On the Media; 1996-11-03; Part 2; It'll Never Be Over: Richard Jewell, Privacy & the Press; St. Petersburg, Race & the Media

One of the big lessons for reporters in these kinds of situations is we have to always remind ourselves they don't always know what happened. Well, let me you know, I want to get our listeners in on this conversation. Tom in Bricktown, New Jersey, you're on the air. Yes. I wanted to just make a comment with regard to the FBI and the media. I think the FBI is not telling the public the truth and the media is going to great extremes not reporting it. Case in point would be flight 800. There were over 100 eyewitnesses at a missile hit that plane and the FBI still stayed. You know, the thing is, I know that there's been a lot of talk about that. And this raises, you know, Bob, still, this really raises the fundamental point about credibility when you especially this week, have one of the top officials of the FBI admitting to lying and destroying materials in the in the Ruby Ridge case. What do you what do you how do you come down on the on the way the press has covered the

FBI? Do you think that the press is too willing to believe what the FBI says? It's often the case. I think our blinders are on as watchdogs. And in the case of Richard Jewell, for instance, we focus too much on Jewell, not enough on the FBI. I think journalism needs more people like Angie and Ed who are very talented at what they do and in Andrew's case in particular, specialized in the coverage of the Justice Department. If we don't have a high level of expertize to cover the powerful institutions of our society, then we're going to be misled. Well, it's not urgent. Yes. Hello. You're not allowed to do that because the media is completely controlled by one major force. I mean, just look at Disney, Viacom, Time Warner. These are major multimedia organizations that control newspapers, TV and radio shows, et cetera. And they all have the same voice. Well, yeah, but this is that's another issue at times. I want to ask you, you were dealing with the FBI in Atlanta and you say

the initial response was that would be slander. Did it did it then go off the record and they give you a wink and a nod or what? Absolutely not. And point out one thing about the relationship between the media and government sources. I'd make the point that in Atlanta, for example, every journalist who was there was doing his absolute most to find out what was going on with the investigation. And that meant calling FBI agents, police, whoever who might have something to do with it. And we weren't asking them to only give us the information that by regulation and law, you know, they are allowed to give us. We wanted it no matter what. This happens all the time. That's what typically a situation with anonymous sources is someone who's in a position to know something about the case, but because of internal regulation or law is really not supposed to talk to us. So in a sense, we can't get into this relationship where we get the information, we get it under circumstances that are a little bit fuzzy

and then we go with it. And what happens at that point then frequently is that the focus becomes the problem, not the original information. For example, in Atlanta, it was the fact that Richard Jewell was among the suspects. But what happened at that point was that the entire media focused on him as the suspect. And then there's the question of whether the investigation took the course. It did, because that's the way the FBI really wanted to go or because there was so much pressure that they had no other choice. And you can and can you give us any insight about how the FBI handled that situation down in Atlanta? Yeah, you know, I really I'm not sure. I think that they were from everything I've read it it seems that they were talking to people in an off the record kind of basis. But I don't think I think it was. Well, what is the typical way of doing business at the FBI? I mean, is it is it is it, you know, regular operating procedure for

FBI agents to leak? I mean, no, it's my experience. I mean, police forces leak like sieves, you know? Yeah, well, my experience has been so far with the FBI that they do not leak and other other federal law enforcement agencies to, you know, like ATF, that they it's it's been very, very difficult to try to pry any kind of information out of them. I mean, one of the things, Bob, Bob Steele that is roused, raised by this is the manipulation factor. I mean, I'm reminded of the of the Susan Smith case where the sheriff was sort of, you know, using the media to stalk Susan Smith. And in this case, it seems to me that maybe this was being an opportunity for the FBI to use the media to try to sweat and create so much pressure on Richard Jewell that he would crack and that the media just went along with it. Well, that's not the. Alex, and it's not unusual for law enforcement to use a variety of different techniques to serve their particular purpose, and if we're citizens out there, we want the FBI or local police to solve the case.

