hijacking passenger aircraft.
Most air cargo is carried in aircraft that are cargo variants of the standard passenger versions. They fly out of the cargo terminals at the larger airports. Flight crew of two or three, no passengers. Same kaboom.
I'm surprised that it hasn't happened already.
posted by Captain Ligntning at 2:27 PM on March 3, 2003
Most air cargo is carried in aircraft that are cargo variants of the standard passenger versions. They fly out of the cargo terminals at the larger airports. Flight crew of two or three, no passengers. Same kaboom.
I'm surprised that it hasn't happened already.
posted by Captain Ligntning at 2:27 PM on March 3, 2003
Jesse Helms == SPAM. Same as in real life.
posted by Captain Ligntning at 2:31 PM on March 3, 2003
posted by Captain Ligntning at 2:31 PM on March 3, 2003
How do you balance expense versus risk?
Today's Slate has an idea.
posted by daveadams at 2:40 PM on March 3, 2003
Today's Slate has an idea.
posted by daveadams at 2:40 PM on March 3, 2003
Terribly specious underpinnings, but a great article, nonetheless, daveadams.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:50 PM on March 3, 2003
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:50 PM on March 3, 2003
This question unnerves me. What is meant by "dissent"?
Don't worry, Wulfgar!, I'm pretty left, actually. By "dissent," I meant more "disagreement between local and federal intelligence agencies in evaluating threat levels."
Here, the feds said last month to go to Orange, but our state administration said it's sticking to Blue... which, I think, is pretty damn low -- if you assign any value to the color-coded system at all (which I don't, as I call it the "Terrorist Traffic Light").
I'm not as confident a uniform, top-down system is best. In many cases, local systems are more agile and in touch with regional developments.
I agree that Al Qaeda could get about as much mileage out of leaking false plans than actually working on a real plan ("mass disruption" and all that), though. Though IMHO, with or without reports of plans, locations like Pearl Harbor would be pretty obvious locations for "heightened security" (as it is, BTW -- military bases and other federal facilities here did go to Orange with the rest of the nation, as they should have).
Flight crew of two or three, no passengers.
A good point that I'd forgotten, Captain. FedEx, UPS, Polar Air Cargo, and several other companies run regularly out of HNL. And because for some, Hawaii is a hub for Asia shipping, they use fully-fueled long-haul heavy aircraft...
Why would ever link to it?
Not sure. Ask these guys. (Thanks, brownpau, for the context.)
posted by pzarquon at 3:16 PM on March 3, 2003
Don't worry, Wulfgar!, I'm pretty left, actually. By "dissent," I meant more "disagreement between local and federal intelligence agencies in evaluating threat levels."
Here, the feds said last month to go to Orange, but our state administration said it's sticking to Blue... which, I think, is pretty damn low -- if you assign any value to the color-coded system at all (which I don't, as I call it the "Terrorist Traffic Light").
I'm not as confident a uniform, top-down system is best. In many cases, local systems are more agile and in touch with regional developments.
I agree that Al Qaeda could get about as much mileage out of leaking false plans than actually working on a real plan ("mass disruption" and all that), though. Though IMHO, with or without reports of plans, locations like Pearl Harbor would be pretty obvious locations for "heightened security" (as it is, BTW -- military bases and other federal facilities here did go to Orange with the rest of the nation, as they should have).
Flight crew of two or three, no passengers.
A good point that I'd forgotten, Captain. FedEx, UPS, Polar Air Cargo, and several other companies run regularly out of HNL. And because for some, Hawaii is a hub for Asia shipping, they use fully-fueled long-haul heavy aircraft...
Why would ever link to it?
Not sure. Ask these guys. (Thanks, brownpau, for the context.)
posted by pzarquon at 3:16 PM on March 3, 2003
I'm not as confident a uniform, top-down system is best. In many cases, local systems are more agile and in touch with regional developments.
