Few journalists will ever encounter an ethical dilemma of the proportions The Washington Post and The New York Times face in dealing with the demands of the Unabomber. That said, all journalists can benefit by giving some thought to the process these two papers have been using to meet the high-stakes demands of this case. To be sure, we do not know all of the decision-making that has taken place. Nevertheless, we can examine this case by applying a Poynter decision-making model based on the belief that we can make more justifiable ethical decisions by asking a series of relevant questions.
#1 What do I know? What do I need to know?
The Washington Post and The New York Times know some of the pieces of the puzzle. They know the Unabomber’s record of terrorism. They know what the Unabomber’s demands are. They know the content of his manifesto that he wants published in its entirety. They know that it would take seven full pages of the paper to print that manifesto.
They also know about the resolution of some past cases involving terrorists’ demands against news organizations.
What the newspapers do not know is what the consequences would be of their honoring the Unabomber’s demands. They have no guarantee that even if they do publish the entire manifesto that it would lead to an end to his terrorism. They do not know what publishing the manifesto might mean in terms of other terrorists making similar demands in the future. If they decide not to publish the Unabomber’s full document, they do not know what that might mean.
They do not know how their decision will affect the chances of authorities catching the Unabomber. They also do not know how their decision will impact on their journalistic credibility with readers and the public.
Given those gaps and the unpredictability of gauging the future, the newspapers can seek the “best guess” wisdom of those with expertise on this case. Authorities may be able to provide “pattern” information about the Unabomber. Terrorism experts and psychiatrists can give the newspapers advice on the mentality and tactics of terrorists.
#2 What is my journalistic purpose?
The primary role of a newspaper is to seek the truth and report it as fully as possible. A newspaper also has an obligation to remain as independent as possible in serving a primary loyalty to the public.
Under virtually any criteria, the unfolding chapters in this case are newsworthy. The Post and the Times have a responsibility to give their readers meaningful information about this continuing criminal case including relevant details about the Unabomber’s demands for publishing his manifesto and about actions being taken by law enforcement and governmental authorities. The papers also have a responsibility to inform the public about their role in the story, though that disclosure may only come piecemeal because of the sensitive nature of this case.
The guiding principles of truthseeking and truthtelling along with journalistic independence provide a moral compass that decision-makers can turn to for guidance. This moral compass does not dictate specific action. It does provide essential reference points.
#3 What are my ethical concerns?
There is certainly an ethical component in the responsibility to publish factually and contextually accurate information about what is happening in the Unabomber case. That’s what newspapers are all about–serving society by providing the public with clear and meaningful information on significant issues.
There is also an ethical responsibility to maintain as much independence as possible in the decision-making process. To make sure that the newspapers are not unduly influenced by this terrorist’s demands no matter how serious they might be. And, while seeking the counsel of authorities, the newspapers must not be unduly influenced by those individuals or groups. One key here is to ascertain just what unduly influenced means in the scope of this case. The decision-makers can help determine that meaning by being very clear in prioritizing their loyalties to stakeholders.
This dilemma, of course, has another significant ethical component. The Unabomber vows to continue his terrorist activities if the newspapers do not agree to his demands. We know he has killed or seriously injured some two dozen individuals.
One of the guiding principles of journalism to minimize harm. Journalists and news organizations are no different than physicians or law enforcement officers in their obligation to show compassion and give respect to those they serve, even while causing some necessary pain or harm in the process. The key is to minimize harm, especially to those who are vulnerable.
The Washington Post and The New York Times have an affirmative ethical responsibility to consider actions that will protect vulnerable people. While the papers cannot necessarily prevent the Unabomber from harming more people,they must seriously weigh the consequences of any action they might take. They must consider possible courses of action that minimize harm.
Of course there is potential harm in this case beyond that to human life. The decisions these papers make could have significant implications for other news organizations and for journalism as a profession. Depending on what course they follow, the Times and the Post might deter or encourage further “hostage-like” demands by the Unabomber or by other terrorists who copy his tactics. Furthermore, the decisions by the Times and the Post will have ramifications on journalistic credibility as the public judges the validity of their actions.
#4 What organizational policies or professional guidelines should I consider?
Few media organizations have policies that would give significant guidance in a case like the Unabomber’s demands. However, the policies that do exist call for extensive, collaborative decision-making at all levels of the organization in cases where the stakes are so high. It is also appropriate for a newspaper to seek outside guidance and expertise in making these decisions.
While the Guiding Principles that we suggest (Truthtelling; Independence; and Minimizing Harm) are a blueprint not a bible, they do provide a framework for making this decision based on both ethical obligation and professional guidelines.
A systematic approach to decision-making that follows these guidelines is much more likely to produce a good ethical decision than a process driven by gut reactions or one governed by inflexible rules.
#5 How can I include other people, with different perspectives and diverse ideas, in the decision-making process?
Certainly the newspapers in this case must include a variety of voices in the decision-making process, being judicious about secrecy given the nature of the case. Clearly the top editors, the publisher, and the corporate leaders must be involved in the discussions. It may also be wise to include other good minds from the organization, those individuals who might have fewer stripes on their sleeves but who offer thoughtful and sometimes creative solutions to thorny dilemmas.
It may be very wise for the newspapers involved to consult with each other on how they handle this dilemma. Given the Unabomber’s demands, the Post and the Times are in this together. This is the rare case where collaboration between newspapers, rather than competition, may be most appropriate.
It seems essential in this case for the newspapers to consult with those law enforcement and governmental authorities who are directly involved in this case. Any actions the papers take will greatly affect how authorities respond in their ongoing efforts to protect the public and to capture the Unabomber.
