Public Eye
February 20, 2006 11:45 AM

David Martin Dispatch: Holding A Story Is A Judgment Call

By
Vaughn Ververs
Topics
Behind The Scenes
(CBS)
Pentagon correspondent David Martin explains his reasons for holding a story on IED's in Iraq and concedes that such decisions aren't always clear-cut.

This week I killed a story about the battle against Improvised Explosive Devices after a senior military officer told me it contained information that would be helpful to the enemy. I didn't find his argument about how it would help the enemy very persuasive, but because there's a war on I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. I've done that a number of times over the years, and each time it's turned out that going with the story wouldn't have caused any harm. It's always a difficult decision, made more difficult by the fact that it always seems to happen late in the day when you're under deadline pressure. When I killed the story on Thursday, it was 5:30 – an hour to air – and I left the Evening News broadcast without a lead story which they had been counting on all day. Not a good career move.

So how do you decide that a story contains sensitive information that shouldn't see the light of day? In war, you can make an extreme case that almost any accurate information about the U.S. military is news the enemy can use. A story about the Army being "stretched too thin" or even "broken" by the pace of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan could be said to encourage the enemy to fight on. A story I did this week about new pictures of abuse from Abu Ghraib could be said to increase the likelihood of violence against American soldiers in Iraq. Indeed, the Pentagon made exactly that case when it went to court to try to prevent the photos from being released under the Freedom of Information Act. But that's too hypothetical for me. The story I killed dealt with specific techniques and how well they were or weren't working against IEDs. It wasn't as simple as "you report this and American soldiers will die," but I could see how it might conceivably be news the enemy could use to make their IEDs more effective. It wasn't clear cut, but it was close enough. So how do you decide that a story contains legitimate secrets? It's like the famous definition of pornography – you know it when you see it.