We're going to say go at it with vigor and in cases where journalism becomes a part of that process unwittingly. So then we we make a mistake as journalists that we cross over a line in which we have not appropriately questioned the motives of law enforcement and that manipulation can be a disservice to the public. Tom, thank you for your call. Bob in Hopkinton, Massachusetts, you're on the air. I've listened with interest for over a half hour now to what I consider to be more or less self-justifying statements by your speakers. And I suggest that if they, as reporters of the news were really objective, once it was found that Richard Jewell was not a suspect, they would have named their sources and pursued the FBI sources every bit as vigorously as they did Richard Jewell. And the fact that they did not suggest to me that what they're really interested in is maintaining a not a very unbalanced

capability and that they have sources available without any consideration to social justice victims. How do you respond to that? Well, I would respond to that by saying there's no question that at one point Richard Jewell was a suspect. I guess most of the problem that has been focused on has been what happened after that point and the context that it was reported in. For example, in our case, the source that we had did not say that he was a prime suspect or the only suspect. The source said that the FBI was looking at him, among others. What happened after that basically was that other media organizations got similar information and became the suspect. It's a very sexy story to go from hero to the chief suspect, well educated motivation. And what about the point that Bob was making? I mean, do you expect the media to really now be turning to the FBI and trying to do some serious, you know, inquiring and inquiring and probing

about the way the FBI operates because of this? Do I expect the media to do this? I don't think so. I don't think the media will do it. I think that Louis Freeh is, you know, conducting an internal investigation to find out how, you know, how that information was leaked as well as I think he's looking at the the way in which, you know, Mr. Jewell was questioned and even, you know, how he became a suspect, their own investigative techniques. But I don't think that the media is going to be I mean, is there going to be efforts made to sort of get FBI agents to leak about what the internal you know, I mean, in other words, is the media going to try to get the FBI to leak about itself instead of just leaking about their investigation of you? Yes, I know that. Yes. I think I think there will be some effort made to try to find out, you know, what's going on with Free's investigation. Bob, thank you for your call. Bruce in New York City, you're on the air.

Hi. How are you doing? Just fine. I can't I just I'm stunned by the amount of who I've heard from your journalists. It's it's amazing to me, I think that a caller can ask a question about when are they going to go after the FBI? You put it to a journalist and it dodges it. They don't they're not very good when the spotlight is shined on them. The FBI, various government agencies have bungled cases. There aren't always answers. And they pick on some guy and they see where it goes. Sometimes they're not saying they do it all the time. You have instances where law enforcement issues on local and national levels perjure themselves in major metropolitan areas. There is talking about the cops lying on the stand as a matter of practice in small cases. And yet when there's something like this in a push, a big push and a national event, an international event held every four years and our country a matter of pride, it has got to be a big push. Where's the skepticism? There is no skepticism.

And even now there is no skepticism. You've got a case on and on Long Island with a downed jet. This there are no answers. You have the FBI reversing itself in 24 hours. Front page story on how to deal with Saudi Arabia. And yet, where's the skepticism? Let me ask you, can you cover the FBI? How do you respond to that? Well, I think I mean, I disagree. I think that there is skepticism. I think that what I said before, that this is that the jewel case is a cautionary tale for journalists to always, you know, try to remind ourselves that they don't always know what's going on. And we have to take we have to be more skeptical of. And I think that there's a strange symbiotic relationship between federal law enforcement, even local law enforcement sometimes and reporters. Do you think that this is going to change the relationship between the FBI and reporters at all? I do think it's going to make people more skeptical. I do. Do you do you, Bob?

Still. I think it might. Aleksa, there is a possibility when the next case comes around in a newsroom someplace across the land that the first car that be put on the table by the editor of the news director is remember Richard Jewell? Folks, let's be extremely careful. And that may turn into timidity and that could be a counter service to the public. What do we. Yeah, I just can't believe this. Look, time after time, these things happen and reporting is underwhelming in its skepticism. Reporters like to quote themselves as as the skeptics protecting the public. But there's supposed to be skeptical of the government at large and forces at large, and there is no suggestion it might the next time it happens. And this is this is hedging at its worst. This guy was just hung out to dry. Well, you know, Bruce, you know, I think it's interesting because there was one news organization that did not cover it the way most of the others did, and that was The New York Times that's in your town. I mean, Bob Steele, did you look at the Times coverage?