Perhaps I wasn't tongue-in-cheek enough with my response. I agree, a top-down approach is silly, misguided, and futile. Empowering local authority with funding and information is the only way to go if we want results beyond solidifying executive power with the growing federal bureaucracy (from the smaller government party of Republicans, no less). Public safety is best left to that public which is at risk, not to those who have 24/7 human shields. Its been my experience that if you give individuals or smaller groups the means and information to protect themselves, they do a pretty good job of it. Telling the nation to watch its back does nothing to aid those who really should.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:32 PM on March 3, 2003
Perhaps I wasn't tongue-in-cheek enough with my response. I agree, a top-down approach is silly, misguided, and futile. Empowering local authority with funding and information is the only way to go if we want results beyond solidifying executive power with the growing federal bureaucracy (from the smaller government party of Republicans, no less). Public safety is best left to that public which is at risk, not to those who have 24/7 human shields. Its been my experience that if you give individuals or smaller groups the means and information to protect themselves, they do a pretty good job of it. Telling the nation to watch its back does nothing to aid those who really should.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:32 PM on March 3, 2003
"The Dec. 7 attack that catapulted the U.S. into World War II is the historical event most often compared to the Sept. 11 attacks."
Only in the US is this true. Outside of the US, 9.11 is most often compared to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
posted by raaka at 4:23 PM on March 3, 2003
Only in the US is this true. Outside of the US, 9.11 is most often compared to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
posted by raaka at 4:23 PM on March 3, 2003
Please do not use the washington times as a source, this is not the freerepublic. thank you
posted by jbou at 4:25 PM on March 3, 2003
posted by jbou at 4:25 PM on March 3, 2003
The Hawaii response.
Like many of the folks commenting here, the conclusion is, "not credible."
posted by pzarquon at 4:31 PM on March 3, 2003
Like many of the folks commenting here, the conclusion is, "not credible."
posted by pzarquon at 4:31 PM on March 3, 2003
Please do not use the washington times as a source, this is not the freerepublic. thank you
No, God, Thank You!
(um, if valid points are raised, why the hell not?)
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:32 PM on March 3, 2003
No, God, Thank You!
(um, if valid points are raised, why the hell not?)
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:32 PM on March 3, 2003
I must admit, as psychotically right-wing as it is and mostly fallible - The Washington Times occasionally breaks a real story.
posted by owillis at 4:40 PM on March 3, 2003
posted by owillis at 4:40 PM on March 3, 2003
I always find the comparison interesting, considering that the US incited the Pearl Harbor attack, wanted it to happen, knew it was going to happen, etc.
posted by dorian at 4:41 PM on March 3, 2003
posted by dorian at 4:41 PM on March 3, 2003
Nice post. By my count, there were four different links form four different sources in the FPP.
the US incited the Pearl Harbor attack, wanted it to happen, knew it was going to happen, etc.
Are you French?
posted by hama7 at 4:56 PM on March 3, 2003
the US incited the Pearl Harbor attack, wanted it to happen, knew it was going to happen, etc.
Are you French?
posted by hama7 at 4:56 PM on March 3, 2003
Lingle said raising the state terrorist warning level would unnecessarily scare people. She also said she is concerned people would begin to ignore the alerts if they fluctuate often.
sounds like good advice for the DHS
posted by copmuter at 5:19 PM on March 3, 2003
sounds like good advice for the DHS
posted by copmuter at 5:19 PM on March 3, 2003
Hama7: Nice post. By my count, there were four different links form four different sources in the FPP.
Let's review the post: Nothing in the hawaii.gov link about a Pearl Harbor attack. Nothing in the Star Bulletin link about a Pearl Harbor attack. Nothing in the whitehouse.gov link about a Pearl Harbor attack. Ah! The Washington Times has something. One out of four right, a failing grade.
But let's review the Washington Times article, anyway, shall we:
"Intelligence reports." From whom? To whom? "Senior U.S. officials." Ah. So much clearer now. How senior? Officials of what or where? I mean, I anyone could have compiled those reports and sent them: that doesn't give them any credibility. Miss Weingarten's Fifth Grade Civics Class Intelligence Reports wouldn't carry much weight, no matter who they're sent to.
Let's see: More "officials." "Officials" again. Ah ha! A "defense official." Military? Civil? Foreign? Contractor? Hmm, dunno. It doesn't say. How about a name? Nope. Initials? Not those, either.
Okay. "A second official." That's source number two! Maybe the third, if we count the intelligence reports as a source, except there's no indication that the reporter has seen those reports.
"U.S. officials" again. The same two? Or different? Dunno. The ambiguity is good: it makes it seem like more people. Of course, everybody's off the record, so they could say anything they want.
"A spokesman for the aiport could not be reached for comment." Not a source.
"Intelligence reports" again. The same or different? Dunno. From whom or where? Dunno. A kind of date, though: "last month." Slightly more helpful, like saying, "in the newspaper last month."
"A U.S. intelligence official." What rank? Which agency? A name? Please? With sugar on top?
