The Post "Fiskes" itself. About time somebody pulled the
reins on Milbank and Pincus - From: LindyBill
Ombudsman
'A Building in Lower Manhattan'
By Michael Getler
Sunday, April 18, 2004; Page B06
<font size=4>
The White House release April 10 of the top-secret "President's Daily Brief" of Aug. 6, 2001 -- carrying the headline, "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US" -- made front-page headlines in all the Sunday papers.
<font size=3>
The CIA brief contained 17 sentences of intelligence material that can be seen as largely "historical" and non-specific warnings, as White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice claimed, or as something more timely and dangerous that should have triggered actions beyond those taken by the Bush administration.
The Post headline last Sunday said: "Declassified Memo Said Al Qaeda Was in U.S." That was one of the important disclosures in the brief.
<font size=4>
The lead of the story by reporters Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus said: "President Bush was warned a month before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that the FBI had information that terrorists might be preparing for a hijacking in the United States and might be targeting a building in Lower Manhattan." The story said the information was in the written daily briefing presented to Bush on Aug. 6, 2001.
Well, that is close to, but not exactly, what the document said. After a reference in the PDB to some earlier and uncorroborated reports about al Qaeda hijacking plans, the pertinent paragraph says: "Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."
The memo refers to "federal buildings" and not "a building," as the story's first sentence does. The memo does not use the word "targeting." It mentions "New York" but does not specify "Lower Manhattan."
There are federal buildings in Lower Manhattan, not far from where the twin towers of the World Trade Center, which were not federal buildings, once stood.
But the way the lead was written can easily produce an
image that suggests more of a specific warning about what
unfolded a month later than was actually in the text. The
words "targeting a building in Lower Manhattan" present a
mental picture closer to the World Trade Center than
does "federal buildings in New York," which could mean
many locations.
Many readers, after reading the actual PDB text that was reproduced on Page A6, angrily objected to this phrasing; one described the story as "an egregious misrepresentation of what was presented to the president." Why do this "other than to mislead the casual reader into thinking that the words in the story, 'a building in lower Manhattan,' [were] meant to be the World Trade Center?" This distinction, adds another, "goes to the heart of how specific this memo was, and how President Bush reacted to it."
The Post story did report, toward the end, that the PDB item about surveillance grew out of FBI interviews of tourists from Yemen who were taking pictures of the Foley Square courthouse in downtown New York. This, reporters explain, is why their reference was to one building. And because that building is near what turned out to be Ground Zero, it was important because it gave at least some reason to expect an attack in that area.
Nevertheless, readers who believe this introductory paragraph was, or could be seen as, misleading and conveying a political bias make a fair point, in my view. This was obviously a big story and the top of it could easily have stuck to the actual language and content of the briefing, which was pretty dynamic on its own.
Midway through that same story, another reader notes, The Post reports: "As one former administration official . . . said last week, 'the CIA did not believe Bush policymakers were taking the threat to the U.S. seriously.' " That may explain the headline put on the PDB. But by introducing an anonymous quote that way, it reads as though The Post is endorsing that anonymous source's opinion. Compare that language with following paragraphs when the story is describing the contents of a White House fact sheet accompanying the PDB. There, The Post says the White House "asserted" this and "asserted" that. "Asserted" is one of a group of loaded, sometime pejorative, words that are usually discouraged in news reporting except for appropriate situations. "Said" is much better.
Finally, contributing to what the complaining readers
viewed as political spin, was the other half of the top of
Sunday's front page, which featured an article by
reporters Milbank and Mike Allen headlined, "Bush Gave No
Sign of Worry in August 2001." This was a perfectly
legitimate story -- revisiting the activities and the
outward demeanor of the president around the time that
secret briefing was being delivered. But its placement,
and the choice of a small photo between the two stories of
the president in a golf cart near his Texas ranch in
August 2001, fueled the skepticism.
"Message conveyed," wrote one reader. "Fully aware of
Osama bin Laden's plans to hijack an airliner and crash it
into a building in lower Manhattan, Bush has fun on the
golf course."
These are tense times. News, in its purest form, is very
powerful. Maybe Post editors would edit the stories and
choose the picture in the same way if they had it to do
again. But it seems to me that these complaints, even if
some of them reflect political views, are valid criticisms
and worth learning from.
<font size=3>
Michael Getler can be reached by phone at 202-334-7582 or by e-mail at ombudsman@washpost.com. |
