Plenty of Room Online for Unabomber's 35,000-Word Essay

By: Steve Outing

There has been much hand-wringing among editors about the decision of the Washington Post and New York Times to publish the 35,000-word "manifesto" of the Unabomber in its entirety. The newspaper community seems to be about evenly split on if the papers did "the right thing" in acceding to the demands of a deranged bomber who has killed 3 people and injured 2 dozen others over the years.

Unless you are the Post or the Times, making the right decision is merely an academic exercise for your newspaper. I'll be surprised if any other newspaper publishes all 35,000 words in ink; the sheer size of the document will prevent that. But online -- where there is an "unlimited newshole" -- it's another matter.

Online publishers ARE making the decision on whether to publish the manifesto, and I've been surprised at how lightly some of them are taking the issue.

The full manifesto is available online on the Washington Post's Digital Ink service (a proprietary service on AT&T Interchange's network), which you would expect. First to offer it outside of the 2 newspapers involved was Time Inc.'s Pathfinder service on the World Wide Web. Then HotWired put up a copy on the Web, as did the Star Tribune in Minneapolis on its Star Tribune Online (another Interchange service). Numerous other sites around the Internet now link to the manifesto, some of them print publishers with online sites.

(Curiously, the FBI's own Unabomber Web site does not include the full-text version, even though FBI officials are encouraging everyone to read it in the hope that someone might recognize the writing style.)

I am uncomfortable with online news services posting the full text of the Unabomber's manifesto, or even linking to it. I fall on the side of those who believe the Post and Times made a bad decision and sacrificed journalistic integrity. Online news services are equally guilty of caving in to a terrorist's demands, in my view. They are playing into the Unabomber's hands by making his treatise available to a wider audience than if the manifesto were printed only in the printed pages of the Washington Post.

One newspaper editor who wrote to me by private email commented: "A lot of newspapers that will not give up the ink to publish the manifesto but would see little wrong in printing it now -- since they can blame the respected Times and Post for the initial choice (sort of like some newspapers named the Kennedy rape accuser once the Times did) -- will now 'promote' their online sites by offering a link, saving newsprint and getting publicity for their Web sites in the bargain."

He's right. Based on what I've heard from online newspaper editors in the last day, the motivation for reprinting or linking to the Unabomber manifesto is a desire to increase traffic. The ethical issues in this particular case appear to have been dismissed by some online publishers.

Steve Yelvington, editor/manager of Star Tribune Online, wrote: "I don't see a journalistic problem with publishing this electronically. The Unabomber has not been trying to manipulate us. I understand and sympathize with the positions of the Washington Post and the New York Times, but we're in a different situation. For me it came down simply to two questions: First, do our users want it? And second, can we provide it? The answers to both were 'Yes.'"

Bruce Siceloff, new media editor of the (Raleigh) News & Observer (which did not run or link to the full manifesto online), commented: "What we do, we do for the reader. There's no apparent harm or potential harm involved: no recipe for Unabomber wannabes, nothing that inherently helps the Unabomber injure more people, recruit helpers or even make money. Compared to the reader's interest, the question of pleasing the Unabomber (and who knows if he is pleased about being on the Internet) or the FBI (which is pleased and is urging citizens to read the thing) is a minor consideration. The Unabomber tract now has been placed in the public domain by the Post (not really by the Times). Maybe it was wrong to publish it, maybe not; that was one question. Either way, now that it is available, my answer to a separate question is that I see nothing wrong in helping people find it. It's awfully newsworthy, just as, say, Packwood's diaries or the Fuhrman tape transcripts would be. You wonder what motivates this murderer who has affected many thousands of air travelers and others who were not his direct targets; here is his answer that has been published."

Evan Rudowski, of News Corp./MCI Online Ventures, said: "Now that the manifesto has been published, the Unabomber's demands have been met. At this point, it seems entirely legitimate for other news organizations to include the manifesto in further coverage. ... It's also worth noting that the decision was made in consultation with the authorities, who hoped in part that some readers might be able to help identify the suspect if the manifesto received a wider audience. So the decision, while legitimately subject to debate, isn't necessarily a mere accession to terrorist demands. ... As for whether online publication standards are different from print, don't forget that in this particular case we're dealing with a 35,000-word manifesto -- perfectly suited for the unlimited online news hole we all keep touting. It would be hard to justify using all that newsprint even if we were talking about a new divine sequel to the Holy Bible."

And James Kinsella, editor of Pathfinder, told the online-news list: "Why we published it? Because it was compelling, and because there was no sword hanging over our heads to do so. Indeed, there was no added expense for us to do it, no 'bowing to terrorists,' etc. ... What I hope this incident provokes: a more sophisticated sense of how to take advantage of digital communication."

I'll agree with that last sentence. What I found missing from online publishers' justifications for printing the Unabomber's full manifesto was evidence that they fully considered the impact of printing a terrorist's words. Sure, they could do it and their readers wanted it. Yes, it's newsworthy. Is it the right thing to do? I don't think so.

I'm not sure that these online publishers took the same care in making the decision to run the Unabomber's words online as they would have in deciding whether to run it on paper. Just because you "can" run something online doesn't mean you "should."

Steve Got a tip? Let me know about it

If you have a newsworthy item about the newspaper new media business, please send me a note at outings@netcom.com.

This column is written by Steve Outing and underwritten by Editor & Publisher magazine. Tips, letters and feedback can be sent to Steve at outings@netcom.com