Beyond that, journalists must recognize that they are not experts on matters of terrorism. The Post and the Timescan make better ethical decisions about what they will do by hearing the perspectives of those with expertise in this case, be they the FBI or private terrorism experts.
In the end, the newspaper retains the independence and shoulders the responsibility for making the best ethical and professional decision possible knowing as much as they can know about the case.
#6 Who are the stakeholders–those affected by the decision? What are their motivations? Which are legitimate?
Certainly the newspapers themselves are stakeholders, for their credibility and integrity are at stake. They must not let any competitive or commercial interests skew their ethical decision-making and their responsibility to societal good.
The authorities are stakeholders, for they have a responsibility to protect the public and find the Unabomber to end his terrorism. Their motivations for “working with the media” are good, unless they steer off the path by withholding pertinent information in a desire to protect themselves from criticism.
The Unabomber himself is a stakeholder, though it is extremely difficult to find legitimate motivation in his actions. The Unabomber is a killer, and his standing as an authentic stakeholder is all but eliminated.
Clearly the public falls in the stakeholder category, for they, collectively and individually, are at risk as long as the Unabomber continues his terrorism. The decisions of the Times and the Post have considerable implications for the public. The public needs both protection from harm and vital information about how government and law enforcement is functioning in their roles.
And, by extension a number of corporations and academic institutions are stakeholders, as they have been the targets of this terrorism.
#7 What if the roles were reversed? How would I feel if I were in the shoes of one of the stakeholders?
This question requires the journalists to wear the shoes of the FBI, university computer science professors, the readers of their papers, and even the Unabomber himself. By taking this step the decision-makers at the Times and the Post can weigh the humanistic values like compassion and respect with and against the professional values of independence and truthtelling.
You do not necessarily reach an answer through this step, and in fact walking in the shoes of various stakeholders can make your decision even more difficult. What role reversal does is help you make a better decision by identifying competing values and gaining clarity on which principles are the dominant ones in this case.
#8 What are the possible consequences of my actions? Short term? Long term?
Anticipating consequences is always chancy at best. In this case, since the newspapers are dealing with a terrorist and killer, it is almost impossible to make good projections. It is conceivable that the Unabomber might cease this terrorism if the papers accede to his demands and print his 35,000 word manifesto. But there is certainly no guarantee of that result. It’s just as possible that the Unabomber could see new power in his ability to influence the mass media, and he might attempt to “hold hostage” other news organizations.
Another possible consequence: other terrorists copying the Unabomber’s tactics, making demands of news organizations to further their own causes.
The actions of the newspapers could certainly have impact on law enforcement authorities. What the papers do and how they do it could greatly affect the ability of the FBI and other agencies to identify and capture the Unabomber.
The decisions made by the Post and the Times have credibility consequences, both in the short and long term. The respect readers and the general public have for these newspapers will be a product of both how the newspapers make their decisions and what they decide to do.
#9 What are my alternatives to maximize my truthtelling responsibility and minimize harm?
This is the step where ethical decision-making reaches a critical juncture. The decision-makers involved in this case bring together the elements from the preceding questions: the clarity of facts and the recognition of missing pieces of the puzzle; the voices and ideas from collaborative discussions and outside consultation; guidance from policy; the input from stakeholders; the recognition of consequences.
Before one acts it is always wise to chart the range of possible action, including those that might not seem feasible at the time. We should not be trapped by polarized thinking. We should not limit ourselves to two choices–in this case to publish the complete manifesto or to not publish.
The benefit of doing ethical decision-making as a process is that it almost always creates a range potential courses of action. We should then hold these various choices up against our guiding principles. The decision-maker’s goal is to choose an alternative that best honors those guiding principles, recognizing that these principles are sometimes in competition with each other.
Among the alternatives in this case:
- Buy time by making no final decision right now. The Unabomber gave the Times and the Post three months to publish his manifesto. By taking time before they make a final decision the newspapers may open up other possibilities, including the chance that the Unabomber is apprehended.
- Try to open a conversation with the Unabomber to see if there are other courses of action that might be possible short of giving in to his demands. Negotiation is often thepathway to resolution.
- Take some small steps related to his demands, possibly publishing some excerpts from his manifesto. Such actions may be justifiable journalistically based on the newsworthiness of those excerpts, thereby eliminating some of the negative consequences that come with giving in to terrorist demands.
- Continue behind-the-scenes consultation with law enforcement and governmental authorities in order to reduce the chance that the papers will do something that interferes with the investigation or something that further infuriates the Unabomber, leading to more harm to the public.
- Go ahead and publish the complete manifesto, but in a form other than the daily newspaper. That publishing might be in book form, or on the Internet, or in mass distribution of copies of the manifesto.
- Go ahead and publish the complete manifesto in the newspaper, but make it very clear to the public that this was an absolutely last choice given the nature of this case and that the decision to publish will carry no weight in terms of precedence.
It’s very possible that the decision-makers at The Washington Post and The New York Times cannot and should not disclose too much of their thinking while this case continues to unfold. To do so might damage their goal of serving the public as an independent voice of journalistic integrity and their goal of minimizing harm to vulnerable people. Such public disclosure of the decision-making process might also interfere with the quest of authorities to protect the public and to apprehend the Unabomber.
That said, the papers may be able to judiciously report some elements of their decision-making as they unfold. And, when the case reaches closure, or at least at a point where dangers are minimized, then the Times and the Post should provide extensive disclosure. The papers must provide the public with as much insight and detail as possible into how and why they made the decisions they did.
It is only through such public disclosure that these powerful media organizations can be held accountable. Those who serve the public in such an important role have a great obligation to shine the bright light of scrutiny on themselves.