Well, it was certainly moderated compared to other newspapers and broadcast that they did they did something wrong and played inside as opposed to up front. Well, they did, but they also did something that was a little bit I thought a little, how shall I say, beg the question. For instance, they identified Jewel, but they identified him in the context of an article about the media frenzy that had erupted rather than as a suspect per say. In other words, they didn't do the story straight. They did a story about the way the media had covered this thing that had happened and his name had blown up and so forth, which was really kind of having it both ways, it seems to me. What do you think? Well, it isn't about the circumstances. You can credit them with being very thoughtful and highly ethical and principled in the way they made that decision. The flip side is that that was a copout on their part in order to get the name in the story when they didn't want to be directly responsible for inserting it as a news story, per say with his name as opposed to a media story. Bruce, thank you for your call. Interesting points.

Our number is one 800 three, four, three three three four two. This is on the media from National Public Radio. I'm Alex Jones, we're back with on the medium, we're talking about the lessons to be learned from the way the media covered the Richard Jewell story. I'm talking with Bob Steele, director of the ethics program at the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, and Buchanan, national correspondent for Knight Ridder, who covers law enforcement, the FBI, and Ed Temes, national desk reporter for The Dallas Morning News Times. Do you think that this story about Jewell is going to change things the next time you find yourself in one of those media

feeding frenzy situations? Probably not, because the same motivations that were at work there will be at work in the future. Whenever there's a big story like this, whether it's the Atlanta bombing or the Unabomber or twice the amount of competition is incredible. And I really believe that most reporters are focusing on desperately trying to get something before the other media gets it. And there's not as much thought going into, well, how you know, how credible is the information? And those motivations are going to be there the next time. Bob Steele, how how well and how ill is the public served by that competitive frenzy? Well, if competition is the driving force behind what we do and we are in big trouble, Alex, I think it is one element. I believe there are many journalists, news organizations around the country that do practice good ethical decision making and professional journalism. But I don't think we are strong enough in our skills and our knowledge as journalists. And that's this is the type of case that proves that I don't think that many news

organizations had journalists who were as well trained and as smart when it comes to reporting on issues that involve the FBI and the judicial system, the Justice Department. And we need to be better on that in order to better serve the public. Martin in Huntington, New York, you're on the air. Oh, hi. Hi there. I also wanted to raise a question as to the number of FBI investigations at the time they were going on and what effect that may have had on the investigation. And also, in addition to that, that the media, in essence, does feed on these stories. And it is a race to get out the story as quick as one can. And once somebody is beat to the gun, it makes the other competitor look as if, you know, just like a regular business and they've got to sell the stories that are the same way. The New York Times or the Daily News got to sell newspapers and you can't. And what about the idea about these, you know, many investigations in many cases going on simultaneously?

Did that affect things? Well, I'm not sure if the caller does he mean what other investigations? I mean, I think I think he was talking about the TWA case and all of that. I mean, all of these things were happening at once. Well, I think that definitely the the fact that this happened not long after the crash had an impact on the way people covered this. Do you think it made the FBI more eager to put that word out when they had I mean, to try to appear to be solving something fast? Absolutely. And I think the fact that you had the Olympics, which symbolically, you know, is is this is such an important occasion for for the United States. And you had all of these reporters there. You had, you know, all of these athletes from all over the world there. I think that there was probably enormous pressure that that law enforcement felt to show that they were doing something and that they were solving it. Martin, thank you for your call. Kate in Boston, you're on the air. Hello. I'd like to comment that I think the culpability and the Richard Jewell coverage

is very personal on the part of the journalists. I remember watching the Olympics and having Peter Jennings come on to the program to talk about Richard Jewell being a suspect. And when Bob Costas tried to be a bit cautionary, saying, well, he's not actually charged yet. Well, this was Tom Brokaw. It was on NBC because he hated me. NBC, NBC covered the was, you know, was down there. They had the right to cover the Olympics. That's why Tom Brokaw was down there with Bob Costas. Thank you. It was it was one of the senior news right now. It was. It was Tom Brokaw shows. Right. And in it, in a very knowing insider above it all away, he he shook his head, brushed aside Bob Costas caution and just said, we know people inside. We know what really is the case. Actually, we felt that you could see the look in this man's eyes for the big dramatic story, for being the first, for telling it all and getting it out there. We actually played a mentality of journalists and I have been a daily reporter myself in the late 70s.

