Should the Media Report Stories that Might Aid Terrorists?

If teh press is showing it now, you'd better believe the "terrorists" have known about it for years!

Hmmm. I dunno. I haven't really looked at the trrorist issues but I see the local news here with reports of all sorts and I have to ask the same type of question.

A few weeks ago there was a kid that ended up in the hospital after he and a few friends found and smoked some jimsonweed.

Maybe the fact that it happened was newsworthy but the newscast went on to mention that the school the kids attend was sending notices to parents warning about the dangers etc.. and then they proceeded to detail locations where jimsonweed is known to grow in the area.

Well, any kid that didn't know where to find it before sure does now! (and it isn't all that easy to find in MA to begin with.). That just seemed to be a bit dumb on the news reporters part.

As far as the chemical plants, let's assume that the terrorists had some idea of the lack of security. Now they KNOW. 60 Minutes also reported the location of one site that had a very dangerous chemical in it.

That was some story on 60 Minutes last night.

Sometimes good change only comes from public embarrassment. I hope the right people were sufficently embarrassed by this story to make some changes in security.

Having the media report on these issues is one of the fastest ways of raising public awareness about the problem and insistence that it get quickly resolved.

Here in the Sacramento area one of the local television stations did a report on the vulnerability of Folsom Dam because of the unguarded roadway that runs over the top of it and is used as a major commute route.

Almost immediately, the road was closed and commuters were having to add 20 minutes to their commute time but weren't grumbling much about it because they understood why it was done.

Before that, individuals had been trying to call the vulnerability to the attention of officials but weren't getting anywhere.

Just sticking to the terrorist theme for a moment, it would help if the US government wasn't 'in bed' with the Saudi's (...bin Laden...).

Gasp! How unpatriotic of you! The conservatives in this board won't love you anymore!

What do you mean by "anymore"? :wink:

boomerang- I hope so. The thing that bothers me is that I don't think that
the chemical companies are going to be able to secure their facilities that quickly.

I am not concerned about the embarrassment. Often it IS the thing that makes people stand up and take notice. I just hope that no one was put at risk because of the piece!

Precisely, Phoenix, this is a very difficult issue, but realistically, can we expect a corporate bureaucracy to 'get there' before a determined 'cell'?

Suzette- Absolutely not. That is the prickly thing about terrorism. It can happen quickly, and efficiently, while the corporations are having their board meetings, and figuring out to do!


Maybe in this case, CBS should have had a meeting with the CEOs of the chemical companies. They would show them what they had found, and given them time to correct the situation. Then when they showed the piece to the public, there would be a part about how the companies are coping with the problem.

Problem is, our society likes sensationalism, not happy endings. And happy endings does not sell toothpaste!

Take a closer look at the details of the 60 Minutes piece. This wasn't a flashy "I gotcha" story. This was a "how many times do I have to tweak your nose before you put up your hands and defend yourself" "hello! Is anybody listening?" follow-up story.

The Chemical Plants themselves detailed their vulnerabilities after being warned by the government that they were potential targets. The newspaper reporter had been investigating and writing articles about the lax security for nearly two years, even informing the individual plants about what had been found.

I've never heard of a Board meeting lasting for two years.

Transcript of the 60 Minutes story:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/13/60minutes/main583528.shtml

Excerpt:

There are more than 100 chemical plants - in backyards all across the United States - where a catastrophic accident or an act of sabotage by terrorists could endanger more than a million people. One plant in Chicago could affect almost three million people. And in California, the chemicals at one site have the potential to kill, injure or displace more than eight million people.

If you're wondering who came up with these jaw-dropping statistics, they came from the chemical companies themselves. Federal law requires them to file a "risk management plan" with the Environmental Protection Agency, describing the "worst" case scenario that could happen at their plant.

"I think that one of the things that everybody has to understand about the business of chemistry is that we're in the risk management business," says Greg Lebedev, the president of the American Chemistry Council, which represents 150 of the largest chemical companies in America.

He contends that members are doing everything possible to ensure plant security, but do these reported worst-case scenarios alarm the council?

"I'm telling you that a ?'worst case scenario' is a hypothetical example," says Lebedev. "It is merely used to illustrate the fact that we should secure chemical facilities. And the good news is we do."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But that's not what 60 Minutes found in visiting dozens of plants in major metropolitan areas that could put more than a million people at risk in the event of a terrorist attack. We found gates unlocked or wide open, dilapidated fences, and unprotected tanks filled with deadly chemicals that are used to manufacture everything from plastics to fertilizer.

The person who may know the most about the lack of security is Carl Prine, an investigative reporter at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, who began probing security at chemical plants six months after Sept. 11 -- after companies had been warned by the government that they were potential targets.
"I found almost non-existent security in a lot of places," says Prine, who visited 60 plants all over the country, including the Chicago, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh and Houston area. "I walked right up to the tanks. There was one plant in Chicago, I simply sat on top of the tank and waved ?'Hello, I'm on your tank.'"

And he did it in broad daylight, wearing his press badge and carrying a camera. He says no one tried to stop him.

"I began to wonder, I mean, what would it take for me to get arrested at one of these plants? Would I have to come in carrying an AK-47? What would it take for someone to say, ?'Why is this guy walking around taking pictures of our tanks,'" says Prine, who told the chemical plants that he had been inside. "That was our policy. We took pictures so that the plants could identify their own weaknesses. And we also took our information to EPA; we took it to the American Chemistry Council."

But even after his expose ran in the newspaper, Prine was convinced that he could still get back into the same plants again. 60 Minutes asked him if we could tag along one rainy afternoon to see just how close they could get to the most dangerous chemicals at the Neville Chemical Plant outside downtown Pittsburgh.

I adore happy endings!

In my state there is a chemical weapons depot.

My brother is a soldier.

I pray for happy endings every day.