"U.S. officials." These is not about the Hawaii threat, but about the Pakistan arrest, so it doesn't count. It's a classic red herring: re-report something mildly related which has been verified to lend credence to the unverified. "One official" doesn't count, either, for the same reason. Same for "U.S. intelligence agencies."
So, in summary: nothing. A bit fat fuck-all nothing. If this were the UK, Al Qaeda could sue for libel.
posted by Mo Nickels at 6:31 PM on March 3, 2003
Let's review the post: Nothing in the hawaii.gov link about a Pearl Harbor attack. Nothing in the Star Bulletin link about a Pearl Harbor attack. Nothing in the whitehouse.gov link about a Pearl Harbor attack. Ah! The Washington Times has something. One out of four right, a failing grade.
But let's review the Washington Times article, anyway, shall we:
"Intelligence reports." From whom? To whom? "Senior U.S. officials." Ah. So much clearer now. How senior? Officials of what or where? I mean, I anyone could have compiled those reports and sent them: that doesn't give them any credibility. Miss Weingarten's Fifth Grade Civics Class Intelligence Reports wouldn't carry much weight, no matter who they're sent to.
Let's see: More "officials." "Officials" again. Ah ha! A "defense official." Military? Civil? Foreign? Contractor? Hmm, dunno. It doesn't say. How about a name? Nope. Initials? Not those, either.
Okay. "A second official." That's source number two! Maybe the third, if we count the intelligence reports as a source, except there's no indication that the reporter has seen those reports.
"U.S. officials" again. The same two? Or different? Dunno. The ambiguity is good: it makes it seem like more people. Of course, everybody's off the record, so they could say anything they want.
"A spokesman for the aiport could not be reached for comment." Not a source.
"Intelligence reports" again. The same or different? Dunno. From whom or where? Dunno. A kind of date, though: "last month." Slightly more helpful, like saying, "in the newspaper last month."
"A U.S. intelligence official." What rank? Which agency? A name? Please? With sugar on top?
"U.S. officials." These is not about the Hawaii threat, but about the Pakistan arrest, so it doesn't count. It's a classic red herring: re-report something mildly related which has been verified to lend credence to the unverified. "One official" doesn't count, either, for the same reason. Same for "U.S. intelligence agencies."
So, in summary: nothing. A bit fat fuck-all nothing. If this were the UK, Al Qaeda could sue for libel.
posted by Mo Nickels at 6:31 PM on March 3, 2003
A bit fat fuck-all nothing
A bit strongly put, but you have made the case for a well-known disdain for posting *news* among a seemingly dwindling few on MetaFilter.
Anyway, I don't mind the Reverend Moon times, like it very much in fact. It's no secret that a lot more creepily biased news sources are posted regularly.
My point in defending the FPP was that a series of off-topic complaints about the WT were blurring my usually keen vision, but my attempt appears to have failed.
So the WT just invented the story out of whole cloth? Why? Just to scare more people? It seems like a stretch, but could be. Does it seem logical that fuel-laden cargo planes taking off from the middle of the Pacific might be targets? Uh, yes. Will we ever know for sure?
posted by hama7 at 6:57 PM on March 3, 2003
A bit strongly put, but you have made the case for a well-known disdain for posting *news* among a seemingly dwindling few on MetaFilter.
Anyway, I don't mind the Reverend Moon times, like it very much in fact. It's no secret that a lot more creepily biased news sources are posted regularly.
My point in defending the FPP was that a series of off-topic complaints about the WT were blurring my usually keen vision, but my attempt appears to have failed.
So the WT just invented the story out of whole cloth? Why? Just to scare more people? It seems like a stretch, but could be. Does it seem logical that fuel-laden cargo planes taking off from the middle of the Pacific might be targets? Uh, yes. Will we ever know for sure?
posted by hama7 at 6:57 PM on March 3, 2003
Yeah, cause the Washington Post or NY Times never reports stories based on "senior officials" or "sources close to the president". I think the Moonie paper is a piece of crap, but you guys need to break out of the lefty groupthink every once in a while.
posted by owillis at 7:05 PM on March 3, 2003
posted by owillis at 7:05 PM on March 3, 2003
I suspect that this Washington Times story is equivalent to a specious "terror alert" from Tom Ridge on these grounds:
Why would US Gov. official divulge their knowledge of secret Al Qaeda attack plans? Going further, Why would they broadcast possible vulnerabilities at US naval installations?
