Tales Of The Tape
As you no doubt know by now, Osama bin Laden has released another tape threatening the United States. Soon after the news broke, media outlets began inviting experts on air to discuss the tape's relative significance.
They weren't always on the same page, however. Just look at the conflicting arguments that turned up at different times of the day on CBS. The "Early Show" invited terrorism expert (and former FBI agent) Christopher Whitcomb to talk about the tape.
Video: Here's what he said:
"I don't think there's very much significance in this tape at all. And the reason is we've seen so many of these in the past four and a half years. Osama bin Laden is trying to show the world he's still relevant. I think he's not still relevant."Smith later asked if it is a "vanity statement" by bin Laden, and Whitcomb said it was.
On CBSNews.com, meanwhile, news consumers could find a long interview by Bob Schieffer of Michael Scheuer, a former CIA officer who tracked Osama Bin Laden for 10 years. The interview was also featured, in shorter form, on last night's "Evening News."
Scheuer sounded a dire note. He said we should take the threat "very seriously," and compared the new tape to the one that surfaced before the attacks in London. He also said that bin Laden tends to follow through on his threats, and said that "whatever he had in preparation is probably close to fruition." He even suggested al Qaeda may instigate a nuclear attack, possibly on Washington.
So who should we believe? Who knows. But the conflicting expert analysis – and it's all over the place at the moment, particularly on the cable networks – raises questions about the media's responsibility to its audience. Viewers who only see one expert's take might (somewhat justifiably) assume that it reflects the view of most experts in the field. After all, why else would a media outlet feature him? And while those who see more than one expert – and more than one opinion – will be better off, they might end up confused or jaded if the opinions aren't presented in the appropriate context. It's like health reporting: One week a viewer is told that aspirin is good, and the next week they learn, well, not so much. It's our natural inclination to reduce complex facts into a simple, binary calculation to make sense of the world – this is "good," that is "bad," and so forth – but as a result each new revelation too often becomes an opportunity not to deepen our understanding but throw up our hands.
So is the answer no more experts (or no more health reporting)? Of course not. Experts can help put issues and developments into context. And I, for one, want to know the latest about the risks and rewards of aspirin, not to mention everything else out there. But it's essential that viewers understand exactly what they're getting. News anchors should resist the urge to simplify – "Could Aspirin Actually Be Bad For You?" is almost never the right question. And when it comes to experts, media outlets should take pains to offer some sort of perspective. In his "Evening News" report, John Roberts did it right, albeit briefly, saying that a "former senior security official tells CBS News that the threat appears to be generic, more of what we've heard before. But FBI spokesman John Miller won't discount the possibility the threat could be legitimate."
The same goes for Harry Smith on the "Early Show," who pointed out in his conversation with Whitcomb that "some terrorism experts say this is a big deal. He's still out there, he's still warning of an attack, you've got to be aware that the threat of an attack on the United States is still quite real."
But the reality is that it's nearly impossible to accurately reflect reality through expert analysis and journalistic counterpoint. Smith's point was relatively insignificant in relation to Whitcomb's dismissal of the tape. Should it have been so? Don't ask me. I've watched a lot of experts discussing the tape, and I don't feel that I have any real sense of its relative significance. Maybe the only lesson one should take from all this is that we all have to remember that an expert, or an anchor, isn't a voice of God. The media has a responsibility to present analysis or information with as much context and accuracy as possible, but it's up to the viewers to take everything with a grain of salt.