Add a Comment See all 13 Comments
by skepptik February 21, 2006 4:33 PM EST
A few weeks ago, 60 Minutes did a story on Hollis Eden Corp. This company has developed an antidote for radiation poisoning, with obvious implicatiions for protecting U.S citizens in case of a radiological attack. The government promised to order and stockpile millions of doses. Instead, they only ordered about 100,000 pushing the company to the brink of bankrupty. The response of the government to 60 Minutes' inquiry was to totally stonewall them. No one is willing to say went wrong although no one denied the efficacy of the product. A week later, 60 Minutes did another story on the many billions of $$ that have disappeared down a black hole in Iraq. Again, there was no response from those who should be overseeing this situation. We can only guess as to how it happened or whether anything is being done about it. The Katrina debacle is, of course, another story. I believe we have good reason to question the motives of those who might simply not want to respond to reasonable inquiries without revealing anything of tactical significance (which is apparently what happened according to the original blog entry).
Reply to this comment
by hs_nc February 21, 2006 3:41 PM EST
or 3....Vaughn..any news on the space limit? THANK GOD there is no information out there on technology we are using, operations etc because if they know a weakness...they will attack it. There was an article in a paper here on how we were dismantling the ieds..and now..the ieds have changed so if people think they aren't gathering this information--they don't know what we are dealing with. On one of our house to house searches we found hundreds of US articles about the anti-war movement...it seems to have been used to recruit people for their cause and considering when we first started tracking this group there were about 12 members and when we actually got them--there were over 30--may be working.There are so many underground groups of these people that thrive off anything they can find that would expose a weakness. We have gone into safehouses where they post enlarged articles from US papers about Cindy Sheehan saying your country hates you, and they don't want you here either. It wastes a lot of time we could be using to prevent attacks.
Reply to this comment
by hs_nc February 21, 2006 3:40 PM EST
The interesting thing is that it seems the only things the insurgents pick up here...are the anti-American, anti-war movement. The latest we have heard is that "even Al Gore understands what we are doing to destroy the world", it is impossible to speak with these people in an intelligent manner because instead of getting actual information about what we need....all we hear is--your country hates you, they have turned their back on you. We go through hours of this during an attempted interrogation--so instead of gaining information and preventing attacks--we just listen to the same thing over and over--which I could listen to it all day if their weren't lives on the line.
Reply to this comment
by hs_nc February 21, 2006 3:39 PM EST
This will have to post in two....space limit: I have been posting exerpts from him for months...he is well aware of it. He is UNIT 40130 1ST MAR DIV HQBN TR CO. Look it up. It will be under Marine Corps. There are also several web sites out there for deployed units with very interesting pictures and posts about what they do on a daily basis...etc. There is a good one for Charlie Company you guys should check out (also marines)...I am sure other branches have them as well...Here is an exerpt from a recent letter on the subject...and no I don't think our soldiers are weak--i just think it sometimes makes it more difficult to do their jobs.
Reply to this comment
by peterbaldwin-2009 February 21, 2006 2:39 PM EST
When the deputy director, Army Brig. Gen. Dan Allyn, of the IED task force, (renamed the Joint IED Defeat Organization)says with respect to deploying JIN units in the field, "Iraq is not the place to be testing unproven technology", we have evidence of FEMA level incompetence in the military. Why don't we take a vote from the guys in the convoys if they would be willing to "risk" having a robotic minesweeper out in front as point man? Pace, putting in his nonsensical two cents, should stick to writing letters to the editor complaints about cartoons.
Reply to this comment
by SSHGuru February 21, 2006 2:05 PM EST
I agree that it's a judgement call on your part. However, in this case it's plain that now it involves issues with what the LA Times reported about delays in proceeding with JIN. With the Senate discussing this in open testimony I believe then that it's gone from an issue of protecting the troops to one of cover-up and that is something that should be reported. SSHGuru
Reply to this comment
by February 21, 2006 2:00 PM EST
HS_NC, How are they using what Gore said against Americans? He didn't say anything that COULD be used--for one, he's not privy to any secrets. I can't imagine that there's an American soldier so weak that he would be damaged by hearing a politician disagree in the American tradition with the policies of our country. If there is one, perhaps we should be training our soldiers a bit better (in addition to providing them with good body armor). Matt
Reply to this comment
by skepptik February 21, 2006 1:09 PM EST
I can only conjecture as to the topic of your story. However, I am aware that in last week's meetings of the Senate Armed Services Committe, Senators Kennedy and Clinton both expressed consternation over the Penagagon's foot dragging with regard to an emerging technology. Senator Boxer and Congressman Hunter (chair of the House ASC) have joined them in questioning the slow progress. According to the Army's own testing, this technology demonstrated the ability to destroy 80 to 90 % of a wide variety of IED's. However, while 12 copies of a prototype of this product were delivered to DOD over 6 months ago, it appears that, for some reason, the Army has sat on further development. The Marines have finally chosen to break ranks and test the product in Iraq. I would conjecture that the things that "aren't working" include most of the technologies that have been deployed against IED (heavier armor, electronic jammers, robots, etc). So what is the problem with the Joint IED neutralizer (JIN)? That the product will fail-- or that it might be too successful to suit the desires of the providers of other counter-IED products? You may recall that there was time when the old-line defense establishment argued for more battleships while more forward thinkers saw the need for the aircraft carrier. Winston Churchill said "The Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing - after they have exhausted all of the alternatives."
Reply to this comment
by hs_nc February 21, 2006 12:21 PM EST
Having a brother currently on his second tour in Iraq, I commend the military for keeping certain things secret. There are things he tells me...that never make the news. There are situations that could be a lot worse...but they are getting intelligence on the ground and avert disaster. The COs know much more about what is going on than they can say and they use any information they have to save lives....I know this from firsthand accounts. Insurgents that they capture even try to use items they see in the US media against them (a recent one was Al Gore in Saudia Arabia, another is Sheehan and Chavez). I will say that 99% of the Iraqis are not like this--they are good people who take care of our soldiers there as is evident by the pictures and letters we receive back here. Whether or not it is true, whether or not it was life or death--we will never know. On behalf of my family and the familes of those serving with my brother, thank you for withholding information that could have been used against them. You possibly saved their lives and we are very grateful.
Reply to this comment
by peterbaldwin-2009 February 21, 2006 11:56 AM EST
We will be spending 3.5 billion on the EID program and spent 1 billion last year with nothing to show for it. That's what they are hiding. In World War II the money went in to tecnological research and weapons development (radar, night flying, Manhattan Project). In Vietnam we had Bell Helicopter manufacture thousands of hueys becasue of the unique nature of the battlefield.that required innovation. Rumsfeld says, "You get the Army you have", a defeatest attitude excusing the Pentagon for not even getting Humvees hardened. The IED solution is very obvious and simple; get the soldiers off the roads away from them. Hardening Humvees is a Michael Brown solution.
Reply to this comment
See all 13 Comments
.

Follow Public Eye

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook
  • Building You a Better Morning

  • CBS This Morning

    "CBS This Morning," anchored by Charlie Rose, Gayle King and Erica Hill, airs weekdays from 7 to 9 a.m. ET and at the same time in other time zones.
    Learn more...