NYT:At U.S. Request, Networks Agree to Edit Future bin Laden Tapes

[Xeni Jardin]

October 11, 2001

THE COVERAGE
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/11/national/11TUBE.html?pagewanted=print

At U.S. Request, Networks Agree to Edit Future bin Laden Tapes

By BILL CARTER and FELICITY BARRINGER

he five major television news organizations reached a joint agreement yesterday
to follow the suggestion of the White House and abridge any future videotaped
statements from Osama bin Laden or his followers to remove language the
government considers inflammatory.

The decision, the first time in memory that the networks had agreed to a joint
arrangement to limit their prospective news coverage, was described by one
network executive as a "patriotic" decision that grew out of a conference call
between the nation's top news executives and the White House National Security
Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, yesterday morning.

The five news organizations, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, along with its
subsidiary, MSNBC, the Cable News Network and the Fox News Channel all had
broadcast, unedited, a taped message from Mr. bin Laden on Sunday. On Tuesday,
the all-news cable channels, CNN, Fox News and MSNBC, also carried the complete
speech of a spokesmen for Al Qaeda.

Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, in his news briefing yesterday,
indicated that Ms. Rice was primarily concerned that terrorists could be using
the broadcasts to send coded messages to other terrorists, but the network
executives said in interviews that this was only a secondary consideration. They
said Ms. Rice mainly argued that the tapes enabled Mr. bin Laden to vent
propaganda intended to incite hatred and potentially kill more Americans.

The executives said that they will broadcast only short portions of any tape
issued by Al Qaeda and would eliminate any passages containing flowery rhetoric
urging violence against Americans. They agreed to accompany the tapes with
reports providing what they called appropriate context.

They also agreed to avoid repeatedly showing excerpts from the tapes, which they
had previously done in what one executive described as "video wallpaper."

One network, ABC, said it would limit the use of moving images from tapes
released by Mr. Bin Laden or Al Qaeda, mostly relying on a still picture from a
frame of the tape and the printed text of whatever message was being delivered.

The coverage of the aftermath of the terrorists attacks on New York and the
Pentagon has generated intense competitive pressure among the television news
organizations, which has increased this week as the news divisions labored to
find images to continue documenting United States attacks on Afghanistan.

The tapes have been broadcast by the Arabic language satellite network, Al
Jazeera, and picked up by the American networks.

The news executives said they had never previously consulted each other en masse
and come to an agreement on a policy about coverage.

But they said the current circumstances were unlike any other they have
encountered.

"This is a new situation, a new war, and a new kind of enemy," said Andrew
Heyward, the president of CBS News. "Given the historic events we're enmeshed
in, it's appropriate to explore new ways of fulfilling our responsibilities to
the public."

The presidents of the news divisions all said that Ms. Rice had not tried to
coerce them. "She was very gentle, very diplomatic, very deft," said Roger
Ailes, the chairman of Fox News.

Walter Isaacson, the chairman of CNN, said, "It was very useful to hear their
information and their thinking." He added, "After hearing Dr. Rice, we're not
going to step on the land mines she was talking about."

Mr. Isaacson did not specify what information Ms. Rice had provided that led to
the executives' decision.

"Her biggest point was that here was a charismatic speaker who could arouse
anti-American sentiment getting 20 minutes of air time to spew hatred and urge
his followers to kill Americans," said Neal Shapiro, the president of NBC News.

The notion that Mr. bin Laden was sending messages to followers through the
tapes seemed less than credible to several of the executives.

"What sense would it make to keep the tapes off the air if the message could be
found transcripted in newspapers or on the Web?" said one network executive, who
spoke on condition of anonymity. "The videos could also appear on the Internet.
They'd get the message anyway."

The unusual interaction between the White House and television executives was
set up late Tuesday evening when Ms. Rice called each executive. They gathered
in their offices at 9 a.m. for the conference call.

She spoke with them for about 20 minutes, explaining her reservations about
allowing Mr. bin Laden such access to American television. A White House
official familiar with the phone call said Ms Rice had two concerns: that the
messages would reach any remaining terrorist cells in the United States and
would also inflame Muslim populations in such places as Malaysia and the
Philippines, who would see the tapes through international channels of CNN and
NBC.

Ms. Rice answered questions. Then she hung up. But the executives had agreed
before the call to stay on the line and talk among themselves.

The networks were not the first news organizations to acquiesce to an
administration requests to edit or withhold information.

Leonard Downie Jr., the executive editor of The Washington Post, said yesterday,
that "a handful of times" in the past month, the newspaper's reporting had
prompted calls from administration officials who "raised concerns that a
specific story or more often that certain facts in a certain story, would
compromise national security."

He added, "In some instances we have kept out of stories certain facts that we
agreed could be detrimental to national security and not instrumental to our
readers, such as methods of intelligence collection."

Clark Hoyt, the Washington editor of Knight Ridder, said that his organization
had decided to hold back a report about "some small units of U.S. special
operations forces had entered Afghanistan and were trying to locate bin Laden"
within two weeks of the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center.

Howell Raines, the executive editor of The New York Times, said that since Sept.
11, Times executives have not had any conversations with government officials
about the handling of sensitive information. Mr. Raines said, "Our longstanding
practice has been that if a high government official wants to talk to us about
security issues, we're available for that conversation. We also would feel free
to seek guidance if there was information in our judgment that might be
sensitive."

The networks' decision has not raised serious protests among television
journalists. Ted Koppel, the ABC "Nightline" anchor, said, "If we want to run
some of the videotape, our understanding is we're still free to do it." But, he
said, the videotapes by and large have not been compelling enough for long
showings.

The CBS anchor, Dan Rather said: "By nature and experience, I'm always wary when
the government seeks in any way to have a hand in editorial decisions. But this
is an extraordinary time. In the context of this time, the conversation as I
understand it seems reasonable on both sides."