The story itself screams out it's own absurdity; if the US knows of it's existence, how would this Al Qaeda plan now remain a threat? And how would releasing the story to media outlets serve any purpose other than that of reminding the US public of it's constant danger of an Al Qaeda attack?
"The attacks would be carried out by hijacked airliners from nearby Honolulu International Airport that would be flown into submarines or ships docked at Pearl Harbor in suicide missions, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity."
posted by troutfishing at 7:06 PM on March 3, 2003
Why would US Gov. official divulge their knowledge of secret Al Qaeda attack plans? Going further, Why would they broadcast possible vulnerabilities at US naval installations?
The story itself screams out it's own absurdity; if the US knows of it's existence, how would this Al Qaeda plan now remain a threat? And how would releasing the story to media outlets serve any purpose other than that of reminding the US public of it's constant danger of an Al Qaeda attack?
"The attacks would be carried out by hijacked airliners from nearby Honolulu International Airport that would be flown into submarines or ships docked at Pearl Harbor in suicide missions, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity."
posted by troutfishing at 7:06 PM on March 3, 2003
I know very well the Newsfilter complaints, and in retrospect, might've thought twice about the post.
It struck me as interesting, though, specifically because it may have illustrated a problem with the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. At the same time my governor said it wasn't worried about anything, the allegation is that reports were circulating about attacks specifically on her/our state... and that such reports were part of why the national level was raised.
I agree the sources are iffy and vague. But the Washington Post is hardly the only media outlet guilty of this. Especially in reporting supposed threats to specific targets -- i.e. the Golden Gate Bridge, the New York subway system (again), etc. -- you'd be hard pressed to find someone willing to talk on the record... at least until everyone else is talking about it.
In the Golden Gate example, it was the California governor that broke the news. But the alleged source of the information, the FBI, not surprisingly had no comment.
posted by pzarquon at 7:16 PM on March 3, 2003
It struck me as interesting, though, specifically because it may have illustrated a problem with the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. At the same time my governor said it wasn't worried about anything, the allegation is that reports were circulating about attacks specifically on her/our state... and that such reports were part of why the national level was raised.
I agree the sources are iffy and vague. But the Washington Post is hardly the only media outlet guilty of this. Especially in reporting supposed threats to specific targets -- i.e. the Golden Gate Bridge, the New York subway system (again), etc. -- you'd be hard pressed to find someone willing to talk on the record... at least until everyone else is talking about it.
In the Golden Gate example, it was the California governor that broke the news. But the alleged source of the information, the FBI, not surprisingly had no comment.
posted by pzarquon at 7:16 PM on March 3, 2003
Exactly. Hijacking a plane is not going to be a viable option anymore now that everyone knows that the stakes have changed.
Actually, it would seem a lot more plausible to hijack a plain somewhere in the Pacific and crash it in Hawaii. Of course it wouldn't have as much fuel a board as if it took off locally, but no terrorism is perfect....
posted by ParisParamus at 7:26 PM on March 3, 2003
Actually, it would seem a lot more plausible to hijack a plain somewhere in the Pacific and crash it in Hawaii. Of course it wouldn't have as much fuel a board as if it took off locally, but no terrorism is perfect....
posted by ParisParamus at 7:26 PM on March 3, 2003
Um. Plane.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:40 PM on March 3, 2003
posted by ParisParamus at 7:40 PM on March 3, 2003
Additional reporting from Honolulu's superior daily newspaper (IMHO) finds that the Pearl Harbor report does exist and was circulated... including to Hawaii's senior U.S. Senator, Daniel Inouye. So at least the Washington Times didn't hallucinate the whole thing.
True, probably 90 percent of what comes down intelligence pipes is crap. But I'm actually bothered by how unified local officials are in discrediting the report... and specifically, Gov. Lingle's expressed concern that reporting on them would hurt our number-one industry: tourism. (She was just on national TV on Friday, proclaiming the island's safety.)
Since even before Bali, after all, we've known soft targets (Google cache) are on Al Qaeda's radar. So not only is Hawaii home to major military installations, but it's also an open, visible, popular destination for people to gather in large numbers...
Which goes back to my original, earnest question: how are risks versus economic and social impact being weighed? Should information be held back supposedly for the public good?
posted by pzarquon at 8:03 PM on March 3, 2003
True, probably 90 percent of what comes down intelligence pipes is crap. But I'm actually bothered by how unified local officials are in discrediting the report... and specifically, Gov. Lingle's expressed concern that reporting on them would hurt our number-one industry: tourism. (She was just on national TV on Friday, proclaiming the island's safety.)
