What Happened to 'Trust But Verify'?

By: Seth Porges OPINION

Looking back to 1999, I remember the headlines at the height of the Lewinsky scandal pretty clearly. I believe "Clinton Didn't Do It" graced the front page of The New York Times. I'm nearly positive that Page One of The Washington Post blared, "Clinton Had No Relations With Monica." Because when a president and other top officials say something, it must be true, and newspapers must print what they say as fact and then ask questions later. Right?

For example, the White House recently revealed that President Bush's fly-by-night, top-secret Thanksgiving mission to Iraq was almost halted when its secrecy was compromised after Air Force One was eyeballed by a British Airways pilot. "Bush's Baghdad-Bound Plane Was Spotted," or words similar in effect, read the headlines of many newspapers that carried a Dec. 2 Associated Press report on the matter, ranging from the Los Angeles Times to the Aberdeen (S.D.) American News.

The only problem is that the encounter, which apparently was impressive enough to make its way onto souvenir pins in Crawford, Texas, possibly never happened, we later learned. Perhaps it was all just a misunderstanding, or it was made up by the White House, pulled from the same thin air that Air Force One so gallantly flew through.

For the record, the souvenir buttons are sold out, according to Australia's Sydney Morning Herald.

There is a right way to do this, of course. Contrary to what I wrote at the top of this page, the actual headlines in 1999 read more like: "Clinton SAYS He Had No Relations With that Woman." In 2003, wouldn't it have been more accurate to report: "White House SAYS Bush's Baghdad-Bound Plane Was Spotted"? It certainly would have saved the newspapers the embarrassing task of informing their readers later that inaccurate information had slipped onto their pages.

I am not suggesting the press was anti-Clinton or is pro-Bush. This is a nonpartisan issue. Actually, it's more like Journalism 101: Trust, but verify. It's always amazing to watch the press treat most official statements with admirable skepticism and careful attribution -- but then turn around and report assertions from any White House or military command as fact until they fall into question. This is especially troubling in times of war.

The issue of whether or not Air Force One was spotted by the Brits might seem like a trivial matter, but it is not an isolated incident. On two far more tragic occasions in recent days, newspapers have rushed to print stories later revealed to be exaggerated, disputed, or just plain wrong. One instance occurred on Nov. 24 when newspapers, using eyewitness accounts and the military's initial situation report, printed as fact (often on front pages) that a mob in Mosul had slit the throats and mutilated the bodies of two American soldiers. The Pentagon later retracted its own early report, and when I reached a coalition spokesman in Baghdad he blamed the AP for spreading the story. AP, meanwhile, told us it had corrected its first report rather quickly but few newspapers caught up to that for a couple of days, if ever.

Another questionable episode occurred last week. The Pentagon announced that 46 Iraqi insurgents were killed Nov. 30 in a firefight in Samarra. And there it was, right down to the exact kill number, the next day at the top of the front page of The New York Times and other papers. "Neither The New York Times, the New York Post, The Boston Globe, USA Today, The Washington Post, nor Knight Ridder included any civilian witnesses or Iraqi hospital accounts in their initial reports Monday," Joe Strupp reported at E&P Online on Dec. 2. Some "flatly reported the death tally and account of the battle without noting this was 'according to military officials.'"

And just like the supposed midair encounter with Air Force One, evidence soon popped up that the official story might not be wholly true. Eyewitnesses, hospital workers and U.S.-appointed local officials claimed only eight dead Iraqis, several of them civilians, along with 54 civilians injured. A military spokesman in Iraq told me via e-mail on Dec. 3 that they were standing by their story for now. Whatever the truth, it seemed clear that the press had publicized the initial reports far too definitively.

What these incidents illustrate is the need for the press -- from Pennsylvania Avenue to Main Street, U.S.A. -- to accept official word as fact only when they are truly in a "no-spin zone." Clearly, that is rarely the case when it comes to war and politics. Didn't the press learn anything as far back as the Johnson Administration with Vietnam, and the Nixon Administration with Watergate?