Berl Falbaum
Given the massive media coverage on the Venezuelan raid, one aspect — an intriguing and fascinating journalism ethics issue — has received very little, if any, attention.
It deserves a deep and penetrating analysis.
As the reporting started, I wondered, given the numerous agencies and thousands involved in the planning, how the plan remained secret.
It turns out it didn’t.
The New York Times, The Washington Post and other media outlets learned of plans for the attack but were asked by the administration not to publish any stories.
Administration officials presumably argued:
• Publicity would eliminate the crucial element of surprise.
• To scuttle the military action would waste millions if not billions of dollars spent in planning.
• To proceed after publication of the proposed raid would jeopardize the lives of military personnel.
So, what to do?
To concur would imply, justified or not, agreement with the operation. That is not the role of a reporter. And, equally important, the media would not have any of the classified information needed to make a decision whether the attack was warranted.
Holding back would risk losing a huge story to a competitor who may decide to run with the story. That could have major financial implications for those complying with the request of what some would call “censorship.”
Those who would “spike” the story would lose credibility with their TV and newspaper subscribers if others proceeded with publication.
Moreover, shouldn’t the public be informed on what its government is planning?
This ethical quandary is one of the most serious conundrums for journalists, one on which I spent significant time examining with students when I taught journalism ethics at Wayne State University.
Are there any precedents to help us with this? Well, there is at least one.
In April 1961, only three months after taking office, President Kennedy approved a military operation to overthrow the regime of Fidel Castro who had aligned himself with communist Russia.
The plan leaked out with James Reston, the renowned New York Times political columnist ready to publish a story on what became known as the “Bay of Pigs” operation.
Kennedy called Reston and Times owners, asking them to hold back, making arguments like the ones cited above.
The Times agreed. The attack proceeded as planned, but the invasion, lasting only three days, was a dismal failure.
After the embarrassing defeat, astonishingly, Kennedy told The Times executives that perhaps the paper should have published the story because he probably would have scuttled the attack.
He reportedly said: “if you had printed more about the operation, you would have saved us from a colossal mistake.”
More than a year later, Kennedy told New York Times Publisher Orvil Dryfoos, “I wish you had run everything on Cuba…I am just sorry you didn’t tell it at the time.”
Ah, hindsight.
But the major underlying ethic of this dilemma is whether journalists must or need to consider the consequences of their stories.
The answer is “no” because every single story has consequences.
• Publishing premature stories on the construction of a new hotel has consequences.
• Stories on proposed but not yet adopted legislation have consequences.
• Stories on politicians resigning or not running for re-election have consequences.
• In sports, planned trades of major star athletes have consequences.
The list is endless. Moreover, the role of a journalist is not that of a partisan but instead of an objective informer. (I am discussing straight news reporting not editorial comment.)
If the media were to consider consequences of their actions, they would publish nothing.
However…
There is one exception: When lives are at stake as was and is the case of the Bay of Pigs and Venezuela operations.
The media cannot turn a blind eye to the possibility that publication could cost lives. That is an entirely different matter.
Let’s consider other situations:
• Should any media institution publish reports that police authorities were planning to conduct a raid to free a kidnap victim held hostage?
• Should a reporter, embedded in the U.S. military, write of proposed battle plans?
• Should the media publish the names of U.S. spies operating in enemy countries?
But, critics of the invasion of Venezuela would argue that if the plan by the Trump administration had been made public, it could have saved the country — and the world — a serious crisis?
That may — or not — be true. But, the media cannot and must not make such judgments because, again, every single story has good and bad ramifications for someone — individuals, businesses, political parties, religious and educational institutions, etc. And, as in the Bay of Pigs invasion, the media do not have all the information required to make a sound and comprehension decision on the merits of the attack.
Were news reporters (not opinion writers) to make partisan judgments, well, talk about opening a Pandora’s Box.
(Indeed, many in the media are now accused of political biases. But that’s a topic for a future column, two or more. I also expect some will view this column as pro-Trump, although those who have followed my rantings on Trump for a decade know better. Admittedly, given Trump’s pathological lying, making an informed, fair and sensitive decision — to publish or not to publish — is much more difficult.)
Thus, although many will criticize the decisions made by the media in the Bay of Pigs and Venezuelan operations, the judgments made were correct — as much as we may, in retrospect, wish the results had been different.
