Do You Mind if We Go On Background?

Posted 10:51 p.m., Aug. 10, 2004

---

|

---

There's been a lot of speculation about what may or may not have happened when U.S. officials leaked word of the arrest of an al-Qaeda computer expert, Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, to reporters.

According to the Associated Press, Khan's capture "was a signal victory for Pakistan." After Pakistan authorities arrested Khan in a July 13 raid in the eastern city of Lahore, Khan reportedly led authorities to a key al-Qaeda figure in Pakistan and sent e-mails to terrorists so investigators could track them down.

It was a breakthrough that led to the arrest of more than a dozen al-Qaeda members in the U.K., but the release of his name has come under fire for shutting down the one key asset that U.S. and British intelligence had into the Osama bin Laden's inner sanctum. Indeed, while the arrest led to the capture of a number of al-Qaeda figures, publication of his arrest led to others to escape, according to the AP.

In the last week, some American officials like Sen. Charles Schumer of New York have accused the Bush White House of expending a key asset merely to shore up its public credibility after the latest--and by far most detailed--terror warning turned out to be based on 3-year-old information.

Don't look to me to unravel what's what here, though I am on record doubting the veracity of at least one previous terror warning. It does strike me that the information's age would not necessarily reduce its importance, depending on what else the government knows about the enemy's plans that it is still managing to keep under wraps. So I lean toward giving the government the benefit of the doubt here.

But there is another matter related to the Khan episode that I am qualified to speak to.

Deep Background

The Bush administration's national security adviser, Condoleeza Rice, pulled a jujitsu move with the ground rules of journalism when she told CNN the other day that the government hadn't "publicly disclosed" Khan's name to the media. Instead, the name was given to the press "on background."

That gave the conservative online news organization NewsMax the ammo it needed to blast the New York Times for "blowing the cover" of what they labeled "a key counterterror agent."

... The undercover operative's value as a critical intelligence asset went up in smoke on Monday when the New York Times named the previously unidentified Khan, calling him 'a kind of clearinghouse of [al-Qaeda] communications' and 'a vital source of information' on terrorist operations.

-- "N.Y. Times Blew Cover of Key Counterterror Agent,"
NewsMax.com,
Aug. 7, 2004

But let's take a step back.

What does it mean to discuss matters with the press "on background"? If it sounds to you like that should mean that issues discussed between a source and a reporter should remain unpublished, that is what Ms. Rice apparently wants you to think.

But, that's not how the rules actually work, as the U.S. State Department's Web site makes distinctly clear.

On background: The official's remarks may be quoted directly or paraphrased and are attributed to a 'State Department official' or 'Administration official,' as determined by the official.

-- www.state.gov

This is something that Condoleeza Rice knows quite well. But she also knows that the confusing rules between journalists and sources--rules that often benefit the sources by allowing them to float ideas, identities and accusations without having to take personal responsibility for their publication--are not well understood by the public.

And how could the public be expected to understand? Especially when the rules lately seem to shift so much. Remember earlier this year when FOX News outed Richard Clarke as the source of previous "on background" comments he'd made in 2003 that were favorable to the President's efforts to fight terrorism. When Clarke was talking it was with the understanding that what he had to say would not be attributed to him, but when it proved embarrassing to him--and useful to the president--the rules were changed.

And how about that weird "deep background" briefing that President Bush himself gave to five TV network journalists last March, a secret confab that was public knowledge almost before it ended.

Word of the meeting got around before it was over. Several people provided accounts of it to The Washington Post but spoke only on the condition of anonymity because, in the view of the White House and by the agreement of the networks, the conversation never officially occurred.

-- "In Private, Bush Sees
Kerry as Formidable Foe"
Washington Post,
March 3, 2004

And what was the substance of this not-so-secret chat between the nation's chief executive and the watchdog TV press corps? The main nugget that seems to have escaped the briefing was Bush's view that Democrat John Kerry would likely prove "a tough and hard-charging opponent," but that Bush felt he was starting the race in better shape this time than he did in 2000.

Ooh, Opie!

It is sometimes necessary to go "on background." I did it myself just last week to protect the identity of a county election official in a blog post about the way Minnesota Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer is handling election reforms. There is often no other way to get information from whistleblowers who hold information that is in the public's interest to know but that might mean retaliation for the source.

But, come on. Does the president really need to be protected from his own view that John Kerry is a tough opponent?

Throw Down the Crutches

This business of going on background (read: "leaking") is too often a crutch, for both journalists and sources. Whoever outed CIA operative Valerie Plame, apparently to retaliate against her husband, Bush foreign-policy critic Joe Wilson, did so on background. The source committed a potentially treasonous crime and may never pay a penalty for it because there is no accountability.

But going "on background" is also a crutch for journalists, and it ought to be used a lot more sparingly. It only hurts the news profession's credibility long run. After all, when a story quotes a "top administration official," and "state department official" or anyone other pseudonym, why should the public believe anything about what is being said? What do they have to hang a hat on?

For all the reader or viewer knows, the reporter might have made it up. And that's the biggest problem of all.

I won't foreswear "on background" sessions, but I have always used them sparingly and will continue to do so. It would be nice of the Washington press corps would also do that.

-- Kevin Featherly

|

Share with a friend:

---

Visit the Kevblog archive.

---

---