I can't be under underemphasized, Bob. Still, I don't believe that for a minute. Alex, Tom Brokaw is a very professional journalist, and I believe that what he and NBC were doing was verifying to the best of their ability what their sources were saying in Washington and Atlanta in terms of the information they may have been wrong. That may be indeed the case, but. I don't believe there was any intent on their part to start salivating over a major case for competition ratings or anything else. Kate, thank you for your call. Dave in Salt Lake City, you're on the air. Yeah, I'd like to make a comment. I wholeheartedly agree with the other caller saying, and I really think there's a lot of shuffling and rationalizing what happened. Let's take a look at the context of the circumstances and let's just be reasonable about what probably happened. We have the Olympics, a huge international event, and we have a bomb goes off. And so, you know, I think the FBI probably not they can't come out and say this is what we're going to do. But the fact is they needed to have a suspect. We all wanted to have that nice, warm, fuzzy.

We are the world kind of feeling so that the Olympics could go on with everybody having a sensation that, gee, they've got the bomb or they have a suspect. We can go on and compete. And, you know, we can sort of minimize the negative effect during that time period in the Olympics can go on an unrestricted I think the FBI, these little sources we're all talking about, I think the FBI succored the media. I think that's exactly how you would have to handle a situation. You can't officially say that we're looking for a scapegoat. I think Richard Jewell with the FBI sacrificial lamb for the peace of mind of the American public in the International Olympic Committee. And you and you can. And one of the things that Dave has brought up that is implied with what he brought up is the fact that all this attention has still stayed on Richard Jewell in all this time. And there don't seem to be any closer to solving this bombing than than they ever were. What do you think? Well, I think that reporters, you know, should should be asking and responsibly what other suspects do you have. And and at the time, earlier on, they should have been asking questions to the FBI of what exactly

is the evidence that you have against Mr. Jewell. And I think, you know that a legitimate now a legitimate story to do would be to try to find out what other kinds of what other suspects they were looking at, how hard they were looking at them, what kind of evidence they have, that sort of thing. Bob Steel, if they were to release or leak the names of another suspect in this case, since Richard Jewell is not the guy, do you think that that name would be bandied all over the country? I think Nancy's right in the sense of saying that's the cautionary tale. My guess is editors, executive producers and networks, news directors would be much slower on the draw the next time, and I think appropriately so, to be cautious. But truth is elusive. Journalism is more of an art than a science. And when you make decisions as pieces of the puzzle unfold one after another, it is a very difficult and complex matter. Dave, thank you for your call. Let me ask you about Tim's. One of the things that Dave said was that the media were suckered.

Do you think that that was the case? No, I don't think the media was suckered. I think in many cases, media took a very small shred of evidence and blew it out of proportion. Frankly, the evidence on the information that we had was that Richard Jewell was a suspect among many. We did our best to check that out. We did ask the question, what evidence do you have against him? We asked that repeatedly. We ask a lot of people and the answers we got were he was close to the bomb and he fit this profile. That remains the evidence that was against. Are you still pursuing the story? Absolutely. And where do you think the FBI investigation is? Well, I think unfortunately, it may well be solved. I don't know that. But, you know, part of the problem with all the focus on Richard Jewell is that there were other leads out there. And you have to question how much attention those other leads got once there is this tremendous focus on Richard Jewell. For example, the day that the Atlanta story ran, there were reports that the FBI was questioning militiamen in the southeast and a couple

more in Texas. I'm afraid we've run out of time. I wish we had more. This very interesting conversation. I want to thank Bob Steele, director of the ethics program at the Poynter Institute. Lin Wood, who was with us earlier, who is Richard Jewell's attorney, and Yochanan, national correspondent for the Knight-Ridder organization. And Ed Temes for the Dallas Morning News. Producer of On the Media is Judith Hepburn Blank with associate producer Jennifer Nix and assistant producer covid, a minute production assistant Devor Clar. Our technical director is George Edward with audio engineer Paul Ruiz. And we got special help from Gary Henderson and John York. I'm Alex Jones. If you have questions or comments about on the media, call one 800 three, four, three three three four two. Funding for on the media is provided by the Jonez and James L. Knight Foundation, the Edith and Henry Everett Foundation and the WNYC Foundation.

This program is a production of WNYC New York Public Radio in association with the Poynter Institute for Media Studies at St. Petersburg, Florida, a school for professional journalists from across the country and around the world. This is NPR National Public Radio.