Until We Know, Let Us Challenge
By Bob Steele, The Poynter Institute

This article originally appeared in Quill Magazine, April 1997 issue, page 29, and is used with permission.

The publication in the Dallas Morning News of the purported confession of Timothy McVeigh offers a classic case in journalism ethics. Just as importantly, it offers a significant case study in the process of ethical decision-making.

At its core, this case is about competing principles and conflicting values. It is about tension between the First and Sixth Amendments. It is about duty and responsibility, about consequences and alternatives. It is about fairness to the accused, concern for the victims' families and respect for the judicial process. It is also a case about public service, journalistic independence and competitive instincts.

Clearly there are legal issues, but why, when, what and how to publish are essentially ethical decisions. While ethics is about right and wrong, it is prudent to resist the temptation to cast a thumbs up or thumbs down on The News actions. Ethical decision-making is more complex than that.

Additionally, we are missing pieces of the puzzle necessary to evaluate the newspaper's decisions. We have not seen the documents the Morning News used as the basis for its story. Nor were we in the newsroom to observe and to hear the deliberations on the decision to publish.

Dallas Morning News Editor Ralph Langer was quoted in the Denver Post as saying the paper had an obligation to publish the story about McVeigh's alleged confession because of "its extraordinary importance to the country. All those people died, and it's such a massive issue (that) having that information did not give us an option to publish or not to publish."

Since the public did not have the same access to the documents as the Morning News, Langer is asking us to make a considerable leap of faith in accepting their reasons. It is appropriate, therefore, to ask the Morning News to be more forthcoming in their explanation for why they did what they did.

Until the time when we know more, it is best to hold the Morning News accountable by challenging rather than cheering or condemning. That accountability might be structured around some key questions related to various journalistic and ethical elements of this case--questions that newsroom decision-makers should ask. Obviously, the progression of questions depends on the answers to previous questions.

Newsgathering Issues

• Why did we get the documents?
• Is this information we want to have?
• Where and how did we get the documents?
• Did we steal them?
• Did someone else steal them?
• If so, did they do so at our urging? With our knowledge?
• Is there a risk to others in our having these documents?
• Was there another way to obtain the same documents in a less intrusive manner? That creates less legal liability for others and ourselves? That does not violate another ethical principle?
• Can we properly secure the documents once we have them to protect our source and guard sensitive information?
• If we don't want to use the documents, what do we do with them?

Source Issues

If the documents came from a source:

• Who is our source?
• What is our contractual understanding with the source?
• How many of us know the identity of the source so we can insure independent judgment?
• Do we have a high level of confidence in this source and what the source is telling us?
• Are we prepared to protect our source if we are ordered in court to reveal the source's identity?
• What are the source's motives for giving us the documents?
• Even if those motives are questionable, does the importance of the documents necessitate publishing them?

• Do we believe these documents are authentic?
• Do we believe the information in the documents to be factually accurate?
• Are the documents what we think they are? Do we know the context surrounding their creation and their use?
• How can we verify our beliefs?

• How can we fairly treat the stakeholders in this case?
• Are we being fair to Timothy McVeigh? What if the "confession" turns out be erroneous or a hoax? What if McVeigh is acquitted?
• Are we being considerate of the rights of the victims' families who are eager for the trial to proceed properly?
• Have we given reasonable opportunity for response to those most affected by what we plan to publish?
• At what point do we need to ask questions directly of McVeigh and his attorney? Of the prosecutors?
• Are we being fair to potential jurors?

• What impact might it have on the judicial process?
• How might it affect the selection of a jury?
• How might it affect McVeigh's 6th Amendment rights?
• How might it affect the government's ability to prosecute the case on behalf of the public?
• What benefit will there be to the public to know about the documents and McVeigh's admission that he did the bombing?
• What impact might our publishing have on our newspaper? On our credibility? On our ability to continue to report on this story?
• What is the impact on McVeigh if he is found not guilty in the trial?

• Will the public be disserved by the absence of that information?
• Will we fail to fulfill our journalistic duty? Would that jeopardize our credibility?

• Why are we doing what we plan to do?
• To whom do we owe ultimate loyalty in this case?
• Are we overly influenced by our own self-interest? By economic considerations? Competitive pressures? By deadlines?
• Are we being manipulated by our sources? By powerful people? By special interests?
• Are we being overly cautious in fear of legal action against us?

• Why would the public need to know the information contained in these documents? Is there an issue of national or personal security? Is there an issue of system failure? Is there essential information that the public must know to understand the legal process? Is there essential information of great value to the families of the victims of the bombing?
• Is there a real need to know or a legitimate right to know? Does it go beyond a mere want to know?
• If we publish a story, what does the public need to know?
• When does the public need to know the information?
• Can we delay publishing to minimize the negative consequences? What is the down side of that delay?
• Do other news organizations have these same documents or might they get them? How might that affect our decisions?
• Are we giving appropriate weight to any competition factors that are part of this equation?
• Is it possible that parties involved in the trial might release the documents themselves?
• Is it possible that parties involved in the trial might attempt to prevent our publishing the documents?
• What is the benefit of first publishing this story on our internet site? What is the downside?

• Have we devoted enough time and attention to the decision-making?
• Have we included the right people in the process?
• Have we sought contrarian positions to challenge our notions and prevent group think?
• Have we sought outside advice to pose different types of questions, challenge any tunnel vision and offer particular expertise regarding both ethical decision-making and the specific issues of this case?
• Have we resisted the tendency to see this decision as an "either/or" dilemma?
• Have we explored a range of alternative courses of action?

• What must we do to publicly explain our decision and justify our actions?
• What should we reveal about how we obtained the documents?
• How much information can we reveal regarding sources for the documents without compromising that relationship?
• How much information should we reveal about additional content of the documents?
• How much information should we reveal about our decision-making process?
• How can we be as forthcoming as possible in the same way we would expect of other organizations if we were questioning their decisions and actions?

This case has high stakes on many levels for all of the affected parties. It is essential that the editors of the Dallas Morning News be more forthcoming about their decision-making process. That public accountability will help all of us judge whether the newspaper responsibly fulfilled its journalistic obligation.