A Good Time To Discuss Dangers Of Censorship

By: Alicia Mundy If there ever were a good time to discuss the dangers of censorship, this is it. Media experts have speculated about a new impetus for voluntary or forced censorship on national security and military issues in the wake of the recent terrorist attacks. Last Tuesday, Page One of The Washington Times proclaimed, "Wartime presidential powers supersede liberties; Censorship, martial law allowed."

This is interesting, because the only people so far who have revealed information about our national security and military processes are FBI officials pointing fingers at the CIA and CIA officials pointing fingers back at the FBI -- and a plethora of mostly GOP politicians looking to drag former President Clinton in to accept responsibility for the whole mess.

And there was U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who, when asked how the United States knew about Osama bin Laden's involvement, replied: American eavesdropping technology. Thanks, Orrin. The next time a reporter asks you for secret info, just say, "I'm not at liberty to explain," thereby protecting what little electronic advantage we have, and simultaneously leaving bin Laden to wonder if we have a mole in his tent.

"I'm concerned that, in the heat of the moment, people are ready to talk about what they know, because of what they think needs to be done," said Bill Kovach, formerly curator of the Neiman Foundation and now with a division of the Pew Center in Washington. Kovach was once The New York Times' bureau chief there and knows the symbiotic relationship between sources and reporters in the nation's capital.

"Sometimes public officials reveal secret information to show they are on the 'in,'" he said. After the attacks, the main sources cited "were people who knew better," he added. "You don't get people who have spent their lives in this, who don't know when they're giving away secrets," he said firmly. "That guarantees there was a purpose to these leaks."

Any novice Washington insider could follow the well-marked trail of news, off and on the record, to see how normally secret info was being used to get the press to support certain policy initiatives -- some of them quite necessary. But it was still manipulation, and that's where the worry of future censorship comes into play.

"Listen, all experienced reporters who have covered intelligence matters are used to censoring themselves," Kovach said. "They ask themselves, 'Does the public need to know about our sources and methods for getting information?'" The threat of censorship by the government tends to surface when the information involves officials screwing up, not the identities of endangered agents or the locations of wiretaps.

Though I am not an expert, I was once a defense analyst following terrorist issues. So I'm surprised to hear so many people who usually won't confirm their own middle initials babbling openly. Americans now know more than they ever did about the Pentagon's layout; the White House bomb shelter; the inability of fighter jets at Andrews Air Force Base to protect the Pentagon; our reliance on electronic, as opposed to human intelligence, HUMINT; and the alleged failings of the last administration.

Fine. However, what will happen when reporters ask in the future what the current administration, military, CIA, and FBI leaders are doing to fix this? Will we hear: "Can't tell you. That would endanger national security."

If reporters learn that mistakes are still being made or that new rules giving the government more powers for national security are being abused or are backfiring, will the government threaten editors as it did when Katharine Graham decided to print the Pentagon Papers?

One area that "may" be considered "national security" is our energy policy, a government official told me. There's support now for freeing us completely from ties to Arab oil. But some American companies that are big political contributors are resistant to such strategic changes. If reporters seek to learn whether our energy policy is being held hostage by political interests, will that provoke censorship threats?

Recently, hundreds of stories were written about our lack of HUMINT capability, citing the policies of the last eight years. But 20 years ago, when Ronald Reagan was in power, Republicans were as hot as Dems for electronic intel. Members and staffers of the elite Senate Intelligence Committee wanted boy toys with big price tags.

What happens in six months if a reporter learns that use of electronic intel is actually increasing? If such news makes current politicians look foolish for denouncing this technology after the attacks, will the government threaten censorship?

A smart move for current leaders talking about censorship would be to keep quiet. Dangling secret info now -- to drum up support among the press and the public -- may seem like a great idea. But this tactic could come back to haunt the government, and the press' freedom, later.