It deserves a deep and penetrating analysis.
As the reporting started, I wondered, given the numerous agencies and thousands involved in the planning, how the plan remained secret.
It turns out it didn’t.
The New York Times, The Washington Post and other media outlets learned of plans for the attack but were asked by the administration not to publish any stories.
Administration officials presumably argued:
• Publicity would eliminate the crucial element of surprise.
• To scuttle the military action would waste millions if not billions of dollars spent in planning.
• To proceed after publication of the proposed raid would jeopardize the lives of military personnel.
So, what to do?
To concur would imply, justified or not, agreement with the operation. That is not the role of a reporter. And, equally important, the media would not have any of the classified information needed to make a decision whether the attack was warranted.
Holding back would risk losing a huge story to a competitor who may decide to run with the story. That could have major financial implications for those complying with the request of what some would call “censorship.”
Those who would “spike” the story would lose credibility with their TV and newspaper subscribers if others proceeded with publication.
Moreover, shouldn’t the public be informed on what its government is planning?
This ethical quandary is one of the most serious conundrums for journalists, one on which I spent significant time examining with students when I taught journalism ethics at Wayne State University.
Are there any precedents to help us with this? Well, there is at least one.
In April 1961, only three months after taking office, President Kennedy approved a military operation to overthrow the regime of Fidel Castro who had aligned himself with communist Russia.
The plan leaked out with James Reston, the renowned New York Times political columnist ready to publish a story on what became known as the “Bay of Pigs” operation.
Kennedy called Reston and Times owners, asking them to hold back, making arguments like the ones cited above.
The Times agreed. The attack proceeded as planned, but the invasion, lasting only three days, was a dismal failure.
After the embarrassing defeat, astonishingly, Kennedy told The Times executives that perhaps the paper should have published the story because he probably would have scuttled the attack.
He reportedly said: “if you had printed more about the operation, you would have saved us from a colossal mistake.”
More than a year later, Kennedy told New York Times Publisher Orvil Dryfoos, “I wish you had run everything on Cuba…I am just sorry you didn’t tell it at the time.”
Ah, hindsight.
But the major underlying ethic of this dilemma is whether journalists must or need to consider the consequences of their stories.
The answer is “no” because every single story has consequences.
• Publishing premature stories on the construction of a new hotel has consequences.
• Stories on proposed but not yet adopted legislation have consequences.
• Stories on politicians resigning or not running for re-election have consequences.
• In sports, planned trades of major star athletes have consequences.
The list is endless. Moreover, the role of a journalist is not that of a partisan but instead of an objective informer. (I am discussing straight news reporting not editorial comment.)
If the media were to consider consequences of their actions, they would publish nothing.
However…
There is one exception: When lives are at stake as was and is the case of the Bay of Pigs and Venezuela operations.
The media cannot turn a blind eye to the possibility that publication could cost lives. That is an entirely different matter.
Let’s consider other situations:
• Should any media institution publish reports that police authorities were planning to conduct a raid to free a kidnap victim held hostage?
• Should a reporter, embedded in the U.S. military, write of proposed battle plans?
• Should the media publish the names of U.S. spies operating in enemy countries?
But, critics of the invasion of Venezuela would argue that if the plan by the Trump administration had been made public, it could have saved the country — and the world — a serious crisis?
That may — or not — be true. But, the media cannot and must not make such judgments because, again, every single story has good and bad ramifications for someone — individuals, businesses, political parties, religious and educational institutions, etc. And, as in the Bay of Pigs invasion, the media do not have all the information required to make a sound and comprehension decision on the merits of the attack.
Were news reporters (not opinion writers) to make partisan judgments, well, talk about opening a Pandora’s Box.
(Indeed, many in the media are now accused of political biases. But that’s a topic for a future column, two or more. I also expect some will view this column as pro-Trump, although those who have followed my rantings on Trump for a decade know better. Admittedly, given Trump’s pathological lying, making an informed, fair and sensitive decision — to publish or not to publish — is much more difficult.)
Thus, although many will criticize the decisions made by the media in the Bay of Pigs and Venezuelan operations, the judgments made were correct — as much as we may, in retrospect, wish the results had been different.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
