Stories based on rumors and dubious reports may titillate, but they they don't advance readers' understanding
I belong to a formidable list called "Gulf 2000" (G2K), whose members include well-known academicians, diplomats, policy-makers, journalists, lawyers, and others. The membership -- which is by invitation -- focuses on Middle East issues, but primarily those relating to the Persian Gulf region, and on American foreign policy concerning that region.
Recently, the administrator of G2K, Professor Gary G. Sick of Columbia University, was critical of a posting on the Web site of the highly influential Council on Foreign Relations, of which he's a member (as am I). That posting consisted of an article prepared by a Council staffer about a United Nations report that claimed there was a nexus between militants in Lebanon, Iran and Somalia. At best, the report seemed dubious. Professor Sick, one of the most acclaimed scholars of American foreign policy, felt that the Council should not have posted its own story on the report, given the UN's questionable claims.
The following is a response by the Web site's executive editor, Michael Moran, to Professor Sick and G2K. I happen to agree strongly with Professor Sick, and so I sent in my own views to G2K members. I've reproduced my observations below Mr. Moran's note to G2K:
FROM MICHAEL MORAN, Editor, CFR.ORG, to G2K (November 17, 2006)
I'm writing you today because an acquaintance forwarded me your
observations on our Somalia coverage
( http://www.cfr.org/publication/12038/somalia_exporting_discord.html?breadcrumb=%2Findex),
and I wanted to make a point about it. Newsgroups, of course, are closed
loops and thus I cannot address this issue to the audience you've
addressed. But I hope I can shed some light on my thought process in green
lighting a story on this topic. I'd be happy to see you post it on the
newsgroup if you choose.
The report in question was produced by the United Nations, the world's
premier international body and the one charged with monitoring sanctions
in Somalia. As you've aptly pointed out, the contents of the report are
controversial. But I believe the UN's decision to publish such a report is
newsworthy enough to warrant coverage from CFR.org. In doing so, we took
great pains to put the report in the proper context and, rather than rely
on news reports, we insisting on obtaining a copy of the report ourselves
(it's available at this link (http://www.cfr.org/publication/12021/). We
also took pains to inject some skepticism. Fully 45 percent of our report
is devoted to raising questions about the report:
"But experts and diplomats alike were skeptical of the report, and many of
the countries accused of violating the UN arms embargo against Somalia
have denied its allegations (Daily Star). The suggestion that Somali
fighters aided Hezbollah seems to bolster fears that Somalia's Islamists
will provide active support to major terrorist organizations, while
accounts of Syrian and Iranian support for Somali jihadis underscore those
states' willingness to oppose U.S. interests outside their traditional
spheres of influence. But in the face of scant evidence, one diplomat
anonymously told the Guardian the UN report provides a "'very useful
propaganda tool' for Western hawks."
Indeed, the report does beg some questions. Though Somalia is an Islamic
nation, the predominantly Sunni population seems an unlikely recipient of
Shiite Iran's assistance. Experts also wonder how, amid intense
international focus on the Lebanon war, the presence of hundreds of Somali
fighters went unnoticed by international observers and media - something
sadly missing from the report, and to the best of our efforts, from the
public domain. Nowhere did we find anyone else of note publicly
challenging the report's veracity. Until, that is, today. If you publish
something on this topic or can direct us to something substantive taking
the report to task, we'd happily include it on our coverage.
Unfortunately, we rely primarily on what exists in the public domain. If
you know of any credible source providing a published rebuttal of this
report please point it out and we'll add it to our coverage.
Sincerely,
Michael Moran
Executive Editor, www.cfr.org
Council on Foreign Relations
FROM PRANAY GUPTE TO G2K MEMBERS:
Re: CFR Web site responds
The Web site of the Council on Foreign Relations -- the august institution to which some G2K members, including Professor Gary Sick and myself, belong -- carries not only the imprimatur of the organization itself. Through its very existence, it contains the DNA of the Council, the world's leading think tank, and historically America's informal Establishment. The Council is scrupulously nonpartisan. Successive presidents, whatever their personal ideological persuasion, have honored the tradition of political neutrality.
Michael Moran's defense of the CFR Web site's posting of the Somalia story wasn't in the tradition of such political neutrality. In fact, the Web site came through as credulous, notwithstanding its demurrals and caveats. Since when does quoting unnamed "experts" in newspapers constitute a credible injection of skepticism in any article or report? Mr. Moran says that 45 percent of the CFR.Com article was devoted to skepticism about the United Nations report on Somalia. I've been in journalism for four decades, and I don't recall any editor instructing me that reporting a story fairly meant a calculus of percentile figures.
At any rate, the CFR's story wasn't a reprint of something prepared by an outside news organization. It was produced in-house by a young assistant editor. If the Web site wants to get into the news business, then it behooves it to be more careful about how stories are constructed, researched, edited, and displayed. The Web site deservedly has a huge global audience -- not only on account of the Council's brand and prestige, but also because the site is wonderfully organized and, perhaps most importantly, is immensely useful to diverse audiences. The site's status demands that its editors -- such as Mr. Moran -- be especially cautious about allowing it to be a megaphone for propaganda and disinformation, or other people's shabby and disingenuous reporting.
Mr. Moran says that the very fact that the UN had issued the Somalia report gave it gravitas; he characterizes the UN as the world's premier international organization. Many people within and without the UN may beg to differ. Be that as it may, UN reports rarely offer definitiveness about issues. They are a "camel" -- a horse produced by a committee.
There's one other point that needs to be made. The situation concerning Hezbollah, Lebanon, Israel and Iran is so fraught right now that responsible public organizations -- Web sites of think tanks included -- need to be especially disciplined about what they put out under their aegis. Professor Sick is entirely correct: If it's a rumor, refrain from publishing it -- even if you include 45 percent worth of skepticism, and even if it's someone else's story.