T HE MASS media, while vital in its ability to keep the American public informed, should also maintain tact when reporting the news. There are times when a piece of information, no matter how exciting or exclusive it may be, should be left off the printing press; the newspaper industry's profits should sacrificed for more important things - say, the security of the nation. Last week, The New York Times and the rest of the mass media had a chance to think of the bigger picture rather than their wallets and the public's curiosity. Unfortunately, they chose the latter route, and the question of whether The New York Times ought to have printed government secrets needs to be asked.
On July 5, in its article "U.S. Plan for Iraq Is Said to Include Attack on 3 Sides," The New York Times reported that the United States is planning an extensive and thought out military campaign against Iraq. This attack plan document was reported to the Times by an undisclosed source, and it calls for the United States to strike Iraq from the land, sea and air.
The document outlines plans for hundreds of warplanes, marines and CIA operatives to attack both the Iraqi military and their factories, thus hampering their ability to make war. The document lists, in explicit detail, the Iraqi bases and military locations that are to be attacked. According to the source who gave this information on the condition of anonymity, this document is considered to be "highly classified," and it is known as the CentCom Courses of Action. The Times article then goes on to state that the marines have been holding mock assault drills. It also says that the Air Force has been stockpiling arms at locations in the Middle East.
While it is comforting to know that our government is taking precautionary measures, it is extremely unsettling that information like this was able to leak in the first place. As for the date the information was leaked, there was no official report from the Bush administration about a military campaign. If the CentCom Courses of Action is a genuine document, then the government would want to hide its existence from Iraq. The New York Times has destroyed America's element of surprise, and it has possibly threatened our national security by publicizing these classified war plans. And while this column is guilty of the same crime as The New York Times, this is done in the name of criticism.
However, The New York Times is by no means the only one to blame in this scenario. The same day that the article ran, reports of the document also surfaced on CNN, which cited the Times' article. Hundreds of news sources broadcasted, and still are broadcasting, news of a possible attack, and a search on the Internet will pull up many different angles of the same story. Most of these news sources may believe that the American people deserve to hear about what their government is up to. However, when the cost of this may be the lives of soldiers and American lives, it should cause these news sources to hesitate and think about the consequences of their actions. It becomes a question not necessarily of what they are legally able to do, but of what is morally right in the context of our national interest. The leaders in our government have been elected by the American people, and although it would be ideal for our citizens to know everything that goes on, it is ultimately impractical and dangerous in the real world.
By revealing a top-secret military strategy, the media has made Bush look underhanded when he denies the plans in the interest of national security. However, more importantly than risking the Bush administration's public image, the media also has succeeded in putting Saddam Hussein and the rest of his government on alert. The Iraqis now know that an attack on their country is most likely imminent, and they, like every other average American, almost certainly keep track of American news. Any leaked information that the media prints also falls into the wrong hands, and a surprise attack loses the element of surprise if the enemy knows what's coming.
The solution to this problem is that everyone in the media needs to hold themselves accountable for their actions, beyond merely adhering to libel and defamation laws. Classified information needs to stay that way, and the media shouldn't necessarily print everything that they know or could find out. With their enormous sway on public knowledge, the media informs Americans of world events that would otherwise remain unknown. Thus, the media needs to control the amount of influence that it exerts, and it should report the news judiciously rather than looking for a hot story. Some in the press need to realize the responsibility that comes with the amount of freedom that they possess.
(Kevin James Wong is a Cavalier Daily columnist. He can be reached at kwong@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 14 hours agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 2 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