Since even before Bali, after all, we've known soft targets (Google cache) are on Al Qaeda's radar. So not only is Hawaii home to major military installations, but it's also an open, visible, popular destination for people to gather in large numbers...
Which goes back to my original, earnest question: how are risks versus economic and social impact being weighed? Should information be held back supposedly for the public good?
posted by pzarquon at 8:03 PM on March 3, 2003
Well, pzarquon, it seems we're getting information which is useless to us ("You're all probably going to die! We don't know exactly when or how, but you will die! Probably!") and not getting information which might be useful ("The following people are being detained by US officials at military bases..." "These are the oil industry officials we met with and here is a summary of our discussion..." "These are the quid pro quo favors we are offering to other nations in order get their support in the UN..." "Instead of just trusting us, here is all of the information we have on possible Iraqi arms violations..." "Here are our in-depth and comprehensive findings on the September 11 attacks..." "The reasons we were planning to invade Iraq even before September 11 are...").
owillis: Yeah, cause the Washington Post or NY Times never reports stories based on "senior officials" or "sources close to the president".
I'm with ya buddy. It's like a disease: bad journalism habits are carried by invisible means and infect the entire population. You have to burn houses, boil clothing and quarantine the infected to get rid of these lazy habits. Can't quote on the record? Then don't write the story. People seem to forget that Woodward and Bernstein were almost immediately vindicated by official responses. That's the only way you can get away with the anonymous officials crap, when you are certain it will draw other, confirming, on-the-record sources out for the follow-up story. If you can't be certain, then don't write the story.
posted by Mo Nickels at 9:04 PM on March 3, 2003
owillis: Yeah, cause the Washington Post or NY Times never reports stories based on "senior officials" or "sources close to the president".
I'm with ya buddy. It's like a disease: bad journalism habits are carried by invisible means and infect the entire population. You have to burn houses, boil clothing and quarantine the infected to get rid of these lazy habits. Can't quote on the record? Then don't write the story. People seem to forget that Woodward and Bernstein were almost immediately vindicated by official responses. That's the only way you can get away with the anonymous officials crap, when you are certain it will draw other, confirming, on-the-record sources out for the follow-up story. If you can't be certain, then don't write the story.
posted by Mo Nickels at 9:04 PM on March 3, 2003
This article linked above was a nice catch, pzarquon. It seems hard to imagine that someone would just invent this story for fun.
Mo Nickels, didn't Woodward and Berenstein have an anonymous 'deep throat' informant too? Not that I disagree about journalistic standards and on-the-record statements, but sometimes credible sources want to retain anonymity, much like internet personalities do.
But you're right about bad journalism, point taken. What about Roswell and Kennedy?
Should information be held back supposedly for the public good?
I guess it depends on the information. In the case of Hawaii, a foiled or cancelled plot is more a relief than a threat to tourism. What about possible information discovered about a secret meeting of criminals, if leaked or disclosed to the press, might lead to their escape?
Good question.
posted by hama7 at 11:46 PM on March 3, 2003
Mo Nickels, didn't Woodward and Berenstein have an anonymous 'deep throat' informant too? Not that I disagree about journalistic standards and on-the-record statements, but sometimes credible sources want to retain anonymity, much like internet personalities do.
But you're right about bad journalism, point taken. What about Roswell and Kennedy?
Should information be held back supposedly for the public good?
I guess it depends on the information. In the case of Hawaii, a foiled or cancelled plot is more a relief than a threat to tourism. What about possible information discovered about a secret meeting of criminals, if leaked or disclosed to the press, might lead to their escape?
Good question.
posted by hama7 at 11:46 PM on March 3, 2003
"...didn't Woodward and Berenstein have an anonymous 'deep throat' informant too?"
yeah, they called him "Deep Throat".
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:57 PM on March 3, 2003
yeah, they called him "Deep Throat".
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:57 PM on March 3, 2003
That's my point Hama7: Woodstein used the anonymous source to force other sources on the record. Anonymous sources aren't the end of the story, they're the beginning of it.
posted by Mo Nickels at 7:02 AM on March 4, 2003
posted by Mo Nickels at 7:02 AM on March 4, 2003
« Older A cry for help from Kurdistan | Official Hired to Improve U.S. Image Resigns Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
JB
posted by JB71 at 1:17 PM on March 3, 2003